CPF’s stated objective is to help Singaporeans meet our basic needs in retirement. When the majority of Singaporeans continue to struggle well past the retirement age, it confirms the CPF scheme has failed.
The role of the HDB is to provide affordable housing. Even the government has recognised its failure but has not been able to resolve issues relating to resale PUBLIC housing flats. Hoping to placate voters and mask its failure, the government has been using more tax dollars for an increasing number of grants ie CPF Housing Grant, Additional CPF Housing Grant, Special CPF Housing Grant, etc.
Singaporeans may not agree with everything written by Roy Ngerng with regard to the CPF and HDB. However, most will agree that both politicised organisations have failed Singaporeans.
The so called rebuttal from PAP’s IB is lame at best; the statistics provided by Roy have not been refuted. Instead, pseudo intellectual, ex NMP, MP wannabe and attention seeker many say clueless and stupid, Calvin Cheng, resorted to name calling. Never-served-NS PAP MP Puthucheary’s response was like a referral to the CPF FAQ section and advised on his Facebook to “keep calm and check the facts”.
Big joke la. Does he expect ‘facts’ from the government to tell us Roy’s article is not as half-baked as he claims?
Singaporeans should know that these 2 jokers have long lost their credibility. The CPF and HDB have been failing Singaporeans for decades but nothing was heard from Calvin and Puthu about the glaring flaws of our failed system!
As I have pointed out in an earlier article, there is no reason for a 3 room resale flat to cost an arm and a leg. The government has frequently tweaked the CPF policy (meant for retirement) by allowing funds to be diverted to PUBLIC housing. It wouldn’t be such a bad idea but not when the total monthly CPF contribution (dual in most cases) is needed for mortgage payment.
CPF savings belong to us and why should we need to pay for the use of our savings? When you withdraw your money from your savings account, have you even for once think about putting back the ‘accrued interest’? The issue about accrued interest was not decided by CPF members; it was the PAP which demanded interests to be paid for the use of OUR savings.
When we use our hard-earned savings for our housing NEEDS, we are all aware of the opportunity costs. And is there really a choice with our highest cost of public housing in the world? The system is designed by the PAP.
CPF members are willing to forgo the opportunity costs but the PAP does not allow this. Why? From the opacity in Temasek and GIC, it appears the PAP needs to channel billions of OUR CPF savings for share speculation.
Some may continue to insist that if interest is not paid, then there will be insufficient retirement funds. But the reason for insufficient retirement savings is due to the high cost of housing requiring the maximum use of CPF.
If all our CPF funds are not being used due to exorbitant housing prices, it would be sitting nicely in our CPF accounts earning regular interest. Instead, after it has been used for decades to satisfy our housing NEED, guess who pays for the interest? You are paying interest to you!
SG Hard Truth thinks it should not come as a “big surprise that HDB is worth nothing at the end of 99 years”. Well, not everyone is an intelligent private property owner like SG Hard Truth and we had trusted and believed in Lee Kuan Yew when he said “85% of SIngaporeans are livingin HDB flats and we intend to keep the values of these homes up. It will never go down”.
If SG Hard Truth does not trust LKY, then perhaps the statement needs to be corrected.
People like Puthucheary and Calvin are not ordinary Singaporeans and their CPF funds are loose change to them. The rich have gained disproportionately from our pro wealth policies and they would need to convince ordinary Singaporeans to accept the status quo ie continue to be screwed.
The gist of Roy’s articles is the politicised HDB and CPF have have failed Singaporeans. Policies need to be reviewed as they had been arbitrarily implemented; they are causing a lot of suffering for ordinary citizens.
I am sure most who have read Roy’s articles are impressed by the amount of statistics and research. Our policies have never been questioned in the past and the government has been caught with their pants down.
But there is really no logical answer because the pro business policies are not what citizens desire. It would have been more credible if our highest paid civil servants have rebutted Roy’s articles; instead we have pseudo intellectual Calvin Cheng and a never-served-NS MP attempting to do the government’s job with lame arguments.