Connect with us

Uncategorized

$2.8bil surplus a year, and can’t afford $300 a month for some destitute 85 year olds?

Published

on

By Leong Sze Hian & Yeo Toon Joo

We have been told by the Government the Budget has been in surplus most years – and “$2.8 billion a year of investment income” had not been spent.

Where did that sum go? Did it end up as “cheap” funds for Temasek and GIC to invest?

Why not use a negligible fraction of that surplus from year 2042 to help Singaporeans who live beyond 85 instead of enforcing the unpopular Longevity insurance scheme?

If our country has $2.8 billion a year in spare cash why can’t our Government pay just $300 a month from 2042 to a small number of poor Singaporeans endowed with longevity?

$2.8 billion is only one per cent of the annual return on Singapore’s reserves which, if returned to CPF members by way of higher interest, is about a one per cent increase in the current CPF interest rate for contributors.

The compounding effect of this one more per cent could translate into tens, if not hundreds, of thousands more in returns for every Singaporean when he or she retires.

For example, $60,000 now plus $500 monthly CPF contributions from age 30 to 65, at 5 and 6 per cent will grow to $914,436 and $1.2 million, respectively. So, a one per cent rise in CPF return (for a worker earning $1,450 monthly at the current CPF contribution rate of 34.5 per cent) translates to $288,894 more when he retires.

Isn’t this far better than giving a one-time housing grant that may be consumed by the risks of servicing a 30-year HDB flat mortgage, or giving a few hundred dollars of occasional top-ups to our CPF account? And are such so-called grants really subsidies when prices of HDB flats rise faster than the so-called housing grants?

“We are not stingy”, Govt rebuts its own rebuttal on CPF funds and changes!

In the following news articles, “Should you invest your CPF savings elsewhere?” (Sunday Times, Sep 30), “Govt spent $2.8b over last 5 years to fund grants, subsidies” (ST, Sep 29), “CPF changes needed to tackle future problems: PM” (ST, Sep 24), and the Ministry of Finance’s reply “Govt investments de-linked from CPF funds” (ST, Sep 29), (link), it was reported that:

 

“The Government has spelt out just how much it spends on grants and subsidies that go into people’s retirement savings in a rebuttal to criticisms that it is tight-fisted. Over the last five years, it ploughed back an average of $2.8 billion a year of investment income into the Budget.”

 

The main thrust of the Government’s rebuttal could be the best “self-rebuttal” against its own rationale for the CPF changes.

The Government has also said it does not depend on CPF funds which, it claims, are not cheap but “expensive” money, and, if it needed to borrow, it could do so more cheaply by issuing government bonds.

On the contrary, if not for the large CPF funds supplied by the people, tapping the market may increase the cost of its borrowing due to its much higher volume of borrowing.

The people’s funds in CPF, in a way, paradoxically enables the current official practice of selling subsidised HDB flats to Singaporeans – at ever increasing prices!

If you look at recent HDB property launches over the last two years you will note the tremendous rises in prices, e.g. the hike in the last three launches of new 4-room HDB flats at Fernvale was more than the increase in the CPF Housing Grant (HG) or the Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG).

The average price increase over the last 2 years was $62,500, which was more than the entire maximum CPF Housing Grants!

On 25 October, just one month after the Fernvale launch, the HDB launched Telok Blangah Towers – with $402,000 the highest price for a 4-room flat, a whopping 60 per cent rise over the highest priced $252,000 at Fernvale. This, I believe, is a record high for new 4-room subsidised public housing! (CNA)

What kind of housing grant is this if your flat prices rise more than the grant? How can the HDB housing loan subsidy be called a subsidy when it takes in CPF from Singaporeans at 2.5%, then lends it back to them at 2.6%?

Why build so many high-priced flats when many can afford only cheaper smaller ones?

In the articles “HDB glut shrinks in rising market” and “More 2-room, rental flats soon” (ST, Oct 18), it was said that “It (HDB) resumed offering two-room flats for sale last year and has launched 539… “

In the next six months, it will offer 4,500 new flats under the build-to-order (BTO) system, which places flats on the market only if there is sufficient demand.

So far, in the first nine months of the year, HDB has offered 2,700 new flats under BTO. It will also release another three new Design, Build and Sell Scheme sites, which will yield about 1,500 flats.

There are, I understand, about 200,000 households with monthly income of $2,000 (the income ceiling for two-room flats) or less. Why then is the HDB building so few two-room flats (539 since last year, and only after not building any for many years)?

And, why is it building many times more flats that are bigger and at rapidly increasing prices (as much as 40% higher than 2 years ago for new 4-room flats at Fernvale)? (link)

Funding Singaporeans’ retirement savings through ad-hoc and piece-meal housing grants and subsidies, goes against the core principle of self-reliance that has been the bedrock of our pensions system.

Instead it should grant higher CPF returns, as it will reinforce the need and desire of Singaporeans to plan and save for their retirement.

Is it any wonder then that no amount of top-ups or lucky draws has succeeded in persuading the self-employed to contribute to CPF accounts! Could it be that returns are just too low?

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Indonesia

Miss Universe cuts ties with Indonesia chapter after harassment allegations

The Miss Universe Organization severs ties with Indonesia franchise due to harassment claims. Malaysia edition canceled.

Women allege body checks before pageant. Investigation launched. Safety prioritized.

Indonesia winner to compete in November finale. Height requirement controversy.

Published

on

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES — The Miss Universe Organization has cut ties with its Indonesia franchise, it announced days after allegations of sexual harassment, and will cancel an upcoming Malaysia edition.

In the complaint, more than a half dozen women said all 30 finalists for Miss Universe Indonesia were unexpectedly asked to strip for a supposed body check for scars and cellulite two days before the pageant’s crowning ceremony in Jakarta.

Their lawyer said Tuesday that five of the women had their pictures taken.

“In light of what we have learned took place at Miss Universe Indonesia, it has become clear that this franchise has not lived up to our brand standards, ethics, or expectations,” the US-based Miss Universe Organization posted Saturday night on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter.

It said that it had “decided to terminate the relationship with its current franchise in Indonesia, PT Capella Swastika Karya, and its National Director, Poppy Capella.”

It thanked the contestants for their bravery in coming forward and added that “providing a safe place for women” was the organization’s priority.

Jakarta police spokesman Trunoyudo Wisnu Andiko said Tuesday that an investigation into the women’s complaint has been launched.

The Indonesia franchise also holds the license for Miss Universe Malaysia, where there will no longer be a competition this year, according to the New York-based parent organizer.

In a lengthy statement posted to Instagram, Indonesia franchise director Capella denied involvement in any body checks.

“I, as the National Director and as the owner of the Miss Universe Indonesia license, was not involved at all and have never known, ordered, requested or allowed anyone who played a role and participated in the process of organizing Miss Universe Indonesia 2023 to commit violence or sexual harassment through body checking,” she wrote.

She added that she is against “any form of violence or sexual harassment.”

The Jakarta competition was held from 29 July to 3 August to choose Indonesia’s representative to the 2023 Miss Universe contest, and was won by Fabienne Nicole Groeneveld.

Miss Universe said it would make arrangements for her to compete in the finale, scheduled for November in El Salvador.

This year’s Indonesia pageant also came under fire for announcing a “significant change in this (year’s) competition guidelines” with the elimination of its minimum height requirement after it had crowned a winner.

In its statement, the Miss Universe Organization said it wanted to “make it extremely clear that there are no measurements such as height, weight, or body dimensions required to join a Miss Universe pageant worldwide.”

— AFP

Continue Reading

Malaysia

A Perodua service centre in Kuantan, Malaysia went viral for its strict dress code, Perodua responds

A dress code for vehicle servicing? A Malaysian car brand’s service centre dress code signage has puzzled netizens, raising queries about the need for attire rules during a routine service.

The manufacturer responded with an official statement after a flurry of comments, seeking to clarify and apologize.

Published

on

By

MALAYSIA: A dress code signage positioned at a service centre belonging to a prominent Malaysian car brand has sparked bewilderment among Malaysian netizens, who question the necessity of adhering to attire guidelines for a simple vehicle servicing.

The signage explicitly delineates clothing items that are deemed unsuitable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, abbreviated pants, and distressed jeans.

The car manufacturer swiftly found itself flooded with comments from both inquisitive and irked Malaysian netizens. This surge in online activity prompted the company to issue an official statement aimed at clarifying the situation and extending an apology.

In a post that gained significant traction on the social media platform, politician Quek Tai Seong of Pahang State, Malaysia, shared an image to Facebook on Monday (7 Aug).

The image showcased a dress code sign prominently displayed at a Perodua Service Centre in Kuantan. Within the post, Quek posed the question: “Is this dress code applicable nationwide, or is it specific to this branch?”

The signage reads, “All customers dealing with Perodua Service Kuantan 1, Semambu, are requested to dress modestly and appropriately.”

Adding visual clarity to these guidelines, the sign features illustrative graphics that explicitly outline clothing items deemed unacceptable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, short pants, and ripped jeans.

Delineating the specifics of the dress code, the signage stipulates that male visitors are expected to don shirts accompanied by neckties, opt for long pants, and wear closed shoes.

Conversely, female visitors are advised to don long-sleeved shirts, full-length skirts, and closed-toe footwear.

Perodua’s dress code sparks online uproar

Following the rapid spread of the post, Perodua’s official Facebook page found itself inundated with comments from both intrigued and frustrated Malaysian netizens, all seeking clarifications about the newly surfaced dress code policy.

Amidst the flurry of comments, numerous incensed netizens posed pointed questions such as, “What is the rationale behind the introduction of such regulations by the management? We demand an explanation.”

Another netizen expressed their dissatisfaction, arguing against the necessity of the rule and urging Perodua to take inspiration from the practices of other 4S (Sales, Service, Spare Parts, and Survey) automotive dealerships.

A concerned Facebook user chimed in, advocating for a more lenient stance, asserting that attempting to dictate customers’ clothing choices might not be in the company’s best interest.

Someone also commented in an angry tone, “Oi what is this? Going there for car service, not interview or working, right.”

As the discourse unfolded, it became evident that while some inquiries carried genuine weight, others chose to inject humor into the situation, playfully remarking, “If I wanted to buy a Myvi, I should buy or rent a formal attire first.”

“I sell economy rice at a hawker centre, I have never worn a long sleeve shirt and a tie… I guess I will not buy a Perodua car then.”

“I guess they will not serve those who wear short pants.”

Perodua addresses dress code controversy

As reported by Chinese media outlet Sin Chew Daily News, the manager of Kuantan’s Perodua Service Centre had acknowledged that the images on the dress code signage were misleading.

In response, the manager divulged that discussions had transpired with the head office, leading to the prompt removal of the signage to prevent any further misconceptions.

The manager clarifies, “We do encourage visitors to adhere to the dress etiquette, but we won’t go to the extent of restricting their choice of attire.”

He also revealed that currently, no complaints have been directly received from the public.

However, feedback from certain customers was relayed through Perodua’s agents.

Perodua also released an official statement by chief operating officer JK Rozman Jaffar on Wednesday (9 Aug) regarding the dress code on their official Facebook page.

The statement stated the dress code etiquette is not aligned with their official guidelines and they are currently conducting an official investigation on the matter followed by corrective measures to avoid the same incident from happening.

Perodua also extends its apologies for any inconvenience caused.

 

Continue Reading

Trending