Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Kopitiam Movement
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CPF is a good scheme if….
The CPF was a good scheme and can continue to be a good scheme with many people happily putting their life savings into it. What needs to be done is to modify the terms with more elements of options and choices and the removal of compulsion.
Let the original withdrawal age be at 55, or perhaps, this is a big retreat from its original position, to allow two withdrawal age, ie 55 and 60. The minimum sum schemes should be hanged or mothballed. There is no good reason to dictate that a person’s life savings should be retained against his wish even if by legislation. Where is the moral justification to mess around with other people’s money?
What the Govt can do is to provide a few options for the people to want to leave their life savings with the CPF after the withdrawal age. A 4% interest rate against a near zero bank interest rate would be very attractive for people who do not need the money urgently. And to make the scheme more attractive, those who left their money in the CPF after the withdrawal age should be allowed to make withdrawals any time if they so choose to. This will give confidence to people to keep their money in the CPF.
Not everyone will want to keep all their life savings in the CPF when they could withdraw them. But there will be a substantial number of people who would want to enjoy the higher interest rate or whatever attractive annuity schemes the CPF board could offer on a voluntary basis.
The Govt would have a much more happier group of people putting their money with the CPF as a matter of choice. There would be people who, no matter what, would not want to leave any money with the CPF. But when they can withdraw them at will, anytime, it makes sense for many to leave their money with the CPF. And there will be the odd balls that would squander their money away the very next day they took them out. These are social problems that the Govt would have to deal with and cannot be reasons to punish the whole population in a straight jacket policy. What kind of logic is that? Simple Simon?
Make the CPF an attractive scheme that the people would chose to keep their money by choice after the withdrawal age and be grateful to the Govt. The present schemes have started to smell and the rotting smell will only get worse and becomes unbearable. It is nearly there.
The Govt has a choice to do the right thing.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When no one is protesting outside Parliament
I could not remember which minister said this. When no one is protesting outside the Parliament House, it means the people are happy or have accepted the new policy. Or if no one is complaining, then the people are supporting the govt policy. Did anyone complain when the minimum sum schemes were introduced? I think no one did. So the Govt must have read the ground saying it was ok, the people supported the policy change.
Now some noises were made against the minimum sum schemes and no one can blame Chuan Jin for saying that this was implemented many years ago and what is happening to day, to raise the minimum sum to $155k, is just a continuation of a policy decision made many years back. And the minimum sums would continue to rise as part of the plan to keep up with inflation to ensure that the people’s savings in their CPF will stay at the value of $120k when it was first decided. Sounds very logical and very correct and very right.
7 Jun in Hong Lim Park has changed something. About 5000 people turned up to support the protest against the minimum sum schemes and several other conditions tied to the CPF scheme. Would this make any difference? Would the Govt accept this as a protest by the people and their unhappiness with the CPF scheme? Oh, the protestors did not march to Parliament House. So no count? Or would 5000 be seen as a drop in the ocean, nothing to worry about? Or would it be a case of too little too late. The decision was made many years back, cannot change anymore.
How would the Govt make of the Return My CPF protest? If it is seen as a small incident, a small anomaly, and all systems go, what would it take to make sure the Govt get the message that the people are unhappy and disagree with the govt policy on the CPF? Would more people turning up at Hong Lim make any difference?
There will be another protest on the same subject on 12 Jul. Could this be the opportune time to reconfirm, double confirm the message so that the Govt understood and do some changes to the CPF scheme? Should the protestors march to Parliament House after the rally in Hong Lim? How many people would be needed to make a difference, 12,000 or 20,000? The Govt will be reading the attendance to decide if the people are with or against the policy.
Or would it need to take a GE to change?
By the look of things, the schemes within the CPF are as good as cast in stone. The minimum sums would be there and would keep on increasing. The withdrawal age will keep on increasing, the premiums for Medishield Life will likely to increase after the initial years, and so would be the premiums for CPF Life to keep up with inflation. And the interest rates of 2.5% and 4% will be the norm with the occasional extra 1%.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CPF issue took down a minister in 1984
In 1984, Howe Yoon Choong, then Minister of Health, produced a paper, Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged, with the main objective of delaying withdrawal of CPF savings from age 55 to 60. This created an up roar with the workers telling the trade unions they were strongly against it. The feedback was so negative that it led to his stepping down from politics.
Though the report was stating a demographic problem that was waiting to happen, it was wrong news at the wrong time. It is always never pleasant to be a messenger of bad news. Often the messenger got fried. Howe’s recommendation was a simple delay from age 55 to 60, but it was bad enough to bring down a serving minister for suggesting it.
Since then, several changes had taken place in the CPF scheme. Withdrawal age was pushed back to 60, 62, now 65 and may go higher. The withdrawal sum is no longer a lump sum but in the forms of drips and drapes, an annuity payable monthly. Then there are now two minimum sum schemes that are holding back a huge sum of the people’s savings, at current rate, about $198k with the Medisave included. In addition, the CPF members are compulsorily required to purchase CPF Life annuity insurance and an akan datang Medishield Life medical insurance.
Compare these changes to what Howe Yoon Choong had proposed the delay from 55 to 60 was nothing. How did the Govt managed to get so far without an uprising or an up roar like the time of Howe? Maybe the people did not protest. Maybe the trade unions did not protest. Maybe the protests were not fed back to the Govt. Maybe the Govt simply ignored the protests. Whatever, things seemed to have gone down well superficiality, or quietly. No protest meant the people agreed to the changes.
7 Jun told a different story. It was like all the problems and anger were bottled up and just exploded. The can of worms was ripped apart and no one can close it anymore. The issues and unhappiness are in the open. No complaints, no protest, no demonstration? What is real?
Is the anger is real? If the misgivings and unhappiness are real, would this CPF thing bring down another minister? Or would it bring down instead a Prime Minister? I think not. I think it could be worse. Everything that is wrong with the CPF has come together as one big problem and is blowing up at one go.
Please feel free to disagree. I know, many would think this assessment is an over exaggeration of a small problem or no problem. Don’t make a molehill out of a mountain. Oops, don’t make a mountain out of a molehill. It will fizzle off and nothing more would be heard of it. Life will return to normal. And the minimum sums will just keep piling up as planned.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The desperate cries of a pathetic 76 year old aunty

Hri Kumar did not bargain for it. He did not invite non constituent residents to his honest conversation on the CPF. But his resident, a 76 year old aunty, was there with a plate of genuine misgivings. At 76 year old, she belongs to the generation that should have withdrawn all her CPF savings when she reached 55 and has nothing more to do with the CPF. I think she chose to leave some savings in the CPF for safe keeping. She did not know that once left inside the CPF, her savings would be subject to the changes in CPF rulings, and now her money is treated just like other younger CPF members, locked up and cannot be withdrawn unlike the old terms. She did not bargain for it. CPF is the safest place on earth to keep her money. She trusted the govt with her money. And CPF did not fail her. Her money is very safe with the CPF but can only be withdrawn subject to CPF’s rules and regulations.

Hri Kumar did not bargain for her presence and her untold story of pain and struggle to get her money back from the CPF. She even revealed that her money in a local bank was withdrawn without her consent, to pay her property tax to the Inland Revenue. People are now questioning whether a bank has the right to take money from the depositors without the depositor’s consent and hand it to another govt agency.

The plight of this aunty is unusual and should not happen at all. Why must she be subject to the new CPF regulations? When she opted to leave her savings in the CPF, did the CPF explain to her that the money will be affected by new regulations? Or when new regulations came into force, did the CPF give her a chance to withdraw her money before it comes into effect, or it was too troublesome to do so? This is the same as the arbitrary transfer of money from the OA to the RA when a CPF member reaches 55. And the CPF did not bother to inform the members that once the money is transferred to the RA it cannot be used to pay for HDB mortgages. Should not the CPF inform the members as this is a major policy change and affects the finances of its members? Many members were caught by this unpleasant surprise and ended up having to fork out cash when they had more than enough money in the CPF to service their mortgages.

Why did the CPF think it not necessary to inform the members of such policy change? And why were there no CPF officers present in the conversation to answer any technical or specific question concerning CPF policies and regulations? This is a public conversation conducted by the govt or MP to answer the questions of the people. And the aunty rightly asked and expected CPF officers to be there to give her answers to her queries.

A public conversation is unlike a private conversation among friends. Many people have had many frank and honest conversations with their friends and did not need the presence of some authoritative figures around. They knew that their conversations were just talking cock sessions with no requirements to solve any issues or problems. Yes they were talk cock and sing song sessions. But the public and honest conversation on the CPF, organised by an MP, cannot just be a talk cock sessions, oops, my apologies, cannot be just a mere conversation. It was a serious conversation and if there were problems that needed to be ironed out, they must be done. And if there were questions to be answered, it would be best for CPF officers to be present to answer them. It is unfair to expect a MP to know the details of CPF policies even if he is a super talent that is supposed to know everything.

Would this 76 year old aunty get her CPF money back when the money should have been returned to her when she hit 55? It is so sad to see a dignified ex school teacher begging the Govt to return her life savings in the CPF. Can you believe that?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – All the right reasons to keep your money safe and sound
The withdrawal age needs to be raised and more money needs to be kept in the minimum sums of RA and Medisave Accounts. Without raising the withdrawal age, without raising the minimum sums, the lives of the CPF members will be adversely affected, maybe cannot retire, no money for medical bills.
Let’s revisit the right reasonings for these good policy changes.
1. People are going to live longer. Many people will live till 80, 90 or older. So they must have more money in their retirement savings. Any statistic to show how many will live to 80 and above and how many will not live to 60 or 65?
2. Inflation will destroy the value of their savings. So the amount to be saved must be regularly adjusted and pegged to inflation rate. This reasoning very good. If inflation every year goes up by 10%, the amount to be kept in the minimum sum must go up accordingly. Nevermind if the salary is inflation adjusted.
3. The people need $120k in their retirement account, excluding their Medisave Account, can’t remember which year this $120k was based on, to be able to live a comfortable retirement life. I dunno how they got this amount, I only eat porridge and pickled vegetables. And I don’t go holidays, I don’t go to theatres, I don’t go to foodcourts or restaurants, I just stay at home and do nothing by the time I hit 70, if I am that lucky. I think I don’t need so much money to live on.
4. This one very important, some will squander their retirement money away on women, wine and songs, and the casinos. I think this one not applicable to me. I am vegetarian and living like a monk.
5. People after 55 years are incapable of looking after their own money, irresponsible and will either spend and spend, or will be cheated of their money. Really?
6. If these people squandered their savings, no one will be there to help them. Don’t expect the Govt to be there, don’t expect their children or family to provide the financial support. I believe my children and grandchildren will abandon me on the streets. And I can depend on my blogger friends to buy me kopi.
7. Putting the money in the CPF is the safest place on earth. Money will not run away. I got no money to live now, where got money to put in the CPF?
8. Interest rate also very high. Higher than inflation?
9. And it is all done for your own good. What good can it be if cannot touch the money?

What do you think? I have added some comments based on my own situation and needs. Not sure how applicable are these right reasonings to you people.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How low can you go? It is a shame!
The cries of the 76 year old aunty did not go unheard. Her sad and pathetic tales, for begging in public, for the return of her life time savings in the CPF is now free chowder for the unscrupulous to ridicule her. This has made Andrew Loh feeling so disgusted that he had to write something about it. And here is what Andrew wrote.
‘Andrew Loh: I never post things from this odious PAP page but this, I find, is well below the belt and is totally irresponsible.
I’ve blanked out the address (road name) of her house which FAP had included at the bottom of the picture.
The old lady is asking for her CPF money back. What does where she lives have anything to do with it?
I hope the PAP will have some decency and condemn this by FAP, and find out how FAP came to know of her address and even a picture of her house.’
[Source]: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=822788644412753&set=a.196460927045531.49833.100000448763402&type=1
Like they said, the fish rots from the head. When the head is rotting, the body will follow suit. The plight of this senior citizen is not political. The issue of the people’s money locked up in the CPF is not political. It is about the people wanting their money back. It is about the rights to one’s own property, in this case money.
Politicians may want to treat this as a political football. But people, ordinary people, must not be embroiled in this issue to bash the hapless elderly lady when all she was asking is for the return of her money that rightly fully belongs to her. Have some decency, have a little sense of right and wrong.
Don’t be an asshole! This is a very bad reflection of the kind of people backing them. People who condone such despicable acts are no better than them. Don’t ridicule an old lady for the sake of scoring political points. She has the right to demand for the return of her money. It is her money!
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PRs versus citizens – taking a cue from Jeff Cueller
‘Yahoo! Finance Singapore, 17 Jun 2014
What enrages you more? The fact you can’t cash out your CPF account unless you renounce your citizenship, or that Singapore PRs can withdraw all of their CPF funds And HDB sales proceeds with them when they leave Singapore.
Understandably you’re pissed off because it’s not fair that someone from another country cant take part in your social security program(CPF), use it as a glorified savings account, and withdraw all of it when he/she moves back home.
Let’s not forget the property issue as well. A PR flipping his/her property before leaving Singapore can easily make several hundred thousand dollars – more than enough to buy a huge landed property in 75% of the world.’
And to cap this with a little more icing, PRs that have withdrawn their CPF could return to work and start the whole process all over again. And the Sinkies are banging their heads against the wall, crying and begging for the return of their life savings locked up in the CPF. Why PRs are so privileged and citizens are not?
What Jeff Cueller did not mention are the advantages attached to citizenship, like the minimum sums schemes in the Medisave and Retirement Accounts. The Govt is so worried that the citizens would squander their life savings away if they allow for premature withdrawal and thus depriving the citizens the orgasm they duly deserved for staying in for the full duration. This satisfaction is not extended to the PRS. The PRs can take out prematurely and miss all the fun or they die their business. The PRs think they are very smart. The Govt is only thinking of the good of the citizens, to ensure that they will all retire very rich, if they ever retire at all. The PRs are likely to end up poor by squandering their CPF savings in the casinos or in Batam and Bintang. If Sinkies were to squander away their monies, the Govt would have to help them out at least with hawker food.
Many citizens are so enthralled by this great saving schemes that they do not mind keeping their money in the CPF to feel rich and safe, with no fear that their savings will run away. Oops, many mean 60% who are strong believers of this great scheme and are happy to leave their savings there forever. Jeff Cueller is misinterpreting the values of PRs versus citizenship.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roy Ngerng’s case – Rumour mongering galore
With the defamation case against Roy still waiting for its appearance in court, the kopitiams are flooded with all kinds of rumours. I must caution all readers and listeners to such rumours to be guarded and not to take them as truth until they are verified. Just received a post that is posted in newnation.sg. This is definitely a rumour with half truths. Here it is.
‘CPF blogger Roy Ngerng’s potted plant outside his HDB flat along the corridor has been investigated for the suspected breeding of dengue mosquitoes.
This after a barrage of sanctions have supposedly been levied on Ngerng, where he was sacked from Tan Tock Seng Hospital yesterday for using Facebook when he should be nursing and speaking on a grass patch over the weekend at Hong Lim Park.
And there are murmurings online that his hawker father has been called out for cleanliness issues at his stall.
Singaporeans from all walks of life, who do the mozzie wipeout steps, said they feel the shit this time has really hit the fan.
Hong Gan Leow, a local, said: “First, he got fired. Then his dad kenna arrow for cleanliness. Then now his potted plant suspected of spreading dengue.”
“When they’re out to get you, they’re out to get you. Wonder what would happen next? Roy Ngerng’s dog investigated for suspected rabies and quarantined?”
At press time, Ngerng’s dog has been investigated for rabies and quarantined.’
The only truth in the above post is the sacking of Roy by TTSH. I have no confirmation on the part that the ‘char kway teow’ stall of Roy’s father had been subject to inspection by the NEA or his plants being investigated for mosquito breeding. The civil servants are highly regarded for their integrity and would not be so stupid to conduct such investigations at a time like this to put them in a compromising position, subject of rumour mongering, and have their integrity questioned. I don’t believe in such rumours and people are advised not to believe in them.
Should there be any inspections done, it must be coincidental and part of the inspection programme. There is nothing to it and nothing to do with the defamation. Definitely cannot be as it is so easy for the public to put one and one together and cry foul. Knowing the political sensitivity of the defamation suit, the likely thing to happen, even if an inspection schedule had been planned months ahead to check on the cleanliness of hawker stalls and mosquito breeding, the civil servants would be smart enough to delay the inspections to avoid casting the govt in a bad light.
People should read the above post in newnation as a political satire or a political joke at most. I don’t think any civil servant in his right mind would do such a thing as it would do more harm to the image of the govt than good. Trust our civil servants to do the right thing.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A glaring misgiving that was conveniently ignored and forgotten

A controversial honest discussion on the CPF had a troubled beginning when Roy Ngerng, Kenneth Jeyaretnam and a few others invited themselves to the party only to be disinvited. Kenneth somehow still managed to gatecrash the party only to create more controversies arising from his 8 point remarks on Hri Kumar’s ‘dishonest’ honest public conversation. And Hri Kumar returned the compliments by making his own statements on what he did not say as what Kenneth said he said. Now there is an ongoing big ding dong battle between the two key contestants of the honest conversation.

The prelude to this battle was a woman with an amazing cheongsam that was videoed while making some rude remarks on a 76 year old aunty making a desperate cry for the return of her CPF money. The whole social media was on fire with netizens throwing nasty things at the cheongsam woman who was revealed as a PAP grassroot leader by the name of Jean Ang. Netizens had a field day digging out everything they could find on Jean Ang and calling her all kinds of unpleasant names. And before the furore died out, the woman who took the video of the cheongsam woman that went viral was knocked down by a car and landed in hospital. More rumours appeared about how this accident could be linked to the video. In the meantime nothing was reported in the main media despite the uproar in the net.

What was depressing is that the poor 76 year old aunty was totally forgotten. Netizens were angry with the cheongsam woman for her rude gestures. Hri Kumar and Kenneth were crossing swords with each other over who said what. No one seems to bother about the reason for the desperate plea of the aunty. She was inconsequential. There are more important issues and scores to settle.

Irene Yap’s problem was that her money was locked up in her CPF account. Under all circumstances, anyone of her age should not have any more entanglements with the CPF. She should have withdrawn all her money from the CPF and ended her relationship there and then. Her fault was to choose to leave some of her money in the CPF to earn higher interest. Her fault was not knowing that once the money was left in the CPF, it would be subject to all the new regulations rolled out by the CPF. She cried in vain for the return of her money. Hri Kumar’s best reply to her was that she knew the law and regulations and that’s it. Her money will stay where it is and nothing else can be done. And no one in the govt, so far, has said anything about her case and it seems that there is nothing else she could do or no one would be doing anything. Is there anyone listening to her plight? Or she only has herself to blame as the law is the law?

Where is the empathy, where is the kindness, where is the compassion for an old lady caught by the hard side of the law? Is there anyone listening? Or everyone is deaf? Does anyone feel that something could be done for her? Does anyone walking the corridors of power think she deserves some assistance? Or is it a case of how much does she wants, $500, $5,000 or to return her everything in the CPF? Is there merit to her grievance?

Irene Yap is not alone. There could be many in the same situation as her. They are an anomaly in the system, or in a system that took them for granted, and this should be rectified to let them live in peace in their golden years. Why made them live in misery and anger for the want of their money back?

Is Irene Yap’s grievance important at all?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.


Last edited by redbean on Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Irene Yap’s case, a follow up reported in ST

I just read the ST this morning and there is a report on Irene Yap’s case. According to Amy Khor, CPF is trying to help Irene to withdraw her savings. However, Irene still has to abide by CPF’s regulation, ie that she must leave a minimum sum or pledge her property to the CPF before she can take out all her savings.

What is this minimum sum that is being introduced by the CPF that effectively said the people owe the CPF a sum of money and if this sum is not placed in the CPF, either in cash or a pledge with a property, then a sum equivalent to the minimum sum must be kept in the CPF.

Two points to this, the first of course is why should a retiree be compelled to keep a huge sum of money with the CPF when he should be living his golden years and enjoying his lifelong savings? Oh, he must keep the money, a minimum sum that is growing every year and now about $200k, so that he would not be a burden to the govt in case he squanders his money with mei meis or in Batam. It is for his own good. The govt is so caring. See my middle finger? I can’t hold it down.

The other point is that Irene is from a generation that should not be affected by all the new regulations introduced before her time. The minimum sum should not be applicable to her and those of her generation and to several generations. It should not be applicable to everyone if one rejects this ‘govt is your father’ and has the right to keep your money for your own good idiotic reason.

The CPF is the people’s money for their retirement and how they want to spend their money in retirement is none of the govt’s business. Don’t give people the crap that if they squandered away their money who is to pay for them to live on? Not the govt for sure. This is not a welfare state. And do not insult the intelligence of the people to find their way to survive without the need to beg the govt for a meal in the hawker centre, foodcourt or the restaurant.

From Amy’s and CPF’s reasoning in the ST, they are all so willing to help Irene. But the likelihood of Irene getting all her money back from the CPF is as good as zilch. She must comply with the minimum sum requirements, ie a ransom that she has to pay to the CPF. Actually no, they don’t call it ransom. They call it for your good or for the good of the members that they must make the people pay out front inn the form of the minimum sum.

So Irene’s case is as good as close and Irene can kpkb till the cow comes home. Amy Khor and the CPF will be on their knees trying to help her. I am so touch, but the answer is still no. Because CPF rules say so.

Irene should pray for a miracle to get all her money back from the CPF.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.


Last edited by redbean on Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Retirement fund or fund for a rainy day
A blogger b said that the CPF fund is for retirement and not meant for a rainy day. This is a very simple way of saying what the CPF money is all about. It is for retirement. It is not to be kept forever like the nation’s reserves, waiting for that rainy day that may not come. Oops, our CPF is also classified as the nation’s reserve, so how? If it is the nation’s reserves then it is right to keep it forever for that rainy day right?
Can I say wrong? Everyone who contributes to the CPF never think of their savings becoming the nation’s reserves to be kept for a day when the country needs it, not you need it, it could be both. The people putting money into the CPF are very clear that it is for their retirement. A retirement fund is simple to be returned to them when they retired. When did they retire? It used to be 55. Then change to 60, then to 62, then to 65. What happens if retirement age is raised to 80? Possible, can? 100?
At this moment, retirement age is 65, I think. So rightfully the money must be returned to the people to use for their retirement. Tiok boh? Is the Medisave Account, with a huge minimum sum, a retirement fund? How did this animal come about? Why shouldn’t this be returned to the people when they retired? Or is this another fund to wait for a rainy day? If wait for rainy day, then cannot take out until the rainy day comes. If it comes, be grateful of this rainy day fund. But it may never come.
How many people put their savings in the CPF for a rainy day? Who changed the CPF from a retirement fund into a rainy day fund?
There is no point putting money into a retirement fund when you cannot take it out when you retire. It defeats the meaning of a retirement fund. Can anyone see the difference that I am making, or what b said? Is it so confusing? Who is still unable to make out the difference between a retirement fund and a fund for rainy day? A fund that you cannot take out when you retired is not a retirement fund.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another protest at Hong Lim tomorrow
We would like to inform that we will be having an event on Saturday, 5th July at Hong Lim Park from 4 to 7pm. Subject of the event is titled – “Is our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong the right person to lead Singapore?”
For this event, we have invited 10 speakers from all walks of life to talk about the subject matter. As we know, the prime minister has recently launch a defamation suit against its own citizen, Mr Roy Ngerng. There are legitimate calls from certain sections of the community for our Prime Minister to step down from office.
Most of the speakers on that day will be ordinary Singaporeans who are either frustrated with the policies in place or are personally affected by it. Hence, the event will showcase arguments on whether the prime minister is the right person to lead the nation.
Link to the event page can be found in FB – https://www.facebook.com/events/657651847623510/?ref_dashboard_filter=upcoming&source=1....
We cannot allow a leader who has no competency and heart to lead the country. We cannot allow a leader who is devoid of compassion to continue and pile on miseries towards citizens any longer.
It’s time for him to step down from office and allow a true leader with the appropriate skills, knowledge, competency and foresight to take over and lead Singapore to the next era….
Hosted by William Lim and Osman Sulaiman.
The above is posted in TRE. I am not sure who is the organizer of this event. This is the first time that a protest is directed at a person, in this case the PM, Hsien Loong. The earlier protests were about issues and policies. Just wonder what kind of crowd it will draw.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Only 200 think Hsien Loong not fit to be PM
The protest rally last Saturday at Hong Lim only attracted a small crowd of about 200 people. The issue was that Hsien Loong was not fit to be the PM. The keynote speaker was Goh Meng Seng who listed a number of points on why he thought Hsien Loong was not fit to be the PM.
Looking at the number of people listening to him, it was apparent that only 200 people agreed with him. Only 200 people thought Hsien Loong was not fit to be the PM. This compares very poorly to a population of nearly 4m people who did not turn up and thus did not support the motion of the protest rally. In other words, Hsien Loong is fit to be the PM.
It would be a different matter if there was a 10,000 crowd or better, 26,000 crowd like the Pink Party, then the message would be different. A 6,000 crowd at the first PWP Protest was also too small to make any difference and 6.9m target would soon be a reality. A 200 protest crowd in this rally is like saying the opposite, the majority of the people are happy with Hsien Loong’s leadership and think him fit to be the PM.
For Goh Meng Send and those who have doubts about his suitability, the poor turnout is double confirmed that Hsien Loong is doing well.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Occupy Central – A subversive dimension
The streets of Hongkong erupted with Occupy Central when more than 10,000 protestors put on a show of people power to challenge the centre of power in Beijing. The call or civil disobedience came from an unassuming law don, Dr Benny Tai. Dr Tai was propelled to stardom with his article ‘Civil disobedience, the most lethal weapon’ in his otherwise not very well read weekly column in the newspaper. He is now a household name in Hongkong with the pro democracy movement.
The 10,000 strong march, to break the law, came after a mock referendum held to vote for the right to determine who should be the CEO of Hongkong. According to Hongkong correspondent, Li Xueying, Dr Tai was trying to spur democracy by turning to subversion. Could such a tactic be applicable to Sin City? Would any blogger or columnist dare to incite subversion and challenge the govt in its policies?
What could be certain is the publicity and politicial stardom, like Roy Ngerng, to be bestowed on the subversive writer. Maybe he/she could be another household name like Roy Ngerng. But that is not all.
I doubt there will be anyone who would be tempted or encouraged by Dr Tai to gain publicity in this manner and to spur democracy by calling for a break the law protest like Occupy Raffles Place. Hey, it was done before but there were no 10,000 protestors, not even 10 turned up at Raffles Place. And no one gained instant fame. And the state of democratic movement remains the same as before. There is no tolerance for democractic movement in a democracy. Or is a democracy to start with?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14074
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – Monthly protest rally at Hong Lim
Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng will be holding monthly protest rally at the Hong Lim Park on the CPF issues. One immediate problem that comes to mind is their ability to continue to attract the number of people to Hong Lim on a sustained basis. Last Saturday’s rally was a test case for the people’s willingness to keep going to Hong Lim to show their support for Hui Hui and Roy and the return of their CPF money. It was tentative and could have been a big disappointment if only 200 people turned up. The possibility was there given the fact that it came so close to the last protest and with so little publicity on the event. It turned out that the crowd was there to keep the fire burning.
From past experience, it has been proven that Sinkies would kpkb for a while and would soon lose interests in whatever they were unhappy about and the whole thing was forgotten with time. There was no follow up and all issues died a natural death. Would this CPF issue die a natural death like everything else? Would the people persist with greater tenacity to keep the issue and pressure on the govt to make changes to the scheme? If the support for the protest rally dies off, then all things will return to normal. And the govt will know that Hong Lim Speakers Corner had served its wonderful role, to let the people let out steam and the temperature will cool down as expected.
23 Aug for the next protest rally is just a short while away. Hui Hui and Roy are following the practice of biting and not letting go, like a rotweiller. It is like taking a bite and sinking the teeth in. Saying sorry is not enough, must also explain. Keeping rubbing in, keep repeating to put the victim under pressure. This is how to keep an issue alive. Not following through, a couple of kpkb sessions, will not achieve any results.
So, would Hui Hui and Roy’s new approach, to keep pounding the road, keep hammering on the issue, to keep it alive, work? It may if they can gather enough crowd to be at Hong Lim. It may if the people do not get tired and start to give Hong Lim a miss when the protest rally is on. How long would Hui Hui and Roy be able to keep the flame burning? It is not easy even if an issue like CPF touches everyone’s pocket where it hurts.
Would the daft Sinkies behave differently this time and would also bite in and refuse to let go, and keep coming back to Hong Lim to kpkb every month?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions