If the investment returns for CareShield Life can be returned to members – why can’t CPF investment returns be the same too?

I refer to the article “Insurance fund which will be ringfenced for CareShield Life to be set up: Gan Kim Yong” (Channel NewsAsia, Jul 11).

It states that “The Government will set up an insurance fund which will be ringfenced for CareShield Life, a new disability insurance scheme to be launched in 2020, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong said on Tuesday (Jul 10).

The fund will be administered by the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, and be audited annually to ensure that all the monies are accounted for he added.”

As to “”All premiums collected for and any returns from investments will remain entirely within the fund and used solely for the benefit of policyholders” he said” – why not do this for MediShield Life and CPF too?
For decades, the Government has been keeping an undisclosed excess of the returns from investing our CPF vis-a-vis the interest paid on our CPF accounts.

Also, Singapore workers contribute up to 10.5 per cent of their wages to Medisave.

This I believe is in a sense, from a cashflow perspective – probably the highest national health insurance contribution (pre-pay basis) in the world.

From a cashflow perspective – the Government  may still not be spending any money on healthcare, as total annual Medisave contributions plus the annual interest on total Medisave accounts’ balances may exceed total annual government spending on healthcare and withdrawals for medical expenses and insurance premiums.

With regard to “The Government will inject S$100 million into the CareShield Life insurance fund.

This is to cover a “significant portion” of the costs of including Singaporeans in the future cohorts with preexisting disabilities, said Senior Minister of State for Health Amy Khor.

The Government will also set up an independent council to provide advice on the administration of the scheme, he said. The council will also regularly review CareShield Life and recommend premiums and payout adjustments to the Government, in accordance with an actuarially sound adjustment framework, he added” – why not make the actuarial reports for CareShield Life, CPF Life and MediShield Life public information?.

 

Leong Sze Hian

 

 

Sponsored Content

5 Responses to “If the investment returns for CareShield Life can be returned to members – why can’t CPF investment returns be the same too?”

  • Bapak:

    Gerrymandering in CPF till our money no more.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Malaysia boleh Singapore bodoh:

    “As to “All premiums collected for and any returns from investments will remain entirely within the fund and used solely for the benefit of policyholders” he said” – why not do this for MediShield Life and CPF too?”

    Another compelling reason for REGIME CHANGE.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • HarderTruths:

    This is a funny header ‘If ……Careshield Life can be returned…”.

    Since when did pappies ‘return’ anything that ‘belongs’ to them?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Rabble-rouser:

    All insurance-type investment products are a scam & a money trap. Except for those insurable types that are pooled risk insurance schemes like house fire & 3rd party accident policy, car accident insurance, marine hull insurance, etc that protect against catastropic & unforesseable loss like fire & liability, ship sinking & vehicular accidents – They are beneficial & essential risk protection products. But for those with a defined payout (Life insurance, endowment policy) or defined benefit (health insurance, hospitalisation plans) insurance schemes, You’re committed into a long-term “insurance” contract to pay premiums (which are denominated in current value dollars). But the subsequent payout or derived benefit are paid out from the insurance companies pool of devalued dollars (diminishing purchasing value) after they had taken out the investment & excess returns for themselves (eg. management profits & administrative costs). To account for inflation, insurance companies often reduced the payout benefits or increased riders to boost their profitability & reduced their future liabilities to their policy beneficiaries.
    The arbitrary judge for “investment” insurance schemes are ultimately the govt who has to protect public interest. But ‘what if’ the govt & insurance companies are on the same side? eg. vested interests. That creates immense systemic risk to the public interest. They get ripped off by the vested interest.
    Look at the NKF Scandal – they were supposed to be a tax-exempt charitable organisation dedicated to kidney dialysis to poor & needy patients. But in the aftermath of the NKF Scandal, the derived benefit to kidney dialysis patients were only 20% of public donations. Much of the donations were lost to pillage by the NKF seat-holders (board of directors) & the top level administrators. Remember the NKF $600k annual salary as ‘peanuts’ remark coming from an elite’s mouth. It reeks of incestous & cronyism within the political elites. They see the public (masses) as gullible & stupid. They are constantly reinforced by the results from the ballot box. They have continued to act with impunity & a lack of consequence. Indeed the stories continued with Ren Ci Charity Drive by Shi Ming Yi, a Buddhist monk supposed to be dedicated to charitable works; City Harvest Church financial scandal which was dedicated to the Crossover Project but in reality was to fund the pop star career of the pastor’s wife.
    All these points to a corrosive form of elitism in S’pore. Change is required.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Straight "A"s Marlboro Tan:

    dream on and hallucinate ….once money is taken from u by them, u can kiss it goodbye..

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available

Member Services
Members LoginSelf-ClassifiedsSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement

Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement


Most Recent Comments
  • Inter-generational INEQUITY: rukiddig: … And yes, yes,..I “benefitted” from it..I sold off my 70k ,5 room for...
  • Bystander: Holy God, what makes lau Goh think he could do a Mahathir with TCB as his junior partner. Wah say, he...
  • nihon: in china the chibai land, the mrts work and there is no electicity breakdown. chibai tiong land is classified...
  • nihon: that lawren wrong has the making of mabok tan. he is v good for the opposition. now, hdb is a wasting asset....
  • pap useless Ljs + useless Cbs: Bystander: Those defaulters who return home for jail are simply stupid. Why bother,...
  • HarderTruths: More election rules we may see: 1. Citizens weighing below 50kg can only vote for half a candidate. 2....
  • pap useless Ljs + useless Cbs: TUCK WAN: I am 65 years old. What I have seen is MP giving suggestions on how to...
  • oxygen: @ Rabble-rouser BRILLIANTLY SAID, that Credit Suisse report is full of logic holes indeed. When asset prices...
  • HarderTruths: SDP $G citizens do not care about this island or what you say – only their own comfort. That is...
  • oxygen: @ HDB land EVERY CASE LAW I READ on property rights says only LAND IS PROPERTY – anything else sitting...
  • Foo: Holly wood stuff.cp3o.pinokio
Announcements
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic
Advertisements