Can we trust them to look after
the Billions held in our CPF account, when they gamble the
hardearned money that were supposed to go into our National
Reserves, but instead were lost in deals such as Shin Corp ?
$3 Billion evaporated and all we have left is a $3 Billion shell of
a useless Shin Corp that the Thias have sworn to boycott all the
services provided by its subsidiary companies ?
How much more has been spent to settle the fines and bad debts that
Shin Corp has incurred after the takeover by Temasek Holdings
?
Incidentally, CPF was started by the British Colonial Government
before any local Singapore Political Parties even existed.
Surely, the British Colonial Government did not doubt the
Singaporean ability to look after our own money, but had planned
the CPF scheme to tap into a pool of money that they can use for
their long term infrastrutural plans.
Speaking to about 200 grassroots leaders at the Braddell Heights
Community Club yesterday, he acknowledged that some of the recent
changes to the CPF system may not sit well with some
Singaporeans.
Would a more hands-off approach to securing people's retirement
nest-eggs work, he asked, citing Hong Kong: 'If you don't have the
funds, can't be helped. We'll just make sure you have enough to get
by and put you in a poor folks' home.'
Rather than watch many elderly suffer in poverty, Singapore's
approach is to do more to help those in need so that 'no one will
be left behind', Mr Goh said in his opening remarks.
Has this not been the case in
Singapore - since the Ruling Party stepped into power in 1957 until
now ?
When has the Ruling Party that formed this Government helped
Singaporeans to look after our Aged ?
Has this Government not always stated that it is the responsibility
of the Family to look after our own Aged ?
Has the Government assisted even by way of off-budget financial aid
- by giving reasonable tax reliefs that cover the full expenses to
support the aged in every Singaporean Family ?
Even employing a foreign maid to help a family to look after our
aged is subject to foreign workers levy that amount to as much as
the maid's wages - causing unnecessary strain to the family
budget.
With the government encouraging Singaporeans to return to the
Workforce, to procreate with more babies, and to look after the
Aged - what has the Government done to help ease the financial
burden to the Singaporean Family - in any direct or indirect ways
?
Since the 2006 General Elections - instead of lowering the costs of
living, a slew of price and tax increases have been approved by the
Government, and even more revenue collection mechanisms are soon to
be implemented with newer ERP gantries being placed all over the
island, and with some ERP gantries having its hours of operation
extended into the evening.
Already in this month of August 2007, we are informed that the cost
of living is the highest in 12 years.
Is it now lamentably ironic that after taking the bulk of the CPF
savings from the sale of HDB flats to Singaporeans, the Government
is now claiming to be paternalistic in looking after the Aged
?
The almost two-hour-long session on announcements made during the
National Day Rally earlier this month was held behind closed
doors.
Later, Mr Seah Kian Peng, MP for the Braddell Heights ward in the
Marine Parade GRC, told reporters about some of the main issues
raised. The CPF changes were one of them.
Why was there the need for a compulsory annuities scheme for those
aged under 50, asked one of the 20 participants who spoke up.
SM Goh's response was that many would opt out if the scheme was not
mandatory and those who remained behind would have to grapple with
a higher premium.
Is this the whole truth that is
finally had to be said ?
If those who remained behind have to grapple with a higher premium,
is this not the same as the few remaining - in a shrinking
populaton contributing to a CPF pool - will have to grapple with
the larger amounts that are being drawn out by the Baby-Boomers
born after WW2, and also the late-baby boomers that continued into
the 1960s ?
Is there sufficient funds for the CPF to be paid out - if the
scheme remained in its original form that allowed it to be drawn,
when everyone reached 55 years ?
Another participant felt that the Government had allowed too much
of Singaporeans' CPF savings to be used to buy property, leading to
many now being caught in an asset-rich, cash-poor scenario.
The various schemes introduced recently, such as the buy-back
scheme, will allow Singaporeans to unlock the value of their
properties, Mr Seah quoted SM Goh as saying.
Another disingenious remark
concerning the entire buy-back scheme that simply refuse to address
it as eating into one's over-valued asset.
What happens to the remaining portion of the value in the property
that remains unspent ?
Will it not be a fact that either the entire property be sold to
return in cash the remaining portion to the surviving members of
the family, or that the family will have to top up the portion that
has been consumed by the Aged person who is now deceased ?
If the Government intend to be paternalistic by using our CPF money
to start an annuity scheme that hold back the lump sum payment to
us - and continue to postpone the date for this lump sum release
till pass the average age of survival for Singaporeans - then we
should say "NO THANK
YOU''.
If the Government intend to be paternalistic towards Singaporean
Aged, should it not be generous with their own money - by
contributing 1% of the NETT PROFIT After Tax from GIC and Temasek
Holdings, and use it as premium - to be paid annually - for a
NATIONAL Annuity Program for the benefit to all Singaporeans
?
This will still allow Singaporean to draw on the lump sum at the
age of 55 years.
Why will SM Goh play a paternalistic role with our CPF Money
?
Surely, we know how to be paternalistically generous to ourselves
with our OWN CPF Money ?
