When seen in light of these problems, it is thus perhaps disturbing that both the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Manpower Minister had claimed that the CPF is aimed only at providing for basic retirement needs. The Deputy Prime Minister went further to say that the government has been very clear with this all along and that the CPF is not intended to provide for the full retirement needs for Singaporeans. However, where the CPF is only adequate for 4% to 7% of Singaporeans, and where up to 80% of the elderly have to thus rely on their children, is it not unsustainable? Already, Singaporeans are earning stagnant wages, and compounded by the stagnant CPF interest rates and ever-increasing housing prices, the real value of Singaporeans’ CPF have been so eroded that it can be said to have lost its purpose – this is quite clearly affirmed by how the CPF is only adequate for 4% to 7% of Singaporeans and is one of the least adequate pension funds in the world. It is perhaps very disturbing if the government chooses not to acknowledge this fact but would bypass the existence of such problems, to claim the validity of the current CPF system. It might be perhaps disappointing for the speakers and participants at the forum. The problems were highlighted, but so were the solutions. If the government has any political will to fix the system (instead of the opposition), we might actually make some headway in reforming the CPF system to bring about adequacy for Singaporeans’ retirement. Perhaps the government should also take a leaf out of Mr Chia’s book, where he advocated looking long term when investing. As such, the government cannot continue the fear-mongering that they are giving us short-term “secure” interests, but should instead plan long term for higher returns for Singaporeans. As Prof Cherian had wisely put, “You cannot let people feeling worse-off because of an (economic) downturn. You have to plan long term.” As yet, the government has still not wanted to let Singaporeans know the GIC’s returns since its inception in 1981 (the CPF is invested in the GIC). And finally, A/Prof Mehta affirmed the values that “Retirement adequacy has to be debated in the context of these dynamic economic, social and health trends – not in isolation or from the economic/financial perspective ONLY.” So, you see, Singaporeans know what the problems of the CPF are. We know the solutions too. The question isn’t about whether we know the problems, but whether there is political will and the boldness to resolve these issues and bring about a reform to the CPF to bring about a betterment of Singaporeans. Have we seen the courage to make the bold changes required for our CPF been shown by the government so far? Instead, what we have seen is how the government continues to champion the CPF Minimum Sum and admonishes Singaporeans for not working hard enough to meet this CPF Minimum Sum. But when you realise how the government has been increasing the CPF Minimum Sum at a much faster rate than how we are able to save in our CPF, then you will see that something is really wrong here. Where over the past 20 years, the average net CPF balance that Singaporeans have inside our CPF is continuously lower than the CPF Minimum Sum set by the government, the government would know that the large majority of Singaporeans simply do not have enough to even meet the CPF Minimum Sum! Then, why do they keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, and not only that, but increase it at a faster rate! I had also asked the Manpower Minister if the government would consider increasing the wages of Singaporeans and the CPF interest rates. However, the government bypassed these questions. Where is the political will to enact the changes necessary to improve our CPF, to protect Singaporeans? Do you see it?
Posted on: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:44:56 +0000