I refer to “Unionists worried about new CPF option”.
Citizens are wary about these so called ‘unionists’ because they belong to Singapore’s pseudo workers’ unions run by the pro-business PAP.
The main objective of a trade union is to promote the interest of its members but in Singapore’s upside-down system, NTUC has been promoting the interest of businesses at its members’ expense. NTUC members have been paying membership fees to be screwed by their ‘union’ and its pseudo unionists.
The PAP has taken heed of CPF members’ anger and protest rallies at Hong Lim Park and is now trying to pacify CPF members with the option of a partial lump sum withdrawal at age 65. By doing so, the PAP has continued to wrongly assume it has the right to use our retirement savings when it really doesn’t.
To take the wayang to the next level, our pseudo unionists became overly concerned even with the proposed partial return of OUR retirement savings at 65!
These pseudo unionists “fear it will bring grief to the very group of workers whose well-being they have always strived to protect: the low-wage earners”. Hmm… why didn’t they fear it will bring grief when low wages stagnated since more than a decade ago? Protect low-wage earners by bringing in workers from third world countries to see if Singaporeans can be cheaper? Anyone with average intelligence would know this is an idiotic statement.
Benjamin Tang, president of the Port Officers’ Union, told reporters that “The ones who are making the most noise… to withdraw more of their CPF are basically the very workers the unionists,..are really concerned about”. If Tang and others had been concerned, why had they done nothing to prevent the stagnation of wages? Low-wage workers would appreciate if the labour movement and the government stop squeezing their last dollar from them.
The PAP government had better not continue to pretend CPF members do not have any right to our retirement savings by returning our CPF monies. It is immoral for any dominant political party to unilaterally legislate $195,000 for the government to use in risky investments such as hedge funds, risky listed/unlisted companies and foreign real estate.
The majority of CPF members will never accept PM Lee’s option of a partial lump sum withdrawal. Our pseudo unionists would do well to understand real CPF issues instead of sucking up to their political masters with their outrageous ‘concerns’.