12th July 2014, 09:38 AM
Re: CPF Minimum Sum
Why is the sample size so large? It skews the results unfavourably.
12th July 2014, 12:40 PM
The govt also admit that the cpf system is not perfect. Nothing is perfect in this world anyway.
But it serves the general purpose for the population. It just needs some more fine tuning to address new challenges. Today's challenges are different from what the old generation had
12th July 2014, 06:49 PM
Re: CPF Minimum Sum
Dudes CPF does not exist for the sake of having CPF.
The purpose of CPF is to solve a set of problems.
What are those problems? What/who caused those problems?
Is CPF the only solution to those problems?
Can those problems be solved in other ways without bringing in CPF?
Last edited by ArchRival; 12th July 2014 at 06:59 PM.
16th July 2014, 02:27 AM
16th July 2014, 09:29 AM
Re: CPF Minimum Sum
Have not been following this thread for the past 2-3 weeks. Thanks to those who support and agree with what I said.
So yes, I think when we argue, we have to do it with a reasonable mind. The problem is, there are whiners and those who don't think sensibly. And when everyone, those with good as well as those with bad intentions come together, the actual message is not put across sensibly to the government. Then of course, we lose and are made to look stupid.
As I reiterate, people who keep arguing they want their CPF money back may be barking up the wrong tree. We pay low taxes so we shouldn't expect the government to protect us all the way like in other countries. If the CPF money could be withdrawn completely, I can imagine how it could be spent unwisely by many (think of gamblers, for example!) and we would end up with greater social issues.
So be careful about how the government argues. Another example: They shot down suggestions by opposition parties that we "don't want" foreigners coming here. (That's not entirely true!) I remember Khaw Boon Wan on TV looking very worried and even "pleading" with the opposition with clasped hands (like he was praying!) to "Please stop giving ridiculous suggestions otherwise he has no foreign labourers to complete his BTO flats." Wow, sound so magnanimous??? But HOLD ON!!!
Whoever said we want to reduce foreigner intake here to zero? No one! Whoever said we don't want foreign labourers any more? No one! Of course it's stupid to expect our locals to be labourers and only pay them a few hundred $ every month. No one can survive here for long with that kind of salary. What we are saying is, CURB or limit the number of (white collar) foreigners coming here. Give your own locals more opportunities to work. But did the Singapore government really listen quickly to our suggestion? No. They only heard wrongly that we said we don't want foreigners here.
The infamous Roy Nerng brought up many very good points about our CPF that deserve reflection and questioning the government. But I think his emotions got the better of him. It was wrong of him to accuse the PM of misappropriating our money. I know it's easy to think that way and SEEMS like it to Roy. But without evidence, that's slander.
If you realize, till today, after so many months, neither has the PM nor other ministers come forward to allay the fears of the general citizens about where we are heading on this issue. The following is taken from Roy's website:
"For the past 20, 30 years, our CPF became lesser and lesser, the interest rates on our CPF became lower and lower. But the CPF Minimum Sum kept going higher and higher. In some years, it jumped by more than 10%.
The government says that it wants to increase the Minimum Sum because of inflation. But why has the CPF Minimum Sum grown by more than 10% when the inflation rate is only 2% to 3%?
Today, we still don’t have answers. The government says the CPF Minimum Sum is good for us, but when we are not even able to save enough in the CPF to meet the Minimum Sum, then what is so good about the CPF Minimum Sum?"
Excellent points, don't you think so?
Unfortunately, because Roy foolishly slandered the PM, the latter has now the upper hand to grapple his neck tightly on the wrong accusation, and has all the time and freedom not to answer the important questions posed.
In addition, I would also like to add, why was there a lack of HDB BTO flats between 2007 and 2012? I've always wondered that. Instead the government proceeded to give contracts to developers to build very expensive "DBSS" flats that benefited the private companies. I remember vividly many sounded out with the government then to PLEASE PLEASE stop the DBSS projects and give us more affordable BTO flats. But all those pleas were brushed aside.
Mah Bow Tan and his gang kept insisting the (small) HDB flats are still cozy and affordable (even working out how flat-buyers can use their CPF money and take like what, 30 DONKEY YEARS of loan to pay off their mortgage?!!!) Isn't it weird when you think about why they did this when the simple solution was to just increase the number of BTO flats?
Then it dawned on me 2008-2009 was the time when we faced the severe economic crisis. Remember, our CPF was said to have been invested by the government. Did they lose a lot of our money. We don't know. I leave it to you to figure it out or extrapolate from all the events that occurred. It was also the period where there was a huge increase in foreigners coming in to take up Singapore citizenship or at least a PR status. Back then, I remember many balloted for HDB flats but failed many times.
The consequence? Resale flat prices shot up. COV of $100k wasn't uncommon. Now here's the interesting part. When a couple typically buys their HDB flat, most of them will take HDB loans. For those who needed to buy their very expensive flats back in 2007-2012 especially, they used their CPF money and gave it back to HDB. So now, piece together how the money flows and deduce for yourself the whole big picture.
Coming back to the CPF topic, if you know of anyone who says "The government is bad cos they lock up our CPF money", correct them politely that being able to withdraw our CPF completely could have disastrous consequences. Rather, it's the WAY the government is handling it that is questionable. We argue intelligently from there.
CPF is a good thing. But it is not moving on with the times. The Singapore government had better realize the citizens are short on their patience now and would like to hear of changes to be made soon.
16th July 2014, 11:23 AM
Re: CPF Minimum Sum
Good on you... finally someone is catching on to the real gist of this whole "wayang" there are a lot of smoke screen in the air and if we don't start asking the tough questions for ourselves the least prepared you are for what's in your future beside just about your CPF. And what's wrong with asking and why do they need to be offended if we do as citizens.
Originally Posted by kiwi2
Love their latest smoke screen.. MAS now want to ask for suggeston and advice on how to safeguard our money from outsiders who want to take advantage of our country to money launder for one example. heheh We can't even get safeguard reasons as to what they are doing with our money to begin with heheheheheh...