So for those who kick the bucket during this period where they are not allowed to withdraw the minimum sum, is it fair to them they they are not even given the opportunity to enjoy their hard earned savings during their last days.

To set a policy based on the assumption that one would have a 50% chance of surviving more than 85 years of age is really too much for the asking.

Int eh 70s, during our Industrialisation, the quota was:
1 Engineer = 10 Technicians

And in the 80s, PAP was fond of pintign out that if you got too many uni graduates, you will end up in London like a bus conductor is a degree holder as well.

Now in 21st Century, why not?
As it means that there is no income gap where an engineer and bus conductor is mor eor less earning the same pay. And mine you, those British union workers int eh printign industry in the 80s were earning more than engineers as well.

But studying is not merely for economic reasons or for jobs, some of us study for the love of study, to follow our hearts, to fulfil our dream of getting a degree.
Then, if getting enough univeristy palces are only hard-headed decision to meet our economic demand, why mouthed so much on our “natural resources are our people” and no chance is given to them to develop to their fullest potential?

Enistein was a late developer.
So was WInston Churchill.
Maxwell retired and secluded in his cottage, wrote that masterpeise on electromagnetism.

It looks like it is still a “one strike you are out” policy esepcially their is no second chance to get a univeristy degree if you are not “A” Level students or a merit-certificate hodlers from polytechnic.

They talked so much of “one market” but this univeristy stuff is still “closed” and you let drones like Ng Eng Hen in 2003 to “determine” on why a 4th university is not required?

Esepcially nwhen I attended one fo those FBU Forums, I think in 2004 or 2005, when the quota was more or less 20% and SOuth Korea at that time was 50%.

We aspired tor reach Swiss Standard of Living 1999…….how many universities in Switzerland in 1999?

One clear danger for SIngpaore:
Children, especilaly from English-educated families, that are send to study oversea tend not to return to Singapore.

In 2003, many graduates couldn’t find jobs and ended up doing masters degrees instead. Many had to wait for almost a year before they could land a job. In other words, the 20,000 jobs created in 2003 wasn’t enough to go around and the current level of university placement has to be supported by perhaps 50,000 job creations?

Still, 60,000 X four quarters = 240,000. That’s 10 times the number we had in 2003. Yes, with this kind of figure, I full agree with Mr Leong that we can afford more university places.

Having said that, I also feel that we should be mindful that we’re having a bull run now. The bull run may run its course. When that happens, job creation will go back down. Hence, probably shouldn’t train as many graduates as can be supported by the economy right now.

I agree that one very good way of ensuring that people have enough money for their retirement is to make it cheaper for them to send their kids to university. Not only will they have more savings on retirement, but their uni educated kids will be in a better financial position to take care of them.

I have previously written about this in two articles:

Education is the best social welfare

and

Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore