pm vs blogger
- Thread starter keiser
- Start date
rather surprised that as a member since 2011, you're not aware of the rules in kopitiam.
Sure, in fact in my personal view, the very core is really some concerns over certain cpf policies and its governance rather than politics … for example, , I admit that it felt it little weird after learning that one has to pay back interest on the drawn down amount upon selling a house to the cpf board (btw, could someone here confirm this?)… Hmmm … perhaps it was originally designed with our interest in mind, to reduce speculation on residential properties?
Last edited:
Yes, there are many people like yourself who don't know about this - until they sell their HDB flats 
It may come as a shock, followed by suspicions as to its validity & purpose. If you check your CPF account statement, you will see the CPF used for property purchased & the "interests" computed which are to be paid back to the CPF eventually. This rule has been in effect since the very beginning. If you leave the money in the CPF, the CPF will pay interests on it meaning your CPF funds will grow, to provide for your old age, which is what CPF is fundamentally about. If withdrawn, used, or "borrowed" (whichever way you want to see it) for property purchase, it has to be returned with interests to preserve this intent & purpose. Imagine you withdrawn $20K 40 years ago & return back the same 40 years later without the interests, how much would you have in your CPF for retirement? This is tied to concept of countering or rather providing for inflation. So this is a practical & benign concept for the benefit of the people & to protect their retirement nest eggs. Its not related to property speculation. There is nothing sinister about this.
In the last major economic crisis of 1997 when the humongous property bubble burst, many HDB owners who sold their flats were unable to return this CPF + interests. This was because property prices have plunged so very drastically that sales proceeds were insufficient to pay back HDB/bank loans & even CPF (who stand 2nd in line in any repayment). Thousands of HDB owners faced insolvency, bankruptcy. The Govt then bend backward, amended the rule at that time so that people do not need to cover the CPF shortfall to avoid this disastrous prospect. Many measures were subsequently implemented to rein in property speculation & property bubbles from building up, to avoid a repeat. But many people never learn or forgotten the lessons (or are too young to know & understand) in their desire for making fast & easy money from speculation.
I haven't read what the blogger written but I hope its not misrepresentation or misinformation on this CPF. Your thread title is a politically loaded statement in current context. A legal suit is pending, or in progress, so better not comment on it here.
It may come as a shock, followed by suspicions as to its validity & purpose. If you check your CPF account statement, you will see the CPF used for property purchased & the "interests" computed which are to be paid back to the CPF eventually. This rule has been in effect since the very beginning. If you leave the money in the CPF, the CPF will pay interests on it meaning your CPF funds will grow, to provide for your old age, which is what CPF is fundamentally about. If withdrawn, used, or "borrowed" (whichever way you want to see it) for property purchase, it has to be returned with interests to preserve this intent & purpose. Imagine you withdrawn $20K 40 years ago & return back the same 40 years later without the interests, how much would you have in your CPF for retirement? This is tied to concept of countering or rather providing for inflation. So this is a practical & benign concept for the benefit of the people & to protect their retirement nest eggs. Its not related to property speculation. There is nothing sinister about this.In the last major economic crisis of 1997 when the humongous property bubble burst, many HDB owners who sold their flats were unable to return this CPF + interests. This was because property prices have plunged so very drastically that sales proceeds were insufficient to pay back HDB/bank loans & even CPF (who stand 2nd in line in any repayment). Thousands of HDB owners faced insolvency, bankruptcy. The Govt then bend backward, amended the rule at that time so that people do not need to cover the CPF shortfall to avoid this disastrous prospect. Many measures were subsequently implemented to rein in property speculation & property bubbles from building up, to avoid a repeat. But many people never learn or forgotten the lessons (or are too young to know & understand) in their desire for making fast & easy money from speculation.
I haven't read what the blogger written but I hope its not misrepresentation or misinformation on this CPF. Your thread title is a politically loaded statement in current context. A legal suit is pending, or in progress, so better not comment on it here.
Last edited:
This is the part that's misleading. You dun actually 'pay' anything. It's more like you set aside whatever you could have gained from interest back into cpf. There isn't any conspiracy at all, in the end what you put back is still your money. The arguement is about whether you let your money get tied up in cpf until you are 55 or rather you have cash in hand. The thing is, if you have cash in hand, and you put it in investments, you have got to be investment savvy to beat the 2.6% return on cpf.
Alleging, accusing, a person of incompetence or negligence, even gross stupidity, may be acceptable, but slandering or defaming that person by insinuating, saying he is dishonest & has committed a criminal act is not. Especially if its against a prominent person holding high public office who seriously values integrity, trust, honour & reputation. Unless one has proof.
Actually no, accusing somebody of incompetence/negligence should not be acceptable at all, it is still considered slander or libel. Especially in professional circles (ie: engineering) being negligent or incompetent is cause for a criminal charge. You may argue about policies and give statements on their effectiveness or relevance, that is your value judgement. But when you say something about someone which you know is not true, nor in position to know whether it is true, that's wrong.
Note my "may be" Of course if its against professionals like lawyers or doctors, may not be, but if against some other service providers? Perhaps you never in your life accuse anyone an incompetent fool or bungling idiot Obnoxious, odious maybe but not a legal offence.
Of course if its against professionals like lawyers or doctors, may not be, but if against some other service providers? Perhaps you never in your life accuse anyone an incompetent fool or bungling idiot Obnoxious, odious maybe but not a legal offence.
Last edited:
Especially this part requires ruling by a judge an a proper court proceeding. Obviously nothing like this happened. So what he did was a perfect assist to the lawyers of PM to whack him. In soccer terms: own goal. Too sad it will be darn expensive lesson learned for him.
On the other hand: I still miss some instinct on the side of PM in such cases.
Last edited:
I see ... thanks ... will take note of it and your other points should I decided buy or sell a house
Yes, there are many people like yourself who don't know about this - until they sell their HDB flats
In the last major economic crisis of 1997 when the humongous property bubble burst, many HDB owners who sold their flats were unable to return this CPF + interests. This was because property prices have plunged so very drastically that sales proceeds were insufficient to pay back HDB/bank loans & even CPF (who stand 2nd in line in any repayment). Thousands of HDB owners faced insolvency, bankruptcy. The Govt then bend backward, amended the rule at that time so that people do not need to cover the CPF shortfall to avoid this disastrous prospect. Many measures were subsequently implemented to rein in property speculation & property bubbles from building up, to avoid a repeat. But many people never learn or forgotten the lessons (or are too young to know & understand) in their desire for making fast & easy money from speculation.
I haven't read what the blogger written but I hope its not misrepresentation or misinformation on this CPF. Your thread title is a politically loaded statement in current context. A legal suit is pending, or in progress, so better not comment on it here.
Thks, I see your point … but even though it is still "my" money in the end … to me “cash” in the pocket is not the same as a “promise to pay” … Hmm … instead of merely focusing on higher yield most of the time, wouldn’t it also help if the authorities bring the inflation rate lower instead e.g. perhaps slower but healthier growth over longer period of time?
Last edited:
So you would suggest that comments and opinions should always be expressed more objectively?
A truthful clarification will show character. An opportunity lost.
Like CSJ said, a defamation suit can only repair reputation, not character.
Like CSJ said, a defamation suit can only repair reputation, not character.
How so?? The PM is not the Government, and can be sued and/or sue others like any other individuals.
Your statement is kind of ironic actually (no offense intended). Cash as paper money is essentially a 'promise to pay' the bearer of the note the value indicated on the note.
My personal opinion is that the ongoing hoohah has become less of the merits/demerits of the cpf system, or even a constructive discussion on the workings on the policy. It's more like an afterthough to divert the attention from the case at hand.
Heh, can we discuss this without touching politics? Let's try.
If we don't take sides, Roy is clearly in the wrong. It's pretty much an easy lawsuit case. Why it has become a media circus, is all thanks to Roy's lawyer for turning the table.
Roy can't be that smart. He wrote that dangerous, unsubstantiated piece in the first place. His whole act become smarter after he engaged the lawyer.
If I were the PM, I'd sack my lawyer and get that one or someone who is as smart. I do believe late mdm. Lee was a partner of a strong law firm? She stepped down after Snr. Lee became PM, scared of conflict of interest. Why didn't he get them instead?
If we don't take sides, Roy is clearly in the wrong. It's pretty much an easy lawsuit case. Why it has become a media circus, is all thanks to Roy's lawyer for turning the table.
Roy can't be that smart. He wrote that dangerous, unsubstantiated piece in the first place. His whole act become smarter after he engaged the lawyer.
If I were the PM, I'd sack my lawyer and get that one or someone who is as smart. I do believe late mdm. Lee was a partner of a strong law firm? She stepped down after Snr. Lee became PM, scared of conflict of interest. Why didn't he get them instead?
Last edited:
Last edited:
Similar threads
