"No, you will squander it away hehehe.."
squander your chee lar, kakaka
-
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.
Should CPF allowed to withdraw for those who is jobless/retrenched
- Thread starter streetcry
- Start date
squander your chee lar, kakaka
Is it wrong to ask for your own money back when you need it the most?
Apparently so, as GLCs need your hard earned CPF money more than you do. And
this is the view supported by highly paid ministers and civil servants who
draft policies that look good on paper in their lofty ivory towers.
Once again it is the long suffering Singaporean who has to bear the brunt of
these policies.
But it seems that after years of continued critiscm from the public, the
government can no longer turn a blind eye to pleas by citizens to have access
to what is rightfully theirs in the first place.
The economic woes of the average Singaporean has deteriorated to such a stage
that the government cannot, in good conscience, continue the acts of willfull
blindness and ignore the cries of the growing unemployed.
With employement propspects staying grim, and no respite in sight, the
unemployment situation is expected to worsen and cash strapped Singaporeans
will find it increasingly defficult to make ends meet.
The long suffering Singaporean can only hope that policy makers enshrined in
their ivory towers can wake-up and smell the coffee before things take a turn
for the worse.
Apparently so, as GLCs need your hard earned CPF money more than you do. And
this is the view supported by highly paid ministers and civil servants who
draft policies that look good on paper in their lofty ivory towers.
Once again it is the long suffering Singaporean who has to bear the brunt of
these policies.
But it seems that after years of continued critiscm from the public, the
government can no longer turn a blind eye to pleas by citizens to have access
to what is rightfully theirs in the first place.
The economic woes of the average Singaporean has deteriorated to such a stage
that the government cannot, in good conscience, continue the acts of willfull
blindness and ignore the cries of the growing unemployed.
With employement propspects staying grim, and no respite in sight, the
unemployment situation is expected to worsen and cash strapped Singaporeans
will find it increasingly defficult to make ends meet.
The long suffering Singaporean can only hope that policy makers enshrined in
their ivory towers can wake-up and smell the coffee before things take a turn
for the worse.
CPF was meant to be a form of social security safety net for retirement. However, given the way things are going, it is high time the system be improved upon to allow some withdrawal for daily survival. Must people start committing sucide first before $ is released for daily survival? Some time ago Russian Officers were so desperate that they had to kill themselves just so that back-pay will be paid for their families to survive.
Can you imagine what is like when they squandered all their CPF. Our streets will be populated with beggars and some will be homeless, sleeping along 5 foot ways, all around HDB stairways. Because our CPF not enough to sustain their livings. How many of us have at least half a million CPF, including your properties. All these because Sickapore
wants to become a world class city. When you have no money. Ask not what the Gahmen can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourself. Die die, your business.
wants to become a world class city. When you have no money. Ask not what the Gahmen can do for you. Ask what you can do for yourself. Die die, your business.
Sometimes,i really feel sad for those PAP ministers n leaders.They dont know anything about investment,and yet,they act like a stupid businessman anyhow investing in global markets.
They thought that by simply gathering huge sum of money n let the "Experts" manage the money through investment,they will see money keep flowing into their pockets,LOL!!!...Those PAP(Pigs And Pigs) are really damn naive.
They thought that by simply gathering huge sum of money n let the "Experts" manage the money through investment,they will see money keep flowing into their pockets,LOL!!!...Those PAP(Pigs And Pigs) are really damn naive.
From:TERENCE TAN WAN LIANG
Let those jobless for more than 6 months use CPF
Singaporeans had been out of work for six months or more.
It would certainly help ease the financial burden these Singaporeans face if
they were allowed to withdraw money from their Central Provident Fund accounts
to meet their monthly expenses.
It is quite likely that with no regular income for six months or more, they
would have exhausted most, if not all, of their savings.
A $500 monthly withdrawal from one's CPF account would go a long way to help
pay for water and electricity bills, put food on the table, and also pay for a
visit to the doctor if one isill.
It would also help some pay for their children's school fees or provide care
for their elderly parents.
Allowing this group of jobless Singaporeans to use their own savings in their
CPF accounts would also help relieve the need for more government handouts.
To prevent abuse of this opt-in scheme, the withdrawals should stop once the
CPF account holder has found gainful employment.
I am sure there are other effective safeguards the relevant authorities can
think of and impose, if necessary.
Most Singaporeans understand the need to have sufficient funds in their CPF
accounts to provide for their retirement needs.
But there may be as many as 29,800 Singaporeans right now who need help to be
able to live today, more so than to provide for tomorrow.
And the uncertain economic outlook means that this number is likely to grow.
All I am suggesting is to let these Singaporeans use their own money to help
themselves during this critical and trying period.
Let those jobless for more than 6 months use CPF
Singaporeans had been out of work for six months or more.
It would certainly help ease the financial burden these Singaporeans face if
they were allowed to withdraw money from their Central Provident Fund accounts
to meet their monthly expenses.
It is quite likely that with no regular income for six months or more, they
would have exhausted most, if not all, of their savings.
A $500 monthly withdrawal from one's CPF account would go a long way to help
pay for water and electricity bills, put food on the table, and also pay for a
visit to the doctor if one isill.
It would also help some pay for their children's school fees or provide care
for their elderly parents.
Allowing this group of jobless Singaporeans to use their own savings in their
CPF accounts would also help relieve the need for more government handouts.
To prevent abuse of this opt-in scheme, the withdrawals should stop once the
CPF account holder has found gainful employment.
I am sure there are other effective safeguards the relevant authorities can
think of and impose, if necessary.
Most Singaporeans understand the need to have sufficient funds in their CPF
accounts to provide for their retirement needs.
But there may be as many as 29,800 Singaporeans right now who need help to be
able to live today, more so than to provide for tomorrow.
And the uncertain economic outlook means that this number is likely to grow.
All I am suggesting is to let these Singaporeans use their own money to help
themselves during this critical and trying period.
Of course white scums will not allow it and to make matter worst, they have lost a big chunk investing abroad.
They sure give typical answer like CPF is for old age, spending it now will cause shortage of fund in the future. But what if after save till old age still not enough for retirement? They will said it's not their fault as they already help you o much.
So save or not save, when the problem comes, they push it away from their responsibility.
* THEY JUST WANT YOUR MONEY FOR THEIR INVESTMENT, IN THE PROCESS THEY COULD MAKE MILLIONS.
They sure give typical answer like CPF is for old age, spending it now will cause shortage of fund in the future. But what if after save till old age still not enough for retirement? They will said it's not their fault as they already help you o much.
So save or not save, when the problem comes, they push it away from their responsibility.
* THEY JUST WANT YOUR MONEY FOR THEIR INVESTMENT, IN THE PROCESS THEY COULD MAKE MILLIONS.
"You all must reach the age where you all are one leg inside the coffin then can withdraw hor. Hei hei hei hei hei.. "
Fresh wave of financial crisis
SHANGHAI - A TOP Bank of China official warned the world should brace for 'a second round of financial crisis' due to rising bad loans as the real economy falls into recession, in remarks published on Thursday.
Efforts by governments around the world to bail out markets have so far failed to solve the deep-rooted problems behind the current crisis, Mr Zhu Min, a vice president for the bank, wrote in the China Securities Journal.
'The real estate market will continue to see corrections and the stock prices of financial institutions will continue to see wide swings,' he said.
Banks will remain reluctant to lend and currencies will continue to fluctuate as funds are reallocated around the world, he wrote.
'Rising defaults of industrial loans and personal loans caused by a recession in the real economy could lead to a second round in the financial crisis,' Mr Zhu wrote in the full page commentary.
The scale and nature of the crisis had been misjudged, and the lack of structure and vision in government efforts to stabilise the markets could lead to unforeseen pitfalls, he warned.
'We think the government decisions during the global financial crisis were full of contradictions and mistakes,' he said.
In the next one or two years, big financial institutions previously bailed out by governments could fall into trouble again, he predicted, while smaller banks could go bankrupt and hedge funds could collapse.
Governments have injected billions of dollars into financial institutions and made concerted interest rates cuts after the crisis deepened in September with the collapse of US bank Lehman Brothers. -- AFP
SHANGHAI - A TOP Bank of China official warned the world should brace for 'a second round of financial crisis' due to rising bad loans as the real economy falls into recession, in remarks published on Thursday.
Efforts by governments around the world to bail out markets have so far failed to solve the deep-rooted problems behind the current crisis, Mr Zhu Min, a vice president for the bank, wrote in the China Securities Journal.
'The real estate market will continue to see corrections and the stock prices of financial institutions will continue to see wide swings,' he said.
Banks will remain reluctant to lend and currencies will continue to fluctuate as funds are reallocated around the world, he wrote.
'Rising defaults of industrial loans and personal loans caused by a recession in the real economy could lead to a second round in the financial crisis,' Mr Zhu wrote in the full page commentary.
The scale and nature of the crisis had been misjudged, and the lack of structure and vision in government efforts to stabilise the markets could lead to unforeseen pitfalls, he warned.
'We think the government decisions during the global financial crisis were full of contradictions and mistakes,' he said.
In the next one or two years, big financial institutions previously bailed out by governments could fall into trouble again, he predicted, while smaller banks could go bankrupt and hedge funds could collapse.
Governments have injected billions of dollars into financial institutions and made concerted interest rates cuts after the crisis deepened in September with the collapse of US bank Lehman Brothers. -- AFP
10,000 seek CDCs' help
SOME 10,000 job seekers approached the Community Development Councils(CDCs) for help in the four months from last October to January.
Most were aged 40 or older and had educational qualifications of O levels or lower. Many also lacked the skills needed to take up the jobs that are still on offer in the economy.
How to help workers overcome the mismatch in their skills and those in demand by employers is a top concern for the mayors of the island's five CDCs.
North-West district mayor Teo Ho Pin on Tuesday said that for every 10 job seekers, the CDCs are able to help six to seven find jobs fairly quickly.
The rest need a longer period of career guidance and help to change their mindsets, before they are ready to even start job hunting.
Dr Teo said he expects the number of those seeking help with jobs to grow as layoffs increase. Last month's figure was already a 50 per cent increase as compared to October year.
In response to growing needs, the CDCs have banded together to launch a help directory for retrenched residents. The booklet provides a list of helplines, tips on job search, budgeting and keeping a positive attitude.
It is published in four languages and is available from Tuesday at the CDCs, and from Friday, at community clubs and community centres.
Each CDC has also come up with its own help measures, from organising job fairs to financial literacy workshops.
SOME 10,000 job seekers approached the Community Development Councils(CDCs) for help in the four months from last October to January.
Most were aged 40 or older and had educational qualifications of O levels or lower. Many also lacked the skills needed to take up the jobs that are still on offer in the economy.
How to help workers overcome the mismatch in their skills and those in demand by employers is a top concern for the mayors of the island's five CDCs.
North-West district mayor Teo Ho Pin on Tuesday said that for every 10 job seekers, the CDCs are able to help six to seven find jobs fairly quickly.
The rest need a longer period of career guidance and help to change their mindsets, before they are ready to even start job hunting.
Dr Teo said he expects the number of those seeking help with jobs to grow as layoffs increase. Last month's figure was already a 50 per cent increase as compared to October year.
In response to growing needs, the CDCs have banded together to launch a help directory for retrenched residents. The booklet provides a list of helplines, tips on job search, budgeting and keeping a positive attitude.
It is published in four languages and is available from Tuesday at the CDCs, and from Friday, at community clubs and community centres.
Each CDC has also come up with its own help measures, from organising job fairs to financial literacy workshops.
As I said, they only know how to claim credits that are not their when the world economy is booming. Then when crisis like now happened, all hiding dun know where.
Where is the accountability, responsible and meritocracy? Civil servants can go Paris 5 weeks to learn cooking. Beanpole Goh still want to raise their benchmark pay to 88% of whatever self create occupation list.
And CPF is MY $$$ and they say cannot take, as if people robbing like that..
:oIo:
When a pax is jobless or retrenched isn't it same as the rainy days SM referred to? If gahmen can raid the treasury why can the jobless take some money belonging to them???
ST Forum March 25, 2009 PARTIAL CPF WITHDRAWAL
Fine-tune policy to allow for differing needs
THE Ministry of Manpower's reply last Saturday, 'Partial CPF withdrawal: Why it's not a good idea', did not address the real needs of Central Provident Fund members.
More than 20 years ago, when I was a young insurance agent, I understood that when it came to money, everyone had a different view, even when making long-term plans. Some signed up for endowment policies with 10- to 25-year terms. Others opted for higher-protection, whole-life policies. The most popular policies were the endowment policies, which let policyholders draw out a percentage every three years.
Each person goes through different life events and financial needs, and is different when it comes to financial planning.
The ministry's statement that most CPF members have not yet accumulated sufficient savings to meet their basic goals may be right. But we would not need to borrow from banks and pay higher interest if our money was not locked up. The money saved on interest would help us meet our basic goals faster.
The Government tends to generalise that Singaporeans have neither the ability to plan nor the discipline and responsibility to look after themselves. A one-size- fits-all policy is not the best type to meet the needs of the working population.
The policy of locking up CPF members' money should be viewed as having our money locked in a safe and having limited access to it. If the Government finds it necessary to draw on past reserves, think about the average Singaporean's situation.
A substantial portion of our earnings is locked up in the CPF. Where can we draw our reserves from, if not the CPF? Notice the amount of business banks get for their credit line offers. Ordinary Singaporeans are struggling to make ends meet.
David Cheong
Fine-tune policy to allow for differing needs
THE Ministry of Manpower's reply last Saturday, 'Partial CPF withdrawal: Why it's not a good idea', did not address the real needs of Central Provident Fund members.
More than 20 years ago, when I was a young insurance agent, I understood that when it came to money, everyone had a different view, even when making long-term plans. Some signed up for endowment policies with 10- to 25-year terms. Others opted for higher-protection, whole-life policies. The most popular policies were the endowment policies, which let policyholders draw out a percentage every three years.
Each person goes through different life events and financial needs, and is different when it comes to financial planning.
The ministry's statement that most CPF members have not yet accumulated sufficient savings to meet their basic goals may be right. But we would not need to borrow from banks and pay higher interest if our money was not locked up. The money saved on interest would help us meet our basic goals faster.
The Government tends to generalise that Singaporeans have neither the ability to plan nor the discipline and responsibility to look after themselves. A one-size- fits-all policy is not the best type to meet the needs of the working population.
The policy of locking up CPF members' money should be viewed as having our money locked in a safe and having limited access to it. If the Government finds it necessary to draw on past reserves, think about the average Singaporean's situation.
A substantial portion of our earnings is locked up in the CPF. Where can we draw our reserves from, if not the CPF? Notice the amount of business banks get for their credit line offers. Ordinary Singaporeans are struggling to make ends meet.
David Cheong
Re: ST Forum March 25, 2009 PARTIAL CPF WITHDRAWAL
Latest comments
"The Government tends to generalise that Singaporeans have neither the ability to plan nor the discipline and responsibility to look after themselves." - I like this statement very much! Seriously!
(In my own translation and in my own opinion, if the Government feels that Singaporeans neither have the ability to plan nor the discipline and responsibility to look after ourselves, then by voting for the present ruling party will mean to reflect our "that" disability! On the contrary, if by voting for the present ruling party shows our ability and responsibility to look after ourselves, then who on earth, within the civil service, can tell us we do not have the ability to plan, and be responsible enough for our own future?)
Posted by: AndyMike at Wed Mar 25 17:12:47 SGT 2009
Latest comments
"The Government tends to generalise that Singaporeans have neither the ability to plan nor the discipline and responsibility to look after themselves." - I like this statement very much! Seriously!
(In my own translation and in my own opinion, if the Government feels that Singaporeans neither have the ability to plan nor the discipline and responsibility to look after ourselves, then by voting for the present ruling party will mean to reflect our "that" disability! On the contrary, if by voting for the present ruling party shows our ability and responsibility to look after ourselves, then who on earth, within the civil service, can tell us we do not have the ability to plan, and be responsible enough for our own future?)
Posted by: AndyMike at Wed Mar 25 17:12:47 SGT 2009
Re: ST Forum March 25, 2009 PARTIAL CPF WITHDRAWAL
I think David Cheong has mailed it on the head. The CPF Board MUST be responsive to the needs of the members. I list some other issues which really bothers some of us members:-
1. A recession buffer. While it has not been used as a recession buffer (yet) in the current recession, it had been used primarily in the past. We should note that the employer's CPF contribution is NOT a variable wage component which could be adjusted without consultation with the members but it was forcibly implemented anyways. These were meant to be retirement savings of the members. To put things simply, taking what one does not rightfully own without even asking is stealing.
2. Restriction on investments. If the intent is to allow members to invest some of the CPF monies (their own), then there must not be restrictions as to how and what to invest, other than to stipulate the minimum sum for retirement. Since the members are responsible for their losses, it should not matter whether the loss is made on SGX based or NYSE based equities, or should it? Further, there are many entrepreneurs who would like to invest in their own businesses but that is presently disallowed. Why should investment in a business he/she understand better than anyone else be less appropriate than a listed entity (which cooks its books occasionally)?
3. Moving goal posts. The interest yields and draw-out age have been progressively changed against the interests of the members. Unless, there is more transparency in the accounts at the CPF Board, most members will continue to perceive the CPF Board as either unwilling or unable to fulfill its earlier commitment. The members should be reminded that both administrative and political covenants have been broken here.
4. The annuity program, as many commentators have pointed out, benefits the CPF Board more than the members as a whole by delaying the payout. It will benefit a (predictable) group of members (those who are long-lived) and no one else. The payout does not receive inflation correction and can easily be bettered by some fairly conservative investment done individually.
5. The Eldershield was implemented as a national opt-out program. While the actual efficacy is questionable, it has already moved hundreds of million of CPF dollars into the insurance industry.
6. Most of all, the policies must not be determined by a small minority of members who may have demonstrated that they cannot manage their own monies. The CPF Board is reminded that the members CAN tell an excuse when they see one. So now, NO MORE EXCUSES.
Posted by: stevewu77 at Wed Mar 25 16:47:24 SGT 2009
Well, and again....they will start quoting = == = the needy can turn to their MPs for financial assistances, the low income have WIS to supplement, etc, etc, etc.......
Ask them a simple question, and they will start giving you template answers......
Try to contribute more to the CPF, and they will tell, your annual contribution is so much maximum! (So, you cannot save more) which contradicts the own Board's objective of "savings for retirement" !
One can really vomit blood trying to communicate with these civil servants - - - - their responses are always round the bush - - - never a straight direct answer (and most of the time the questions are never answered) -- - - - and time wasting.
Posted by: AndyMike at Wed Mar 25 15:59:02 SGT 2009
I think David Cheong has mailed it on the head. The CPF Board MUST be responsive to the needs of the members. I list some other issues which really bothers some of us members:-
1. A recession buffer. While it has not been used as a recession buffer (yet) in the current recession, it had been used primarily in the past. We should note that the employer's CPF contribution is NOT a variable wage component which could be adjusted without consultation with the members but it was forcibly implemented anyways. These were meant to be retirement savings of the members. To put things simply, taking what one does not rightfully own without even asking is stealing.
2. Restriction on investments. If the intent is to allow members to invest some of the CPF monies (their own), then there must not be restrictions as to how and what to invest, other than to stipulate the minimum sum for retirement. Since the members are responsible for their losses, it should not matter whether the loss is made on SGX based or NYSE based equities, or should it? Further, there are many entrepreneurs who would like to invest in their own businesses but that is presently disallowed. Why should investment in a business he/she understand better than anyone else be less appropriate than a listed entity (which cooks its books occasionally)?
3. Moving goal posts. The interest yields and draw-out age have been progressively changed against the interests of the members. Unless, there is more transparency in the accounts at the CPF Board, most members will continue to perceive the CPF Board as either unwilling or unable to fulfill its earlier commitment. The members should be reminded that both administrative and political covenants have been broken here.
4. The annuity program, as many commentators have pointed out, benefits the CPF Board more than the members as a whole by delaying the payout. It will benefit a (predictable) group of members (those who are long-lived) and no one else. The payout does not receive inflation correction and can easily be bettered by some fairly conservative investment done individually.
5. The Eldershield was implemented as a national opt-out program. While the actual efficacy is questionable, it has already moved hundreds of million of CPF dollars into the insurance industry.
6. Most of all, the policies must not be determined by a small minority of members who may have demonstrated that they cannot manage their own monies. The CPF Board is reminded that the members CAN tell an excuse when they see one. So now, NO MORE EXCUSES.
Posted by: stevewu77 at Wed Mar 25 16:47:24 SGT 2009
Well, and again....they will start quoting = == = the needy can turn to their MPs for financial assistances, the low income have WIS to supplement, etc, etc, etc.......
Ask them a simple question, and they will start giving you template answers......
Try to contribute more to the CPF, and they will tell, your annual contribution is so much maximum! (So, you cannot save more) which contradicts the own Board's objective of "savings for retirement" !
One can really vomit blood trying to communicate with these civil servants - - - - their responses are always round the bush - - - never a straight direct answer (and most of the time the questions are never answered) -- - - - and time wasting.
Posted by: AndyMike at Wed Mar 25 15:59:02 SGT 2009
Similar threads
