The $13.2 billion question: Pension Fund should not increase by $3 billion since 2011, number of pensioners dwindled after 3 decades

The PAP government has recently disclosed a shocking liability: $13.2 billion Pension Fund. (Statement of Assets and Liabilities)
1pension2This is an increase of $1.85 billion over FY2015.

PAP should clarify the need for an additional $1.85 billion because the pension scheme for civil servants was phased out 32 years ago for the majority of civil servants in 1986.

Since the average pay in the civil service in 1985 was about $1000, give or take, (lower than private sector) and the number of pensioners dwindling, a couple of billion dollars should suffice.
1pension7It appears that the bulk of the Pension Fund has been set aside for the benefit of ministers, MPs, office holders and top civil servants.

Pension liabilities are known knowns, as confirmed by the PMO in 2007:
1pension5A dwindling number of pensioners after 32 years coupled with many who had been encouraged to switch to full CPF scheme, the number of pensioners is likely to be only in the thousands.

From 2004 to 2011, balance in the Pension Fund was in fact decreasing – as it should – until 2011 when it suddenly shot up by $1.6 billion the following year.*1pension3

By 2016, the balance stood at $3 billion above the 2011 figure.  Something is not quite right.

Were recent cost increases and the planned 2% GST rate hike linked in any way to the $3 billion Pension Fund increase?

32 years after scrapping the pension scheme for majority of civil servants, pension liabilities should not be $13.2 billion in FY2016.

Setting aside billions for ministers, office holders, MPs and top civil servants has confirmed a bloated government.

If all the above isn’t true, the PAP should be able to clarify.

*Figures from individual “statement of assets and liabilities” under “Revenue and Expenditure estimates” @ “Budget Archives“.

**Data deleted

This entry was posted in POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The $13.2 billion question: Pension Fund should not increase by $3 billion since 2011, number of pensioners dwindled after 3 decades

  1. Confused says:

    Totally agreed. Something obviously not right.

    The government has the duty to disclose how many are on pension scheme and how much is each get to benefit?

    Has the rule been changed again? What was said is “The maximum for minister drawing 1.2 million annual salary will get maximum $176000 per annum” but what it did not say is what about those many ministers and civil servants serving the Temasek, GIC & and all GLC (Are they even civil servants? They are themselves private company?) who draw more than 1.2 million (There are many of them)? Are they having another round of super scale? There could be a lot of fine prints unless the pap government publish all details?

    Singaporeans are being screwed left, right and centre by all these greedy….. This is partly why monies are not enough and raising tax is the way to feed the riches who are taking millions from our tax monies and the poor get to take home what you called Ang Pow in the form of 100 to 300 miserably annually and most of them still feel that they owe it to the pap but in fact the poor and the middle income are thoroughly screwed, soundly and deeply..

  2. Confused says:

    Singaporeans should not be surprised that the ministers, top civil servant, Temasek and GIC and GLC suck up at least $10 billion annually from our tax monies. If their pay is in the range of 20 to 25% of what they are drawing now, Singaporeans would have been able to save at least S$7.5 billion each year and there won’t be any need to raise tax at all.

    And if the government has been able to generate good return of $40 billion on our reserves (Assuming a net reserves of $750 billions) annually.

    These bunch of ministers and top civil servants are overpaid for what they have brought to Singaporeans by keep coming back for more monies without being transparent on what is our total reserves?

    I hope I am wrong. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s