“CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it” by late Dr. Toh Chin Chye in 1984

toh chin chye
Dr. Toh Chin Chye, founding chairman of People’s Action Party

 

On 29 Jun 1984, The then Minister for Health, Howe Yoon Chong, proposed to move a Motion in parliament for the House to approve the recommendations of the Committee on the “Problems of the Aged.”

The recommendations were contained in a Blue Paper prepared by the Committee under the Ministry of Health in Feb 1984.

The most controversial recommendation in the paper was to recommend “that the age at which CPF contributors be allowed to withdraw their savings should be deferred first to 60 and later to 65″.

It sparked off widespread public criticisms and protests against the proposal. There was a general outcry.

Dr Toh Chin Chye totally disagreed with the principle of “dipping into the CPF” to solve the problems of the aged. Dr Toh even lambasted the Minister for Health, for failing to think through the whole aged problem holistically and trying to dip into the CPF again to solve the problems of the state.

He noted that the reason for this is because the policy makers who are proposing the solutions are civil servants who draw pensions and that pensions do not come from savings. He supposed if the entire cost of running the civil service on taxes and savings, the report by the ministry of Health would have been totally different.


Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe, as a senior citizen, I am qualified to say a few words on the CPF.

The Member for Kebun Baru has given an exposition from the viewpoint of the NTUC, and I do not wish to cover the ground that he has already made. There is no doubt that we should be aware that there will be a problem of the aged in the years to come, whether in the year 1990 or the year 2000. But it is important, therefore, that we should try to divorce a proposition that has been put forward by the Minister for Health, trying to explain to us what the size of this problem will be and the means to solve this problem. Unfortunately, the Report of this Committee on the Problems of the Aged has tried to solve this complex problem by touching on the Central Provident Fund as if that were the only solution, very much the way that the Minister for Health went about trying to solve the problems of the sick by using Medisave and taking off 6% from the CPF to collect monies which is spent by patients in the hospitals.

The reason for all this uneasiness on the problems of the aged is related to the CPF. The problems of the aged have been forgotten because you are touching people’s savings. I related in the debate on Medisave how the Government could cover the cost of the entire operations of the Ministry of Health from revenue earned by the Ministry of Health plus the 2% payroll tax, without touching on savings. You have created a precedent. You have touched savings for Medisave. I abstained from the vote. Others have agreed. So the Minister for Health says, “Well, I have got one nut. Now I can get two nuts. How do I solve the problems of the aged? There was no great opposition to touching the CPF. Now I shall solve the problems of the aged by dipping into the CPF.”

But here, he came across a hornets’ nest. It is because, Mr Speaker, the problem is that those who attempt to seek a solution to the problems of the aged are civil servants who draw pensions to which they do not pay anything. They get a gratuity, two-thirds, and pension, one-third. So it is quite easy then to handle other people’s problems by touching their savings. Pensions do not come from savings. Supposing, if we did convert the entire cost of running the civil service on taxes and savings, I believe you would have a different report today.

There are many countries that are facing this problem. It is not unique in Singapore. No political problem is new for Singapore. And this is a problem that has been encountered by bigger societies and bigger economies than ours. They have employed devious ways of how to allow those who are ageing to retire gracefully and in security without becoming a pauper. Why, in America, there is even a scheme in the private sector which permits a retiree to donate his entire savings to a company and he is posted to a village where he can retire until he dies. That is a very expensive village. It is not meant for those with small CPF savings.

This problem of touching the CPF should be related to the use of the CPF, the management of the CPF and the contribution of CPF. I have repeated, time and again, that the CPF, having risen now to 50% of wages, is becoming a vexatious burden, not only to the employee but also to the employer. The employer is now paying 25% of salary towards the CPF, plus 2% payroll tax, plus 4% Skills Development Fund. That makes 31% cost on payroll alone. Of course, if there is an increase in salary from NWC recommendations, all these taxes go up. The burden on the employee is that his take-home pay becomes less, and since his take-home pay becomes less it is an issue for union bargaining, (house-unions now) to bargain with the employer for more pay.

The Minister for Finance is extremely concerned with the amount of money being locked into CPF, reducing the liquidity in commercial banks. I think that is a very genuine concern which, as the Minister for Finance, he ought to be very worried out. He should not allow his Minister for Health to dip into the CPF or to increase the CPF, because this is a social problem that is popping up. It must be thought out in breadth. We must have a vision which encompasses breadth. Do not have tunnel vision. I would like to know that we have got telescopic vision. But, Mr Speaker, I have never had the problem of tunnel vision, and that is, looking at a problem along just one line without bothering, or researching in depth, the impact on other areas.

Let us look at the problem in general. Over the last five years, 1979 to 1983, an average of 8.4% only has been withdrawn from the balance due to members who contribute to the CPF. Only 8.4%, that is if they retire at 55. I would like to put this question to the Minister for Health or the Minister for Labour who is responsible for administering the CPF. What would this percentage be if the withdrawal age were raised to 60 or 65? Of this amount that was withdrawn, two-thirds were spent on buying houses, mainly HDB flats. So only one-third was spent on retirement. In 1983, $1,718 million were withdrawn but only $374 million were spent on retirement.

So the problem we should ask ourselves is this. As the deposit in the CPF grows and grows, our balances in the CPF will grow, and when we withdraw that sum of money, will we suddenly have overnight millionaires as retirees? How many of them are there? Will it generate inflation? I do not think it will be, because if two-thirds of the balance are withdrawn for purchasing houses and only one-third for retirement, therefore it is less of a concern that raising the age to 60 or 65 will mean that we will be controlling consumption by the private sector. What is irksome is this: that the Government is using people’s savings and telling them how to spend their savings. That is the nub of the problem.

I think everybody recognizes there is a problem for the aged. The Minister for Health says so. Only they do not believe in his methods of solving this problem. There are homes for the aged. I have a kongsi for the aged. One of my members who was a worker in the PSA had withdrawn hisCPF, but it was so small that even if he were to spend $100 a month, it would have vanished in three years. It was that small. This was the reason why he is living in my kongsi for the aged.

We need to clearly define the boundaries within which the CPF will be used for retirement. We must spell that out. You just cannot say, “Let us raise the withdrawal age to 60 or 65.” It must be 60. It must be 65. Now, at which age? This Paper does not contain any calculation at all to say what will happen if it is withdrawn at 60, or what will happen if it is withdrawn at 65. If I were a person who has no relatives, if I were a widower with no children, all the assumptions made by this Committee – that you will be looked after by your children – then I do not qualify under any of these grounds. The statistics show very clearly that 43% of your senior citizens preferred to live with son and daughter-in-law and only 12% with daughter and son-in-law. But we are at the same time pursuing a family planning campaign. So if you have two daughters, you had it. Your chances are reduced to 12%. So do you understand now why the Chinese persist in having a son?

Mr Speaker, I think fundamental principles are being breached. The fundamental principle is this. The CPF is really a fixed deposit or a loan to Government, which can be redeemed at a fixed date when the contributor is 55 years old. If I were to put this sum of money in a commercial bank and, on the due date I go to the bank to withdraw the money, the manager says, “i am sorry, Dr Toh, you will have to come next year”, there will be a run on the bank! It is as simple as this, that the CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it. This is fundamental. You were taken by surprise by Medisave. Then they say, “6% of your Special Account will be kept for Medisave and you cannot withdraw that, even if you were to die.”

Now I ask the Minister for Health, and I asked him last time, whether his word is binding on future Ministers. Neither will the Minister for Labour’s word be binding on future Ministers for Labour. Can any Government or any Minister guarantee that in future years a law will not be passed that will say, “All Special Accounts in the CPF cannot be withdrawn until you die”? Your Special Account now is up to 10%; 6% Medisave, 4% for what? So unless you use the CPF to buy property, your money is in real danger of being kept under lock and key by others, not under your own lock and key. This is the nub of the problem – the credibility of the management, gradual encroachment into the purpose of the CPF which was instituted really to provide for retirement.

Again, there are many permutations on how people retire. Assuming that the CPF is like a vast insurance company, and then it hands out an annuity. I am old. It may well be that at 60 or 65 I am no longer employable. I may be senile, nobody may want to employ me. So the argument of the Member for Kebun Baru is weak there. It does not mean that employers, by just raising the retirement age to 60 or 65, will find that there will be increased productivity. The man may be a menace to the company! There are many of them in Woodbridge Hospital. I am not really convinced on that score.

You have, again, other types of contributors to the CPF. You have got expatriate workers, you have got Malaysian workers. Nowhere in this Paper is it spelt out what will be the fate of the balances of expatriate and Malaysian guest workers. Will Malaysian workers, who are now eligible to withdraw at 50 and 55 years old, be affected if, assuming today, we agree that the withdrawal age will be raised to 60 or 65? I think your mind must be applied to see the problem as a whole, and how this problem affects others. The aged guest workers are not going to stay here. So let them take their money when they go home. If that is permissible for expatriate workers, why should it not be permissible for your own workers? That is where I see the contradiction in the management of the CPF.

I am not against the Minister for Health spelling out future problems, but I would like to ask him, “Is it true, really, looking at these statistics, the dependency ratio is so many percent?” Does that mean that the Government is really supporting all these aged? On the one hand you say, “No, no, it is the family members who are supporting the aged parents.” So where does the CPF come into play? This is why this document – it should be a green paper, not a blue paper – would have been better if minds had been applied to the whole problem, so that we are set at ease about your thinking. Or are you trying another fast one?

Mr Speaker, as a senior citizen, I am beyond the decision of the Committee whether my withdrawal age should be 60 or 65.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong (Minster of Health): You have already withdrawn yours?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I have withdrawn mine. But in fairness to my constituents and to others who have not yet reached this age, I ask “Do you wish me to speak, or do you wish me to be dumb?” They say, they are against this. So I have to explain to them the problems that they will be facing and, most importantly, some of them tell me this. They are not going to squander their money on world-wide trips to see Mickey Mouse in Disneyland. Some married late. By the time they retire at 55, their children are due to go to junior college or the university. Many of them are banking on this sum of money to cover the cost of their children’s higher education.

Some hon. Members: Hear! hear!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: If you say they cannot withdraw until 60 or 65, their children had it. It is as simple as that. With these words, Mr Speaker, I pass the debate to abler Members of the House. [Applause]

To find out more ways to support us, visit this link: Donate