TR EMERITUS

作者：钱晓慧 (BBC中文网) 10/09/2010 “养老金”对年轻一代的新加坡人来说是相当陌生的，“养儿防老：”的想法早已不存在，再加上新加坡又不是福利社会，人们不敢奢望国家会在自己年老时给予照顾。要老有所依，个人储蓄变得更为重要。 随着新加坡生育率下跌，加上人口老化问题严重，政府面临着人口课题的严峻挑战，因此不断制定改革经济保障制度，以免老年人口成为国家的负担。 曾被“经济学人”杂志称为“吝啬保姆”的新加坡政府并不主张实施社会福利制度，因此采用协助人民为退休作准备的“中央公积金”（中央公积金，简称公积金）的强制性储蓄计划，以确保人民不会过分依赖国家。 涵盖范围广 新加坡的公积金制度始建于50年代初，并在1955年7月1日正式实施，今年正好是制度推行的第55年。 英国殖民地时期，新加坡并无任何的社会保障制度，因此这项人民自资计划受到了欢迎。在1965年独立之后，新政府继续沿用该制度。1968年，为推行“居者有其屋”房屋政策，协助让新加坡人拥有住房，于是引入“公积金购屋计划”，允许人们使用公积金购买公共住房。 经过55年的运作，中央公积金制度的涵盖范围不断扩大。除了包括养老支出，人们可动用储蓄购买房屋外，会员也可用它来购买寿保，或者负担本身或子女的教育费用以及投资获认可的金融产品等。 至于缴交率，雇主及雇员每月的需分别缴交雇员薪资的15％和20％，公积金局会按照不同比例将加起来35％的缴交率分配到雇员的普通户头，特别户头，保健储蓄户头里。从雇员年满50周岁起，缴交率将随雇员的年龄增长而逐渐下降。 公积金账户中的储蓄享有由新加坡政府担保的最低2.5％的无风险利率。从2008年到2010年年底，特别帐户和保健储蓄帐户将获得最低4％的利率。 据悉，中央公积金局将资金投资于低风险政府债券。曾有反对党国会议员在国会上询问政府是否将人民的公积金存款投资于政联公司，不过政府否认，但也未进一步详细说明。 计划经常调整 走过55年的历程，新加坡公积金制度越变越复杂，而且不时调整。记者向不同新加坡人询问时发现，除了从事寿险顾问的受访者，多数人都摇头表示不清楚多项计划对他们的影响。 一些人认为，强制储蓄是为退休生活做好准备，也使生活有了保障，而采用公积金储蓄购置房产，帮助人们实现买房的愿望。但也有一些受访者则表示，公积金户头里的存款是自己的血汗钱，自己应有权决定怎么使用这笔存款，而不是让政府告诉人们该怎么使用自己的储蓄。 按照公积金局初设立时的规定，会员在达到55岁退休年龄时能领取全部存款，但随着人口寿命延长，政府担心出现人民过早提取完账户中存款的问题，于是将可提取公积金最低存款额的年龄提高至62岁，而后来也逐步将提取年龄延长至65岁。 此外，公积金局也在两年前推出的公积金终身入息计划（公积金生命）以取代推行多年的最低存款计划。在之前推行的最低存款计划下，公积金会员在退休后的20年内获得每月入息，不过政府同样担心人们的寿命太长存款会过早淘空，故让最低存款计划走入历史。 取而代之的是终身入息计划。这项计划没有列出提取年限，而是让会员提款直到终老为止。以一名明年满62岁，退休户头有67000元存款的男性公积金会员为 例，他接下来可获得介于360元至440元的每月入息。一些评论调侃说，在这项计划下，人们最好祈祷自己活得长一点才能得益。 去年7月1日起，公积金最低存款额调高至11万7000新元。至2013年，最低存款额将逐步调高至12万新元。也就是说，到了2013年，55岁的会员公 积金最低存款额达12万元（再加上通胀率）的话，他将能提取户头中扣除最低存款额的剩余资金。当他65岁的时候，按照公积金终身入息计划，他能每月提取一 定数额的入息。 “应增加透明度” 在过去旧计划中，会员可在20年内提取存款，新的计划是按多少年来计算入息？ 中文网记者以公众身份向公积金局询问，可是工作人员却无法回答这个问题。 公积金局的网站上有一个“终身入息估算评估器”以及其他计算机让公众使用。 新加坡金融服务业专业人员学会前主席就向记者表示，公积金局的保险精算过程透明度应增加，否则无法针对计划提出客观的评论。 运行多年，新加坡公积金也成为一些国家的参考对象。1991年中，在借鉴了新加坡的中央公积金制度后，上海市率先建立起住房公积金制度，之后在其他省市推行开来。 来源：http://www.bbc.co.uk  Read More →

Kudos to GCK for being forthright with his views during a dialogue session with residents from Marine Parade to gather feed-backs on PM NDR! He spoke of rational approach to problem solving highlighting some key sore issues. He further added that with dose of Singapore spirits problems can be resolved. Indeed with Singaporean spirit all problems can be resolved rationally but unfortunately that spirit was rudely snuffed out as irritating noises. It is heartening to hear GCT welcome views and indeed, as first step to accept the spirit of Singaporeans, to start acknowledging Singapore is larger than PAP. It is time to acknowledge humbly and apologetically that PAP conviction in itself is not always appropriate or correct. Their “prismatic perspective” is not always rational if they do not let go serving “own” agenda. It is time to acknowledge Singapore today is not Singapore of the past and citizens want to be treated with dignity of expression. It is time to acknowledge the differing, even caustic, and opposition views of national concerns because citizens care for themselves as a nation and for the weaker, poor, underprivileged and the unspoken. It is time to acknowledge that “nett” gain in PAP terms of happiness devoid of Gini Coefficient is not adequate. GCT posed a question:”Is the policy good although it cannot satisfy every citizen?” In relative sense, and more philosophically, yes, but the realism at the ground is ever-swelling discontent. Their rational of making “as many happy most number of the times” is skewed towards a Pyramid of Happiness where the growing Super Rich, Elite and Pro-Business and selective groups are happy all the times while increasingly more progressively down the Pyramid are less happy most of the times and for the lowest strata, happiness is in the dreams. The “pull-up” wealth effect of their policy essentially hopes to elevate directly the top while making top richer and creating a wider divide in between. It would have been better had they “inverted” the effect-helping the lowest and lower strata more directly. It is time to acknowledge that “Virtue” spoken with “full stomach” or worst “insatiable stomach” is “hollow ring” to many eking out a living in despair of escalating cost and fearful future. A rational approach is not to have indiscriminately and rampantly have policies that cost adverse impacts on living standard and marginalization of employment and wages of broader market squeezing those at lower strata and older workers. The escalating surge of foreign influx and immigrant including the adverse housing policy should have been anticipated and avoided with the formidable planning resource and “foresight” of the government. Instead MBT indiscriminately added fuel to speculation and the fetish embrace of FT create acrimony of citizens. Now in desperation of sound reason “caught off-guard” seems like the ultimate redemption of PAP shortcoming in policy. Having created such mess or more aptly a “perfect storm” of growth in this uncertain economic turbulence that swells the IRA coffer, GCT now said rational approach can solve problem with dose of Singaporean Spirit. If he had said that forthrightly a year ago it would have edifying effect of the spirit of Singaporeans. Unfortunately, then it was the delusionary spirit of PAP! Masterstroke of concept of “Nett Happiness” is now a justification to explain the money thirsty machineries that are allowed to go “wheeler dealing” until the saturation of mercenary gains. Politically, it is a “wool” yet to blind our eyes as PAP know there is huge “unhappiness deficit”. But nevertheless, GCT courage to come out and explain is a welcoming consolation to the spirit of Singaporeans. Now on broader context of Singaporean livelihood, what is rational approach to problem-solving? Besides relentless pursuit of GDP number, and PAP own agenda, has PAP ever thought of a more sensible, sustainable and less disruptive rational approach to bring Singapore out of the recession? Do we need to be the number 1 of GDP growth causing so much unhappiness in citizens-or more appropriately angst and despair of more debt, higher cost of living and employment, just to name a few. No, many Singaporeans do not wish to have this unstable rising tide of rampant growth. We do not need that “perfect storm” that brings so much wealth, mostly to beneficiaries of PAP and Pro-business. We do not need that “perfect storm” which sinks and capsizes many who do not have the big ships-those with ivory ships is unhurt and sailing with huge tides of wealth. Please be rationally CLEAR. Singaporeans are never against FT and immigrants per se. We have lived and worked peacefully with them for decades. We understand the need to correct the population control policy mistake of the past. We are against the policy that creates such rampant influx, resulting in dreadful uncertainty of having homes and keeping up with ever-increasing costs in practically every avenue and walk of citizen life at the lower pyramid of the Nation. Most of all, we do not need PAP Psyche of rationale of omnipotence. We need a forthright, down-to-earth policy which touches every heart of the citizen and uplifts the spirit as a Nation. The measure taken recently come too late but at least is welcoming without precipitous effects and hopefully sanity is restored. So, Mr GCT, is you policy good enough?   Voice of Citizen  Read More →

The Temasek Review has set up a "GE 2010" column to house all news and articles relating to the next general election (rumoured to be called end 2010) here which will make it easy for readers to retrieve and keep themselves updated on the latest news and commentaries. Due to the paucity of reliable, objective and balanced political commentaries in the mainstream media, an increasing number of Singaporeans are flocking to alternative news sites like ours. Alternative parties are most welcomed to submit articles about their activities, walkabouts and campaigns to us for publication and they can be assured that there will not be any censoring, editing or distorting of their words. At the present moment, we are only focusing on the Reform Party as we feel it has the greatest potential among all the parties so far to pose a genuine threat to the PAP. A strong, influential and credible alternative media is the only weapon we have to counter the lies, myths and hogwash propagated and perpetuated by the PAP-controlled media. Though our readership has doubled in the last few months, it still lags far behind that of the Straits Times. Please help us spread the message around to increase our readership base before the next election which may be the last window of opportunity for native Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their country.      Read More →