<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"-->
The older Singaporeans with
insufficient retirement funds should look to PAP for failing to
create an effective retirement system.
Before 1999, CPF was not allowed
to be used for investing in unit trusts.By then, It was clear
significant portion of older Singaporeans cannot retire with
low CPF rates and they started to cover the leaking pail by
liberalising the use of CPF for investments. In 1999 if Singaporean
cant retire, they can blame PAP for preventing them from investing
in unit trusts.10 years later in 2009, its your own
problem.
Back then, there were not much
avenues to grow their retirement funds. Singaporeans overinvested
in HDB to grow their retirement fund resulting in a bubble for HDB
flats eating up the portion left for pension/retirement
income.
If Singaporeans
cannot retire is it because we didnt
save enough? Singaporeans already have among the highest
savings rate in the world. Financial planners would tell you that
Singaporeans cannot retire
because we did not take enough risks to generate
returns. But yet we have a "kind" govt wanting to take all
the risks for us by investing through GIC, Temasek and paying us
"riskfree" CPF
rate. The
consequence of earning these "riskfree"
returns could well be extra decades of working life.
SINGAPOREANS are at the bottom of a ranking of retirement income
from pensions in the Asia-Pacific region, says the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
And this is true at all income levels, according to the study,
which covered 19 locations including Hong Kong, Taipei and Japan,
The Business Times reported on Friday.
The Pensions at a Glance study, which also involved the World
Bank, found that Singapore's average gross replacement rate
- the value of the pension as a percentage of earnings when working
- is just 13.1 per cent.
Taipei has the highest gross replacement rate of 70 per
cent, the report said.
'This means that the gross pension income for average
earners in Taipei is over two-thirds of their previous earnings
level, whereas pensioners in Singapore receive less than
one-seventh the amount of their earnings,' says the
study.
Singapore's pension is provided by the Central Provident Fund
(CPF).
'The relatively low replacement rate for Singapore is because
the calculations only consider the earmarked retirement account,'
says the study. 'If an individual were to put the general account
towards retirement-income provision as well, then the replacement
rate would be 82 per cent.'
It points out that it would be foolish to say that one
Singaporean who withdrew from the CPF to buy a house is worse off
than another who built up a retirement income and then had to use
some of it to pay for housing.
'Nonetheless, there is a risk that older people find themselves
asset-rich and income-poor in retirement and facing difficulty in
unlocking the value of their housing assets to pay for essentials,'
the study says.
Replacement rates - the most familiar indicator for pension
analysts - are not the only factor governments are concerned with.
They also need to measure the value of the overall pension
promise.
'This is measured by the indicator of pension wealth which takes
life expectancy into account,' the study says.
Again, Singapore has the lowest measurement - a
retiree's pension here is worth just an average 2.2 times their
earnings at retirement. The figure for China is 21.2 times - the
highest in the region.