TR EMERITUS

The CPF system is in the news what with the President’s Address, which had hinted at further tweaks to the CPF system to enhance the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, and Roy Ngerng’s claims* that the CPF system amounts to theft, something I’ve pointed out even before the PM threatened to sue him for defamation. Now we have an expert on Orchard Rd being sovereign territory where Pinoys cannot trespass, writing on the topic. Well I never tot all this would happen when a long time ago I’ve blogged on the flaws in CPF Life. Black box/ No benefits illustration Various people (self included, a retired senior bank executive, and a scholar working in a GLC ) who have the choice of choosing between the CPF Life Plans and the Minimum Sum scheme, have opted for the latter because the CPF Life Plans’ calculations are in a black-box. As a financial planner pointed out, “The CPF Life Plans come without a benefits illustration, something the law requires insurance agents and financial planners to show life insurance buyers”. The plans could be better, but we just don’t know. (http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/best-cpf-life-plan/) Our money but CPF Life solvency is our problem There is a provision in the law governing the CPF Life Plans which states that payouts are contingent on the Plans being solvent. This is because premiums that are paid in to get the annuities are pooled and collectively invested. If the plan you chose doesn’t have enough money to pay out, you die. This is unlike the [Minimum Sum] scheme, where account holders are legally entitled to the monies in their CPF accounts … (http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/best-cpf-life-plan/) The government has said the provision on solvency is only a precaution unlikely ever to be used. If so, why have it? This is a peace of mind issue. It was Gan who made this assurance when he was MoM. BTW, the above link analyses which CPF Life Plan is closest to the Minimum Sum scheme in terms of payouts. It’s the basic plan which is a deferred annuity plan. And here’s a constructive, nation-building way of using yr CPF (if you disagree with Roy Ngerng that CPF is theft by govt). Using yr CPF account as a savings account http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/using-yr-cpf-oa-as-a-savings-account/. I’m sure Roy can get for his parents better rates than the 4% and 2.5% available from CPF, but I can’t. So i leave my surplus cash with the CPF Board. ——---------------- *        Here’s what an ex senior EDB man with progressive tendencies posted on Facebook: My impression is that quite a number of us have learned to avoid sharing stuff by sites such as STOMP, Heart Truths, and TRS after having been embarrassed by their ridiculous accusations afterwards (myself included). I think that these fringe views have actually caused serious readers to become more discerning. To take legal action, as this post points out, is double edged. Ironically, it confers a certain ‘legitimacy’. I used to take bus 36 to work, and an obviously mentally ill man would get on around Esplanade. He would complain loudly about many of our politicians and mutter to himself his plan to deal with them. Most people avoided eye contact. I always just tried to get off the bus without provoking him further. Nobody ever tried to debate him. Roy’s thesis that the govt steals our CPF is an example of para-facts, nuggets of pseudo-truth, edited, wrenched from context, or simply invented from whole cloth. People like Uncle Leong (and self) have described how the CPF system works long before Roy did. I once even wrote, One noted local economist has said that the government is effectively pocketing the difference between the returns it gets from investing abroad and the returns it pays on our CPF accounts: a carry trade arbitrage. Borrow low and invest for higher returns. http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/how-we-fund-our-swfs/ He never got sued even though it was said publicly. Cynical Investor Source: Thoughts of a Cynical Investor  Read More →

Mr Lim, who is NTUC's secretary-general, disclosed that employers had in fact wanted to drop the minimum amount altogether, saying that wages were already going up in the tight labour market. -- PHOTO: ST FILE We refer to the article “NTUC wanted more workers to get minimum pay hike” (Straits Times, Jun 2). Fewer workers earning less than $1,000? It states that “Still, despite the hiccup this year, he said that the NTUC is happy that the wages council’s efforts to raise low-wage workers’ pay have borne fruit, saying that fewer workers earn below $1,000 now. 150,000 or 114,100 earning less than $1,000 in 2012? The Manpower Ministry told The Straits Times yesterday that there were 117,500 local full-time workers earning $1,000 and below last year, down from 150,000 in 2012.” The above statistics are puzzling, because the total number working full-time and earning less than $1,000 was 114,100 in 2012, according to the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) Labour Force in Singapore 2012 (Table 25, page 126). Earning less than $1,000 increased 3%? Now that we know from the subject news report that the number of full-time workers earning less than $1,000 was 117,500 last year – does it mean that it actually increased by about 3% from 114,100 in 2012? Those earning less than $1,000 keep increasing? There was an increase of about 3.4 per cent for 2012, from 2011′s 110,400 (in spite of NWC recommendations and not even accounting for inflation). 238,000 (full-time and part-time) earning less than $1,000? The number of locals (full-time and part-time) earning less than $500 and between $500 and $1,000 was 51,300 and 186,700, respectively in 2012. This means that a total of 238,000 locals (full-time and part-time) earned less than $1,000. Now, this is gross income which includes the employees’ CPF contribution of up to about 20 per cent. So, the net take-home pay may be even lower. So, arguably, if the NWC recommendations had been effective in the past, and the labour movement was doing its job – the number of workers earning less than $1,000 should be declining. Those earning below $1,000 increased in 2012 and 2013? Unfortunately (for low-wage Singaporeans), the number earning less than $1,000 in 2012, actually increased by about 1 per cent from 2011′s 236,300. If you factor in inflation for 2012, which was about 4.6 per cent (not to mention the NWC’s recommendation that year to increase by $50) – the situation is pathetic. “Wayang” “broken tape recorder”? Don’t you get sick and tired of listening to all these talks and wayangs all these years, about trying so hard to raise the wages of the lower-income, like a “broken tape recorder” – but the number earning less than $1,000 keeps increasing!   SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian    Read More →

In the crowded political scene of opposition parties, the emergence of another new political party would definitely raise eyebrows. Any political watcher would have a lot of things to say, of doubts and doubts about the doubts they have created over such a party. I could have written another ten pages or articles to create a veil of uncertainties and smokescreens on this new party. I choose to look at it from its relevance to the political situation existing now. Singapore is facing several very serious political changes that could turn into major political crises in the future if allowed to go unchecked. The most crucial change that Singaporeans are facing, I mean Singaporeans, no, I mean true blue Singaporeans, not the instant trees, and not the locals, is their decimation and eventual existence as an absolute minority in the country their forefathers have fought and worked so hard for, a legacy that would not be theirs to inherit. What am I saying, true blue Singaporeans, i.e, born and bred here Singaporeans are already an absolute minority today! This is a part of the statistics that is best left unsaid. What is worst is the fate of these true blue Singaporeans, their economic and social well beings. Are they getting a fair share, a bigger share of their inheritance? No? What inheritance? This is just an island and anyone who claims to be more meritocratic, who claims to be cleverer, should take over this island. It does not belong to true blue Singaporeans. It belongs to the people of the world!??? The children of the first wife is now being treated worse than the children of the mistresses, worse than the children of the step mothers, worse than the children of unknown mothers, children of wild oats. And these children that have invaded their home, oops, not invaded but invited to the home, are bullying and discriminating the children of the legitimate first wife. Should the children of the first wife accept their fate, to be run down, to be ousted and booted out from their home? The newcomers and traitors are telling Singaporeans to get out if they cannot stand the heat. Is there anyone championing the cause and the interests of the children of the first wife, the true blue Singaporeans? This is where Singaporeans First Party comes in. There is no political party in the island today that is standing up to fight and defend the rights and interests of Singaporeans as their main objective. They are all intoxicated by the silly mantra of meritocracy regardless of nationality. Or is it meritocrazy? I like the ideology of the Singaporeans First Party spelt out in its manifesto. For the first time, a political party is using a loud hailer to speak for the interests of true blue Singaporeans, to fight for the interests of true blue Singaporeans without having to feel ashamed of it. The interests of true blue Singaporeans have been eroded over the years and must be stopped before it is too late. I hope no one is going to stand up and accuse the Singaporeans First Party as xenophobic, as anti-foreigners. And this Party is aware of this trick and has clarified that it is not xenophobic. Yes, being pro-Singaporeans is not xenophobic. Only traitors or anti-Singaporeans would say such a thing, to denounce Singaporeans for wanting to protect the interests of Singaporeans. I wish this party well and to live up to its manifesto as a pro-Singaporeans party. I wish all the other Singaporean political parties would take the cue from this Party to sing the same song. Singapore is for Singaporeans First. And I hope this Party would be able to work closely with the other parties to put up a good fight for the good of Singaporeans. The Singaporeans First Party has its work cut out for it. It has a very crucial task ahead, to protect and serve the interests of Singaporeans first, not locals, not foreigners first. Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at mysingaporenew.blogspot.com.  Read More →