TR EMERITUS

I read Nicole Seah's FB post on the 'Roy vs PM Lee saga' [Link]. I have to admit I was somewhat surprised by her nonchalant attitude towards it. Coming from a potential MP and a 'self confessed opposition supporter' – a term I'm still trying to grasp – I expected a little more inside. To state that the whole defamation suit was 'blown out of proportion' and 'ridiculous' is an understatement no? How else would anyone define the leader of a country suing a layman over a blog? “I know a lot of opposition parties and supporters are positioning this as a repression of the 99% in Singapore and human rights and whatnot, but it really isn't.” 99% ? I think not. Now here's a statement that truly undermines the intelligence of those who are against some/most of the policies of the incumbent. We, the alternative, – a term I rather use, instead of 'opposition' – would rather certain tweaks instead of an overhaul of the current system. We are realistic. “Human rights and whatnots” in one sentence is rather brash. If that's how a human's right seems to her then I wonder about her true feelings towards the people she wanted to represent in 2011. “It’s really a stretch to claim that the government is cheating us of our money.” How would she know that? Is it as easy for anyone else to think otherwise? That the government is truly not cheating its people of their money? But is that not what that '99 %' would want to know? What Mr Roy Ngerng has done is admirable beyond doubt. Even though he got his facts wrong. But if he really got his facts wrong, why is our PM jumping? With the little resources he had, he has still opened a can of worms. Enough cans and worms to make our PM sit up! He has creaked the door open enough to take a peak into those skeletons. And just before those skeletons come falling out, our PM did the unimaginable. Think about that! “It's good for society to have the ability to express ourselves, but we also need to have discernment to look beyond seeing a situation in a simplistically black or white fashion.” With no disrespect, I had to laugh here. For a potential 'opposition' MP, have you ever played with the incumbents on a level playing field, where everything is truly black and white? I really thought she would have learned by now. They may wear white, but it's all gray when you deal with them. This 'saga', as she calls it, is proof. The Gizmo * Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

We refer to the infographics (above) on “CPF: How it works” published in Business Times. More questions? This latest information may raise some more questions about our Central Provident Funds (CPF). Why did it take so long to tell us? Since we now know that CPF is managed by the Singapore sovereign wealth fund, GIC – Why did it take so many decades to disclose this, despite questions over the years, including in Parliament? What was the annualised return? So, what was the GIC’s annualised returns in S$ terms, since its inception? Who is “really” bearing the risk? As to the Government bearing all the investment risk – are there any national pension funds that operate on such a rationale – not returning the actual excess returns to its citizens? IE. even if for a particular year where the investment returns are above projected figures at 6%, citizens will still receive 2.5% for that year. Even after deduction of the expenses of managing the funds, the loading expenses should not have come to such an amount. Linking pension rates to bank deposits? Are there any countries which peg or link their long term pension interest rates to short term bank deposit rates? Average overall rate of return on CPF accounts? Instead of telling us that the Ordinary Account (OA) pays 2.5%, the Special Account (SA), Retirement Account (RA) and Medisave pays 4%, plus an extra 1% on the first $60,000 – Why not give the average overall rate of interest paid in a year on all the types of CPF accounts totalling $260 billion? Is it about 3%? For the confused, say there are 5 account holders. Each with different amount of CPF funds in their account after 20 years of employment. The below table shows the interest rate earned by them in the respective accounts in their CPF. The extra 1% on the first $60,000 is credited to the MA, SA and the interest of the first $20,000 of the OA credited to SA. Above figures assume that the individual do not draw funds out for housing or medical fees. Update – Correction to the figures to the table. What was the average overall rate of interest on a year-to-year basis, for the last 25 years or so? By how much has Singaporeans been short-changed? How much in total has Singaporeans lost, in a sense, if we had received the actual historical returns of the GIC, instead of what is probably the lowest real rate of return of all national pension funds in the world, over the last 25 years or so? [Leong Sze Hian’s speech at CPF protest: Loss of $1 million by CPF account holders] How many inactive CPF members at age 55? With 1.88 million out of 3.53 million CPF members being active members – How many inactive CPF members were there who turned age 55 last year? How many met the Minimum Sums in cash? In this connection, with close to half of the active CPF members meeting the Minimum Sum including the property pledge – is the number of all Singaporeans at age 55 who were able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum of $155,000 and the Medisave Minimum Sum of $43,500 – a combined total of $198,500, entirely in cash from their CPF, in 2013, only about 1 in 8? SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian  Read More →

There have been many comments about the inflexibility, necessity and transparency of the Central Provident Fund (CPF). However, the scheme is beneficial, despite the perceived disadvantages. If the CPF scheme is done away with, then we must be really disciplined in order to save enough for the down payment of our property. All the grants related to the CPF would also be gone. Some ask why CPF pays only a 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent return on our money. They should also ask why banks, which also take our savings and invest them for a higher return, give us a meagre 0.1 per cent. The reason the increase in the Minimum Sum is higher than the prevailing inflation rate is that the Minimum Sum is locked in at a particular point in time. Retirement does not last just one year; it typically lasts 10 to 25 years. Since everyone is living longer, we should prepare a bit more. We use CPF schemes when they benefit us and raise a ruckus when they don't. Those who wish to withdraw all the money in their CPF accounts when they turn 55 should be made to declare that they will not ask the Government for assistance if they run out of money. Freedom comes with a price. We talk of the Government not listening, but the freedom to give feedback and criticism does not include making accusations that cannot be substantiated with facts. Mervyn Song Chee Khin *  Letter first appeared in ST Forum, 10 Jun, "CPF still a prudent scheme".  Read More →