Is this the best that a PhD
qualified person can throw up in a supposedly critical piece
?
For one who is arrogantly self-opinionated, you have again
displayed your characteristic and purposeful blindness to decent
honesty with your usual condescending remarks.
Can we expect anything more positively substantial or constructive
from one who is obviously a 'carpet beggar' to the MIW ?
If a less qualified person remarks is seen as idiotic, how should
one see the self-opinionated remarks of a PhD - when the callous
remarks are no more then a characteristic ''Pig-headed
Donkey'' fitted with blinkers and stupidly
move towards the carrot hung ahead of its eyes ?
Do you even know the difference between the Pension Scheme that is
practised in UK and Europe that has created their present problems,
compared to the Provident Fund Scheme preferred by the Singapore
Government ?
The problems faced by the Governments in Europe and UK that operate
Pension Funds are a result of their non-interference in the manner
that the respective Pension Funds are managed and invested for the
stake-holders.
Is it not obvious that these Pension Funds are exposed to the high
risks of public and private investments, which have been subjected
to global financial turmoils influenced by political and economic
events ?
Under such circumstances, will it not be the same motivating
factors for some of these Governments to urge their aged citizens
to continue working - especially when their budget is tight due to
a shrinking population in some European countries ?
Yet, the same scenario is not uniform throughout Europe as you have
preferred to make a generalised sweeping statement without any
critical differentiation.
The following European Countries such as Portugal, Spain,
Switzerland, Benelux countries, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden
and Finland are not facing the same Pension crisis as in Germany,
France and UK - and even in each of these three countries, the
pension problems are based on different primary and secondary
factors.
Again, do you know enough about the differences between the Pension
Fund schemes preferred and practised by the Europeans to pass your
self-opinionated snide remarks ?
For your education and the information of other participants here,
try reading the following articles from parties that are outside of
Europe and Singapore - which surely will be more neutral in their
preferred position :
1. Fundamental
Investments - the difference between Pension and Provident Fund
Schemes
2.
Personal Finace - Pros and Cons of defined
providents
Generally, Pension Funds are placed with approved
private investment managers, that will provide higher rates of
return, but at the same time will exposed the participants to
higher risks that can shrink the Fund in the event of mismanagement
or political and-or economic risk factors.
Provident Funds are subjected to less risks, which
earn far less returns on this long term saving plan for final
disbursement at time of retirement.
In essence, a Pension
Fund is almost similar to an 'Annuity
Scheme' - in which a retiree is looked after for till
his last breath through a 'Fixed
Annuity'.
While a
Provident Fund is supposed to pay out a lump-sum to
the stake-holder on his retirement - based on the type of Provident
Fund that is set up.
What will our Singapore CPF model morphed into after 40 odd years
?
It started fine as a Provident Fund - with many who retired up to
the mid-1980s receiving a whole lump sum of their CPF; while those
who retired during the mid-1990s had received partial portion of
their CPF in a lump sum - with the remaining amount paid out by
instalment, and some parts being deducted for all kinds of medical
and hospitalisation insurance plans.
As we approach the end of 2007, plans are currently developed to
prevent any lump sum from being paid, and with more amount being
held back for later payment by instalments in some Annuity Scheme
to be developed with Cash Inputs from our Provident Fund.
Unlike other Pension Scheme, and Annuity Plans, it is now proposed
that Singaporeans shall pay for our own pension through an Annuity
Scheme.
If we will critically look at the original CPF format, it is more
like a Provident Fund similar to a
''Pay-as-you-go'' - where the outgoings to pay
pensions to ''today's
pensioners'' are paid for by the contributions of
''today's workers and
employers''.
The CPF system was ''based on a
philosphy of 'intergenerational solidarity' - where today's workers
support older workers''.
The CPF is a ''
national pension scheme and is essentially an 'unfunded
pension scheme' - it accepts responsibility to provide
retirement benefits to stakeholders, but do not set aside moneys
today to meet future obligations''.
The Singapore Government do not 'pump' any funds into the CPF
despite making profits from the utilisation of the cheap CPF money,
and only return a miserable 2% interest to our CPF account for the
better part of one's working life contributing into the CPF.
Is this not similar to the infamous ''Pyramid Scheme'' except that there
are no products involved, and with more legitimacy as it is
annointed by the Government ?
To be successful, a ''Pyramid Scheme'' require a large base to
support the narrow apex.
Similarly, the CPF scheme based on its original plans require a
continuous and ever growing number of stake holders to support the
few retiring at the top, who will withdraw a larger accumulated
lump sum paid out with a compounded interest of 2% per year.
With a declining population being a known factor since the
mid-1980s, changes were already afoot with the Howe Yoon Chong
Committee coming out to amend the CPF pay-out rules, and this
tinkering with the CPF Pay-out has continued over the last 20 years
till this day.
If only a mushroom with a big head has more substance beneath the
skin.
Unfortunately, as we all know that when a mushrom is cut open -
there is nothing different from its external texture to its
core.
It is one vegetative material.
