CPF was "100 per cent safe''

Actually, there is nothing minimum about the minimum sum scheme. At $155,000, you get $1,200 per month for life. If we go by usual financial planning formula, $1,200 at retirement is equivalent to $1,600 before retirement; and a take home pay of $1,600 is equivalent to gross salary of $2,000 during working time. That is not anywhere near minimum from what I remember about household income survey.

The government is unlikely to accept a return linked to inflation because when the market is going down, inflation probably is not. Who is going to cover the short fall? The oppositions will hit the ruling party hard when the government can't achieve the stipulated return though in the longer term, the government might be able to provide a satisfactory return.

If people like better return, they can invest themselves(CPFIS) or accept a lower risk free rate. It is not that the government does not provide a way to obtain higher return.

Plus, CPF should not be the only retirement fund available. CPF is merely the minimum retirement fund.

(26-06-2014, 03:54 PM)Temperament Wrote: Oh! Of course by virtue of being here, i think all of us do care. Only we may have different angles at looking at things. And what we wish our G to be.
Are you old enough to remember a "LIM YEW HOCK", "David Marshall" before LKY. And the "traitor" who sold Christmas island to the Australian?

Christmas Island is not sold to Australia. Singapore was still under the British rule. While the island was administered via Singapore, it is not part of Singapore. The money paid to Singapore is for the monetary loss for the potential phosphate mining activities. It was the British that transfer it to the Australian.

(27-06-2014, 09:42 AM)freedom Wrote:

(26-06-2014, 05:58 PM)Temperament Wrote: i mean is a one party majority in parliament real democracy?
Where all you have to do in Parliament just "Rubber Stamp"?
We need a >1/3 minority in Parliament to represent some dissenting voice?
If not how come Singaporeans has become about 60 % left?
What will happens if Singaporeans is less then 40% then?

Why not real democracy? It will only happen when the oppositions are much worse than the ruling party. Otherwise, how could that even happen? Do you mean that the oppositions are as good, but the voters are blind?

The oppositions can always voice their objection and let the people know why they object. By the way, most of the government policies might not be popular, but are sound nonetheless. Most of the time, the ruling party can silence the oppositions because the oppositions could not propose any better policies. That's very different from non-democracy.

Granted we are all given a chance every 5 years to change the G by GE. Also granted we do not have a real effective opposition party waiting to be voted in to take over the present G. What the "F@#$%*", we don't even have a party that can be an effective dissenting voice in Parliament. As i have said before voted in as > 1/3 majority to represent us (PAPY + NON PAPY supporters).

G knows all these, HANDSDOWN. So what the G DOES?
The G give us a SPEAKERS CORNER to "cow father & cow mother". Which amount to only hot airs in Parliament. (Wait a minute, it may have some effects in the coming GE)
And then the G invented "NMP" which also can "cow father & cow mother" only. Same only hot airs in Parliament.

i understand in "Real Democratic" countries, they have http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/. Which i think our G is against it.
Why?

Is it we are only allow to be heard once in every 5 years in GE?
After that, all of us should shut up?
After the GE, all Singaporean should let their brains go to pot. Is it?
If we carry on like this, Singaporeans may wake up one day and found that only 20 to 30 % are Singaporeans in Singapore. (Mostly make up of Singapore Elites)
Then it's too late babe.

What only speaks' corner? The MPs from the opposition can question the government policies. If they don't exercise their power, that's not the fault of the government.

In Singapore, there is "meet-the-people" session. if you have a problem with the government policies, you can speak to your MPs and let them know your concern. After all, he/she is your representative no matter whether you voted for him/her or not. I am sure that the MPs will listen to your sensible opinions.

How many 5 years have passed since the independence? 5-year is not that long and every government deserves a period for it to implement its policies. No one is shutting anyone else up of course unless it is non-sense. There are many ways to be heard. If PAP is not challenged, that's not the fault of PAP.

(27-06-2014, 02:30 PM)freedom Wrote: What only speaks' corner? The MPs from the opposition can question the government policies. If they don't exercise their power, that's not the fault of the government.

In Singapore, there is "meet-the-people" session. if you have a problem with the government policies, you can speak to your MPs and let them know your concern. After all, he/she is your representative no matter whether you voted for him/her or not. I am sure that the MPs will listen to your sensible opinions.

How many 5 years have passed since the independence? 5-year is not that long and every government deserves a period for it to implement its policies. No one is shutting anyone else up of course unless it is non-sense. There are many ways to be heard. If PAP is not challenged, that's not the fault of PAP.

i think we should end our conversation here. We definitely have different ideas of a fair democratic country. But i think if our G allows an "Ombudsman" to represent us -"The Man- In -street" like in other countries, then i would trust the G more. Now so, so only.

(27-06-2014, 02:01 PM)kagemusha Wrote:

(26-06-2014, 03:54 PM)Temperament Wrote: Oh! Of course by virtue of being here, i think all of us do care. Only we may have different angles at looking at things. And what we wish our G to be.
Are you old enough to remember a "LIM YEW HOCK", "David Marshall" before LKY. And the "traitor" who sold Christmas island to the Australian?

Christmas Island is not sold to Australia. Singapore was still under the British rule. While the island was administered via Singapore, it is not part of Singapore. The money paid to Singapore is for the monetary loss for the potential phosphate mining activities. It was the British that transfer it to the Australian.

Agree.

Transfer to Australia
At Australia's request, the United Kingdom transferred sovereignty to Australia; in 1957, the Government of Australia paid the Government of Singapore £2.9 million in compensation, a figure based mainly on an estimated value of the phosphate forgone by Singapore.[17][18]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island

(27-06-2014, 03:24 PM)Harvest Time Wrote:

(27-06-2014, 02:01 PM)kagemusha Wrote:

(26-06-2014, 03:54 PM)Temperament Wrote: Oh! Of course by virtue of being here, i think all of us do care. Only we may have different angles at looking at things. And what we wish our G to be.
Are you old enough to remember a "LIM YEW HOCK", "David Marshall" before LKY. And the "traitor" who sold Christmas island to the Australian?

Christmas Island is not sold to Australia. Singapore was still under the British rule. While the island was administered via Singapore, it is not part of Singapore. The money paid to Singapore is for the monetary loss for the potential phosphate mining activities. It was the British that transfer it to the Australian.

Agree.

Transfer to Australia
At Australia's request, the United Kingdom transferred sovereignty to Australia; in 1957, the Government of Australia paid the Government of Singapore £2.9 million in compensation, a figure based mainly on an estimated value of the phosphate forgone by Singapore.[17][18]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Island

All what you all said may be correct. So the British take care of their KAKI LANG. But rumours were rife at that time, it was sold. Perhaps because there was a payment to Singapore, that was why the rumour.

(27-06-2014, 01:23 PM)egghead Wrote: Actually, there is nothing minimum about the minimum sum scheme. At $155,000, you get $1,200 per month for life. If we go by usual financial planning formula, $1,200 at retirement is equivalent to $1,600 before retirement; and a take home pay of $1,600 is equivalent to gross salary of $2,000 during working time. That is not anywhere near minimum from what I remember about household income survey.

At a 3% inflation rate, your $1,200 is worth the equivalent of slightly under $600 in 25 years. At a 4% inflation rate, worth about $450.

So is it minimum enough now? 8-)

Hi Tanjm,

That's an interesting view! the CPF monthly payout only starts from 65 but the payout is calculated at age 55 when you set aside the min sum amount. Having lived for 25 years since age 55, at age 80, you will still be receiving $1,200 monthly from CPF life yet inflation may have crept in and "your $1,200 is now worth the equivalent of slightly under $600" under the 3% inflation scenario.