TR EMERITUS

British started CPF, not PAP. The British colonial authority in Singapore introduced the CPF in 1955 as a compulsory savings scheme so as to allow workers to save for their retirement, 10 years after the end of the Japanese Occupation when people were struggling to make ends meet [CPF site -link]. So I hope that the Singaporeans must thank the right entity and not PAP! Who started the minimum sum? The 1st generation PAP started the minimum sum scheme (MSS) in 1986. It started with $30,000. It was raised again by the second generation PAP in 1993 to $40,000. It reached $80,000 in 2003. It was planned to reach $120,000 in 2013. The 3rd generation PAP has decided to adjust for inflation. This means $155,000 in 2014 [see link]. In order for all to reach minimum sum, like savings in a bank, there are a few plausible ways. 1.  Not keen to start minimum wage? One of the possible ways is to have a minimum wage. This is only intuitive and logical. Otherwise how would we reach the minimum sum? Do note that currently only 49% of ACTIVE members reached the minimum sum. However, if all CPF members are included, Leong Sze Han postulated that about 1 in 8 meet the minimum sum [link]. Those who do not meet are required to pledge and top up in cash, property or the remaining CPF accounts [link]. However, the PAP is not keen to have a minimum wage [link]. 2.  At least increase contributions? One other suggestion is to increase contributions. The 1st generation PAP had mandated contributions at the peak of 25% from BOTH employer and employee in 1985 [link]. More tweaks were made for recession. At the 3rd generation PAP, the contribution is now at the peak of 16% by employer and 20% employee. Is it possible to increase the contributions further? Otherwise, how many of us will reach the minimum sum? Perhaps, PAP should not have tweaked the contributions as it is difficult to replace the contribution rates to the good old days. Changes in contribution rates will hurt the older low income workers [link]. In short, it was pap’s myopia that led to today’s altered contribution rates. 3.  If not increase returns? The other recommendation is to increase the annual returns from all 3 accounts in CPF. This was, it will help Singaporeans to reach the minimum sum at a faster rate. This, like the first suggestion is intuitive. The alternative parties have proposed this [link for NSP, link for WP, link for SDP, link for RP, link for LSH] and even pap backbenchers [link]. However, the current PAP ministers have been quiet to date towards all these requests. Temasek/GIC show off returns of investment, but not keen to give back these back to CPF? There was an article (with owls) to show how much Temasek and GIC have gained since inception was 16% [link]. Reading this, it is indeed surprising that CPF is only getting 2.5% for OA and 4% for the rest. To layman , GIC/Temasek indirectly use the Singapore and CPF funds for investment. One of the quickest denials is that MOF will state that Temasek and GIC are not DIRECTLY investing the CPF monies [link]. Perhaps, the denial is to delink the 16% gained during inception and the 2.5% for the Orindary account. The way CPF reaches GIC and Temasek is really complicated [link] to the layman. For most of us, it is just that the end results that we are concern with, and yes our CPF is with Temasek and GIC for investment for simplicity. Don’t waste time to show on Sunday Times that people will not be able to manage money. Today, a page in the Sunday Times is dedicated to juxtapose news on how a Malaysian, who had close to $1 million, has now nothing in just one year [link]. This is a total waste of space where it can be dedicated to articles on how to improve our current CPF system or the related system of education and housing (or rather the lease of our flats - we do not own them!) Whither now? – Change governance and total revamp, not tweaks from the Highe$t paid Mini$ter$! After all these years, the CPF system is indeed confusing. This is worsened with all the questions that were partially answered with no clarity or simplicity. Are Singaporeans still going to cling onto the lost cause of PAP revamping the system? It is likely that PAP will tweak the CPF system as it has done all these years. The solution: Vote pap out! They are the highe$t paid mini$ter$ in the world! Yet, they could not propose the best solutions to this. The only way Singaporeans can push for a CPF system change is to change governance. Come 2015/16, Singaporeans have to unite for our last stand to vote PAP out! Only will our CPF system be clearer and simpler! Anson Be *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

We refer to the article “MediShield Life review: Premium increase much lower than feared” (Straits Times, Jun 27). Increase in premiums mostly absorbed by subsidies and top-ups? It states that “The increase in premiums which people will have to pay for the better benefits under MediShield Life will not be more than $355 a year, with most of it absorbed by various government subsidies and top-ups.” 111 to 189% increase in premiums? - The increase in premiums from 2019 compared to the current premiums, after the declining transitional subsidies range from 111% (from $9 to $19 monthly for the lower-income with household per capita income less than $1,100) to 189% (from $9 to $26 for the high income) for age 31 – 40. For age 51 – 60, the increase range from 28% (from $29 to $37 for the lower-income) to 83% (from $29 to $53 for the high income). So, how can an increase of up to 111% for the lower-income, and up to 189% for the higher income, be arguably called a “premium increase much lower than feared”? Premiums start to increase from end-2016? In respect of “in the first year of MediShield Life, starting end-2015, citizens will receive a subsidy of 80 per cent of the premium, followed by subsidies of 60, 40 and 20 per cent in each subsequent year” - Does it mean that the gradual increase in premiums will actually start from the second year (end-2016) – which may be even worse than what the tables indicate for the increased premiums from 2019 only? 1.65m inactive CPF members have enough Medisave to pay?  As to “the committee also added that all premiums are expected to remain within Medisave contributions and inflows and there will be no additional cash outlay required” - Since there are 1.65 million inactive CPF members out of the total 3.53 million CPF members – how many may not have sufficient money in their Medisave accounts to pay for their MediShield Life premiums? With regards to the Government providing almost S$4 billion in subsidies and financial support over the next five years – does it mean that the average subsidy per year is about $800 million? Govt still not spending any money on healthcare? If so, does it mean that from a cashflow perspective – the Government may still not be spending any money on healthcare, as the total annual contributions to Medisave and the annual interest on the total Medisave balances, may continue to exceed Government healthcare expenditure and all withdrawals from Medisave by way of direct medical expenses, MediShield, Private Integrated Plans and ElderShield premiums, etc? MediShield Life projections and surpluses? Finally, can the actuarial study on MediShield Life be made public, so that we can see whether future projections of premiums to claims will continue to give yearly surpluses since the MediShield scheme started, to the tune of an estimated more than $1 billion to-date?   S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian P.S. Come to the Return Our CPF – MediShield Life protest on 12 July, 4 to 6 pm at Speakers’ Corner    Read More →

ELECTORAL REFORM PROPOSAL: CONSTITUENCY RESERVED FOR MINORITY SCHEME Dear Members of the Media INVITATION TO ATTEND PRESS CONFERENCE Date: Wednesday, 2 July 2014 Time: 7.45pm to 9.30pm Place: NSP HQ 297 Jalan Besar Singapore 209007 Programme: 1. Presentation of NSP's Electoral Reform Proposal - The Constituency Reserved for Minority Scheme 2. Question & Answer Session BRIEF: A.  The Group Representative Constituency (GRC) Scheme was incepted to uphold multi-racialism by guaranteeing minority representation in Parliament. B.  However, the GRC Scheme hinders political competition, fortifies the incumbents and works against democracy. C.  NSP proposes that the GRC Scheme be abolished, the nation reverts to single member constituencies and the Constituency Reserved for Minority (CRM) Scheme be implemented. D.  The CRM Scheme will be as effective as the GRC Scheme to ensure a multi-racial Parliament but without exacting the heavy price on the democratic process as the GRC Scheme does. If you wish to attend, please email me at [email protected] and I will send you an embargoed copy of our CRM Paper for your review ahead of the Press Conference. Warm regards Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Secretary-General On behalf of the 15th Central Executive Committee of the NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY  Read More →