By Eric Tan
When the People’s Action Party inherited the Central Provident Fund system from the British, they did not change a basic flaw in the system, which was to allow members to withdraw all the funds when they reached the then retirement age of 55.
Later in the 1980s when they tried to move the withdrawal age to 60 in tandem with the retirement age, there was strong resistance from the ground, and there is reason to believe that this was a contributing factor to the loss of the second parliamentary seat to opposition in 1984.
The introduction of the minimum sum and special account structure seems to have been a step to address this issue – allowing a withdrawal of funds at age 55, while retaining the bulk of fund in the CPF system for later use. The government designed the minimum amount to increase over time such that when the baby boomers retire, it would balloon to a substantial amount.
Today, for more than 50 percent of CPF members who reached 55, almost all their funds in the ordinary account are transferred to the special account to meet the minimum sum requirement. And once again, we see the government oblivious to the public outcry arising from this move.
If CPF is “ideal”, then what gives?
The CPF as a retirement scheme has two problems. First, the withdrawal age of 55 is outdated as people live longer and need to work longer before they can withdraw their CPF. Furthermore, withdrawal at 55 is uncoordinated with the current retirement age of 62 today.
Second, the lump sum withdrawal is not in line with the principles of pension, which is an annuity. The CPF members should convert the lump sum into an annuity. It looks like the government understands all these concepts. They put in place the minimum sum and CPF Life annuity. Why then are they facing another confidence crisis?
For one, they did not effectively persuade people that these reforms are good for them. People felt they had been manipulated and had no choice in the matter. Ironically, in the age of the Internet it is difficult to dispel conspiracy theories.
For another, the CPF Life annuity, which is now compulsory for those who turn 65, is not attractive. For the full minimum sum of $155,000, the retiree receives an annuity of about S$1,200 every month for life. However, the people perceived that they have to be over 80 years old before they get back all their money. Most people do not believe they can live that long and they do not believe in the evidence reflected in the statistics. I am not an expert on annuity or actuarial science, but shouldn’t the public know the amount of profits the outsourced insurance company make from this scheme?
And finally, the most important reason of all: Most Singaporeans do not have sufficient funds in their CPF to retire. CPF is used to pay for housing, Medisave, Medishield insurance premiums and for paying parent’s medical expenses and children’s education. Furthermore, the government use CPF as a tool in recession to reduce wages. These measures depleted the peoples’ CPF. Why did the PAP government allow this to happen? Were they kicking the can down the road?
A pension scheme chasing rising costs?
In the 1990s, we witnessed a significant increase in prices for housing and medical expenses, and we cannot possibly delink the use of CPF for these expenses to the increase. Then as a member of the Workers’ Party, I felt that we must debate these issues in Parliament for public scrutiny.
On one occasion in the 1990s, I remember a Minister saying that we have progressed so well that clerks are now opting for class A hospital wards and soon there may not be a need for class C wards. In effect, people were depleting their Medisave accounts for first class medical treatments. For a while, the HDB stopped building two room flats under the illusion that we have prospered and hence have no demand for two room flats.
Unfortunately, it took another generation for the public to see the follies of these policies. From the 1990s to 2011, the people only voted in two opposition MPs, signaling to the PAP that all is well. It is only now that the people experienced the negative impact of these policies. Today, costly healthcare services, unaffordable HDB flats and the CPF system are hot button issues.
By not allowing the people to withdraw all their CPF when they reached 55 years old, it appears that the government has broken its promise, resulting in a loss of the people’s trust.
The PAP also has to contend with cultural factors. Pensions are generally a Western concept, whereas Asians expect their children to look after them. In the best case, we give our children a good education and happy childhood and hope that they will look after us. In the most cynical case, we promise them an inheritance to induce them to look after us when we are old. Pension schemes like the CPF can complement this system, but when they are far from sufficient to live on, you have a social time bomb.
CPF rate of returns
For a pension scheme to work, the government urgently needs to persuade the people of the need to convert their CPF into an annuity to be drawn down after they retire at 62. One way is to make the CPF Life annuity very compelling and offer better rate of returns for CPF funds.
In the past, CPF rate of returns have always been low but Singaporeans accepted them as we see it as supporting our nation building. In the early 1980s, Ong Teng Cheong had to defend the low 4% per annum CPF rate when rates offered by bank deposits were close to 10%. But there were no Hong Lim Park protests back then as people can see their lives improving, and they believed that the CPF funded state expenditure in roads, airports and other infrastructure. Ministers and top civil servants were not paid million-dollar salaries then.
Today, despite what the officials say, we have reason to believe that CPF is funding GIC and Temasek Holdings. Both sovereign wealth funds are run like private equity funds with multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses paid to the fund managers working for them. The public response is understandable: Why should they provide their hard-earned CPF funds for these people to earn high salaries? The government is in a quandary: The more they boast that these funds are doing very well, the more the people demand a share of it. They will demand more transparency and accountability for these funds.
Now comes the difficult question: How much risk should a pensioner take to get better returns?
CPF members have an option to invest part of their CPF balance in their ordinary account in CPF-approved equities and unit trusts. However, the success rate for these investments is low, as the average CPF member is not a well-informed investor. Also, in the case of unit trusts, the trust fund managers are not accountable to the individual CPF investor for poor performance. As a result, the take up rate for this option is low.
Proposed solutions and action plan
I foresee that the solution would be to restructure the CPF funds into a pension fund with fund managers who are accountable directly to the CPF members or the public. These fund managers would enjoy economies of scale to reduce their costs. The large fund size would give them the advantage to gain access to the best deals in equity funds.
The Ministry of Finance, through the CPF board, can set guidelines on the range of risk appetite for different categories of investors. For example, those who have amounts in excess of S$100,000 in their CPF can invest in equities, otherwise they should be restricted to investment-grade bond funds. These guidelines should be debated in Parliament. CPF can then offer various mutual funds, including those from GIC and Temasek Holdings, to accommodate the CPF investor risk profile.
But growing the pot is not enough. We also need to look at reducing its depletion. The government must restore the original pension objectives of the CPF by gradually reducing the amounts that people can use for housing and healthcare.
The financial impact of a housing loan on your CPF balances when you retire is punitive, as the total interest paid for a 25-year loan could be equal to or greater than the amount borrowed. For example if you borrow S$200,000 and repay it after 25 years, the total amount deducted from the CPF could be more than S$400,000. Reducing the amount that can be used for housing will have a negative impact on property prices, and this is something that the government has to manage separately.
The government must convince the people that deferring the CPF withdrawal and converting lump sums into annuities are good for them. They can do so by making annuities more attractive and improving returns.
 

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

“100公斤才有五块钱” 拾荒老人揭生活心酸

相信在新加坡应该很常看到老人弯着腰,小心翼翼将纸皮捡上放到推车中,再以佝偻的背影推着沉重的推车,在炎热的天气下一步步前往回收中心卖掉。 尽管我们都了解捡纸皮老人的生活辛苦,但你是否真的深入了解他们吗?他们又如何面对生活上的心酸? 乐于助人组织(Happy People Helping People Community)近日则拍摄一组捡纸皮老人的生活,为了让民众更贴近了解拾纸皮老人是如何在每日中勉强度过,便以闲谈(Kopi Talk) 的方式与老人进行对话,并在不干扰老人的情况下,对老人的生活近距离拍摄。   “现在很多人去抢纸皮,行情那么坏,五分钱1kg 也是有人抢,有些bangla(外劳),找垃圾的,也是在跟我们抢(生意)。”…

Where have all the IBs gone – Part 3: Their cause and its effect

By Terry Xu We have earlier discussed about the evolution of the…

Should we bring back estate duty in light of the Govt’s call to increase of GST to fund future expenses?

by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss On 19 November 2017, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong…

经济师下调对我国全年经济增长预测至0.6巴仙

新加坡金融管理局,在上月13日向27位经济学家和分析师发出问卷,咨询他们对新加坡经济前景的看法。 其中23位经济师给予当局反馈,在该局今日公布的经济师调查报告(Survey of Professional Forecasters),他们预测我国今年全年经济仅增长0.6巴仙,低于三个月前预测的2.1巴仙。 而在三月份,他们提供的预测为2.5巴仙。报告中指今年第二季国内生产总值增长不如预期。至于经济师预测,今年第三度年比增长达到0.3巴仙。 这也和上月贸工部下调对今年国内生产总值(GDP)经济成长预测,至“0.0至1.0巴仙”之间,不谋而合。 中美紧张局势仍是参与民调的经济师首要关注的议题,也有超过一半的经济师,关注中国因外部不确定因素和国内金融市场不稳定的风险。 不过,他们看好我国GDP在2020年将回升至1.6巴仙。对来年新加坡经济成长的预估平均在1至1.9巴仙。但是,比起前一次民调的2至2.4巴仙来得低。 对于盈利的不确定性产生的上行风险,有70.6巴仙经济师认为贸易紧张减缓居首,不过有鉴于当前局势似乎不太可能,经济师的预测已下调至61.1巴仙。 但对于新加坡和其他地区可能落实经济刺激政策的上行风险,则调高至44.4巴仙;以及舒缓经济情况的措施也达到33.3巴仙。