Why are Singaporeans unable to save in our CPF? Why is it that we contribute 37% of our wages into CPF, but the CPF is still not enough for our needs?

Last week, some speakers gave presentations at the Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy (organised by the Institute of Policy Studies). Their presentations will give you a very good insight as to why the CPF is inasequate for Singaporeans’ retirement and in the problems highlighted, you can see the solutions inherent in them as well.

Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser illustrated that up to 70% of the elderly in Singapore have CPF.

However, he then highlighted how the CPF savings is able to provide for retirement for only a very low 4% to 7% of the elderly in Singapore. A/Prof Tan asked then asked how even though the elderly might “have CPF, but (do they have) insufficient CPF savings to serve as (a) “source of income”?”

But why our our CPF funds inadequate? Indeed, Ms Wong Su-Yen then pointed out how in the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2013, Singaporeans have been shown to have one of the least adequate pension in the world. She highlighted how a minimum pension level of 30% of national earnings would be the minimum required to alleviate poverty, but in Singapore, the CPF provides only 10%, which means that most Singaporeans would retire with payouts at below poverty level.

In fact, yesterday, I had calculated how 50% of Singaporeans would have less than $55,000 in our CPF and would only be able to get a CPF payout of $425 every month. This is significantly lower than (or only one-third of) the $1,200 that the government has calculated a lower-middle income family would need to have a basic standard of living. If half of Singaporeans have to retire on less than $425, it is clear that the majority of Singaporeans are retiring at below poverty level.

In fact, the problem is compounded by how the pension system in Singapore relies solely on the CPF, whereas in other countries, there is a diversification of sources for retirement savings, and which allows for a higher accumulation of pension funds.

Ms Wong went on to highlight that the two key reasons why the CPF is inadequate. First, the CPF is over-invested in very low-risk deposits. 72% of the CPF is invested in very low-risk deposits while other countries would only invest up to 12% in similar deposits, and would instead invest 49% to 69% of the pension funds in higher risk equities, to earn higher returns for the pension funds and increase adequacy.

The government might claim that the current “CPF system”, where the government invests our CPF in low-risk government bonds and then take these bonds to invest in higher risk investments “has worked well and … protected members from risk.” The government claims that this “allows the GIC (to take on the risk and) to invest for the long term, including investing in riskier assets like equities, real estate and private equity.” But the evidence from other international pension funds have shown that they are very capable of taking on the higher risks by themselves, and returning the interests earned back to their citizens. So, why does the Singapore government act contrary?

In fact, Prof Mukul G. Asher has said that, “Singapore’s method of investing the balances meant for retirement financing is contrary to best international practices concerning pension fund management, and have the potential to generate high political risk. Such concentration of savings in the hands of non-transparent, non-accountable agencies also distorts the savings investment process and could lead to inefficiencies in the structure of asset returns. The development of the financial and capital markets may also be adversely affected due to such concentration of savings, and due to the use of CPF as a substitute for mortgage financing. The method, however, is consistent with Singapore’s mono-centric power structure, and strong tendency towards social engineering and control.”

Second, the Singapore government charges the highest costs to manage our CPF, which “erode additional returns” and reduces what is returned to our pension funds. Which begs the question – why does the government charges the highest costs for managing funds invested in the lowest risks?

Ms Wong also highlighted how “Individuals are not adequately saving … (because a) sizeable portion (of the lack of retirement savings is) attribute to housing.” Indeed, this was what Associate Professor Lum Sau Kim also pointed out. She illustrated how the annual CPF withdrawals to pay for housing loans have been increasing since the 1960s, which has resulted in “low cash balances” inside the CPF which has “constrained retirement adequacy”.

Professor Joseph Cherian also brought up an interesting chart to show how the HDB flat starts losing its value after Year-66 and eventually has zero value. Indeed, thanks to a question by the Worker’s Party Gerald Giam, we now know that “the value of the flats will be zero at the end of their 99-year lease” and “Like all leasehold properties, HDB flats will revert to HDB, the landowner, upon expiry of their leases.”

In fact, the National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wah had also admitted earlier this month that the government “controls the construction programmes” and “sets the prices for the HDB flats”. As such, when housing loans sap up a large portion of our CPF, so much so that Singaporeans are not able to save enough in our CPF to retire, then is it not clear that the government has over-priced the HDB flats?

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has also revealed earlier this month that, “Among members who turned 55 years old over the past five years and had used CPF monies to purchase HDB flats, an average of 55% of their OA savings had been withdrawn to finance their flats at age 55.” For Singaporeans who had used their CPF to buy private property, this could be twice as high.

If so, from the above statistics, is it not clear that:

1. First, Singaporeans’ CPF is earning too low returns.
2. Second, coupled with the low returns on the CPF, the high flat prices further eats into the declining value of the CPF.

If so, these are the questions we have to ask:

1. Who controls how our CPF is invested and how much returns to give on our CPF?
2. Who controls the housing prices?

Why are they not letting us grow our CPF?

Mr Alfred Chia also highlighted how the CPF Investment Scheme had failed because these schemes were introduced “very close to when the markets were at its peak”, thus when the market fell right after, losses were made. (Was it bad policy introduction timing, or?)

This explained why 85% of CPF members’ investment returns were less than 2.5%.

Mr Chia then illustrated how if a Singaporean wants to retire on $3,000 every month (or $5,596 in 25 years’ time), he/she would need to save $1.24 million at retirement.

He explained that this means that at the current CPF interest of 2.5%, a person would need to save $2,823 every month for the next 25 years. This would mean that a person would have to earn more than $7,000 every month in order to do so! However, less than 10% of Singaporeans are able to earn more than $7,000 currently!

However, A/Prof Tan had shown that only 17% or more elderly Singaporeans spend more than $2,000 every month, so the magnitude of this problem is reduced. However, this still doesn’t negate the problem. Where half of Singaporeans are only able to withdraw $425, this is simply inadequate for the majority of Singaporeans. This also reveals that at current wages, Singaporeans would simply not be able to save enough in our CPF for retirement. Including for the current uses of the CPF, the minimum that Singaporeans would need to earn would be at least $3,000 or $4,000 to be able to save adequately in our CPF for retirement!

AWARE’s Vivienne Wee had also posed a question at the forum, where she commented that 40% of older women are not able to get employment and which are not able to give them enough CPF. She opined that this is why there are many women are not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, because they do not come under the scheme. Associate Professor Kalyani Mehta agreed that women are under-protected by the CPF and shared that the CPF system is not universal but this has not been acknowledged.

Indeed, there is a gender imbalance in the CPF system, in how women are able to save significantly less in the CPF than men (even though both are unable to save adequately).

And women also earn significantly lower wages than men (even though both have seen stagnant wages over the past 2 decades).

A/Prof Tan had also highlighted how, “Female and older seniors are likely to be in low-paying jobs and doing less well financially.”

When seen in light of these problems, it is thus perhaps disturbing that both the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Manpower Minister had claimed that the CPF is aimed only at providing for basic retirement needs. The Deputy Prime Minister went further to say that the government has been very clear with this all along and that the CPF is not intended to provide for the full retirement needs for Singaporeans.

However, where the CPF is only adequate for 4% to 7% of Singaporeans, and where up to 80% of the elderly have to thus rely on their children, is it not unsustainable? Already, Singaporeans are earning stagnant wages, and compounded by the stagnant CPF interest rates and ever-increasing housing prices, the real value of Singaporeans’ CPF have been so eroded that it can be said to have lost its purpose – this is quite clearly affirmed by how the CPF is only adequate for 4% to 7% of Singaporeans and is one of the least adequate pension funds in the world.

It is perhaps very disturbing if the government chooses not to acknowledge this fact but would bypass the existence of such problems, to claim the validity of the current CPF system. It might be perhaps disappointing for the speakers and participants at the forum.

The problems were highlighted, but so were the solutions. If the government has any political will to fix the system (instead of the opposition), we might actually make some headway in reforming the CPF system to bring about adequacy for Singaporeans’ retirement.

Prof Cherian had summarised what he thought was the current problems with the current CPF system.

Ms Wong had proposed some plausible solutions.

Mr Donald Low advocated for transparency and independence of the CPF.

Perhaps the government should also take a leaf out of Mr Chia’s book, where he advocated looking long term when investing. As such, the government cannot continue the fear-mongering that they are giving us short-term “secure” interests, but should instead plan long term for higher returns for Singaporeans. As Prof Cherian had wisely put, “You cannot let people feeling worse-off because of an (economic) downturn. You have to plan long term.” As yet, the government has still not wanted to let Singaporeans know the GIC’s returns since its inception in 1981 (the CPF is invested in the GIC).

And finally, A/Prof Mehta affirmed the values that “Retirement adequacy has to be debated in the context of these dynamic economic, social and health trends – not in isolation or from the economic/financial perspective ONLY.”

So, you see, Singaporeans know what the problems of the CPF are. We know the solutions too. The question isn’t about whether we know the problems, but whether there is political will and the boldness to resolve these issues and bring about a reform to the CPF to bring about a betterment of Singaporeans.

Have we seen the courage to make the bold changes required for our CPF been shown by the government so far?

Instead, what we have seen is how the government continues to champion the CPF Minimum Sum and admonishes Singaporeans for not working hard enough to meet this CPF Minimum Sum. But when you realise how the government has been increasing the CPF Minimum Sum at a much faster rate than how we are able to save in our CPF, then you will see that something is really wrong here.

Where over the past 20 years, the average net CPF balance that Singaporeans have inside our CPF is continuously lower than the CPF Minimum Sum set by the government, the government would know that the large majority of Singaporeans simply do not have enough to even meet the CPF Minimum Sum! Then, why do they keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, and not only that, but increase it at a faster rate!

I had also asked the Manpower Minister if the government would consider increasing the wages of Singaporeans and the CPF interest rates. However, the government bypassed these questions.

Where is the political will to enact the changes necessary to improve our CPF, to protect Singaporeans?

Do you see it?

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

It is perhaps time to stop sitting back. The CPF is our hard-earned money but we no longer know what is going on with it, let alone know if it is still our money. If we don’t take a stand and demand for answers, our CPF might soon be taken away from our hands and we wouldn’t even know it, until it hits us.

On 23 August, we will be organising the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, we revealed to you the truths that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further truths about the exact number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. We know the problems to the CPF, and we know the solutions. But if the government refuses to acknowledge these but chooses to continue telling only their version of the story, then it is time we make our voices heard. It is time we let them know that we know what they are doing and will no longer allow them to put a blindfold around our eyes.

On 23 August, we will see you at Hong Lim Park. Let’s come together, be united and speak for change, for the better for our lives, and our children’s.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Also, my first court case will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.

Roy Ngerng

*The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/

Our former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong once warned the writer Catherine Lim  that she ought ‘to join a political party if  she wanted to air political views in public.’

I disagree, we don’t have to be members of Political Parties to be able to air our views and comment on Politics. National Policies affects us all in our everyday lives. The decisions made in Parliament do not only affect Politicians, but they affect every single one of us in one way or another. Article 14 of our Constitution also protects our right to freedom of speech, it is our Constitutional Right to speak about national issues, on policies, on the politicians and problems which our society faces. We shouldn’t leave the discussion to the politicians solely.  And I firmly believed that we had to be the change that we wanted to see in this world. We need to walk the talk.

It was for this reason that I started speaking up and getting involved in ‘politics.’ I may be too young to vote, but no one is ever too young to make a difference. Students in Singapore are stereotyped to be ‘politically apathetic,’ but a quick look back in history would easily explode that myth.

Students of Singapore are not politically apathetic, in fact we do have a rich history of Student and Youth activism in Singapore. The student activists were instrumental in our fight against Colonialism too. It didn’t matter if they were english-educated, chinese-educated, middle school or University students, they all united in the anti-colonial struggle.

If it weren’t for the student activists, we would probably still be singing ‘God Save the Queen’ instead of ‘Majulah Singapura today.’

Lee Kuan Yew, who was also the students’ legal consultant then, told the crowd that they (the student activists) would come to play a vital role in the Malayan independence movement. He praised the Chinese school students for their discipline and organizational skills. He

It is unfortunate that many of them were suppressed, attacked and destroyed in the midst of a political struggle by the same PAP that they helped bring to power.

“Like a gigantic tidal wave these student activists swept the PAP into power in 1959, hoping that the newly formed political party would bring about political freedom and social justice to our people.

But it was not to be. Subsequent repressions conducted by the PAP after it came to power proved to be more ruthless and relentless than those carried out by the colonial rulers and they have to be seen through and through as a massive political betrayal in Singapore’s history.

Today, “emergency” laws have become the “normal” laws of Singapore. Political dissent can result in double and even triple decade without trail. Restrictions imposed on the mass media, on public assembly and freedom of expression are, if anything, more severe than during the colonial days.

But it has to be said that no political situation can forever remain static and unchanged. The time will soon arrive when our people will free themselves from the five decades of political oppression in Singapore.”

- Dr Lim Hock Siew (University Socialist Club Leader) 

At that time, it was also fairly common to see students a they graduated from school playing leading roles in the trade union movement as well as in political organizations. Also, cultural and civic organizations were sprouting up like bamboo shoots after spring rains staffed by hitherto student activist.

Dr Chia Thye Poh and Lim Chin Siong

The Student Movement gave rise to leaders like Lim Chin Siong who co-founded the PAP, Dr Lim Hock Siew, Soon Loh Boon and Dr Chia Thye Poh, just to name a few.

But not only in Singapore, leaders all over the world like Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and Obama were all once student leaders too.

The Student Movement was thriving in Singapore and it gave birth a new dawn after a successful fight with the colonial rulers, but that is of course until the PAP themselves started clamping down on student activism more ruthlessly than what the colonial rulers did. They witnessed the power of the students first-hand and they were afraid of it.

Student and Youth activists leading the way for change is becoming increasingly common all over the world. The student activists played a vital role in the Bersih Movement in Malaysia, the fall of Suharto in Indonesia and more recently, the Protests for Democracy in Hong Kong. And I believe it is time that the youths of Singapore step up to the plate too.

 

According to MOE’s Framework, it wants students who are competent in

• Civic Literacy, Global Awareness and Cross-Cultural Skills;
• Critical and Inventive Thinking;
• Communication, Collaboration and Information Skills

And this is precisely why we shouldn’t deter students from political involvement and be ostracised for their views. We should educate students about politics.

We should eradicate this climate of fear through education. We want to present youths with appropriate avenues to get involved, educate themselves and express their views which is not limited to the Youth Wings of Political Parties alone.

I am sure students themselves have a lot to say about issues pertaining to our Education System like the rising costs of tertiary educations, the lack of focus on creativity and the uneven playing fields. Who knows, they might even start questioning the ‘official’ version of Singapore’s history which contradicts the declassified British Documents. We are not talking about a radical and violent movement here. This whole movement can and will be conducted in an organized, peaceful, constructive and effective manner.

The Government aren’t really afraid of ‘protests’ at Hong Lim Park or forums of policies. But what they are afraid of is an organized movement which would span and reach out to the masses from all levels in society.

This picture above was from the May 13 Incident where the Police used forcefully dispersed a peaceful crowd of about 3000 students. But far from being intimidated and subdued by such police brutality, the incident inevitably served to arouse the political awareness of the students. As Lim Hock Siew famously said, ‘It was the sparked that torched the a prairie fire!’

The Student Movement from our past and the leaders it produced have inspired me greatly. I believe it is time that we the Youth of Singapore rise up and take responsibility for our own future. Don’t be afraid and conform to ‘social norms’ anymore. We are the future of this nation. We can choose what kind of future we want to create, it is in our hands. The power is within us, fellow young Singaporeans. So don’t be afraid and don’t conform anymore. It is time to be the change that we want to see in Singapore!

Students should be allowed to take charge in issues that they feel passionate about and not be prosecuted for doing so, deterring leaders to be to mellow down and conform to the system. Singapore’s current state of lack of good leaders might be a result of the overly well carried out plan to deter student activism since the early 1960s.

Students should also be encouraged to express themselves, no matter what their political views may be.

This can only be good for the education system and the future of our nation.

The following is a subjective opinion of a Malaysian PR who drives everyday from Malaysia to Singapore because of better pay. Conservatively, there are at least 120,000 commuters doing this everyday via motorcycles, buses or private vehicles. Everyday we bear the time-consuming congestion which greatly tortures us mentally, all because our own country is unable to provide us a better life. Strictly speaking, the answer to the question of which side started the "tit-for-tat" would have stopped at this point if not for the "special" event that happened later.

Before this "special" event, I was taking 1 hour, or 1.5 hours cap, for most of my working days from home to office. Now I am clocking 2-2.5 hours everyday, and that is just one way. This event was the three cases of cars dashing across Singapore customs checks in one month. Because of this, Mr Teo Chee Hean unleashed his fury in parliament and immigration checks became "stricter".

It was "stricter" because boot checks were more precise after Mr Teo's angry speech. That was expected. But as time went by, these checks went from "strict" to what I aptly call more ridiculous. To many commuters, it seems like ICA is just using these ridiculous acts to punish the commuting drivers. When the jams are always at the Singapore customs for both incoming and outgoing, it is not hard to conclude that ICA is not performing the best it can. Given Singapore's government character, swift actions would have been made to improve the situation IF it wanted to. But since the problem has already been like that for many years, it seems that Singapore cares much more for the tourists in Changi Airport than these workers who commute everyday and contribute to the economy in another manner. In some ways, one can say that these commuters are abandoned by both its own country Malaysia, and Singapore.

How does ICA carry out the indirect punishment? It has a few tricks in its sleeves.

Firstly, there are three or four lanes of car boot checks where police does the inspection. These lanes will later converge into one lane of exit where there are many policemen and policewomen who would stop "suspicious" cars. When cars are stopped, it will jam the whole line. This is the most common trick they use and by doing this, the jam starts from this point all the way to Malaysia's side before the CIQ passport clearance! Imagine that when Singapore is actually causing jam on Malaysia mainland

Also, ICA slows the passport checking process. Some days, a commuter will find that the officers take a longer time to process his/her passport. On these days, the jam starts from here and all the way to Malaysia's side. After the passport clearance, there is little traffic to the car boot checks. ICA uses this trick some times. Another way of doing this is ICA does not open too many counters. This happens once in a while when ICA does not want to make it too obvious. You may also read on the news that there are some days where ICA systems are down. But I have yet to read anything where ICA are held liable for this downtime like how SMRT was being dealt with when MRTs are delayed. Or even Singtel.

ICA tries to show that its trying its best in overcoming the traffic problem by placing many officers to perform non-value added work like directing the traffic. (It also helps employment numbers, so this is just a big con.) Do you really think by directing traffic, that is going the ease the jams? The bottlenecks are right at the front, so it doesn't matter how well traffic is being directed. And did I mention the many policemen and women at the front?? Why can't they do it concurrently at the boot checks or even before that?

All of the above are just for cars. I don't know how the bus passengers and motorcyclists suffer or enjoy during their journeys, but I would imagine that if the cars are not cleared fast enough, the lanes of buses, lorries and motorcycles will be directly affected. The motorcycles would probably still take 1-1.5 hours. The lorry drivers have it worst: they can spend up to 7-8 hours stuck in the jams. There is no human rights in Singapore customs.

To ICA: stop playing these petty tricks just to deter the flow of vehicles. Show some sincerity and effort by using some brainpower before using money as a solution. Playing these tricks are like laying carnage to workers mentally, and that is very similar to what Israel is doing right now physically. Unfortunately your disgusting tricks have brought much anguish to drivers, who are very bad-tempered on the causeway. This results in bumping of cars and refusing to give way to others. You also successfully make these workers drop in productivity levels because of the long hours they spent travelling which could have been used in resting or even their work. By doing this, you drop the brick on your own country's foot: the SMEs are affected. If you don't want workers to come in, stop them directly and spare those inhumane and petty acts.

Lastly, when Malaysia increased the tolls on 1st Aug, LTA responded by saying it will not implement tolls if Malaysia can abandon that. It's trying to play the good guy now! ICA and LTA are probably laughing right now because the numbskull Malaysia authorities have been played into their hands, and things are turning out the way they want it to be.

Causeway Driver 

TRS Contributor

Background story: Former CEO of HDB and URA: Singapore should plan for a 10 million population

Liu Thai Ker’s keynote address at a forum organised by the Business Times of SPH in collaboration with Singapore Institute of Building Limited yesterday (31 Jul) is drawing unusual flaks in the social media. He is singing the same sick mantra of growing population for economic growth and wanting more immigrants in the little island. More than 160 comments (in TRE) have been posted in the thread about the 10m population that Liu Thai Ker said was needed for Singapore to be a sustainable country. If this belief is true, Singapore would have perished long ago and all the small countries should not exist,

The netizens were not angry with Liu Thai Ker personally. But for him to repeat this folly is just unbearable. And they are looking for a scapegoat to vent their anger. Liu Thai Ker was in the right place to take the blows. To have 6.9m or 10m or 20m is just a matter of adjusting to a life in a more dense piece of rock. Can, sure can. The people would also become denser or be condensed.

It is not a matter of can or cannot. It is a matter of whether the people want to go down that road. It is not even a matter of being sustainable or not sustainable. There are many schools of thoughts on this and no one is wiser. It is not an absolute solution that we go this way or we will perish. Come on, is there a genius out there that can be sure of this, that there is no other ways?

By the same belief, I would not even grant it the privilege of calling it a logic, the Australians must be dumb to have so few people in a continent bigger than China, India or the USA and with a population of about 20m. The economists for growth will be screaming ‘fools’. The architects and property developers will be shaking their heads for the lost opportunities to build more buildings and fill up the land with more people. Wonder who is crazy?

Why do we want to keep building and building and to add more and more people into this piece of rock? What for? Oh, economic growth!  We have gone pass the law of diminishing return when every extra effort will give smaller and smaller returns. We are in a new level, a level when every extra effort, or increase in population, will lead to an increase in pain. The more people we put into the island, the higher will be the cost of living, the stress on the socio eco system, the infrastructure and the demands on the people. It will lead to more stress and more pain, on the people and on the systems and structures.

Those who are living in the confines of 50,000 sq ft properties would not know or feel that this is happening. Some wise crackpots are even telling the people that living in 600 sq ft flat for a family of 4 or 6 is fine, no drop in the quality of life. We used to have that kind of environment in the 50s and 60s, 8 or 10 people living in a cubicle. That was the quality of life. They escaped the squeeze by spending time outside the cubicles. Today the people are better off with aircon comfort in shopping centres and the great pubs and nightspots.

The people are saying they did not want this kind of squeeze. Why should their lives be screwed by a few people who want to push this belief through, even got it rubber stamped in Parliament? The govt has heard the cries and the felt the anger. But it seems to choose the deaf frog way, not wanting to listen and now we have a line up of snake oil sellers paraded to sell this koyok of more population. Who is the crazy one? The people must decide on this. The people have rejected the PWP. If the govt wants the moral authority to carry this through, it must call for a referendum before destroying this island for the Singaporeans and their children. Turning a deaf ear is not a solution. This is the people’s call, not the call of a handful of individuals, and definitely not the call of snake oil sellers.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/

Related:

I got nervous when ex-URA chief said SG can have 10M population

From 6.9m to 10m

This is how our constructive, nation-building BT reported how GIC is adding insult to injury:

AMID a gloomier outlook for fund managers globally, GIC has racked up annualised real returns of 4.1 per cent over the past 20 years to end-March this year, up from 4 per cent as at end-March last year. This return – above global inflation – was underpinned by a strong recovery in global financial markets, said the Singapore sovereign wealth fund.

Waz the point of this inflation-beating return when the 2.5% CPF rate is below S’pore’s inflation rate? Remember that until recently, we were told the 2.5% rate was justified given that inflation was oneish?

In late July after the June inflation numbers were released which showed core inflation slowed for a second straight month to 2.1 per cent after May’s 2.2%, but a drop to below 2% will be unlikely this year, OCBC economist Selena Ling told MediaCorp..

As expected, LTA has issued the threat that it’d retaliate if JB were to increase or introduce a new toll at its CIQ.

LTA’s often repeated mantra is “We will match Malaysia” as if it’s fighting for the interests of Singapore motorists. The bald truth is that it’s another of LTA’s ridiculous excuses to generate revenue for the regime as if regime coffers are not overflowing. The fact is regime has once again accumulated billions in surplus this year, 34 billions reportedly.

By matching JB hike in toll, including its new outbound toll, LTA will rake in millions in revenue. However the ones who will fork out the money are Singapore drivers. The brutal truth is Singaporeans are the ones who will suffer.

Living in the most expensive city in the world, Singaporeans try to cope by making trips to JB for food, entertainment, groceries and cheaper petrol.

People all over the world cross borders to take advantage of cheaper goods and services. Is there anything wrong with this?

However, the Singapore regime behaves as if it is not one of the wealthiest nations in the world but one of the poorest as it relentlessly regards Singaporeans as walking ATMs to be raided at the slightest and most absurd excuse.

LTA’s mantra of “We will match the other side” falls into this category of absurdity.

As an Authority vested with the power to impose fees and taxes, it has to do so with full justification. Excuses like the one mentioned and “Because of complaints” not only insult the intelligence of Singaporeans but also erode the credibility of LTA as an Authority.

The question that naturally arises is why can’t LTA match Malaysia’s road tax of less than $100 for most family cars or allow free roadside parking as seen everywhere in Malaysia since it is always making the ridiculous boast of matching this and that?

That most netizens have condemned LTA comes as no surprise. They have had enough of LTA’s money grabbing ways for years.

Singaporeans have to make the ruling PAP pay a heavy political price at the 2016 polls for its culture of money grab.

Roger Poh

* The writer blogs at http://rogerpoh.wordpress.com

A child of a Singaporean parent may not be allowed to enrol in international schools even if his other parent is a foreigner – unless he has special learning needs, or has studied overseas for a considerable period and, hence, cannot adapt to the local education system.

The Education Ministry seems to believe that Singaporean children should assimilate into local culture by attending local schools.

Most couples with different nationalities, however, place great importance on their children imbibing the cultures and languages of both parents.

Since the children live here, won’t they assimilate into Singapore culture easily?

Even if they were to attend international schools, they can quite easily make Singaporean friends, have Singaporean neighbours, interact with their extended Singaporean families and so on.

Indeed, it is much harder for them to be exposed to the culture of their non-Singaporean parent. So being able to attend an international school from the parent’s country of origin would help greatly.

Each year, thousands of Singaporeans give up their citizenship despite being products of the local education system. At the same time, many Singaporeans who have attended international schools retain their citizenship.

The Government should have more confidence in the appeal of Singapore citizenship.

Parents of mixed nationalities should be given the right to choose between international and local schools for their children.

The Government need not worry that these children will give up their Singaporean citizenship, but should consider how they will benefit from international exposure.

Darren Ong Soon Siong

* Letter first appeard in ST Forum, 30 Jul.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that, "most members receive 3.5 per cent in their Ordinary Accounts and 5 per cent in Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts".

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said, "about two-thirds of members earn 5% interest on all their balances in their Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts. Over half of all members earn 3.5% on all their Ordinary Account savings".

CPF members earn "an additional 1% per annum will continue to be paid on the first $60,000 of a member’s combined balances, with up to $20,000 from the OA".

Are you "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine"? It isn't even noon yet as I write this, and I've already been accused of being both.

These terms intrigue me because they directly speak to the doggedly tribal nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You don't hear of too many other countries being universally spoken of this way. Why these two? Both Israelis and Palestinians are complex, with diverse histories and cultures, and two incredibly similar (if divisive) religions. To come down completely on the side of one or the other doesn't seem rational to me.

It is telling that most Muslims around the world support Palestinians, and most Jews support Israel. This, of course, is natural -- but it's also problematic. It means that this is not about who's right or wrong as much as which tribe or nation you are loyal to. It means that Palestinian supporters would be just as ardently pro-Israel if they were born in Israeli or Jewish families, and vice versa. It means that the principles that guide most people's view of this conflict are largely accidents of birth -- that however we intellectualize and analyze the components of the Middle East mess, it remains, at its core, a tribal conflict.

By definition, tribal conflicts thrive and survive when people take sides. Choosing sides in these kinds of conflicts fuels them further and deepens the polarization. And worst of all, you get blood on your hands.

So before picking a side in this latest Israeli-Palestine conflict, consider these 7 questions:

***

1. Why is everything so much worse when there are Jews involved?

Over 700 people have died in Gaza as of this writing. Muslims have woken up around the world. But is it really because of the numbers?

Bashar al-Assad has killed over 180,000 Syrians, mostly Muslim, in two years -- more than the number killed in Palestine in two decades. Thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Syria have been killed by ISIS in the last two months. Tens of thousands have been killed by the Taliban. Half a million black Muslims were killed by Arab Muslims in Sudan. The list goes on.

But Gaza makes Muslims around the world, both Sunni and Shia, speak up in a way they never do otherwise. Up-to-date death counts and horrific pictures of the mangled corpses of Gazan children flood their social media timelines every day. If it was just about the numbers, wouldn't the other conflicts take precedence? What is it about then?

If I were Assad or ISIS right now, I'd be thanking God I'm not Jewish.

Amazingly, many of the graphic images of dead children attributed to Israeli bombardment that are circulating online are from Syria, based on a BBC report. Many of the pictures you're seeing are of children killed by Assad, who is supported by Iran, which also funds Hezbollah and Hamas. What could be more exploitative of dead children than attributing the pictures of innocents killed by your own supporters to your enemy simply because you weren't paying enough attention when your own were killing your own?

This doesn't, by any means, excuse the recklessness, negligence, and sometimesoutright cruelty of Israeli forces. But it clearly points to the likelihood that the Muslim world's opposition to Israel isn't just about the number of dead.

Here is a question for those who grew up in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries like I did: if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories tomorrow, all in one go -- and went back to the 1967 borders -- and gave the Palestinians East Jerusalem -- do you honestly think Hamas wouldn't find something else to pick a fight about? Do you honestly think that this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are Jews? Do you recall what you watched and heard on public TV growing up in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?

Yes, there's an unfair and illegal occupation there, and yes, it's a human rights disaster. But it is also true that much of the other side is deeply driven by anti-Semitism. Anyone who has lived in the Arab/Muslim world for more than a few years knows that. It isn't always a clean, one-or-the-other blame split in these situations like your Chomskys and Greenwalds would have you believe. It's both.

***

2. Why does everyone keep saying this is not a religious conflict?

There are three pervasive myths that are widely circulated about the "roots" of the Middle East conflict:

Myth 1: Judaism has nothing to do with Zionism.
Myth 2: Islam has nothing to do with Jihadism or anti-Semitism.
Myth 3: This conflict has nothing to do with religion.

To the "I oppose Zionism, not Judaism!" crowd, is it mere coincidence that this passage from the Old Testament (emphasis added) describes so accurately what's happening today?

"I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods." - Exodus 23:31-32

 

 

Or this one?

"See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers -- to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- and to their descendants after them." - Deuteronomy 1:8

 

 

There's more: Genesis 15:18-21, and Numbers 34 for more detail on the borders. Zionism is not the "politicization" or "distortion" of Judaism. It is the revival of it.

And to the "This is not about Islam, it's about politics!" crowd, is this verse from the Quran (emphasis added) meaningless?

"O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you--then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." - Quran, 5:51

 

 

What about the numerous verses and hadith quoted in Hamas' charter? And the famous hadith of the Gharqad tree explicitly commanding Muslims to kill Jews?

Please tell me -- in light of these passages written centuries and millennia before the creation of Israel or the occupation -- how can anyone conclude that religion isn't at the root of this, or at least a key driving factor? You may roll your eyes at these verses, but they are taken very seriously by many of the players in this conflict, on both sides. Shouldn't they be acknowledged and addressed? When is the last time you heard a good rational, secular argument supporting settlement expansion in the West Bank?

Denying religion's role seems to be a way to be able to criticize the politics while remaining apologetically "respectful" of people's beliefs for fear of "offending" them. But is this apologism and "respect" for inhuman ideas worth the deaths of human beings?

People have all kinds of beliefs -- from insisting the Earth is flat to denying the Holocaust. You may respect their right to hold these beliefs, but you're not obligated to respect the beliefs themselves. It's 2014, and religions don't need to be "respected" any more than any other political ideology or philosophical thought system. Human beings have rights. Ideas don't. The oft-cited politics/religion dichotomy in Abrahamic religions is false and misleading. All of the Abrahamic religions are inherently political.

***

3. Why would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?

This is the single most important issue that gets everyone riled up, and rightfully so.

Again, there is no justification for innocent Gazans dying. And there's no excuse for Israel's negligence in incidents like the killing of four children on a Gazan beach. But let's back up and think about this for a minute.

Why on Earth would Israel deliberately want to kill civilians?

When civilians die, Israel looks like a monster. It draws the ire of even its closest allies. Horrific images of injured and dead innocents flood the media. Ever-growing anti-Israel protests are held everywhere from Norway to New York. And the relatively low number of Israeli casualties (we'll get to that in a bit) repeatedly draws allegations of a "disproportionate" response. Most importantly, civilian deaths help Hamas immensely.

How can any of this possibly ever be in Israel's interest?

If Israel wanted to kill civilians, it is terrible at it. ISIS killed more civilians in two days (700 plus) than Israel has in two weeks. Imagine if ISIS or Hamas had Israel's weapons, army, air force, US support, and nuclear arsenal. Their enemies would've been annihilated long ago. If Israel truly wanted to destroy Gaza, it could do so within a day, right from the air. Why carry out a more painful, expensive ground incursion that risks the lives of its soldiers?

***

4. Does Hamas really use its own civilians as human shields?

Ask Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas how he feels about Hamas' tactics.

"What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?" he asks. "I don't like trading in Palestinian blood."

It isn't just speculation anymore that Hamas puts its civilians in the line of fire.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri plainly admitted on Gazan national TV that thehuman shield strategy has proven "very effective."

The UN relief organization UNRWA issued a furious condemnation of Hamas after discovering hidden rockets in not one, but two children's schools in Gaza last week.

Hamas fires thousands of rockets into Israel, rarely killing any civilians or causing any serious damage. It launches them from densely populated areas, including hospitals and schools.

Why launch rockets without causing any real damage to the other side, inviting great damage to your own people, then putting your own civilians in the line of fire when the response comes? Even when the IDF warns civilians to evacuate their homes before a strike, why does Hamas tell them to stay put?

Because Hamas knows its cause is helped when Gazans die. If there is one thing that helps Hamas most -- one thing that gives it any legitimacy -- it is dead civilians. Rockets in schools. Hamas exploits the deaths of its children to gain the world's sympathy. It uses them as a weapon.

You don't have to like what Israel is doing to abhor Hamas. Arguably, Israel and Fatah are morally equivalent. Both have a lot of right on their side. Hamas, on the other hand, doesn't have a shred of it.

***

5. Why are people asking for Israel to end the "occupation" in Gaza?

Because they have short memories.

In 2005, Israel ended the occupation in Gaza. It pulled out every last Israeli soldier. It dismantled every last settlement. Many Israeli settlers who refused to leave wereforcefully evicted from their homes, kicking and screaming.

This was a unilateral move by Israel, part of a disengagement plan intended to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It wasn't perfect -- Israel was still to control Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace -- but considering the history of the region, it was a pretty significant first step.

After the evacuation, Israel opened up border crossings to facilitate commerce. The Palestinians were also given 3,000 greenhouses which had already been producing fruit and flowers for export for many years.

But Hamas chose not to invest in schools, trade, or infrastructure. Instead, it built anextensive network of tunnels to house thousands upon thousands of rockets and weapons, including newer, sophisticated ones from Iran and Syria. All the greenhouses were destroyed.

Hamas did not build any bomb shelters for its people. It did, however, build a few for its leaders to hide out in during airstrikes. Civilians are not given access to these shelters for precisely the same reason Hamas tells them to stay home when the bombs come.

Gaza was given a great opportunity in 2005 that Hamas squandered by transforming it into an anti-Israel weapons store instead of a thriving Palestinian state that, with time, may have served as a model for the future of the West Bank as well. If Fatah needed yet another reason to abhor Hamas, here it was.

***

6. Why are there so many more casualties in Gaza than in Israel?

The reason fewer Israeli civilians die is not because there are fewer rockets raining down on them. It's because they are better protected by their government.

When Hamas' missiles head towards Israel, sirens go off, the Iron Dome goes into effect, and civilians are rushed into bomb shelters. When Israeli missiles head towards Gaza, Hamas tells civilians to stay in their homes and face them.

While Israel's government urges its civilians to get away from rockets targeted at them, Gaza's government urges its civilians to get in front of missiles not targeted at them.

The popular explanation for this is that Hamas is poor and lacks the resources to protect its people like Israel does. The real reason, however, seems to have more to do with disordered priorities than deficient resources (see #5). This is about will, not ability. All those rockets, missiles, and tunnels aren't cheap to build or acquire. But they are priorities. And it's not like Palestinians don't have a handful of oil-rich neighbors to help them the way Israel has the US.

The problem is, if civilian casualties in Gaza drop, Hamas loses the only weapon it has in its incredibly effective PR war. It is in Israel's national interest to protect its civilians and minimize the deaths of those in Gaza. It is in Hamas' interest to do exactly the opposite on both fronts.

***

7. If Hamas is so bad, why isn't everyone pro-Israel in this conflict?

Because Israel's flaws, while smaller in number, are massive in impact.

Many Israelis seem to have the same tribal mentality that their Palestinian counterparts do. They celebrate the bombing of Gaza the same way many Arabs celebrated 9/11. A UN report recently found that Israeli forces tortured Palestinian children and used them as human shields. They beat up teenagers. They are oftenreckless with their airstrikes. They have academics who explain how rape may be the only truly effective weapon against their enemy. And many of them callously and publicly revel in the deaths of innocent Palestinian children.

To be fair, these kinds of things do happen on both sides. They are an inevitable consequence of multiple generations raised to hate the other over the course of 65 plus years. To hold Israel up to a higher standard would mean approaching the Palestinians with the racism of lowered expectations.

However, if Israel holds itself to a higher standard like it claims -- it needs to do much more to show it isn't the same as the worst of its neighbors.

Israel is leading itself towards increasing international isolation and national suicide because of two things: 1. The occupation; and 2. Settlement expansion.

Settlement expansion is simply incomprehensible. No one really understands the point of it. Virtually every US administration -- from Nixon to Bush to Obama -- hasunequivocally opposed it. There is no justification for it except a Biblical one (see #2), which makes it slightly more difficult to see Israel's motives as purely secular.

The occupation is more complicated. The late Christopher Hitchens was right when he said this about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories:

"In order for Israel to become part of the alliance against whatever we want to call it, religious barbarism, theocratic, possibly thermonuclear theocratic or nuclear theocratic aggression, it can't, it'll have to dispense with the occupation. It's as simple as that.

It can be, you can think of it as a kind of European style, Western style country if you want, but it can't govern other people against their will. It can't continue to steal their land in the way that it does every day.And it's unbelievably irresponsible of Israelis, knowing the position of the United States and its allies are in around the world, to continue to behave in this unconscionable way. And I'm afraid I know too much about the history of the conflict to think of Israel as just a tiny, little island surrounded by a sea of ravening wolves and so on. I mean, I know quite a lot about how that state was founded, and the amount of violence and dispossession that involved. And I'm a prisoner of that knowledge. I can't un-know it."

 

 

As seen with Gaza in 2005, unilateral disengagement is probably easier to talk about than actually carry out. But if it Israel doesn't work harder towards a two-state (maybe three-state, thanks to Hamas) solution, it will eventually have to make that ugly choice between being a Jewish-majority state or a democracy.

It's still too early to call Israel an apartheid state, but when John Kerry said Israelcould end up as one in the future, he wasn't completely off the mark. It's simple math. There are only a limited number of ways a bi-national Jewish state with a non-Jewish majority population can retain its Jewish identity. And none of them are pretty.

***

Let's face it, the land belongs to both of them now. Israel was carved out of Palestine for Jews with help from the British in the late 1940s just like my own birthplace of Pakistan was carved out of India for Muslims around the same time. The process was painful, and displaced millions in both instances. But it's been almost 70 years. There are now at least two or three generations of Israelis who were born and raised in this land, to whom it really is a home, and who are often held accountable and made to pay for for historical atrocities that are no fault of their own. They are programmed to oppose "the other" just as Palestinian children are. At its very core, this is a tribal religious conflict that will never be resolved unless people stop choosing sides.

So you really don't have to choose between being "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine." If you support secularism, democracy, and a two-state solution -- and you oppose Hamas, settlement expansion, and the occupation -- you can be both.

If they keep asking you to pick a side after all of that, tell them you're going with hummus.

Source: http://www.theshalominstitute.org.au/Hillel/Blog-Bits/Feature-Article/7-...

TRAVEL SMART NETWORK SCHEME – Throwing good money after bad

30 Jun 2014 – TODAY reported that only 12 companies signed up to the flexi-work pilot programme arrangements launched in October 2012 which allowed ‘participating organisations (to) benefit from expert advice on understanding employees’ concerns and opportunities with regard to more flexible work arrangements, reducing unnecessary business commuting, enabling flexibility for employees and realising potential productivity gains, and improving their overall transport efficiency’.

Companies stand to reap ‘up to S$30,000 to engage approved consultants to conduct employee travel pattern studies and develop tailored action plans from Nov 1’ under the Travel Smart Network scheme.Now, with money spent and nothing to show for, LTA led by Josephine Teo (Minister of State, Transport) now wants to dangle ‘cash grants for employers’ instead, achieve the same goals of adopting ‘flexi-work arrangements as well as encourage alternative modes of transport, such as cycling’.

More goodies can be had by way of ‘grants of up to S$160,000 annually, for up to three years, to… installing bicycle parking facilities or shower facilities at workplaces, or to pay for breakfast vouchers for staff.’

And ‘employees of companies that participate… can sign up for the corporate tier of a rewards programme, earning them more points than regular commuters for travelling during off-peak hours. The more points one has, the higher one’s chances of winning cash prizes awarded monthly by the Land Transport Authority.’

The scheme will be open initially to companies with more than 200 workers and which are based near MRT stations.

Maybe the SG government and civil service have never heard what we hear all the time in the private sector, are we throwing more good money after bad money? Or is this easy money (taxpayers’) for dead ideas?

And if we go by some of the other schemes (e.g. PIC, Productivity & Innovation Credit, scheme), is this yet another opportunity created for unscrupulous employers or managers to cream off public grants for private gratification?

To be fair, Mrs Jos Teo has never failed to mention that such schemes are all complementary and do not detract from the government aggressive increases to public transport capacity through new rail lines, additional trains and buses, as well as improved train and bus frequencies.

Even so, why is no one admitting to or at least publicly discussing the clear and present impact of overloading our previously First World’s public transport system with a liberal policy of allowing all kinds and unfettered numbers of foreign employees onto our trains and buses, not to mention COEs for their top managers and spouses/children?

Are taxpayers daft to the extent that we pay our ministers and top civil servants top dollar to create public transport problems, throw S$1.1 bil for new buses and trains FOC to shareholders of listed companies and, now throw even more money to alleviate the overcrowding crunch?

Everything and anything they will do except take the overcrowding bull by the Foreign Talent policy horns and stop this madness, this stupidity? Without confronting THE truth, how can we expect to be set free from our transport woes?

Change we Must.
End PAP’s dominance or else PAP’s dominance will end us.

2cents

*The writer blogs at 2econdsight.wordpress.com

The CPF Minimum Sum and CPF Life schemes do not make any sense and have hurt the majority of CPF members. The PAP government is aware of this but since it has absolute power, it will not acknowledge its ‘error’. PAP MPs would of course have heard from thousands of their constituents but prefer to remain silent. MPs with this kind of attitude receiving $15,000 tax dollars monthly are correctly described as ‘jiak liao bee’.

The recent contributions to the total CPF balances are really huge when seen in the perspective of past contributions. Let’s take a look at the different 5-year periods.

1989 to 1993 (amount in millions)

1994 to 1998

1999 to 2003

2004 to 2008

2009 to 2013

Source: MAS annual reports (see statistical index)

2009 to 2013 amount of increase same as preceding 20 years. Why?

Last 5 year increase = total amount of preceding 20 years!

From the table above, the PAP has increased CPF total contribution by about $64 billion from 2009 to 2013. This is almost similar to the $64.5 billion contributed in the preceding 20 years!

PAP was aware of massive baby boomers’ withdrawal

The biggest group of CPF members are those born between 1947 and 1964, known as baby boomers.

But before they could withdraw their retirement savings, the government legislated the increase of CPF Minimum Sum, doubling it from $40,000 to $80,000 within only 8 years from 1995 to 2003.

This appeared to be insufficient for GIC and yet another round of increase was legislated with the MS almost doubling from 2003 to 2014.

Total CPF balance stood at about $96 billion in 2002. If retirees had been allowed to withdraw, CPF balances would at most have remained the same or more likely reduced. Instead, the CPF balance has increased by $163 billion to $259 billion in March! The facts do not gel with every PAP ‘clarification’.

CPF = Ponzi scheme?

There are striking similarities between our CPF and a Ponzi scheme:
– There is zero transparency in how and where our CPF is invested.
– Not only is the base of new CPF ‘investors’ increasing, existing members’ funds are being trapped by ever-changing policy tweaks.

The government could have easily quashed such speculations with transparency but why doesn’t it?

For our retirement or GIC?

When the PAP says the increase is for our retirement needs, it appears to be trying to pull a fast one on us. If it was so caring and has acted responsibly, the logical action would be to increase salaries. Instead, salaries have not even kept pace with housing inflation and, worse, for low income citizens, they have remained stagnant for the past 15 years.

3 years ago, 55% of Singaporeans could not meet the CPF MS. By setting the MS limit higher, even more members will be unable to do so. So what is the real motive of the PAP?

Why is PAP channeling so much CPF monies into GIC?

The reasons given by the PAP really defy logic and common sense and will never be acceptable by CPF members. CPF monies do not belong to the PAP.

GIC has been the recipient of an ever-increasing amount of cheap funds from our CPF. Questions:

- Is GIC unable to generate sufficient returns to pay CPF members without more funds?
– Has GIC lost too many investments during the last financial crisis and requires more CPF monies?
– Is GIC solvent?

Conclusion

From a CPF member’s perspective, a lot of things are not quite right. The government has been forcing citizens to save into a low returns account for the GIC to use as and when it pleases. This also raises the question of GIC’s solvency.

If the PAP was really concerned about our retirement shortfalls, the logical thing it would have done was to increase salaries or supplement retirement shortfalls with Temasek Holdings’ profits. It did neither. The huge increase in CPF MS is clearly to prevent the massive withdrawal of baby boomers. This is not acceptable and the PAP therefore needs to return us our CPF.

Phillip Ang

*The writer blogs at http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/

By Marcus Chua
Published on 03 Aug, 2014

Our CPF system has come under fire of late from Singaporeans of all walks of life. But is it really that bad?DollarsAndSense.sg provides an example of why we think the system is still relevant and sound.

Our Assumptions:

1. 25-year old individual.

2. Monthly salary of S$ 3,000 for 30 years.

3. NO increase in salary and NO bonus.

4. Purchase a 5-room HDB worth S$358,000.

5. Services the monthly mortgage with 50% cash and 50% from CPF.

6. Has a spouse who is of the same age, and draws the same monthly salary with NO increase in salary and likewise, NO bonus.

Results:

1. Ordinary Account (OA) average interest rate of 3.66%, once effect of compounding is taken into consideration over a 30-year period.

2. Special Account (SA) and Medisave Account (MA) average interest rate is 7.48% once effect of compounding is taken into consideration over a 30-year period.

3. Assets under the individual’s name at the age of 55 years old includes

• 5-room HDB:                        Fully paid

• CPF Minimum Sum:           S$ 155,000

• Medisave Account:  S$ 145,750

• Cash from CPF:       S$ 173,968

Does that sound outrageous to you? That an individual with salary of $3000 a month can actually afford to withdraw hundreds of thousands in cash from his or her CPF account at the age of 55 years old while setting aside the minimum sum required?

The above assumptions are taken on the extreme end, as we are not accounting for any increase in salary and assuming that there are no bonus payout across 30 years. Furthermore, we have ignored the additional 1% of the first S$60,000 in the OA & SA.

Despite our assumptions, we calculated that the individual would still be able to meet the minimum sum, have enough for his or her Medisave, and still be able to have hundreds of thousands in cash. Another interesting fact, even if the couple does not save a single cent for the next 30 years, their combined Net Worth will be over S$1,000,000.

How is that even possible? This is how the robust system of the CPF works such that even Singaporeans who have little knowledge on finance can still accumulate more than S$1,000,000 in joint assets after 30 years.

a)    Average Interest rate of 3.66%

For every thousand dollars that is in the OA and SA, in 30 years time, it will earn you an additional $1097.60 and $2243.24 respectively. This is due to the prowess of the “Compounding Effect”.

Essentially, you are putting your money in the “Safest Vault” in the world and making returns that even professional asset manager cannot guarantee.  This leads us to the next point of, “are we able to meet the minimum sum and still able to draw out hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash?”

b)    Meeting the Minimum Sum and still having cash to withdraw?

CPF contribution per month                                         Financial Calculation

The individual will have S$ 328,968, OA adding to SA, and S$ 145,750 for his/her medical usage. Amongst the S$ 328,969, S$ 155,000 will be kept, as the minimum sum. A withdrawal of S $ 173,968 in CASH will be allowed thereafter. Excess beyond what is required in the Medisave will also be allowed to be withdrawn as well.

Despite earning S$ 3,000 per month without growth or bonus, the individual is still able to withdraw S$ 174,000 in cash. As mentioned, can the couple have Net Worth of over S$ 1,000,000 at age 55?

c)    Millionaire couple? Really?

This is a very conservative estimate because we assume that the value of the home does not appreciate.  More likely than not, value of homes in Singapore tend to appreciate in the long run. Even if we assume that the value of the home remains the same, the couple’s total combined net worth is S$ 1.3 million.

The above illustration is a very simplistic view of the CPF system. We agree. For example, we are not assuming any withdrawal from medisave for medical needs. You can also argue that the minimum sum may increase.

However, we have likewise overcompensated with the fact that the individual has NO salary increament, NO bonuses and the value of the house WILL NEVER appreciate. We are also assuming as well that the couple did not transfer funds from their OA to their SA, which in practise would have enabled them to enjoy a higher return of 4%.

We are also assuming that the couples did not make any effort to save or invest. Based on their individual salary of $3000 each, the couple will have income of about $2000 each monthly (or $4000 as a family), after taking into consideration their CPF contributions and monthly cash repayment for mortgages.

Our Take

Your pension fund is fully guaranteed by a sovereign that has the highest credit rating in the globe, along with a minimum rate of return of 2.5% per annum, cash and liquidity of about S$ 174,000 at age 55 and potentially being a millionaire couple.

In Finance 101, we all know that “with risk comes return”. However, the CPF system dissolves this theory entirely as it advocates that “without risk, there are still decent returns”. Do note that our pension fund not only provides an almost full-proof retirement plan for Singaporeans, but it does not put a heavy burden nor potentially bankrupt the Government of Singapore. This robust system is unprecedented and there are no other systems that can be compared to ours.

Well, it all boils down to this golden question, “Is the CPF System really that bad?” after all? Share with us your views on Facebook

DollarsAndSense.sg is not a political website and we do not support any political party. Nor do we have any financial sales agenda within our content. We write based on our research, our reasoning and a slight flavor of our own opinion. 

*Article first appeared on http://dollarsandsense.sg/is-our-cpf-system-really-that-bad/

In February, the news reported that some 1.24 million Chinese visitors had visited Singapore in the first half of last year, a hefty 27 per cent rise from the same period the previous year.

The Chinese also emerged as the biggest spenders, overtaking Indonesian visitors.

"Singapore Tourism Board (STB) figures show that Chinese visitors spent almost $1.52 billion in the first half of last year, 3 per cent more than Indonesians. This excludes what they spent on sightseeing and entertainment."

But since then, regional unrests in Thailand and the recent flight MH17 plane crash have dented travels to Singapore.

This in turn prompted the Singapore authorities to launch a revamp of its "Rediscover Singapore From Your Heart campaign" at a cost of S$1 million for S$1 million "to attract more Chinese tourists after seeing a decline in Chinese arrivals in the past four months", the news reported in June this year.

However, the campaign does not seem to have borne any fruits yet.

According to a Bloomberg report on 4 August 2014, reduction in visitors from Asia’s largest economy contributed to a sales slide of as much as 4 percent in Singapore’s annual shopping festival, the Great Singapore Sale, according to the retailers’ association.

Bloomberg reports:

Visitors from China to Singapore dropped 27 percent in the five months through May from a year earlier amid slower economic growth on the mainland and the impact of a new Chinese law that clamped down on cut-price shopping tours. Total tourist arrivals slid 1.7 percent, according to the Singapore Tourism Board.

Singapore’s retailers, already facing growing regional competition, are under the most pressure since the Asian financial crisis, Singapore Retailers Association Honorary Treasurer Kesri Singh Kapur said.

“It is that grim,” Kapur, 47, said in a July 29 interview in Singapore. “Both the sides of consumption, which are the domestic customers and tourists, are not spending. I anticipate that at least for the next 12 months, the market will be sluggish.”

Even shops in Singapore's main shopping belt, Orchard Road, are being hit.

Retail brands have expanded into other markets in China, Indonesia, and Malaysia, making Singapore a less unique shopping destination, said Kapur.

“Singapore had this aura and advantage of being slightly different from its neighbors” five or 10 years back, he said. “Yes we have a great Orchard Road, we have a great environment where people can walk and shop, but availability of brands has come at parity now.”

“It all adds up to a fairly bearish picture for the retail sector,” said Selena Ling, an economist at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. in Singapore. “It’s hard to see immediate light at the end of the tunnel.”

Has Singapore become too dependent on tourists from China?

*Article first appeared on http://publicopinion.sg/69/has-spore-become-too-dependent-on-china-tourists

This confirms they don't have a single honest bone in their body. First they tell us that GIC's annualised 20-year REAL rate of return is 4.1 percent. Then, probably realising that the number is none too impressive, group chief investment officer Lim Chow Kiat added that their portfolio also generated a 12.4 percent annualised NOMINAL rate of return for the past 5 years. It's bad enough the chow-kuan Lim chose to compare apples with oranges, the sad fact is that the whole bushel of rotten fruit is just performing to script.

It was only recently that the Republic's sovereign wealth fund manager, with well over S$125 billion under its control, reluctantly admitted that its funds are sourced from current account surpluses, government surpluses AND CPF inflows. What they are still not willing to reveal is exactly how much CPF monies have been stashed in the hush-hush pool. While on the subject of secretive money, do note that those surpluses are the result of the present government being thrifty (planners' view) or plain mean (people's view). Money which should have been allocated for social needs, be it healthcare, public transport or affordable housing for the masses.

Does it help if they add Suppiah Dhanabalan to the board? When he was in charge of DBS, and officers were jumping ship because they were the lowest paid, Dhanabalan gave the lame excuse that DBS was the training school for Singapore's future bankers. The stampede continued unabated, and he had to quietly revise the pay scale to match. And when he killed off POSB, he claimed that the effect of disgruntled customers moving off to other banks was minimal. The reality was that the migration of funds was huge, and he had to quietly bring the POSB name back. To date he is still keeping mum about Ross Worthington's documented account of being slapped in the cabinet meeting room, continuing to "subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family" (chapter on "The Civil Service and Core Executive Dynamics", page 150,151). The tragedy here is that Dhanabalanis a bible carrying church goer, and he will be carrying secrets to his grave, all for the sake of a seat on the board.

Event 26 July: "Peace Gathering In Solidarity With Gaza"

Emailed To: s_iswaran@mha.gov.sg, vocies@mediacorp.com.sg, myp@sph.com.sg, reach@reach.gov.sg

Dear Mr S Iswaran,

I refer to the above mentioned event that was held on the weekend of 26 Jul 14.

I would like to register my displeasure and regret to MHA for the organizer & speakers having blatantly displaying the Palestinian flag during their protest which is breaching the rules of the licensing conditions.

I would like to say that I find the act of these people most hypocritical as, if you had remembered, there was a previous outpouring of scorn when organizers of the Philippine Independence Day had intended to celebrate it in Ngee Ann City along with a flag raising ceremony.

Now we have a group of Singaporeans hoisting a foreign flag on our soil, a conduct that we cannot accept while respecting their right and freedom to express their sentiments at Hong Lim Park.

Many of the views disseminated at the event were defamatory and imbalanced as well and I hope you can work harder to keep our secular State free from any external religious or political conflict and worse still, the dragging in of peoples who are not a party to these multi faceted conflicts.

Yours faithfully,
Juliana O

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/goh.gilbert/posts/10153088545813975?fref=nf

Returns from CPF investments in GIC follow the stock market very closely. It was reported that GIC had suffered a loss of US$41.6 billion during the last financial crisis.

GIC’s approach has been described as “aggressive” in some of its investments. GIC is also not concerned about market cycles. So long as funds are available, especially OUR CPF, it will invest come rain or shine.

What is worrying is the global economy has been built on a mountain of debt. Since the financial crisis, US debt has almost doubled from $10 trillion in 2008 to currently $17 trillion. Likewise for most countries. The only ‘solution’ has been to lower interest rates to historical lows which has in turn created asset inflation.

The whole world has been investing in equities simply because there are no alternatives to generate high returns. Stock prices do not reflect economic fundamentals.

GIC has been investing (buying) at every stage of a business cycle and totally disregarding economic fundamentals. Should any investments be ‘underwater’ it could simply categorise them as ‘very long term’ investments because there is an endless supply of money from CPF members.

Global stock markets have rallied for more than five years based on central banks providing liquidity instead of improving economic fundamentals. The wealth effect is about to come to an end. A collapse is inevitable, the question is when. Will our CPF monies in GIC be wiped out?

Phillip Ang

*The writer blogs at http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com/

It has been really fun watching the Commonwealth Games (CG) in Glasgow. It has shown that it’s still relevant and gives a lot of promising athletes a real chance to take part in a multi-game event under a degree of competitiveness. The Olympics or World Championships are really tough to win or even qualify for a final event. Athletes from minor countries like Scotland and others have shown that once they don their national colours, they are prepared to give it a real go. I really hope one day Singapore will host these Games. For sure it will go over Budget, even Scotland (Glasgow) has exceeded its initial cost, but the feel good factor and the improvements to infrastructure makes it beneficial (as stated by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce President). Most importantly, it gives a real shot in the arm to local sportsmen.

A silver lining - Joseph Schooling is all smiles with his well deserved silver medal (Photo: AFP)

If Singapore truly wants to be thereabouts in the medals at the Olympics and improve the standard of sports across the board, participating and even hosting either a CG or Asian Games is a good way to go about it. Anyway let’s turn now to the men and women who have represented Singapore at Glasgow 2014 and pay them the homage they deserve. It seems strange to start with Joseph Schooling, because he didn’t win a gold medal, but he is our most high profile athlete at the Games and the one most expected of.

He began with qualification for the 200m butterfly and made the final only to finish last. But it was good lesson for him. He had a chance to swim with some of the world’s best. He also made the 50m butterfly final, improving his national mark in the semis. Pardon the pun, but maybe ‘butterflies in his stomach’ saw him finish with a slower time in the final in 7th place. Just when question marks were beginning to be raised, he responded in a manner befitting of a champion, reaching the 100m butterfly final. He then became the 1st Singaporean swimmer to win a medal in swimming at the Games by finishing 2nd behind the awesome Chad le Clos. His time of 51.69 would have been enough to win gold at the last Games and if my memory serves me, even the last Olympic Gold.

The podium finish is just the tonic he needs to build himself up and get ready for the Rio Games in 2016. While overjoyed and pleased, he promised to not let it get to his head as he embarks on what has been a bridge too far for past Singapore swimmers – to win an Olympic medal. His coach believes he can, the nation believes he can. However I would also like to raise a note of caution and not to think it’s a must that he delivers a medal in Rio. The Olympics is the pinnacle of swimming, even greater than the World Championships (WC), and everyone gives their best. Only great champions swimming at their peak have gone on to win Olympic Gold and that too with a bit of luck. The great Michael Phelps needed a last ditch stroke to retain his gold at Beijing in the same event as Schooling, when it seemed certain that the Serbian swimmer had wrecked his 9 gold assault. He won in 100th of a second. That’s the fine margin between medallists and finalists in an Olympic Final.

While Le Clos, the Australians and the British were here for the CG and Schooling’s effort is definitely a highlight, it will be even harder for the same final in Rio. There you’ll have the Americans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the French, the Germans and whichever top swimmer from all the participating countries in the world. It’s more likely than not that he will fail than succeed. But he has proven that he can improve and has a chance. If he can qualify for a final event, like he did at the WC in Barcelona, that’s already a huge achievement. That should be his target and our expectation followed by as high a finish as possible. A bronze would be a huge cause for celebration but even a 5th or 6th place is something worthy of merit. Let’s wish Schooling every success and for a start let’s hope he can win some medals (preferably Gold) at the next Asiad (which I think is next year).

Golden girl Jasmine Ser with her gold medal after winning the 50m rifles position 3 event

Moving on, it has been a great Games for Singapore, with shooter Teo Shun Xie shooting her way to gold in the Women’s 10m air pistol event. She won in a Games record of 198.6 points, a marked improvement from her 14th place finish in the Delhi Games in 2010 and her 2nd place in last year’s SEA Games. This is not an easy event even in the CG, the Indians are very good at it and at the Olympics, the Chinese are the dominant force. Shun Xie has shown she can compete with the best and hopefully with form and some luck, she can repeat the trick at Rio. She was followed to the top of the podium by Jasmine Ser who the Women’s 50m Rifle Positions 3 event. Our gals have done us proud and I’m sure 1 of them will be crowned Sportswoman of the Year.

Finally on to Table Tennis, this is a sport that attracted a lot of controversy because of the ‘foreign talents’ imported to make us a medal winning country. Like many, I wasn’t really beaming from ‘ear to ear’, when we finally broke our medal duck in the last few Olympics and other Games. Question marks were raised about the level of loyalty that these Chinese born players had for their new country. But to be fair, this time around, I saw a greater effort by the players to show their ‘Singaporeaness.’  We struck gold in the Women’s team event and there was a concerted effort by the girls to sing the National Anthem - ’Majulah Singapura.’ Overall it really looked throughout table tennis and even badminton, that these players understood and were thankful for being able to represent Singapore. That’s all we ask and they delivered, good on them, I say. Moreover even if the debate rages on about the status of ‘importing glory’, no real blame should be attached to any of the athletes. They were given a job to do, they were paid well to do it and they delivered. Winning is not as easy at it seems, we aren’t the only ones ‘importing Chinese players’, even the Australians and British are doing it. The same goes for the world stage, you get Chinese born players representing Holland, Denmark, the USA etc. It requires a lot of hard work, training and dedication to succeed at the highest level, and there’s no guarantee of success given the playing field. These men and women who represent us deserve the congratulations, praise and support of all Singaporeans. (The men’s team also won gold in Glasgow).

As it stands we’ve won 4 golds, 1 silver and 1 bronze (men’s badminton) and lie in 13th place in the medals table at the time of writing today (Friday), with more to come in the final 2 days of competition. This is an enormous achievement for a country of our size. Of the other Asian countries participating in Glasgow, only India and Malaysia (same number of gold, but more silver and bronze) are ahead of us. It’s a statistic we all can be proud of. That said, even to those who represented us in the various sports and didn’t win, it’s alright, we are still proud of you. We know you trained hard, prepared yourself and made a lot of sacrifices at a personal level. We hope that the experience you gained in Glasgow and the level of competition will benefit you and spur you on to greater heights at the next major event. Majulah Singapura!

Sir Nelspruit

*The author blogs at  Anyhow Hantam.

9 August:  Should we unite to build a fair and just society for our fellow Singaporeans?

Below are few of the examples that speakers will talk about on 9 August 4pm to 6pm at Hong Lim Park:

Foreigners taking our jobs.

Lowest public healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP in the world.

Lowest real rate of return amongst pension funds in the world.

Most expensive public housing in the world.

30% of households spend more than what they earn.

Hardly any real wage growth.

High cost of living - Most expensive city in the world.

I’m concerned about my future and have come together with other concerned Singaporeans such as Leong Sze Hian, Patrick Low, Benjamin Matchap, Tay Kok Weng, Pek Chee Yong, Roger Caleb Chua etc to hear their views regarding my concerns.

As such, this event aims to highlight the lack of transparency and accountability in governance as well as problems caused by policies over the past 49 years.

To find out more about the event, you can go to the Facebook event page at https://www.facebook.com/events/271583499702725/

Han Hui Hui

One message we always get from the govt and the constructive, nation-building media is that an aging population and the refusal of married S’poreans to do NS when having sex means we need FTs to grow the population so that S’pore can finance the needs of an aging population.

But another message is that in our CPF system, we finance our personal retirement needs (see yesterdays ad in ST),

Unlike the ang mohs who have a pay-as-you-go system. The Manpower Blog from MOM describes it thus:

 ...a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more aged people …

In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account.

(Emphasis is mine)

So my question is why do we need to worry about an aging population? MOM says that we oldies don’t depend on younger S’poreans to pay for our pensions? It’s our money that is funding ourselves.

So why need population 6.9m by 2030? Or is it now 10m? Juz excuse to import FTs by the A380 cattle-class?

But then MOM also says CPF monies is S’poreans money, even when govt tells us how we can spend it: sounds like

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.” .

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

My take

And then there is this rubbish

When the British introduced the CPF scheme in 1955, we could withdraw all our savings at 55. Do we remember what our retirement age was then? It was 55. What was the life expectancy in 1955? It was about 60. Hence, what you withdrew at age 55 would have to last you for just a few years.

Today, the retirement age is at 62 and we could be re-employed until 65.And life expectancy is at least 82 and rising fast. For those turning 65 years old today, 1 in 2 will live beyond 85, and 1 in 3 beyond 90. What would happen if we withdrew everything at age 55? Or even 65? Would we ourselves be able to manage our monies for two decades or more? 

Well there are many other solutions other than forcing Minimum Sum and CPF Life down our throats at age 55. Ask the SDP about one possible solution. and the ang mohs too have ideas. Related post on ang moh view supporting PAP’s stance  

Cynical Investor

*The writer blogs at http://atans1.wordpress.com/