Leong Sze Hian, Alex Lew /

“Nothing’s sacrosanct in Government review of policies.”PM Lee Hsien Loong.

I refer to the articles “Tharman open to ideas, say economists” and “Big change, great expectations” (ST, May 20).

I would like to applaud the Prime Minister for his bold changes to the cabinet.

I believe what Singaporeans would like to see going forward is what changes will be made to address the myriad of issues raised in the elections.

As about half a dozen ministers have said that the PAP needs to be transformed, I would like to make the following suggestions to review CPF:-

1) Explore the possibility of pegging the CPF accounts’ interest rate to the Government Investment Corporation’s (GIC) historical returns of about 7.9 per cent per annum over the last 20 years (in US$ terms) less one per cent, instead of 2.5 per cent on the Ordinary Account (OA) and average yield of the 10-year government bond plus one per cent on the Special, Medical and Retirement Accounts (SMRA), plus an extra one per cent on the first $60,000.

This is more equitable as the Government sells bonds to the CPF Board at the respective OA and SMRA rates, and gives most of the CPF funds to GIC.

Malaysia’s Employees Providend Fund (EPF) paid a dividend of 5.8 and 5.65 per cent in 2010 and 2009, respectively, and historically between 4.25 to 8.5 per cent.

2) Review the policy change to phase out the age fifty-five 50 per cent withdrawal rule by 2013, when those who have less than the prevailing CPF Minimum Sum (MS) of $123,000 and the Medisave Required Amount (MRA) of $27,500, can only withdraw $5,000 at age 55.

Singaporeans who are in financial hardship from age 55 to 65, before their CPF Life annuity will begin at age 65, should be allowed to make some withdrawals.

3) Reverse the policy change on the Property Pledge at age 55 for up to half the prevailing MS, to enable Singaporeans to withdraw more CPF using the pledge like before, instead of only pledging to meet any MS shortfall now.

4) Review the Available Housing Withdrawal Limit (AHWL) suspending the further use of CPF for housing repayments when the Valuation Limit (VL) of the HDB or private property is exceeded, and the CPF account holder has less than half the prevailing MS in his or her OA and SA. This typically affects the lower-income more, as their OA and SA contributions are generally lower. Hence, it may be more difficult for their OA and SA to catch up with the yearly increasing MS to meet the AHWL.

5) Review the policy of not allowing the OA balance at age 55 for housing repayments. Some Singaporeans who were not aware of this policy had to sell their homes, despite having funds in their OA at age 55, as some may not know that they have to use up their OA for housing before 55.

6) Change the CPF Minimum Sum Payout Calculator to include the extra one per cent on the first $60,000 in the Retirement Account, so that Singaporeans making a decision on whether to opt in to CPF Life can do so on a fair orange-to-orange comparison basis.

7) Review the current policy of making the entire Workfare contribution to the self-employed to their CPF Medisave Accounts, with no cash payout. This discourages older lower-income self- employed Singaporeans from contributing to CPF to qualify for Workfare.

8) Instead of making periodic CPF Medisave top-ups to older Singaporeans, use the funds to pay for their Medishield premiums instead. Otherwise, such top-ups may be easily consumed by rising medical costs.

9) Review the CPF Medishield policy of excluding congenital illnesses for new-born children.

10) Disclose how many self-employed are in arrears on their compulsory Medisave contributions?

11) Why is the actuarial study done on CPF Life not made public? How do we know what assumptions and methodology are being used in the computations and projections in the scheme?

12) Review the policy of exempting employers from having to pay their 16 per cent contribution to CPF for foreign employees. This policy puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage, as employers save 16 per cent of salary costs when they employ foreigners.

13) Plug the loop-hole of some employers not paying the employer’s CPF contribution for their part-time workers, such as part-time lecturers at the university, who go for reservist training.

I would like to urge and call upon all stakeholders to work with and support our new Manpower Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, to reform our CPF.

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

中年雇员占本地劳动力六成 尚达曼鼓励雇主续聘用

国务资政兼社会政策统筹部长尚达曼坦言,本地劳动力队伍中,有60巴仙都是年龄40岁或以上的雇员。为此政府仍积极协助他们就业,包括鼓励雇主雇佣这批中年工友群体。 他指出,尽管当中一些中年工友学历不高,但刻苦耐劳且多年来已积累宝贵工作经验,为此政府仍会确保他们能继续为国家贡献。 目前尚达曼领导全国就业理事会,在今晚(17日)的演说,他提及政府给予那些雇佣中年工友的雇主额外支持。 尚达曼强调政府需确保“没有国人被落在后头”,而当前当务之急,是为国人保住工作,确保失业者尽快返回职场等。 当前贸易和旅游业前景低迷,而政府与各领域企业合作,提供临时工作以及实习机会,让国人边工作、边学习新技能,为下一份工作做好准备。 强化社会流动性 尚达曼也指在全球爆发疫情前,一些国家就已出现社会分化现象,而我国需避免这种问题,为此,将继续确保国人有机会接受教育、掌握技能和找到好工作;为输在起跑点的国人提供支持,维持社会流动性。 https://web.facebook.com/gov.sg/videos/292041325179615/?v=292041325179615&external_log_id=e30a1790-0a5b-4317-b40a-0bd36cc26b8f&q=Tharman%20Shanmugaratnam  

The indignity that Singapore Bus Drivers (SMRT) have to go through

This is a translation of forum post began by free planet go…

Father of 4 fined $7,000 for parking offences

Gabriel Ravi Janageran was found guilty of 14 counts of parking offences…

部长称部分小贩诉求乃“情绪化流言” 小贩撰文表达失望

国会于今日复会,小贩中心议题再次成为话题,10多名议员、非选区议员和官委议员参与提问和辩论,至少21项提问,要求环境及水源部长解释有关社企小贩中心的经营模式,或其他与小贩中心有关的课题。 环境及水源部高级政务部长许连碹博士在国会上澄清,社企小贩中心的摊位租金中位数,在每月2000元左右,与现有小贩中心的1700元相近。 此外,社企小贩中心的杂费、清理桌子的费用也与现有小贩中心的收费相近,有些甚至更低。 许连碹在答复中表示,社企小贩中心的摊位租金中位数约每月2000元,并非一些媒体所报道的每月4000元。她说,现有小贩中心的摊位租金中位数是1700元,价位相近;不过在摊位面积方面,社企小贩中心的摊位介于10到21平方米,相比之下,现有小贩中心的摊位只有5到13平方米。 在实际摊位租金方面,社企小贩摊位每月的租金介于750元到3700元之间。这也与现有小贩中心无津贴摊位所需支付的每月640元到3900元类似。 早前,她认为关于社企小贩议题,有一部分是受“情绪化的道听途说所驱动,或许是出于善意,不过有些被误导和未经证实。” 高级部长或许认为,这些小贩的个人经历并不真实,只是企图在煽风点火。 另一方面,环境及水源部长马善高在国会也附和许连碹,指社企小贩中心模式“整体上是健全的,食物价格维持在可负担水平,为顾客提供各式高质量的食物选择,价格一般比邻近的咖啡店和食阁便宜。大部分的摊贩的生意也不错,不能让这些成就功亏一篑。” 他声称政府会“继续采用和改进社企小贩中心的模式,更好地满足公众的需求,并照顾摊贩的福利。” 如今,小贩林家良对于许连碹的说辞,直言“失望已无法盖过他沉重的情绪”。 “我们不是笨蛋,也不会对我们的同业的遭遇视而不见。我们肯定不会散播假新闻(如果您如此认为的话)。我们给足了即便在法律严格审查下也能站得住脚的的书面证据和资料。” 而小贩们的诉求,也成功促使环境局在短短两周内重新审视、并推翻了那些不利小贩营生的条款。没有来自民间的诉求和挑战,威权恐怕不会让步。…