The difference between:

“Just because it is CPF funds, does Government have the right to decide how they should be spent on behalf of CPF members, even against the wishes of the members?”

and

“Kew Kah Fatt Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am

*Comments deleted by moderator for irrelevance.”

is that in the former case, CPF monies are owned by CPF members, not the govt whereas in the latter case, this space that we’re writing on is owned by The Online Citizen.

For the sake of our convenience, we are allowed to post first and they edit later. Can you imagine Straits Times publishing everything that people writes in without filtering or editing? You’d get a newspaper full of rubbish.

So it isn’t ironic at all …

There are certain house rules, I suppose if we abide by those rules, our personal viewpoints will see the light of day …

Having said that, if someone is willing to top up his CPF so that it can last him till he is a 100 years old, doesn’t that demonstrate that he would not be a liability in old age? In that case, is it still right to compulse him to buy an annuity?

There are other avenues, like if he has enough of his own savings, he can decide to draw out his CPF later, or draw less each month. Maybe he has a fully paid 3-room flat which he decides to monetise which gives him more than enough money to last till 100 years old. In all these cases where the person demonstrates that he can take care of himself financially till 100 years old, do we still compulse him to buy an annuity?

So you see, the govt is doing a terribly wrong thing in forcing people to buy things they don’t want and they don’t need. Are they any better than gangsters?

The problem is not whether annuity or any other plan by gov is good or bad. It is whether you want to continue to trust in gov that have along the way lose the credibility and trust from the people. The gov that more interested in doing business, gov that break their own law, gov do whatever they want irrespective of feeling of the Singaporean, and always claiming that whatever they do, they do in love and for good of people.

It is no secret that gov love to change policy that fit their agenda. I won’t be surprised that in order to appease the people and ensure that the annuity get implement first, gov might just shorten the requirement temporarily from 85 to 75 years old. Then in the future, find some excuse to increasingly increase the year to whoNoWhere. Isn’t this the same with retirement age ? From 55->65->67-> WhoKnowWhere (Only go up but never come down)

We have see this tactic use over and over again.

the money today is stronger than future-banana currency in next 30years. What can banana money buy you then ? Just as its name, buy banana and peanut.

Just because it is CPF funds, does Government have the right to decide how they should be spent on behalf of CPF members, even against the wishes of the members?

isn’t

Kew Kah Fatt Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 10:17 am

*Comments deleted by moderator for irrelevance.

very ironic?

Just because it is an irrelevant comment, does the moderator have the right to decide how it should be treated on behalf of the commentator, even against the wishes of the commentator?

For your response, please.

What we have been taught in school is that any commercial transaction should be on the basis of ‘willing buyer willing seller’.

What if I disagree to join such a compulsory annuity insurance , would it be within my constitutional right to challenge the Govt for forcing me to procure something that is against my own free will, even if it is for my very own good.

Maybe the Govt should clarify on what basis are they going to make it compulsory, is it on the basis that they have just got 66% of the votes?

CPF is indeed a major tool with which the pappies use to control Singaporeans, together with HDB, ISD and TLC-linked monopolistic companies, just to name a few.

Now that we’ve seen what an idiot our “elected” hip-hopper MP is, i can’t wait for more “words of wisdom” from the next pappy mp.

Damned right.