~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

因有室友确诊 客工被锁房内向民间组织求助

关注客工权益的民间组织“客工亦重”(Transient Workers Count Too,简称TWC2)于21日发文表示,接到一通来自Joylicious客工宿舍的求助电话。事缘一名患有冠状病毒19的中国客工于17日下午被带走。但同房21个客工被反锁困在房内,不得出入。若要如厕或洗澡则必须通过保安开门,但保安却过了30分钟才来开门。 “客工亦重”直指该锁门行为是不可接受及高度危险的事,根据工人所分享的视频,房内条件相当拥挤,且一人试图打开门却被锁住。 “一旦发生火灾怎么办?这21人又该如何逃生?”,“客工亦重”质问。经五小时后,客工亦重再次更新情况,表示他们目前已被移至更大的房间楼层,内有厕所,但门仍然是上锁。 该组织称,一名客工反映老板正调查谁泄露消息泄露来源,客工担忧被惩罚和报复,也不敢告知媒体,宁愿被囚禁也不愿意在日后接收到惩罚。“客工亦重”意识到事态严重,担心一旦失去公众监督,门会再次锁上,因此,吁请媒体与政府介入协助这些客工。 警方介入 据客工亦重较后更新好消息,警方来到现场,目前上锁的门已被打开。人力部官员也在警方到场前,曾到现场。

Karthy Nair, sister to ex-President Devan Nair, passes away at age 90

Karthy Nair, sister to Singapore’s ex-President Devan Nair, has passed away at…

年长者称申请领公积金遭拒引当局关注 徐顺全冀真诚施援莫要选前“作秀”

生病无法工作,年届60岁年长者声称申请拿出部分公积金积蓄遭拒,民主党秘书长徐顺全将他们的遭遇分享在脸书。对此中央公积金局致函后者询问详情,表示有意跟进。 对此徐顺全回函公积金局,指出希望当局对于帮助那些有困难的国人是真诚的,而不是因为临近选举才做出的“公关行为”,试图缓解人民对公积金议题的愤怒。 事缘本月13日,民主党走访武吉巴督选区。一名年长者向该党申诉,由于病痛已两年无法工作,生活情况艰巨,只得致函公积金局申请释出他的部分积蓄糊口。不过他指被当局拒绝,只好转而向慈善团体求助。 另一年长者申诉自己有24万7000元的公积金储蓄,但无法拿出来,只好继续工作。 有关贴文似乎引起公积金局注意,并致函民主党要求提供相关年长者的联络信息,以让该局跟进此事。 根据民主党在官网公开的资料,该局在信函指出,每年接到近200万来自会员透过信函、电邮、电话等方式的申请和询问,而向当局寻求协助的最直接方式,仍是前往公积金局的五大服务中心,或拨电及致函当局。 引述已故杜进才博士言论 对此,徐顺全亲自回函公积金局,重申公积金是雇员们努力半生的积蓄,拒绝释回给他们是不道德的,也不应违背55岁即归还公积金的承诺。 他引述已故前副总理杜进才博士,在1984年于国会传达的信息: 议长先生,我想基本原则已经背离。此基本原则是,公积金实则如定期存款,或借给政府之贷款,借款者理应能在年届55岁时,如期取回。假设我在商业银行存下这笔款项,到期时我去银行要提出来,银行经理却告诉我:“对不起杜博士,请明年再来”,银行恐怕要面对挤兑!简言之,公积金局已失去其信誉和管理能力。 “或许你有所误会,正是因为他们向贵局作出申诉遭拒,他们才会来找我们,而如今贵局想与他们联系以了解详情,令人难以置信。” 徐顺全也指出,如当局是真心诚意处理此事,他建议当局不妨见见这两位老人家,以及其他也有归还公积金诉求的民众。如当局同意,该党成员也准备好联系他们和可协调安排会面。…

Newsbites – no to 4G charges, and more nuclear experts for Singapore

IDA: StarHub can’t charge for 4G The Infocomm Development Authority has stopped…