Leong Sze Hian, Alex Lew /

“Nothing’s sacrosanct in Government review of policies.”PM Lee Hsien Loong.

I refer to the articles “Tharman open to ideas, say economists” and “Big change, great expectations” (ST, May 20).

I would like to applaud the Prime Minister for his bold changes to the cabinet.

I believe what Singaporeans would like to see going forward is what changes will be made to address the myriad of issues raised in the elections.

As about half a dozen ministers have said that the PAP needs to be transformed, I would like to make the following suggestions to review CPF:-

1) Explore the possibility of pegging the CPF accounts’ interest rate to the Government Investment Corporation’s (GIC) historical returns of about 7.9 per cent per annum over the last 20 years (in US$ terms) less one per cent, instead of 2.5 per cent on the Ordinary Account (OA) and average yield of the 10-year government bond plus one per cent on the Special, Medical and Retirement Accounts (SMRA), plus an extra one per cent on the first $60,000.

This is more equitable as the Government sells bonds to the CPF Board at the respective OA and SMRA rates, and gives most of the CPF funds to GIC.

Malaysia’s Employees Providend Fund (EPF) paid a dividend of 5.8 and 5.65 per cent in 2010 and 2009, respectively, and historically between 4.25 to 8.5 per cent.

2) Review the policy change to phase out the age fifty-five 50 per cent withdrawal rule by 2013, when those who have less than the prevailing CPF Minimum Sum (MS) of $123,000 and the Medisave Required Amount (MRA) of $27,500, can only withdraw $5,000 at age 55.

Singaporeans who are in financial hardship from age 55 to 65, before their CPF Life annuity will begin at age 65, should be allowed to make some withdrawals.

3) Reverse the policy change on the Property Pledge at age 55 for up to half the prevailing MS, to enable Singaporeans to withdraw more CPF using the pledge like before, instead of only pledging to meet any MS shortfall now.

4) Review the Available Housing Withdrawal Limit (AHWL) suspending the further use of CPF for housing repayments when the Valuation Limit (VL) of the HDB or private property is exceeded, and the CPF account holder has less than half the prevailing MS in his or her OA and SA. This typically affects the lower-income more, as their OA and SA contributions are generally lower. Hence, it may be more difficult for their OA and SA to catch up with the yearly increasing MS to meet the AHWL.

5) Review the policy of not allowing the OA balance at age 55 for housing repayments. Some Singaporeans who were not aware of this policy had to sell their homes, despite having funds in their OA at age 55, as some may not know that they have to use up their OA for housing before 55.

6) Change the CPF Minimum Sum Payout Calculator to include the extra one per cent on the first $60,000 in the Retirement Account, so that Singaporeans making a decision on whether to opt in to CPF Life can do so on a fair orange-to-orange comparison basis.

7) Review the current policy of making the entire Workfare contribution to the self-employed to their CPF Medisave Accounts, with no cash payout. This discourages older lower-income self- employed Singaporeans from contributing to CPF to qualify for Workfare.

8) Instead of making periodic CPF Medisave top-ups to older Singaporeans, use the funds to pay for their Medishield premiums instead. Otherwise, such top-ups may be easily consumed by rising medical costs.

9) Review the CPF Medishield policy of excluding congenital illnesses for new-born children.

10) Disclose how many self-employed are in arrears on their compulsory Medisave contributions?

11) Why is the actuarial study done on CPF Life not made public? How do we know what assumptions and methodology are being used in the computations and projections in the scheme?

12) Review the policy of exempting employers from having to pay their 16 per cent contribution to CPF for foreign employees. This policy puts Singaporeans at a disadvantage, as employers save 16 per cent of salary costs when they employ foreigners.

13) Plug the loop-hole of some employers not paying the employer’s CPF contribution for their part-time workers, such as part-time lecturers at the university, who go for reservist training.

I would like to urge and call upon all stakeholders to work with and support our new Manpower Minister, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, to reform our CPF.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

哄骗少女发生“援交”,男子被判58个月监禁

一名男子假扮成女性,在网上与未成年女孩认识,以“赚快钱”方式诱骗未成年女孩与他发生关系,哄骗至少8少女上钩,和她们发生性行为21次,还偷拍下过程,被判坐牢58个月 被告吴浩乙(译音,Goh Hao Yi)透过脸书寻找这些样貌姣好的女孩,他甚至注册不同社交媒体账号来圆谎,受诱骗的女孩分别为13岁至17岁。昨日(7日)被告承认了11项罪名包括分别性侵14岁与16岁未成年人、与未满18岁进行性交易以及拍摄淫秽视频。此外仍有15项罪名仍待审讯。 被告除了是一名行销工程师,亦是3名孩子的爸爸。 据控方陈述,被告以“Vacinta Koh”的账号假扮为未满20岁的女孩,他也建立其他脸书账号,并与Instagram连接,让人信以为真。他曾以男性身份寻找受害者,但却没有女孩“上钩”,于是便决定开设女性账号,让受害者放下戒心。 以女性身份假帐号哄骗受害者 被告利用Vacinta的账号开始向样貌姣好的女孩发送邀请,在女孩接受了他的邀请后,“Vacinta会私信他们询问他们是否有兴趣当兼职女友或援交,以每小时100元至200元的定价诱骗女孩,而Vacinta则声称将会向女孩介绍”客户。 Vacinta也会向不愿意或未成年女孩声称年龄不是问题,还强调自己是女孩的担保人,表示可以先安排“固定客户”与女孩见面。“她”也强调客户的条件审查相当“严格”,只有年轻、不丑、并接受每两个月的健康检查才能成为“她”的客户,不会出现粗鲁和暴力的客人。 在经过一连串哄骗后,Vacinta会声称安排客户与他们见面,事实上,该名客户就是被告本身。Vacinta也会向女孩开价如60元插入式性行为、30元口交,或两者100元,若肛交则需额外支付。“她”也会告诫女孩需要保密,而且将朋友也拉入援交行业。 法庭文件也揭露一名受害者与Vacinta的对话,Vacinta也向该名受害者保证“客户”(被告本身)并不是奇怪的客人,而且相当有趣。当受害者向Vacinta表示自己害怕被拍摄淫秽视频,“她”则声称自己与客人拍过视频,但他并没有将视频公开。…

Detention of Bersih leader Maria Chin Abdullah is simply bad fiction

Press Statement from SIARAM Adviser Kia Soong Kua on the detention of Bersih…

关闭南洋大学究竟是谁的主意?

作者-太史公孙, 原文刊登-南洋大学校友业余网站 由东南亚华人在已故陈六使为首的星马华社领袖辛辛苦苦建立起来的中国海外唯一华文大学,终于在1980年以“与新加坡大学合并为新加坡国立大学”的方式被关闭。 关闭南大(南洋大学)的部署,乃以1978年的“联合校园”为始。当年3月4日,南大理事会和新大理事会发表联合声明,宣布由本学年起,新大在武吉知马的校园,将成为新大和南大这两间大学共同课程的联合校园,让南大学生能够在讲英语环境里学习,提高英文水准。 1980年4月5日,南大理事会在和李光耀之间的一连串书信来往之后,终于发表声明,决定接受李光耀总理的建议,把新大与南大合并为“新加坡国立大学”(由南洋大学与新加坡大学组成)。 李光耀事后在多次场合谈到南大的关闭之事。最引人注目也被引述多次的是他在2000年出版的《李光耀回忆录1965-2000》。在此之前还有两次提到,一次是在1980年1月20日行动党二十五周年党庆大会上的演讲,另一次是在1980年3月29日写给南大理事会主席黄祖耀的信函。请看下列引述: 1。《李光耀回忆录1965-2000》,台北世界书局2000年,页173: “局势发展到1978年已经恶劣不堪,南大毕业的议员吁请我在他们母校水平跌至谷底乃至于最终垮掉之前插手干预。经过多年的接触,有一个人的判断是我所信赖的,他就是当时担任政务部长的庄日昆。庄日昆在处理人际关系方面很有一手,跟我又密切合作多年。包括协助我照顾选区。他使我深信,要让南大保持原状继续下去问题会更多,许多学生的事业前途将因此葬送,到时候。讲华语或方言的人定会责备政府袖手旁观,听任南大消亡。庄日昆的看法获得何家良、钱翰琮和李玉胜三位都是南大毕业的政务次长的大力支持。” 2。李光耀在1980年1月20日行动党二十五周年党庆大会上的致辞(英文): “即使在1978年当我建议把他们(南大学生)搬迁到联合校园,还有一些人持强烈的保留姿态。我之所以迁移他们是因为所有的南大毕业生国会议员要求我这么做;我在议会的南洋大学势力准备给我必要的支持。” 3。1980年3月29日李光耀致南大理事会主席黄祖耀信函(引自《南洋大学史料汇编》页556): “要摆脱这种束缚,就是只设一间大学。因此,南大出身的国会议员才建议把南大和新大合并成一间国立大学:使到相同的学位具有同等的市价”…

人资部探讨禁雇主减客工薪水 客工亦重:厘清灰色地带减劳资争议

捍卫客工权益的好消息:人力资源部将探讨,不再允许雇主下调持准证客工的薪资,保障客工在新加坡工作期间的收入。 移工权益组织“客工亦重”(TWC2)在今日也发表脸书贴文,认为近期高等法院的裁决,厘清了法规中的“灰色地带”,但强调各方更应努力拟定预防方案,期许类似案件不需再对簿公堂。 人力资源部部长杨莉明强调,该部每年只收到约2巴仙要求下调客工薪资的申请。在过去三年,客工因被减薪的索偿案例维持在7巴仙,但在去年下半年,却暴增至11巴仙。无论如何,人资部仍持续关注相关减薪劳资争议。 杨莉明是透过书面回答义顺集选区议员黄国光,询问有关雇主下调客工薪资的议题。黄国光在国会提问,有多少雇主向人资部申请下调客工薪资;二,有多少雇主因未知会人资部而被惩罚;三,客工收到的减薪通知数据;以及人资部批准减薪申请的准则? 在更早前,黄国光在脸书揭发,一名孟籍客工收到雇主通知,要将其薪资从1600新元减至452元。黄国光质疑类似减薪有欠公平,为此将此事带到国会讨论。 根据自由新闻工作者韩俐颖的报导,上述个案背景任务是36岁的拉曼砂菲益。为了获得建筑工地装配信号员的职缺,他付还在新加坡的一名前同事5千新元作为简化聘用程序的费用。 但是拉曼抵达新加坡,前往人力资源部处理工作准证时,却发现其雇主通知人资部,将把他的薪水减至452元,惟需先获拉曼的同意。拉曼固然拒绝减薪,但整个过程没人和拉曼商讨,他也一直没有拿到工作合约。 根据人力资源部规定,未经该部同意,就降员工薪资的雇主会被制裁。仅在2018上半年,就有17名雇主被惩处共10万5千元的罚款。 “一些情况下,可能客工表现不如预期,雇主有意调整原先说定的薪资。”人力资源部在雇主已获得员工书面同意下,才批准雇主下调员工薪资。 在申请工作准证时,雇主需对客工清楚声明薪资条件,包括每月基本薪资。 自2011年以来,这些条件都需列明在以客工母语译著的原则批准信(IPA),该信须在客工前来新加坡上岗前,就先寄到客工手中,确保他们详读和接受工作条款。 自今年2月起,劳资政三方调解联盟(TADM)在处理薪资争议上,只能接受雇主提供雇员的书面同意,其他形式的减薪证明将不受理。…