TOC TV - Written on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 20:04 - 14 Comments
CPF: What happened since GE2006?
English Translation of Low Thia Khiang’s Speech
Mr Speaker Sir,
The Workers’ Party opposes the Government’s proposal to defer the CPF Minimum Sum draw-down age from 62 years old to 65 years old, and eventually to 67 years old. Originally, Singaporeans could withdraw all the savings in their CPF accounts at the age of 55. Subsequently, the Retirement Account was created to cater for the needs of the post-retirement lives and the Minimum Sum was retained at the age of 55.
The ever rising Minimum Sum has resulted in some Singaporeans having just $5,000 to be withdrawn from the CPF at the age of 55. Not only that, now the Government wants to further stretch the Minimum Sum withdrawal period from our Retirement Accounts to 67 years. This is too much! Although we support the gradual increase in retirement age, we are of the view that the retirement age and the CPF withdrawal age should be delinked.
We encourage people to have lifelong learning. If they are healthy, they can live and work till an old age, there is nothing wrong with that. But having worked so hard for the betterment of their lives, should not our workers be entitled, at the age of 62, to have a choice as to whether they want to slow down and take up a less stressful job or a part-time job? Although the income may be less, with the release of the savings that they have accumulated over the years in the CPF account they ought to be able to provide for their living expenses. In such circumstances, the older workers can then afford to choose the type of life they want for their old age.
Although it is predicted that our people will be living longer, longer life does not necessarily mean that they will stay healthy and be able to carry on working. It also does not mean that they will continue to have the energy and drive at work. Not allowing Singaporeans to start drawing down on their Retirement Accounts at the age of 62 would result in some Singaporeans having to work till they are old or even until they are dead.
If we want all Singaporeans to work until a ripe old age, even in their sunset years, and continue to worry about being retrenched and not being able to make ends meet, this is certainly not a correct phenomenon in Singapore as we aspire to progress into a world-class country. This also cannot be the kind of “positive retribution” in life for the people in a world-class country.
The Government is making it compulsory for the people to purchase annuities. Although the details are still being worked out by a committee, it is a foregone conclusion. I think this compulsory annuity scheme will not solve the problem that the Government is worried about. This is because not every CPF member has adequate funds in his CPF account for the premium to be deducted by the Government.
What about those who do not have CPF to enable the Government to deduct directly and who happen to live beyond 85 years of age? What are they going to do? Furthermore, with this reduction made to pay for the premium, the remaining sum would be less, resulting in not having enough CPF money to sustain a longer payout for retirement years.
Based on similar insurance schemes in the United States, such insurance scheme may not be fair to the insured because these people paid one lump sum upfront and can only start to enjoy the annuity payout after 20 years. If they do not live that long, they will not be able to enjoy anything from it and all their money will go down the drain.
The world today is becoming more strange. Generally, people buy life insurance because they are afraid that they may die young and their family may run into financial difficulties. But in this world today, longevity itself has become like a sin and the people are now being forced by the Government to buy an annuity lest they cannot fend for themselves in their old age.
Singaporeans have worked so hard all their lives. They have contributed much to our nation-making process to make Singapore what it is today. Our people have worked hard and they have contributed much. Credit must be given to them. But now, if one lives a long life and his CPF savings are exhausted, they may have no money for their old age and suffer in life. Now, the Government is forcing them to buy an annuity so that they can have money for their old age. I think this is an irresponsible act on the part of the Government.
Therefore, I urge the Government to set up a “Longevity Fund” and make monthly payouts to Singaporeans who have lived beyond the age of 85 and who are in financial difficulties, so that those who live longer can enjoy a secure retirement, and not wishing to see those people who are unable to contribute to the country vanish into thin air so that they will not add to the economic burden of the country.
I feel that the call for the establishment of the Longevity Fund is not unwarranted. I am sure the Government can well afford it. From what I know, in Vietnam and Nepal, they have such a social security scheme so that the people can enjoy their old age, yet their countries’ economies have not gone bankrupt because of it. I feel that the people in Singapore, particularly Singaporeans of my generation, will have savings in their CPF, moreover, this money is still in the hand of the Government subjecting to manipulation.
From my meet-the-people sessions, I have come to the conclusion that most Singaporeans are responsible and they have moral integrity. Not everyone will queue up for the Government’s handouts, neither will everyone able to live such a long life to enjoy from the fund.
Mr Speaker, Sir, during the recent Asian financial crisis, the older Singaporeans were the first to bear the brunt as they were retrenched and deserted by the employers. They faced unemployment, no income and much hardship in life. Many still feeling the fear recalling the past. Delaying the draw-down age for the CPF Retirement Account will cause the people to have more worries and anxieties. I hope the Government will carefully review the policy.
To enable Singaporeans to forge an identity with the nation, policies should not be formulated based purely on digits and economic considerations, neither should the Government approach the issue of retirement from an economic benefit perspective. If the Government’s policy causes a change in the people’s values, thinking that old people cannot contribute economically and hence they are a burden; then the Chinese saying “To have an old person at home is like having a treasure” will become “To have an old person at home is of no value.” This, in the long run, will affect the cohesiveness of our family unit and our society.
Source: Hansard
Related posts:
14 Comments
CPF? what cpf are you people talking about? your cpf savings? yeah right, only printed on your statement, that’s all. Where the hell you think they get those $$$ to lost $50billion? THINK!!!!!
This gov reminds me of the story book-Animal Farm.
Ironic is-ppl was so idiotic and simplistic to give a mandate to rule and what are we’getting in return.
Do not try this again,i.e to give them another mandate.If we’re goin to do it we’ll surely be dead and not be able to touch our CPF money at all.
Listen to your heart when you vote the next time.
gov wants us to work like a dog, shack like a dog, i think dog even live a better life than poor s’porean…
That the Life annuity was vehemently rejected during the early stages only to be replaced by the CPFLife, which is mandatory in 2013 speaks volumes of the PaP’s desire to have this implemented by hook or by crook. They only tweak this a little and comes out with a fancy 4 flavoured approach, without even mentioning the details. I am a little luckier to have escaped the mandatory CPFLife, but I can share the anger of those who are forced to join the scheme. They sent me mailers and booklets enticing me to join. Funny thing is that the carrot they dangled ( upto 4,500 dollars if I agree to join) is dependent on many other criterias. It was like means testing to see if you qualify for the carrot. Its so typical of PAP and so insincere at it. Dang.
I think this is the ugliest period in PAP’s 50 year history, and I cannot wait for the day when they lose some “important” seats. Our MPs think they that it is their right , as the chosen ones to do the things that only benefit them.
This is the most ridiculous and warp logic of PAP, one works all his life thru sweat and blood, pay taxes and dues, hoping to retire in dignity in his/her golden years, yet this bloodsucking PAP government withheld our monies indefinitely (keep mpoving goal post), to add salt to wound, look at the rising cost, mean-testing, retirement in JB what craps from PAP. Also don’t forget the mass influx of FT/FWs, another 10-20 years, you may be taxed heavily to sustain the infrastructure of targetted 6.5M population.
Why can we withdraw our hard earn money at 55? They tell you that you don’t know how to manage your money?? Ask the PAP, how better are they managing the state money (Town council lost Millions, GIC/TH lost billions/Overpaid ministers etc)
Look and envision your future, will it be rosy & swiss standard as being propaganded again and again by the party that has ruled for 50 years? Vote with your eyes open folks people, this evil policy of bloodsucking will affect every singaporean rank & file.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 5 Nov 2009
[...] CPF – TOC: CPF: What happened since GE2006? [...]
I still think that if that is my money, I should be able to decide when I want to use it and how I am going to use it. I am old enough to retire and old enough to take the consequence. On face value, it looks like the government is too caring and worry we all will spend the money before we are gone. But again, that is my money, please not to interfere. Isn’t it we always tell our children to be independent, to take charge?
We can see our money but cannot touch it, just because this greedy, blood sucking govt. gave all sort rubbish reason to withhold our money and give them to the risky woman gambler to gamble away B$$$$. I had said before this govt wld not take care of the poor, no social benefit for the poor and old, u die ur own business policy.
To those who keep saying opposition has no credibility or what have they done, this is just one of the many examples of why we need an opposition MP. More than one in fact.
I hope all the detractors can open your eyes wide now. Unfortunately for Mr Low, he is just one man in a sea of yes-men. If we the voters can vote in a substantial number of opposition MPs (30% to 40%), issues such as this he raised cannot be easily swept aside by the government.
We can then truly debate the issue and come up with a more robust solution to address our concern.
You may not necessarily have children, or serve NS, but everyone will get old and die one day.
Last time, Singaporeans look forward to celebrating our 55 years old birthday because we can withdrawal OUR fixed deposit from CPF after working hard for so many years.
Now, we are lucky to be employed when we are 55 years old. We cannot withdraw OUR money because PAP says we don’t know how to manage our finances. So for our own good, PAP will keep our money forever. It is prefectly all right for the rich and those PAP self-serving fat cats because they don’t need the money in the CPF.
Hello! PAP, it is MY money. I should have the freedom and rights to decide how I spend MY money. If I choose to use MY money as toilet paper why should you bother!
PAP *pui*.
What the hell they are thinking? The PAP must be living in another world.
How can one work from 55 years old to 65 years old. Wait for the cpf life drawn down age at 65 to collect money?
Now people have difficulties in getting jobs, they are between 20-40 years old.
Who wants to employ older people? They can easily get foreign talents, foreign workers, PR, or new citizens at a lower pay and longer working hours.
walao! DAMN WELL SAID MAN! PLEASE GO TO MY CONSTITUENCY!
it is indeed a burden in singapore to be old.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 45
[...] CPF – TOC: CPF: What happened since GE2006? [...]
Leave a Reply
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation


They just want to your money in their banks and investments, probably after so much losses, they cant offer to repay principal + interests.
The CPF withdrawal would be raised, retirement age would be raised, thats for sure. Unless we have a army of doctors or physiotherapists hanging around us, I am starting to see a lot of people not living pass 70 with this sort of stress hanging on our necks.