Brad Bowyer, a member of the People’s Voice Party took his Facebook account on Tuesday (26 February) to question why Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) is giving lesser returns to retirees compared to other countries whose funds are much smaller than Singapore’s.

He revealed that the size of Singapore’s CPF fund as of Q3 was S$383.9 billion, which is equivalent to approximately US$284 billion, with 2 million active members and about 800,000 retirees. “We recently heard that the average return is a few hundred dollars for a maximum of 30 years. (Incidentally our CPF fund is the 8th largest “pension fund” in the world when looking at the OECD pension statistics report). At 37%, we have the highest contribution rate anywhere in the world,” he added.

In an attempt to understand what other countries with equivalent fund size are delivering to its citizen, Bowyer compared CPF with Germany’s pension fund. He wrote that Germany has a pension fund that is US$268 billion, which is slightly lesser than Singapore but has a population of 82.4 million of whom about 25% are above 65.

However, the European country still manages to pay an average of €1,175 or SGD$1,800 for life and aims to replace 50% of their previous income, which is supplemented by vocational and optional private schemes.

He also added that their contribution rate is only 18.7% and it’s split half (50/50) between employer and employee.

“My question, why can a slightly smaller fund return 5 to 6 times the amount of money to 10 times as many people in Germany compared to ours?” he asked.

In short, Bowyer noted that Germany’s pension system is 60 times more effective than Singapore’s.

Besides Germany, Bowyer also drew comparison with Denmark, which he said has one of the best pensions in the world.

He wrote, “Denmark has a population of 5.75 million, very similar to ours with about 18% or 1 million pensioners. Their pension fund is only US$160 billion. They have a 2-tier system, the first part is paid by tax revenue and the second part is vocational split 66/33 employee/employer averaging a 12% contribution rate. The combination of schemes aims to replace close to 100% of income for life and currently sits around 98.7% and an average SGD$4,000 per month.”

After delivering his arguments in his post, Bowyer wondered what has gone wrong with CPF’s system where other countries can outperform Singapore by so much more.

“There are serious and fundamental flaws in how our CPF funds are allocated, used and invested. If the incumbents will not address these issues, then we need to vote in a team that will,” he concluded.

However, after his post was uploaded, almost 100 comments were received whom TOC identify as fake accounts and Internet Brigades (IBs)* dismissed his arguments. They said that his comparisons of CPF with Germany and Denmark may not be so true after all.

Using similar links and narrative, some questioned if the pension scheme in Germany is sustainable.

However, there are still those who thanked Bowyer for his insights as they now have a better understanding of CPF and how they have been “fed misinformation for so long”.

*TOC has monitored the accounts for the last year or so and have a record of their comments to show organised activity.

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

苏睿勇田径总会执行董事马利克提出诽谤令状

两届马拉松冠军苏睿勇,针对新加坡田径总会(SA)执行董事马利克(Malik Aljunied)未在限定时间内回复,向法庭提出诽谤令状呈请,相信未来将会对薄公堂。 苏睿勇于昨日(27日)在脸书上帖文表示,由于马利克未在限定时间内回复先前所寄出的律师信函,因此正式向法庭提出呈请。该律师信函于8月19日寄出,内容控诉马利克于社交平台上恶意中伤,并向马利克要求赔偿金与公开道歉。 文内他也警告新加坡田径总会,一旦要公开控诉一名运动员,就应该要准备好证据,否则就必须做好被追究责任的准备。 “如今我祝愿马利克一切顺心,只有愈早致歉,才会对你、奥委会、新加坡田径总会是最好的选择。”他表示。 马利克于本月17日在脸书上上载一张他和两个小女孩的合照,并写道希望照片中至少有一人能成为400米跨栏的选手。 然而在帖文内容中,马利克也写道“要堤防马拉松,它最终会扰乱你的思维和心绪”,疑似在影射苏睿勇。 除此之外,有一名网友也在马利克帖文的评论区留言问道,“马拉松到底如何扰乱思维和心绪”时,马利克回答说它是针对“目前的一名特定马拉松运动员”,指对方的“理智已被搞砸到无法修复”。 马利克还说到,“这似乎显示了他缺乏同情心、同理心、不知感恩和爱护他人的能力”。 苏睿勇律师Clarence Lun指出,马利克目前在脸书上明显与具毁谤性的留言,所映射的人只有苏睿勇,因此将会针对马利克发出诽谤的索赔要求。 对此,奥委会向《今日报》透露奥委会将不涉及两人之间的司法诉讼,认为苏睿勇已公开与奥委会所有的书信往来,因此不予置评。…

Ric O’Barry: We can save the planet by controlling our desires

~by: Elisabelle Aruldoss~ ACRES hosted an open dialogue session with influential dolphin activist,…

高庭驳回迪哥达索取警方录供的刑事动议

本月3日,大法官梅达顺在高庭驳回了本社总编许渊臣,以及被控刑事诽谤男子迪哥达的刑事动议。 检控官拒绝公开两人此案中的警方录供,他们个别针对此事提呈刑事动议。 不过,梅达顺在口头陈述判决依据时表明,提呈在他眼前的凭据,未能说服他要求高庭审核国家法院裁决的最高门槛已达到。 早前,迪哥达辩护律师拉维,依循刑事诉讼法(CPC)第22条文,要求控方在开审前出示迪哥达的口供,但遭国家法院法官驳回。 至于许渊臣辩护律师朱正熙,强调许渊臣此前录的口供,能力助此案,因为当时当局并没有盘问被告,确认他是否有诽谤内阁的意图,以及他是否认为文章陈述是中立或不利的。 梅达顺则认为,辩方大可在上诉时提及此事,惟朱正熙也指出有凸显程序错误的重要;梅达顺也提醒检控官,考量有关口供是否和辩方有关联。 拉维律师则提及,早在开审前,检控官就已知道被告索取有关口供,但当时对方就已拒绝。可是控方仍辩解被告可走刑事案件披露会议(Criminal Case Disclosure Conference,简称CCDC)程序,但依据《刑事诉讼法》第159条文,却需要征得控辩双方同意。 一开始控方就拒绝让被告索取口供,对此拉维更形容控方的上述建议,形同让被告做“徒劳之举”(原文:go on…

Wet and warm conditions to continue in the second half of April 2019

Moderate to heavy short-duration thundery showers are expected between the late morning…