The following is a letter to the Today newspaper by Mr Leong Sze Hian.

I refer to “MPs: Is it really secure?” (July 21).

Since Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong has given his assurance in Parliament that the monthly payouts will be paid for life — despite the provision in the new law which allows the CPF Board to stop CPFLife payments unless the Lifelong Income Fund is solvent — then why have this provision in the first place?

Years down the road, the law will prevail, regardless of what the minister said in a past Parliamentary debate.

Moreover, as “the minister cannot make changes at will but must base his decisions on sound actuarial principles to ensure that fund solvency will not be compromised”, is this not somewhat self-contradictory?

As how then can the fund become insolvent and thus stop payouts?

I understand that historically, no country in the world has ever had to stop pension payouts due to fund insolvency.

Even insurance companies’ annuity contracts are contractually backed by the full faith and credit, and assets of the insurance company, and are not subject to the solvency of the pooled annuity fund.

So, why is CPFLife so different?

Despite the vigorous debate, I think some Singaporeans may be disappointed that Parliament has passed a law which effectively changes the current 4 per cent guaranteed return (plus one per cent on the first $60,000) on monthly payouts from age 62, to one which can stop payouts altogether if the fund is insolvent.

When the scheme was originally announced, implementation was to have been in 2013, to give Singaporeans some time to make adjustments to their retirement planning, as the payouts will start later at age 65 instead of 62, and the payout amount may also be lesser.

Bringing it forward now by more than three years to September this year may cause financial stress to some Singaporeans, particularly the lower-income ones.

——-

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

PAP’s old ways of ruling may no longer appeal to new generation of Singaporeans as credibility dips

In a survey conducted by Singapore’s Institute of Policy Studies, it was…

本地退休高管踢爆 为省成本银行后台作业外包发展中国家!

8月13日,数家银行声称有强大本地人核心雇员团队,随即遭到一名退休银行家打脸,直言一些“大型、老牌外籍银行”,倾向雇用外籍人士、排挤新加坡人才,已是业界熟知之事。 今日(19日)再有一名退休银行高管Roy Lim Cheow Kwan,到《海峡时报》撰文,直接踢爆银行业界的一些不健康风气,包括过去20年,许多银行把后台作业,外包给发展中国家,以节省成本! 他说尽管可以理解银行的这些政策,但同样也令他感到不安,特别是这形同让本地年轻银行雇员,失去对银行技能的基本了解和掌握。这甚至意味着,将来新加坡将逐渐变得需依赖其他国家,才能维持金融中心的运作。 “万一外包国家局势动荡如何是好?” 他警告:“如果这些国家局势面对动荡,都可能影响本地银行的日常运作。” Roy Lim直言,我们的理工学院毕业生,就足以胜任这些后台工作,也让他们能在本地发展自己的职涯。 这些关键业务由自家掌控,才能确保银行能更好地掌控全盘交易,乃至能及时侦测到欺诈性交易。 他举例,例如提货单(bills…

【武汉冠状病毒】马国政府禁止口罩出口

邻国马来西亚的武汉冠状病毒确诊病例已累计55例,为了确保当地有足够的口罩使用,马国卫生总监拿督诺希山宣布将禁止当地口罩出境。 综合马国媒体报道,日前该国政府还暂无意禁止厂商出口口罩,惟将商议提高口罩产量,以应付国人的需求。 但随着疫情的蔓延,马来西亚卫生部表示如今已进入第二波冠状病毒疫情,因此新冠肺炎疫情委员会议决,将口罩宪报颁布为2020年统制品(禁止出口)条例名单。 诺希山说,这是为了确保口罩足以应付本地的需求量。 随着中国境外的疫情愈发严重,各国也提出各项口罩措施。 台湾已与1月24日宣布管制2类型口罩出口一个月,亦是率先提出禁止口罩出口的地区;而泰国则于2月4日统一采取因应措施,尽可能减少医用口罩出口,并将口罩和洗手液等列为“管制商品以防止国内供应短缺”。 法国于3月3日签署政令,在未来几个月征用所有防护性口罩的库存与生产;俄罗斯与德国则紧随其后,3月4日起禁止口罩、呼吸器和防护服等医疗用品出口;韩国在爆发疫情后,于3月6日全面禁止口罩及口罩关键原料出口,禁令有限至6月30日。 而我国对于口罩措施,则选择采取“积极步骤“,加强供应链的伸缩性,同时也呼吁国人勤洗手、监测体温,以及不碰触自己的脸颊,但也未采取限制口罩出境。截至今日,口罩仍处于供不应求的状态。 目前我国确诊病例已累计117人。