PM Lee’s NDR speech, with regard to the CPF issue, has clearly proven he does not understand the needs of ordinary citizens.
PM Lee has not acknowledged the fact that CPF is OUR money. No political party has the right to decide for citizens, to lock up OUR hard earned retirement savings till we die without any consultation.
CPF policy is not cast in stone. It was crafted by the PAP and has already caused tremendous unnecessary suffering for the masses. The damage has to be undone by the PAP but the likelihood appears to be slim.
PM Lee said “he understood and appreciated why people may want to withdraw monies from their CPF accounts”. He also said “I will adjust the policy…” with some conditions for our withdrawal.
Who is PM Lee or the PAP to impose conditions on our withdrawal? Why doesn’t PM Lee even consult the owners of CPF monies on our needs?
PM Lee said “up to 20% of the total…should be withdrawn during retirement, after 65”. PM Lee is again missing the point – almost 20% of CPF members aged above 55 will be dead before 65. So does work have any meaning when one cannot enjoy the fruits of one’s labour after 30 to 35 years? This policy is obviously discriminatory because wealthy Singaporeans like PM Lee and top civil servants are not affected when they reach 55. What about deteriorating health conditions? Throw us an insulting advice to stay healthy?
PM Lee: “We provide this flexibility…”. Who is the “we”? The PAP should not continue to assume it is in charge of OUR money and it is doing CPF members a favour with tweaks. Thanks but no thanks, I don’t need this flexibility because I deserve every cent that belongs to ME.
PM Lee: “CPF and home ownership are good schemes that work well for the majority of Singaporeans”.
If CPF has worked well, why are nearly three quarters of CPF members unable to have even half the Minimum Sum amount in cash? Why are our retirement savings being used to pay for housing when they are supposed to be invested and earning good returns to meet our retirement needs? Is home ownership a good scheme when it cost an arm and a leg, resulting in huge retirement shortfalls?
The CPF issue has been discussed countless times and what the CPF system needs is a revamp. The PAP has already screwed it up big time by allowing, and depleting, our CPF retirement savings to fund housing and healthcare. Tweaking it to partly satisfy CPF members’ demands in no way resolve systemic issues.
The PAP has also not addressed issues on transparency and accountability. For more than 3 decades that GIC has been investing our CPF monies, it has operated in complete opacity. It appears that if CPF rules have not been tweaked to prevent the massive withdrawals by members reaching 55, GIC may not be solvent. Is this also the reason for partial withdrawal only at 65?
Before GE 2011, the PAP disregarded our housing needs and allowed property prices to skyrocket. After losing one GRC, it began constructing a record number of more than 200,000 residential units. For decades, singles had not been allowed to purchase new HDB flats. Land has never been as scarce as made out to be or 50,000 HDB units would not be owned by PRs. After heavy election losses, singles above 35 were allowed to purchase new HDB flats. As is obvious, the PAP only starts to really listen when there is a threat to its power.
Likewise for the CPF issue, the PAP will not revamp a flawed system unless it is forced to. The only way to get OUR CPF back is to have the PAP voted out.