Major CPF policy shift on the way

[cfa]

Here's my take on my earlier post:

1) If we rely solely on the yes-men (Do you think you are one?), then CPF returns will almost certainly not be improved. That's why I thanked Roy for speaking out.

2) Most of Roy's posts were never debunked. They were intentionally ignored. He was sued for only a very small part of his writings. He was not sued for a myriad of errors in his posts. Again, most people choose to ignore what they don't like.

3) Some are okay with town councils run by managing companies that are led by fellow party members, but they are not okay with non-party managing agents being friends of another town council. Some are also not okay with conflict of interest within the town council, but seem okay with the possible conflict of interests in other town councils and management of sovereign funds. If that is their stand, then we are on clearly different levels of moral values. So, nothing more to discuss. You right, everyone else wrong. Happy?

4) With regards to low CPF returns vs EPF returns, take note that our CPF returns are tied directly to CPF's mortgage loan rates. If you want better CPF returns, it means that tens of thousands of homeowners have to pay higher mortgage. Hence, this means CPF interest rates have to be perpetually kept low, very low in fact, or else the number of people defaulting on their housing loan will shoot up.

Bank interest rates also are closely linked. If CPF pays so little, banks have little reason to raise their bank savings rate. And if bank savings interest rate is forever near 0%, CPF also has little reason to offer you better returns than their 2.5 to 3% return since you are unlikely to get better returns anywhere else.

Perhaps we should consider delinking CPF returns from CPF mortgage loan rates. That could be a start to ensure that CPF returns can move up without affecting mortgage interest.

Spot on !

[GPD]

I see. So you're one of those who think that your CPF statement shows you money that is not yours.

I assume this is a reply to my earlier answer. No that is not what I am thinking.

I am imagining that CPF is like a water tank sitting on a button. There is an inlet and an outlet. There are already some water in this box. If the water flowing in is slower than the water flowing out, the box will get lighter and if the box is too light the button will be released and the world will explode.

[egghead]

I see. So you're one of those who think that your CPF statement shows you money that is not yours.

I assume this is a reply to my earlier answer. No that is not what I am thinking.

Yes, it was. I get that impression because you mentioned CPF collecting extra $5.8 billion a year. Guess I did not understand correctly.

I am imagining that CPF is like a water tank sitting on a button. There is an inlet and an outlet. There are already some water in this box. If the water flowing in is slower than the water flowing out, the box will get lighter and if the box is too light the button will be released and the world will explode.

Sorry can't really understand your metaphor about the button and explosion

[Freenasi]

Here's my take on my earlier post:

1) If we rely solely on the yes-men (Do you think you are one?), then CPF returns will almost certainly not be improved. That's why I thanked Roy for speaking out.

2) Most of Roy's posts were never debunked. They were intentionally ignored. He was sued for only a very small part of his writings. He was not sued for a myriad of errors in his posts. Again, most people choose to ignore what they don't like.

3) Some are okay with town councils run by managing companies that are led by fellow party members, but they are not okay with non-party managing agents being friends of another town council. Some are also not okay with conflict of interest within the town council, but seem okay with the possible conflict of interests in other town councils and management of sovereign funds. If that is their stand, then we are on clearly different levels of moral values. So, nothing more to discuss. You right, everyone else wrong. Happy?

4) With regards to low CPF returns vs EPF returns, take note that our CPF returns are tied directly to CPF's mortgage loan rates. If you want better CPF returns, it means that tens of thousands of homeowners have to pay higher mortgage. Hence, this means CPF interest rates have to be perpetually kept low, very low in fact, or else the number of people defaulting on their housing loan will shoot up.

Bank interest rates also are closely linked. If CPF pays so little, banks have little reason to raise their bank savings rate. And if bank savings interest rate is forever near 0%, CPF also has little reason to offer you better returns than their 2.5 to 3% return since you are unlikely to get better returns anywhere else.

Perhaps we should consider delinking CPF returns from CPF mortgage loan rates. That could be a start to ensure that CPF returns can move up without affecting mortgage interest.

Spot on !

There is so much that can be done/improvement to the cpf system and also the political system here. If only the parliament really have vigorous debate, and the seats not filled with the the obedient-members, the system will evolve into one which better cater to the needs of the people and the country.

[cfa]

Debate ??
Some of the MPs couldn't be bother to attend parliament sitting , some even went there to take a nap.

[touzi]

2) Most of Roy's posts were never debunked. They were intentionally ignored. He was sued for only a very small part of his writings. He was not sued for a myriad of errors in his posts. Again, most people choose to ignore what they don't like.

Errors by themselves do not land anyone in court. You cannot be sued for being careless, ignorant or stupid. The "very small part" that got Roy into trouble impugned the PM's integrity. The libel law covers that. Nobody including Gahmen can drag you to court unless they can find a law that supports it. This is what a law based society is about. And this is why Gahmen cannot do much against Jovert Chew unless they change the law first.

[touzi]

OK, back to CPF. With the increase in interest rate, does it make more sense to those buying properties to use as much cash as possible so that the CPF can be used to gain more interest?

[CityFarmer]

Debate ??
Some of the MPs couldn't be bother to attend parliament sitting , some even went there to take a nap.

How about the WP MPs? Do they take a nap too? Have they trigger a debate on CPF topic, and raise the some points of Roy's (of course exclude the wrong part)?

I seldom watch parliamentary news report.

[CityFarmer]

I have removed posts on legal system in Singapore. The content is without ground.

I wouldn't issue any warning this round. It may be just an unintentional mistake.

Please take note.

Regards
Moderator

[Layman A]

Don't be stupid !

I tell you a secret OK ! ( It's actually an open secret that everyone know ! )
You pay you housing loan using CPF. ( Dead money actually. )
If you rent out your house, you are getting back CASH. ( Liquid money ! )

Dead money become Liquid money !

OK, back to CPF. With the increase in interest rate, does it make more sense to those buying properties to use as much cash as possible so that the CPF can be used to gain more interest?