Why are there so many “unknown” controversial CPF policies and how many more unknown?

I refer to the Central Provident Fund board’s reply “CPF Board procedures on disclosing dead members’ details” to the letters from:

The letter from CPF states that “We will review our procedures to better meet the needs of members.”

It goes on to state, “Currently, the CPF Board discloses a deceased’s CPF information to his nominees only if he had given the Board prior instructions to do so”

This may arguably be really somewhat nonsensical, as why would anyone give this “prior instructions to do so” whilst one is still alive? How many people would know about this?

Has the CPF Board ever informed the media or anyone, or put this information on its website?

In the history of the CPF Board – how many members have ever given such instructions?

With regard to “If he had not provided such instructions, the CPF Board takes a prudent approach and will seek the consent of all nominees before acceding to requests for information regarding the deceased’s CPF account” – are you telling us that all the three nominees who wrote to the Straits Times Forum are not single sole nominees, but are joint nominees?

In the history of the CPF Board – how many joint nominees have been informed that they can jointly give their consent?

CPF further writes in its letter,

“We assure CPF members that the CPF Board has strict controls in place to ensure that the deceased’s CPF savings are paid accurately to the nominees. Our processes and payments are independently checked and audited regularly by external auditors to ensure that they remain robust.

We should have been more prompt and clearer in explaining to Mr Neo on how we were handling his request, and have contacted him to apologise.

“We have also contacted Ms Lee to clarify the matter” wrote the letter – This may not be the first time, arguably that the CPF Board has made controversial policies, without telling anyone or the media or announced in Parliament.

Allow me to cite just two examples in history –

[spacer height=”20px”]Uniquely Singapore!