MOF press secretary lied about our failed CPF scheme

In “Plain speech also about telling the hard truth“, MOF press secretary Lim Yuin Chien must have thought Singaporeans are dumbasses when he anyhow claimed that “the Central Provident Fund scheme is adequate for most Singaporeans“.

In an ST article 4 years ago, Associate Professor of Economics at NUS Chia Ngee Choon told readers that “half of CPF members are unable to meet the MS (Minimum Sum) at 55“.

Chia was likely to have been referring to the number of “active members“, a higher figure when compared with “all members” which includes tens of thousands of housewives who had not worked for decades.

3 years earlier, the CPF Board had already own self confirmed own failure: “Among the active members who reached 55 years old in 2010, about 40.7% met the required MS” of $123,000.  (see CPF Trends Feb 2011)

Of relevance is the number of Singaporean CPF members who meet the MS (now RS) at 55.  This figure has been concealed by CPF Board as PAP is aware that it will shoot itself in the foot with disclosure.

The CPF scheme is a complete failure because PAP has channeled a huge proportion of retirement savings into housing instead of investment.

Unless Lim is able to clarify his erroneous statement with supporting statistics, he will be called a liar.

Over to you, Lim Yuin Chien. 😉

This entry was posted in POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to MOF press secretary lied about our failed CPF scheme

  1. Confused says:

    AP Chia could have actually meant to say more than “half of CPF members are unable to meet the MS (Minimum Sum) at 55“?

    The main point of his article was to introduced tiered Retirement Sum in basic, full and enhanced which is essentially 0.5x, 1.0x and 1.5x of the old MS.

    No one is interested in addressing the fundamental root problem on the inadequacy of retirement due to low return on our cpf saving as well as high housing cost which has directly eroded our retirement savings because more of our monthly cpf contribution went to service the high housing loan instead of retirement saving. The low return on the remaining cpf saving, if any, adds to the problem……

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