Opinion
When Governments Treat People as Stupid: Protection or Exploitation?
Most government policies aim to protect citizens, but when they limit choice or yield disproportionate benefits to the state, they risk exploitation. In Singapore, the CPF raises concerns about transparency and fairness, prompting the question: Do such policies serve the people or the government?

by Gangasudhan
Most government policies are introduced with good intentions – at least, that’s the idea. But when policies begin to treat citizens as incapable of making their own decisions, the line between protection and exploitation becomes blurry.
This brings us to an important question: Is the government protecting people from their own mistakes, or is it taking advantage of their perceived ignorance?
A Tale of Two Sides: The CPF in Singapore
The Central Provident Fund (CPF) in Singapore (the equivalent of the Kiwisaver in New Zealand) is a case in point. On the surface, it appears to be a protective policy. For example, when someone uses their CPF funds to buy a home, they must repay the accrued interest to their CPF account when they sell the property. The rationale is clear – to ensure that individuals do not erode their retirement savings through property purchases. It’s a safety net to promote long-term financial security, even if it might feel restrictive.
However, the same CPF scheme also highlights the potential for exploitation. The government invests CPF funds to generate strong returns in global markets, yet the returns credited to CPF account holders are relatively modest at 2.5% per annum. This creates a perception that the government is generating significant wealth from citizens’ savings while offering only limited personal benefit in return.
So, at what point does a protective policy cross into the realm of exploitation? The difference lies in who truly benefits.
The Fine Line Between Care and Control
Of course, this isn’t just a Singapore issue – around the world, governments introduce policies that influence personal finances, freedoms, and choices.
In New Zealand, for instance, there are discussions around Kiwisaver funds and whether citizens are being offered enough transparency and flexibility in managing their retirement savings. Similarly, debates around social security, tax policies, and pension schemes in various countries reveal a common thread: citizens want to know that the policies designed to “protect” them are actually in their best interest, not serving as a way for governments to profit or consolidate power.
When a government treats its people as incapable of making informed decisions, it risks disempowering them. But when policies are transparent and equitable, they can build trust and long-term resilience in society.
The Key Question: Who Ultimately Benefits?
Whether protective or exploitative, every policy has a power dynamic at its core. Citizens need to ask: Is this policy designed to protect me from harm, or is it structured in a way that benefits the government more than it benefits me?
A protective policy empowers individuals to make better decisions over time by providing transparency, education, and fair returns. In contrast, an exploitative policy thrives on complexity, opacity, and disproportionate benefits for the state.
From Compliance to Critical Thinking
As citizens, the responsibility isn’t just to comply with policies but to engage critically with them. The world is changing, and governments need to treat people as capable partners in shaping their future — not as passive recipients of policies.
Ultimately, the difference between protection and exploitation is found in one simple principle – RESPECT.
A government that respects its people empowers them. But one that treats its people as pawns risks eroding trust — and that trust is not easily regained.
This piece was first published on Gangasudhan’s Linkedin page and reproduced with permission

-
Politics2 weeks ago
Li Shengwu recounts govt harassment, urges the public to fight instead of relying on others for justice
-
Opinion3 days ago
Shanmugam’s call to avoid politicising Nee Soon’s kickback case exposes hypocrisy given his 2015 attack on WP
-
Politics4 days ago
Shanmugam defends response in kickback scandal at Nee Soon Town Council
-
Singapore4 days ago
SM Lee urges Singaporeans to embrace new citizens for national unity during Chinese New Year speech
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
Contradictions in PM Wong’s claim on BTO pricing and HDB’s policies
-
Opinion1 week ago
Revisiting HDB ownership: Are flat buyers owners or long-term lessees?
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
Li Shengwu’s comments put the spotlight back on Lucien Wong’s controversial appointment
-
Letters1 week ago
An open letter to the PAP: Losing trust and the disconnect with the people