Major CPF policy shift on the way

[Temperament]

Even a free-market need a G. Look at what happened to the World (GFC). due to US believes that a free market will self-correcting and self-regulating.
No one owes us a living. But we need the G to correct and regulate the "Free Market" though the invisible hand may works most of the times.

[sg550319]

> No one should ever blame the government for insufficient funds for retirement.
> It is very much left to the individuals how they plan their life. I would rather the government do less in many areas.

If you are a PAP MP and you say this, all the graduates will cast votes against PAP. Because the price of HDB flat shot up how many times (It costs $99,200 for a bishan 5 room flat in 1980s. Now it costs $650,000 for the same resale flat) before they broke the link between old flat and new flats?

The 2 sentences are taken totally out of context. Read the next few lines and what you are saying is precisely my point. The government has too much control over too many things. And why is that so? The simple reason is that we allow them to and in fact, want them to. One reason for this is because we can't trust ourselves to make sound judgement for ourselves.

If the son, after graduating, is unable to make sensible decisions, unable to get a job and fend for himself. The parents will make if for him. Will decide where he works, take all his money and tells him how to save/spend it. The parent is with good intentions. Like it or not, the son will have to live by whatever rules the parents set until he is sensible enough to think for himself.

You are absolutely right for most of us here but not so right for many others outside. Think of it how often you have a friend complaining how bad is our government and how bad is PAP, but his solution for all the problems is started as "government should do....."

Yes, and that's where the problem lies. We should be responsible for our own lives, not the government. While we can voice our concerns that there are too many FTs and there is a real NEED for the immigration policies to be tweaked, we should also look at ourselves how to deal with it. It's a global workforce, outsourcing is common to save cost.

My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. - JFK

It is a common trait across many countries. in good times, people complain about too much governments involvements. in bad times, where are the government handouts.

Are the current PAP's policies too populists now?

[Big Toe]

It's a double edged sword for the government as well.
Because they are in total control of so many things, any slight error will be amplified many times by the citizens. Life is gettiong harder for them as well. That's the way it has been, and always will be. Unless we decide to hand less power to the them, I am still in the opinion that we can ultimately decide what is best for us, especially on issues(such as cpf) that directly affect us, irregardless of who is in parliament. All come together, demonstrate more maturity, argue with logic, be vocal about it and put the point across strongly.

[egghead]

There is ideal and there is reality. Until the day we see people coming to AGM behaving graciously instead of rushing for buffet with bags in hand, I'm afraid we cannot ignore this segment of our populace.

[brattzz]

There is ideal and there is reality. Until the day we see people coming to AGM behaving graciously instead of rushing for buffet with bags in hand, I'm afraid we cannot ignore this segment of our populace.

haha! funny comparison, got me laughing!

[brattzz]

It's a double edged sword for the government as well.
Because they are in total control of so many things, any slight error will be amplified many times by the citizens. Life is gettiong harder for them as well. That's the way it has been, and always will be. Unless we decide to hand less power to the them, I am still in the opinion that we can ultimately decide what is best for us, especially on issues(such as cpf) that directly affect us, irregardless of who is in parliament. All come together, demonstrate more maturity, argue with logic, be vocal about it and put the point across strongly.

Think G is only going for economy of scale/scope when all essential services are provided by them... in certain aspects, i prefer G to run Essential services, rather than PTE entities...
however, there are also moral obligations.. which may/may-not be similar between the Gs..

[CityFarmer]

I am yet to find out more, but likely substantial changes on CPF system...

Govt accepts CPF panel recommendations

SINGAPORE – The Government has accepted the recommendations made by the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Advisory Panel so far, saying they offere “balanced and constructive” proposals on how to improve the system.

In a letter addressed to panel chairman and National University of Singapore president Tan Chorh Chuan, Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin thanked the panel for their work. “I am pleased to accept the recommendations within Part One of the Panel’s report on behalf of the Government. We agree with the Panel’s view that there is a need to provide greater assurance to CPF members on the sums they must set aside in retirement,” he said. “We also agree with the Panel’s consideration that introducing greater flexibility and choice for CPF members in retirement must be balanced with the need to ensure the CPF system is able to provide adequately for their retirement over the longer term.”

The Government will provide details on the CPF changes made in response to the recommendations at the Budget and Committee of Supply parliamentary debates later this month.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/gov...mendations

[vesfreq]

It's a double edged sword for the government as well.
Because they are in total control of so many things, any slight error will be amplified many times by the citizens. Life is gettiong harder for them as well. That's the way it has been, and always will be. Unless we decide to hand less power to the them, I am still in the opinion that we can ultimately decide what is best for us, especially on issues(such as cpf) that directly affect us, irregardless of who is in parliament. All come together, demonstrate more maturity, argue with logic, be vocal about it and put the point across strongly.

Its a tough problem to solve. To refer it as a "problem" may not be appropriate too. It seems more like a trend where needs have to be met. In this case, the cost of living and especially health care.

As the guys at the helm, there are surely things within their control, such as cost of health care and housing. There are much to be done. With the cost of these two necessities managed, retirement may not be such a night mare for many.

Rising costs also has the impact on socio behaviour and values. It has far reaching effects, such as younger generations deferring marriage and child bearing exercises and even kids avoiding their duties to take care of the elderly.

Perhaps, if i can make a diff (though I can't), these are things which i would surely be keen to resolve. With costs of living managed, some of the other spill over issues (like low fertility) may start to mitigate.

CPF is surely one that deserves some "fixing". Even now, with my mum (almost) on her death bed, we have no way to draw down her cpf funds to help fund her medical cost. Terminal illnesses drain medisave like no one's biz. Yet, the money is stuck cos she didn't meet the minimum sum, which obviously she can't..... she is terminally ill. She has no "retirement" ahead of her which makes the purpose of cpf minimum sum quite redundant or may be.... irrelevant. (can't think of a better way to phrase this)

Stuff like that has to be addressed. Medisave is still cash based, rather than insurance based. (pardon me for my crude explanation). Instead of having just compulsory contributions to cpf, why not compulsory state endorsed medical insurance? Allocate 5% of the monthly cpf contributions to medical insurance. That alleviates pressure on the state to worry about elderly falling sick without ample health insurance. (sounds crazy, but well.... that would be better than none). Leave no room for anyone to siam medical insurance, but let the average joe have a choice in how he or she wish to plan for retirement and how they would save for it, through a few of those state endorsed pension funds. This would better fit financial needs of the individual. Then again, this is what i think.

For the miw, they have much work to do. While some measures are unpopular, there is great pressure to fix (or be seen to be fixing, at least) some of the issues before the next ge.

PS: Post does not endorse any political party in anyway. No offense intended. Just my humble views. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[opmi]

Usually it will mean lock up more cash for higher govt-guaranteed returns. And cut the limits for investments and properties.

[specuvestor]

Stuff like that has to be addressed. Medisave is still cash based, rather than insurance based. (pardon me for my crude explanation). Instead of having just compulsory contributions to cpf, why not compulsory state endorsed medical insurance? Allocate 5% of the monthly cpf contributions to medical insurance. That alleviates pressure on the state to worry about elderly falling sick without ample health insurance. (sounds crazy, but well.... that would be better than none). Leave no room for anyone to siam medical insurance, but let the average joe have a choice in how he or she wish to plan for retirement and how they would save for it, through a few of those state endorsed pension funds. This would better fit financial needs of the individual. Then again, this is what i think.

For the miw, they have much work to do. While some measures are unpopular, there is great pressure to fix (or be seen to be fixing, at least) some of the issues before the next ge.

PS: Post does not endorse any political party in anyway. No offense intended. Just my humble views. Correct me if i'm wrong.

I thought that is what Medishield Life is aiming to do?

Retirement is a hot potato to tackle with much emotions and politics. Hard truth is S$160k min sum is not going to help you retire in 30 years' time for another 20 years life expectancy, but the govt can't say this openly. People wants access to the cash but wants to socialise the cost when the cash runs out is a catch 22. How do you balance between personal needs and minimising social cost, yet knowing it is insufficient, is a hot seat I don't want to be in either