On 5 August, a woman named Yukumi Wu took to her Facebook to mention that her father, Mr Boo Meng Hock, went missing exactly 23 years ago.
In her post, Ms Wu noted that in all the years since her father went missing, the CPF Board has been deducting money from his MediShield account. She said there was no way to stop the deductions as the family don’t yet have a death certificate for Mr Boo. According to the records, he is still alive.
She then says, “I have kept his police report for 23 years! I don’t know whether in the new SPF system, still has his record as a missing person we filed 23 years ago?”
In response to her post, on 7 August, CPF wrote on its Facebook page saying that they empathise with the situation that the family is facing. However, CPF claims that their records show that no one from the family approached the CPF Board for assistance on the matter. In fact, CPF Board stated that they have in fact reached out to the family to explain the necessary steps to declare Mr Boo as deceased.
The Board added “In line with industry practice, CPFB treats an individual as being alive until the person has been registered as deceased with the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA).”
They go on to explain how a missing person can be registered as deceased with the ICA.
The Board then says that for the past 23 years, Mr Boo has been receiving various bonuses and vouchers such as the Pioneer Generation pay-outs, GST vouchers, MediSave top-ups, SG Bonus, GST credits (between 2007-2010), growth dividend (2008-2010), and the Grow and Share packages – all amounting to about S$15,000 in cash. All because they still consider him to be alive. The Board highlighted that these come up to more than the MediShield Life premium deductions of about S$7,300.
They end their post by urging the family to obtain a court order to declare Mr Boo as deceased and submit it to the ICA.
Following CPF Board’s explanation, many netizens commented in the post slamming Ms Wu. They said that she quietly collected the payouts given by CPF but still raised the issue over her missing dad’s premiums being deducted for 23 years.
Some even said her story is fake and it has misled the public, hence thanking CPF for clarifying the issue. Facebook user Watt WK asked Ms Wu to return all the payouts that she has received back to the Government.

Others said that Ms Wu should have immediately made a report to CPF Board after the family received the money. On the other hand, Lydia Fung said that the authorities should perhaps “first check the said bank joint alternate account holder of Mr Boo, as this pax would have used the money inclusive of cash for gst and pioneer generations, etc”.

Upon reading all the harsh comments from the public, Ms Wu finally responded in the comment thread, sharing her side of the story.
She said that it’s uncalled for people to assume that her family has taken their missing dad’s money and be silent about it. This is because she claims that CPF has not inform her where they have banked the money due to confidentiality.
“Up till now CPF still have let me know where they have banked in the money to or into my dad’s CPF account due to confidentiality. So how can you assume that we take the money??” she wrote.
Ms Wu, who was obviously upset reading all the comments from the online users, expressed that people will only know the pain that she is going through if they experience it themselves.
In an attempt to clarify her part of the story, Ms Wu said that she posted her original post solely to share her sentiment and want to get a closure as it was her dad’s 23rd anniversary of disappearance.
“My FB post it is just merely to share my sentiments and not to attacking CPF Board,” she wrote.
However, The Independent Singapore wrote an article about her post without her consent, she noted.
She again emphasised that she highlighted this story on Facebook not “to direct at CPF Board or SPF”, but solely to “obtain a Death Cert of my Dad” as her family didn’t know how to go about it and hoped someone can help them.
Ms Wu also explained that her family did reach out to their MP to seek help with the case. The MP had referred them to a lawyer but the legal fees was S$3000, and they would need an additional few thousand dollars to apply for a death certificate from the High Court. Unfortunately, she said that her family couldn’t afford it.
She also noted that they were not eligible for Legal Aid as their income is more than S$1000, which resulted to them not being qualified for it.
“So we put this on hold since there are so many procedures to follow and still hoping… and we didn’t want to face the reality since my Dad’s body hasn’t been found. Even he is really dead, but there is no proper burial for him,” she wrote.
Ms Wu also mentioned that her mother’s health is deteriorating now with slight dementia and she fears that she would not be able to remember anything later on, which will lead to grave repercussions.
As such, she said that she hopes everyone would stops speculating about them.
“Just for your info. my dad has already withdrew all this OA account when he reach the age of 55, what he left is only his Medisave account, so do you think we can withdraw and keep quiet? Even CPF Board didn’t want to reveal to me where they have banked the money unless I produced my Dad’s Death Cert,” she explained.

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

DBS exec is Aware’s head

Josie Lau is new president but DBS says it does not “support” her appointment.

Bus and train fares to increase by 6 cents per journey starting end of December this year: Public Transport Council

Starting 29 Dec this year, commuters holding travel cards may expect an…

Responsibility revisited

But I also assure you that how the officers responsible will be…

社论:与其变成“津贴国” 何不普及化医疗服务?

日前,荣誉国务资政吴作栋在脸书发文指出,新加坡虽然避免了福利国的隐患,但他认为必须慎防陷入“津贴国”的潜在危险。 他认为,英国在70多年前推行福利国制度时,无法预料到今天会承受的巨大负担。“这种制度的根本风险在于–现在看起来对的事情,将来可能出错。” 他说,随着国家的需求、挑战和特征会改变,我们无法预知几代人过后,津贴国会面对怎样的潜在负担。 故此, 他认为必须在政府的责任、社区、家庭和个人之间取得平衡,确保新加坡能持续发展、进步。 换言之,或许新加坡为了避免陷入“福利国”陷阱,反倒成为“津贴国”,一方面国人继续承受各种生活压力,一方面政府则必须这里津贴一点,那里发一些填补,使得整个系统更为繁琐、复杂化,这反倒增加行政上的成本和负担,许多民众也感到混淆,去问问看有多少年长者,究竟能分辨出立国一代配套和建国一代的差别? 医疗乃基本人权 之前,工人党秘书长毕丹星在参与国会辩论时,就曾呼吁落实永久性的乐龄医疗护理配套,让国人只要年满60岁,就能自动享有一系列的基本医疗津贴。 这并不是要我国成为“福利国”,而是保障国人最基本的医疗保健权利,让他们免于无法看病、看不起病的忧虑。如果真得体恤国民,珍惜年长者对国家的牺牲和奉献,那么就应该把看病视作人民的基本权益。 过去,曾有报导指一名年长者因感到无法排尿,到陈笃生医院急诊部门求助。但他申诉,医院职员不让他使用建国一代卡,结果他还要为看诊付105元的费用。 这事件发生在2015年,当时的卫生部的答复是这样的:建国一代卡可用在CHAS社保计划诊所、综合诊所和医院专科门诊,但不包括急诊部门。 这是因为,公共医院急诊部门为紧急意外伤患、有生命危险者服务,为确保病人得到所需紧急治疗,所以急诊部的手费都是划一的。…