By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “Flexible, basic and cheap annuity scheme” (Today, Aug 27).

Instead of spending the $750 million a year to pay the additional 1 per cent interest on the first $20,000 of the CPF Ordinary Account, and $40,000 of the Special, Medisave and Retirement accounts, growing these sums at say 5 per cent interest will accumulate to $67.7 billion in 2042 (the first year that the compulsory annuity will start at age 85, for those who are below 50 years old now).

This amount can at 5 per cent interest provide $300 a month from age 85 to 100, for 1.79 million Singaporeans.

By age 100, about 99.9 per cent would have died.

In fact, as many will die as they grow older, beyond age 85, more than 1.79 million people can receive the $300 life annuity.

Even if the resident population grows at 3 per cent per annum for the next 35 years, will there be 1.79 million or more Singaporeans over age 85 in 2042?

According to the Cremation Association of North America (link), the life expectancy for “White (race) Both Sexes”, at birth, age 55, 65 and 85, is 77.7, 26.2, 18.2 and 6.4 years, respectively.

In other words, the 50 per cent survival probability for someone at birth is 77.7 years, and someone who is age 85 has a 50 per cent chance to be alive at age 91.4.

Therefore, under the proposed deduction of the compulsory annuity premiums at age 55, the percentage still living at age 85 may be less than the stated 50 per cent, because the 50 per cent probability would have been reached at age 81.2 for this cohort.

Only the age 70 cohort has an almost 50 per cent probability level of survival of 14.7 year, at age 84.5.

It was reported in Parliament on 27 August (“Minimum Sum : Figures show many don’t meet the mark”, Straits Times, 28 August), that :

“Only one-third of CPF members who turned 62 last year met their Minimum Sum (MS) requirement when they reached the age of 55 in 1999. Manpower Minister Ng Eng Han said that of the 22,600 CPF members who turned 62, 7,600 – or 34 per cent – were able to meet their MS, which in 1999 was set at $ 60,000. The remaining 15,000 members who did not meet the MS had a median shortfall of $ 49,300”.

Does this mean that despite the 4 per cent accumulation, and new CPF contributions for those who were working beyond age 55, 66 per cent could not meet the $ 60,000 MS, and 33 per cent had less than $ 10,700 at age 62 ?

“He (Manpower Minister) noted that one important reason why many members fell short of the MS is the current rule letting them withdraw half of their CPF savings at age 55”.

Phasing out “the current rule letting them withdraw half of their CPF savings at age 55”, delaying the MS monthly payouts to 65, and the compulsory deferred to age 85 life annuity purchase, may just be reactive ad-hoc measures, to address a fundamental core problem.

Are there systemic problems in our CPF system ?

Are HDB flats priced such that they are eating up too much of the average Singaporean’s CPF ?

Are there too many Singaporeans who lose their CPF life savings, when their HDB flats are foreclosed ?

Are we paying too low an interest rate on CPF ?

Why is it that according to the AXA Global Retirement Study, Singaporeans are the highest savers in the world, but have the lowest income in retirement ?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

人力部拒公布涉不公平雇佣的雇主名单

国家发展部兼人力部政务部长扎吉哈昨日在国会揭露,人力部从2013年至2017年间,对521家涉不公平雇佣行为的企业发出警告或惩戒。 不过,大部分(约58巴仙)都只是接到警告,扎吉哈指出,其余公司则在申请外籍劳工准证上将面对较多困难。 他指出,由此可见人力部有采取行动,并且必须确保在处理这些个案时,对雇员和雇主都公平。 扎吉哈是在国会回答官委议员特斯拉副教授的提问。后者也质询人力部是否能公开那些犯错的雇主,向民众交代。若不公布不良雇主身份,可能会让遭到差别待遇的员工,觉得投诉是无效的。 然而,扎吉哈表示无法公布这些违规雇主的名单。 “公开违规雇主名单,固然可以起震慑作用,但也可能造成其他后果,例如使得有关员工受影响、侵犯到他们隐私等等。” 然而,令人不解的是,如果没公开员工身份,又如何侵犯到员工们都隐私呢? 扎吉哈补充,从2015年至2017年间,该部和公平就业三方联盟(TAFEP)每年收到450宗有关不公平雇佣的劳资投诉,相当于平均每天1.23宗。 部分投诉雇主偏袒外籍人士 大部分投诉与偏袒外籍人士和年龄歧视有关。他说,很多遭投诉的雇主,都是因为内部缺乏合适的机制来解决内部不满,且对员工的不同需求和条件不敏感。 他说,制裁雇主也是为了让他么能改善内部施政,且友善地解决投诉问题。  

传媒学者施仁乔 揶揄《海时》协同政府打击独媒

著名传媒学者,兼前媒体通识理事会(Media Literacy Council)成员施仁乔(Cherian George)揶揄《海峡时报》,支持新加坡政府打击我国独立媒体的行为。 近日,内政部长兼律政部长尚穆根,声称新加坡在一定程度上已经面对外来势力的干预。他还指出《新叙事》(NewNaratif)总编韩俐颖均有外资资助,很可能沦为外国势力的工具;以及韩俐颖在此前的一段视频中表示,新加坡不如香港,没有50万人上街游行,所以他想通过《新叙事》举办课程来改变这点。 不过,韩俐颖在个人博文中,一一反驳尚穆根的指责。(详文点此) 《海时》报导了尚穆根的言论。施仁乔也在28日于推特上,点名抨击这份本地最大英语报,讽喻《海时》似乎在支持新加坡政府攻击独立媒体,原因不是因为这些人缺乏专业能力,而是因为他们诉诸合乎伦理的诉求。 然而,他向相关文章的撰述方式提出异议,在推特上附上了两张《海峡时报》的文章内容,并拆解《海时》如何协助政府攻击独立媒体,形容《海峡时报》为“误导深造班”(misinformation masterclass)。 施仁乔表示首先可以先看看其标题,标题以韩俐颖回应尚穆根发言为主题,表面上看似从双方论点叙事,但事实上,内容并未具体提及被告所作出的回应。 “在用夸大其词的手段撰述你所拥护的“政客大师”的原指控后(并未明确指出被攻击对象的回应),以这样的标题其后的追踪报道,让你看似亦有站在另一方的角度进行报道。” 施仁乔还指出内文的第三段,该段针对韩俐颖比较香港与新加坡的示威运动,并表示新加坡无法如同香港上街头游行。他表示,该段重复了误导信息,曲解韩俐颖之意并暗指为“驳斥尚穆根说法”,文章应该将韩俐颖所要表达的重点报道出来。…

RE-ORGANISATION OF WORKERS’ PARTY CEC

Press Release/ The Workers’ Party (WP) held its first Central Executive Council…

Online users not buying explanation given by CGH following a complaint raised by a disappointed granddaughter

Changi General Hospital (CGH) has responded to a case raised by a…