Leong Sze Hian/

I refer to the articles “Tan Kin Lian confirms intention to run for President” (Today, Jun 9) and “CPF Minimum Sum to be revised upwards to $131k” (ST, Jun 1).

The former states :

“Mr Tan Kin Lian has laid out his two main concerns: One, the safety of Central Provident Fund monies and whether the government has enough money to make payouts to Singaporeans at their respective withdrawal dates. The people are quite concerned. They say, is my CPF safe?”

This year’s CPF Minimum Sum (MS) increase is by $8,000 from last year’s $123,000.

This means that those who reach age 55 this year, with a combined CPF Ordinary Account (OA) and Special Account (SA) balance of less than $163,750, can only withdraw 20 per cent of their account balance.

For example, if you have $150,000, the sum that can be withdrawn is $30,000 (20% of $150,000).

Come 1 January next year, it will decrease to 10 per cent, and will be zero from 1 January, 2013.

So, for example, if you turn 55 in 2012, the sum that can be withdrawn is $15,000 (10% of $150,000).

Turning 55 in 2013 – $5,000 (Zero of $150,000, subject to a $5,000 minimum withdrawal amount).

MS $147,000 in 2013?

However, the above examples do not take into account any increase in the MS for the next two years.

So, if the increase is $8,000 a year, like for this year, the MS may be around $147,000 ($131,000 + $8,000 x 2 years).

Hence, in all probability, if you turn 55 in 2013, you may only be able to withdraw $5,000, if you have less than $147,000.

However, even if you have $147,000, you will also be subject to the Medisave Required Amount (MRA) which is projected to be about $37,500 in 2013 (currently $27,500 – increased by $5,000 this year).

MS + MRA $184,500 in 2013?

Therefore, if you have less than say $184,500 in 2013, because you are required to set aside your MRA from your OA in excess of the MS, you may only be able to withdraw $5,000.

The property pledge at 55 policy has also been changed – it is only for any MS shortfall, and no longer enables you to withdraw more money, like before.

Will the MS and MRA continue to increase from 2013?

How many Singaporeans will have $184,500, when the CPF Life Report said that only about 60 per cent of Active CPF Members are projected to have at least $67,000?

1,646,700 Inactive CPF Members?

By the way, since there were about 1,646,700 Inactive CPF Members in 2009, does it mean that they were excluded from the CPF Life Report?

Of course, even if you are unable to withdraw much of your CPF at 55, it may not be a problem, as long as you have a decent paying job from 55 to 65, when your CPF Life monthly annuity will start.

Re-employment Act?

Well, we have the Re-employment Act – the problem with this legislation to be effected next year, requiring employers to offer you re-employment at 62, based on any terms to be agreed between you and your employer, may be a substantial cut in pay and/or job scope.

Moreover, employers may offer you compensation of between $4,000 to $10,000, if they decide not to offer re- employment.

Actually, the other problem is that you may already be out of a job before 62.

If you think that a good education and experience may protect your job, I have schoolmates from Raffles Institution, who are taxi drivers, security guards, etc, despite having a degree from our national university.

Most starting jobs today, like those in food and beverage, retail, etc, only pay about $5.50 an hour.

Citing surveys that most employers are ready to support and embrace the new Retirement Act, may be cold comfort to Singaporeans who have experienced or seen job loss or pay cuts, at the discretion of employers.

A Retirement Act which allows employers to cut pay based on reasonable factors (like productivity, performance, duties and responsibilities, etc), other than age discrimination, is at best ‘a joke’, if you talk
to any Equal Opportunity Employment Commission in the world.

With regard to the article “NTUC reshaping to be pro-worker, pro-citizen” (ST, Jun 2), shouldn’t the NTUC be such, in the first place? Or are we admitting that we were not, all along?

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

Remarks by PAP members made to confuse S’poreans: WP

  Ko Siew Huey / Picture by Han Thon In the latest…

毕丹星:法庭也有能力对网络假消息迅速反应

工人党秘书长毕丹星强调,比起在《防止网络假消息与网络操纵法》下赋予部长的权力裁定网络假消息,司法机关才更为合适成为最初、也是最终的仲裁者。 在本周三于国会三读《防假消息法》,虽然工人党只有九票反对无法阻止该法以72票高票赞成通过,不过工人党议员们皆阐明了对该法的反对立场,特别是毕丹星认为,即便是法庭也有能力尽速裁定网络假消息个案,不必然非得把权力交予部长。 人民行动党议员符致镜在本月8日的国会辩论质疑,有鉴于网络假消息需要在数小时内尽速处理,交由法庭审核裁定是否合适。 毕丹星对此表示不认同,并以《防止骚扰法令》(POHA)为例,处理针对个人或企业组织的网络假消息也可以很迅速。 国会也在本月7日三读通过《防止骚扰法》修正,也拟议增设针对网络和非网络的骚扰案件的法庭,在48-72小时内加速处理保护令审讯;同时,受害者可单方面申请临时通知命令(interim order)。 “所以我并不认同符议员观点,除非是我误解了,在《防止骚扰法》下人们在面对假消息时,无法预期迅速有效的处理方案?” 毕丹星坚信法庭其实是能够以最快速度完成程序。 符致镜:各专业领域公务员对付假消息 符致镜则反问,网络假消息无所不在,何以要舍弃在治安、卫生、经济等各领域有专业经验的16名部长和13万5000名公务员不用,即便增强司法机关,后者又需要用多久时间尽速对付假消息? 他也区分,《防止骚扰法》旨在解决针对个人隐私权遭侵犯等私人问题;而《防假消息法》是针对社会公众利益、暴乱以及种族不和谐而设立。 符致镜认为虽然《防止骚扰法》与《防假消息法》所处理都是非同小可的案件,但《防假消息法》案攸关社会公众利益的问题,需要尽速处理,相较之下,《免受骚扰法》所处理的案件并不如《防假消息法》紧急。…

Police officers, and security officers to be deployed to manage crowds in the vicinity of Orchard Road, Clarke Quay and Gardens by the Bay on Christmas

The Singapore Police Force will be deploying police officers, auxiliary police officers,…