~by: Leong Sze Hian~

I refer to the report “Percentage of CPF members meeting Minimum Sum on the rise: Tharman” (Channel NewsAsia, Mar 5). It states that “The percentage of active CPF members who meet their Minimum Sum at age 55 has been improving over the years, from 36 per cent in 2007 to 45 per cent in 2011. Speaking in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister and Manpower Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam said this will improve with each successive cohort, as educational profiles improve and lifetime incomes rise”.

However, according to a report in the previous year “Fewer S'pore citizenship, permanent residency granted: report” (Channel NewsAsia, Dec 17, 2010):

“Another issue for the government involves the CPF minimum sum requirement, where S$123,000 must be set aside for retirement. In 2009, only 49 per cent of workers were able to meet the requirement upon reaching 55 years old”.

So, does it mean that those who could meet the Minimum Sum increased from 36 per cent in 2007 to 49 per cent in 2009, and then declined to 45 per cent in 2011.

According to the report 'CPF Trends: Minimum Sum Scheme' – “Among the active members who turned 55 in 2008, about one-third (33.8%) met the required MS (Chart 2). This is a drop from 57.1% in 1996, and could be attributed to the increase in the required MS from $40,000 in July 1995 to $106,000 in July 2008”.

The chart in that report shows that the percentage decline was in almost a straight line, and the 2007 figure was around 36 per cent. This coincides with the '36 per cent in 2007' figure reported in the recent Parliamentary sitting.

15.2% jump in 1 year?

So, does this mean that the percentage declined from 37 in 2007 to 33.8 in 2008, increased dramatically to 49 in 2009 (a jump of 15.2 per cent in one year), and then declined to 45 per cent in 2011, instead of just simply what was reported in Parliament as “has been improving over the years, from 36 per cent in 2007 to 45 per cent in 2011”?

Minimum Sum in cash or with property?

What is perhaps even more intriguing was what the former Minister of Manpower said in Parliament last year that “For the cohort turning 55 in 2010, over 40% of active CPF members, or about 12,600 members, attained their cohort MS set at $123,000 after lump sum withdrawal. Of these members, more than half have set aside the full cohort MS in cash”.

Because if the percentage was 49 in 2009, over 40% in 2010, and 45 per cent in 2011, does it mean that it was like a roller-coaster ride from 57.1 in 1996 to 33.8 in 2008, 49 in 2009, just over 40 in 2010 and now 45 in 2011,  instead of just simply what was reported in Parliament as “has been improving over the years, from 36 per cent in 2007 to 45 per cent in 2011”?

Since the former Minister of Manpower said “Of these members (12,600), more than half have set aside the full cohort MS in cash, does it mean that only over 20% (more than 6,300 members) had their Minimum Sum in cash with the other half of the members being able to have their Minimum Sum after pledging their property?

Could this be the reason why there was a dramatic jump of 15.2% in the year 2009, because the CPF report was referring to the Minimum Sum in cash, whereas the Ministers were referring to meeting the Minimum Sum with cash and property? 

If you are confused by now, so am I!

What about inactive CPF members?

Couple this with the fact that there were also 1,642,900 inactive CPF members, out of the total CPF members of 3,343,300 in 2010, (Department of Statistics Labour and Productivity report), perhaps we could get clarity if someone can tell us how many were in the age 55 cohort in 2011, and how many of these met the Minimum Sum entirely in cash?

How many in age 55 cohort have Minimum Sum in cash?

As I estimate the 55 cohort to be about 60,000 plus since there were 182,700 active CPF members over age 50 to 55 and another estimated 100,000 plus inactive CPF members, could this number be as little as less than 10,000, or less than 1 in 6?  


Support TOC! Buy Uncle Leong’s book here!

picture credit: CashBench

 

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

不分文、理科 马国中四生明年可选修科目

明年起,马来西亚中四生料能根据自己的兴趣与倾向选修科目,不再有理科与非理科之分。 马国副教育部长张念群,接受《星洲日报》询问时表示,随着中学标准课程(KSSM)明年开始在高中阶段落实,中四生将不再有理科或非理科源流之分。 “学生可根据自己的兴趣与倾向选修科目。学生将根据所选修的科目被安排教室。” 对此,她表示,学校辅导员委以重任,协助学生做出正确的选择,此外,学生的课堂评估与中三评估考试(PT3)也会作为参考指标。 她说,目前中四学生的科目包括英文、马来文、历史、道德、数学和高级数学,而理科项目则包含化学、生物、物理,商科则有科学、会计和经济。学校则被赋予自主权,可根据师资与学校的设备,为中四与中五生提供相关科目的资源。 学校被赋予自主权,以根据师资和学校设备等因素,为中四和中五的学生提供相关科目。 目前中四学生的科目有英文、马来文、历史、道德、数学和高级数学;理科生的科目还有化学、生物、物理,商科生的科目则是科学、会计和经济等。 早在今年2月,马国教育部长马智礼曾指出,国家教育政策研究委员会提出的建议之一,就是不再将学生以理科或非理科区分。 他表示,“在即将落实的新课程中,我们将不仅强调理科,还会加强艺术(和文化),因为知识是一体的,知识无法分隔,应该是综合的。” 他也续指在大学与学校,将会不断地加强校内艺术课程。 他说,向前迈进的方向是要将科学、技术、工程、数学(STEM)生活化,而STEM将被提升为“STREAM”,即除了原本的科学、技术、工程和数学外,还包括艺术和阅读。

PSB Academy and Institute of Management Accountants launch preparatory course to groom finance professionals for leadership

PSB Academy is the first private education institution to partner the Institute of…

马国会提修宪议案 复砂沙为“邦”与马来半岛平起平坐

邻国马来西亚国会将在明日召开,将寻求通过两项修宪案,其中最为瞩目的,即是修改的宪法和法令包括《联邦宪法》第1(2)条文,以恢復沙巴和砂拉越这两个州属,作为“邦”(Wilayah)的地位,让沙砂与马来亚半岛平起平坐。 马国内阁日前议决将动议修宪,恢复沙巴,砂拉越与马来亚的平等地位,一旦修宪成功,沙巴与砂拉越将不再只是“州属”。 不过,根据马国法律, 修宪案需获得国会中2/3议员的支持,才能顺利通过,之后交由国家元首御准,並在宪报上颁布,方能生效成为正式法律。 马国国会目前有222议席,不过目前执政联盟希盟仅掌握125席,当中计有公正党50席、行动党42席、土团党22席及诚信党11席,加上沙巴民兴党9席,共134席,以此推算,距离修宪所需尚差14席。 去年经历509变天后,砂拉越国阵成员党宣布退出国阵,并另组织砂拉越政党联盟(GPS)。 由于恢復沙砂地位攸关东马两州,砂拉越首席部长拿督巴丁宜阿邦佐哈里已于週六(9日)表明,將指示砂政党联盟所有18名国会议员,需全力支持修宪。预料若全体砂拉越国会议员支持,料能达致超过2/3的修宪要求。 1976年修宪失平等地位 1974年,砂沙放弃了对石油和天然气主权,拱手让给国油(Petronas)。 当时出台了1974年石油发展法令,无论岸上或岸外石油和天然气,都归国油公司所有,而后者必须支付5巴仙石油税给中央和州政府。 1976年,马国曾经历一次修宪,导致砂拉越及沙巴从原本的平等伙伴,降为13州之一,而沙砂国阵成员党的议员都投票支持修宪。 但是随着近年来,沙巴和砂拉越自主意识抬头,当地本土政党和民间呼吁检讨1963年建国契约的呼声越来越烈,包括要求把石油税提升到20巴仙、公平分配发展资源以及认可沙巴砂拉越自治权。…

【冠状病毒19】5月17日新增682例确诊

根据卫生部文告,截至5月17日中午12时,本地新增682例冠状病毒19确诊。 如今本地累计确诊病例已增至2万8038例。 新增确诊病例大多为住宿舍的工作准证持有者。有四名新加坡公民或永久居民确诊。 当局仍在搜集新增确诊者详情并将在晚些时候公布。