DON’T PLAY UP SENTIMENTS, PLEASE! I happened to chance upon the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)’s website recently and came across an article, “This is how our CPF and GIC should be managed.” I am glad the SDP is not in government because the points outlined in the article is utterly populist and opportunistic. It plays on the feelings of the less well-informed. Allow me to explain and refute the points raised. During the recent parliamentary debates and subsequent fora, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in his capacity as Finance Minister, gave a detailed account of how our CPF monies are used. He also made a clear case of how our CPF monies are protected from risks and he had categorically assured us that our hard-earned CPF monies are safe. Other members of the government have also pitched in with their assurances. As a member of the public, and I declare as a person with no affiliation to any political party, I have no doubt that my CPF is in safe hands. In fact, whatever doubts that I had, dissipated with the answers provided by DPM Tharman and Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin. It would a source of reference for lay people like me if SDP could quantify the term, “many Singaporeans.” I would like to state that I am a Singaporean but I am not part of the “many” whose ire was raised. SDP’s statement is sweeping and plays on the sentiment of unsuspecting Singaporeans. I have also been critical of the government in the past but if you look at the progress of Singapore over the past sixty years, the government has won my ungrudging support. From dirt tracks to well-paved roads, from squalor to a clean and green environment, from attap huts to high-rise HDB flats, from poverty to prosperity, from third word to first world, Singapore did it. Credit is due to our parents and grandparents’ who toiled day and night to make Singapore. But most importantly, we had many selfless men and women who dedicated their lives to lay a solid foundation for the betterment of the nation. They crafted the policies to make us what we are today. However, the SDP’s comments and criticisms are akin to a child who questions the parents or grandparents about what they have done or provided for them. The child fails to appreciate the hard work and sacrifices that their parents and grandparents underwent to ensure a comfortable life for them and their future generations. Yes, the government did not fully disclose how monies form our CPF was managed. But then, it was not left to rot in the coffers either. Our CPF monies was made to grow through the efforts of the government and GIC. The government should have explained to us how our CPF monies was growing over years. I would blame it on mismanagement of the communication process. The investment process, I have no complaints. From what I understand, the Government has promised to improve its communications process. The clear explanation on the utilisation and investment of our CPF monies is a step in the right direction. SDP, as I mentioned, your proposals are wholly opportunistic as it plays on the sentiments of Singaporeans. As concerned Singaporeans, it is our duty to inform and educate others who are well-informed. But I do not blame you. You are an opposition party and to capitalise on flaws, however miniscule, of the party and the government in power is your karma. But please do remember that misinformation of facts does have devastating effects on a country and its citizens. I know that the Government does return to retirees their CPF savings, though they are returned in a calibrated way. Retirees blowing away their savings is not only the government’s concern. It should be our concern too. Our parents and grandparents are the retirees which SDP has mentioned in the article. As suggested by SDP, let’s imagine that we abolish the Minimum Sum Scheme. What then? The entire amount would be credited into our retired parents and grandparents accounts. It’s their hard-earned money and they are fully entitled to spend it as they deem fit. Let them travel, buy their dream car, jewellery or other items that may catch their fancy. SDP suggests, “If those who are not minded to spend their money prudently, why should the majority who do be penalised by having their savings withheld?” Lucky are the parents and grandparents who have doting and filial children and grandchildren, who will look after them for the rest of their lives, even if these senior citizens deplete their CPF savings. But how many of such filial children are out there? Furthermore, for these senior citizens whose savings run out, it’s a matter of face. They might not turn to their children for their expenses but to the government. I believe it’s the duty of the government to take care of them but to what extent? Due to the progress Singapore has made, we the citizens enjoy a higher standard of living and happily, our life span has also increased. Taking care of our parents and grandparents requires a sustained effort and funds. I know. I have parents who are living with me. My father who has retired, gets an amount from his Minimum Sum. He and my mother are able to get by on that amount. As a son, I give them a small amount every month. My father is a prudent man and he and my mother live within their means and they have no major illnesses and have sufficient life insurance cover. My father’s friend, is the other extreme. That friend of his, after drawing down whatever amount he could, was sweet-talked by a young lady of the night and squandered his money. His family disowned him and now he has no roof over his head and eats and sleeps, wherever and whenever he could. It’s a sad but true story. Shunned by their families, people like him become the responsibility of the government. There is a limit to how much the government could take of him and others like him. In the end, the burden will fall on us. How? Through higher taxes, of course. Do we want this to happen? Our tax rates are one of the lowest in the world. To increase them, would not only hit us personally but the country too. Our competitive edge may get blunted and our economy will suffer. The end result, a weakened Singapore. Who gains? SDP’s second recommendation is to “De-couple housing and healthcare from CPF.” I do not know how good an idea that is. But what I would like to say is that my university education was fully paid for by father’s CPF savings. Likewise for his HDB flat. I bought my flat, utilising my CPF savings too. I used my Medisave for my wife’s delivery of our child. And there was no out of hand payment involved at all in all these cases. My overseas friends are envious when I tell them these. For a country, without any natural resources, to provide such services to its citizens is indeed a wonder. We can’t compare with the Scandinavian or Middle East countries. We do not have their resources but for us to have come thus far is indeed an achievement. Selling HDB flats without the inclusion of land cost has been SDP’s pet project for a long time. It was proven not feasible. Please check out the previous parliamentary debates on this as SDP seems to be flogging the horse again. End result: a dead horse and we, the citizens, suffer. SDP’s James Gomez made the call to decouple healthcare and housing costs from the retirement fund too. He recommends an annual payment of $400 a year into a national fund, which will have 90% of our basic health, accident and pregnancy expenses covered. That’s a slippery slope that they are recommending. We can only fall. When buying insurance, we do not mind paying a premium for peace of mind and to ensure that our needs are covered. Will the $400 that James Gomez recommends be sufficient? Using our reserves to finance our healthcare needs is ideal but for how long will it be sustainable? Furthermore, James Gomez’ $400 figure runs contrary to the amount stated in SDP’s National Healthcare Plan. I would humbly suggest that there is a serious need, on the part of SDP, to set its house in order. SDP has also requested that GIC submit its annual reports to Parliament. I checked out GIC’s website and note that they have been doing so. To quote Josephine Teo, Minister of State for Finance: “GIC now publishes more information on its performance than when it began this annual report five years ago. Its reports over the last two years include GIC’s performance over a five-year and 10-year period, in addition to the 20-year period that remains its primary goal. For each of these periods, GIC also includes comparisons with the performance of market portfolios that are typical of those adopted by large global investors. Hence, it includes comparisons with market portfolios comprising: (1) 60% global equities and 40% global bonds; and (2) 70% global equities and 30% global bonds. GIC also publishes information on its major investment strategies.” If our Ministers sit on the board it would give me greater peace of mind and trust. Personally, I do not see anything wrong in this. The Government is clear in the way GIC is run and I, as a citizen, am fully satisfied. Allow me to quote Mr Tharman, who said in 2013 that the “Government, as the shareholder, has a clear interest in GIC continuing to have a strong leadership team. However, the Government does not intervene directly in the management appointments of GIC. The decisions on key management appointments must remain the responsibility of the respective Boards of GIC. The Government’s role, instead, is to ensure that capable and trustworthy individuals are appointed to the Boards of, with the concurrence of the President. “The Corporation shall give an account of its funds, management costs, investment strategies (including strategies on socially responsible investments), a projection of value creation and risk management of these strategies. These can then be tracked and its managers held accountable for their decisions.” I am reassured by the Minister for Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin’s comments on our retirement fund. Let me share this with you: “For the majority, the CPF will be an important source of savings for their old age. We must be careful not to over-extend when we decide how much CPF savings to use for housing, be drawn into investing them for higher returns if we are unable to bear the higher risks involved, or expect to dip into this nest egg when we find ourselves urgently short of cash. It takes discipline and careful planning to ensure a sufficient nest egg in retirement. On our part, the CPF Board will make sure that the system will do its best to support all our Singaporeans in their retirement needs.” That neatly encapsulates all the points brought up by the SDP. It shows that the government cares and will do everything in its power to ensure that we, Singaporeans, do not fall short. Before, I end, I would like to call upon the SDP to not play with the feelings of us Singaporeans. For your political gains, do not deprive us of a policy that is meant to provide for our well-being. We know it is our own money which we will be drawing down. There is no free lunch and we should not expect one from the government. Please do not expect one too, at our expense. We know you and what you stand for. It would be best if you could expend your energy to think up some original ideas for the betterment of all Singaporeans and not just yourself. Thank you and SDP, I hope not to see you in parliament, anytime soon.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 04:49:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015