Tag: CPF

  • 5 Reasons Josephine Teo’s Service To Singapore Should Be Measured In Dollars And Cents

    5 Reasons Josephine Teo’s Service To Singapore Should Be Measured In Dollars And Cents

    In a post-budget 2015 forum on Feb. 26, 2015, Minister of State Josephine Teo was asked if national servicemen should be paid more.

    She said she noted the importance of giving NSmen recognition, but service for the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

    Here are 5 reasons why only Josephine Teo’s contributions to Singapore can be measured in dollars and cents:

    1. She is from the PAP.

    Only dollars and cents apply to them.

    2. It is a privilege for Singaporean Sons to serve National Service. Being a Minister of State, on the other hand, is a thankless job.

    Only money can be used as compensation.

    3. Because National Service is its own reward.

    And because serving Singapore as a Minister of State is not its own reward.

    4. Because Full-time National Servicemen get paid such a miniscule derisory amount it doesn’t even matter.

    Unlike what she gets, which can be counted easily because it is so much.

    5. She is the bulwark against any invasive force.

    She is not part of Total Defence. She is Total Defence itself.

    She can singlehandedly defend Singapore’s sovereignty by herself. That’s why only her contributions can be quantified in dollars and cents.

     

    Source: http://newnation.sg

  • The Workers’ Party Calls For More Flexibility In CPF Draw Down Age, De-Link From Retirement Age

    The Workers’ Party Calls For More Flexibility In CPF Draw Down Age, De-Link From Retirement Age

    By Non-Constituency MP, Gerald Giam
    [Delivered in Parliament on 3 Mar 2015]

    Mdm Speaker,

    The DPM and Finance Minister has laid out the key thrusts for the Government in his Budget statement. My speech will focus on retirement adequacy and the CPF scheme in particular.

    Th CPF scheme has a long history in Singapore that pre-dates our independence. The Central Provident Fund Bill was introduced by the Singapore Progressive Party in the Legislative Council in 1951, while Singapore was still a British Colony. The CPF scheme provides a mandatory retirement savings plan for local workers. It is a “defined contribution” scheme, whereby every member takes out only what he has contributed. This has helped the Government avoid the heavy burden of Budget-financed pension liabilities that many other countries face.

    While CPF provides a basic payout for retirees, it does not assure full retirement adequacy, particularly for those in the lowest income groups, including home-makers and people with disabilities.

    Minimum Sum

    The Minimum Sum requirement, which has been renamed to “Retirement Sum” by the CPF Advisory Panel, was introduced in 1987. It prevents CPF members from withdrawing their entire CPF savings in one lump sum when they retire. They are only allowed to withdraw amounts in excess of the Minimum Sum, plus another $5,000, at age 55.

    This has been deeply unpopular among many Singaporeans. Many feel that since the money in our CPF accounts belongs to us, why should the Government control when and how much we can withdraw? “We’re not children after all,” some would say. A recent poll by Channel NewsAsia found that the majority of respondents would like a choice to withdraw all of their CPF money at age 55.[1]

    I empathise and identify with these sentiments. I too would like to be able to withdraw all my CPF when I turn 55. Apart from paying off day-to-day expenses, I feel confident of being able to manage my own money well and not squander it. However, the reality for me, and I think many other working Singaporeans, is that if not for the forced savings that CPF has imposed, we would probably have saved much less for retirement.

    As pointed out by Mr Donald Low from the LKY School of Public Policy in a commentary in The Straits Times last week, faced with a choice between an immediate reward and a larger delayed benefit, people often choose the former.

    Also, even if CPF members make an effort to invest their retirement savings after they are withdrawn, not many have investment skills that are good enough to consistently beat the current 4% CPF Retirement Account interest rate in the long term.

    We also have to be on guard against swindlers who will try to find ways to persuade vulnerable elderly folks to part with their CPF money if they withdraw the full amount at one go.

    Therefore, while we understand Singaporeans’ strong sentiments about the Minimum Sum “locking up” our CPF money, for the reasons I just mentioned, the Workers’ Party is not asking for CPF members to be allowed to withdraw all their CPF money in a lump sum, except under special circumstances.

    Flexibility in Draw-Down Age

    Having said that, there is still room for providing CPF members with more flexibility in determining when to start receiving monthly payouts from their CPF. Currently, members can start drawing down their CPF only upon reaching their DrawDown Age, now known as the Payout Eligibility Age, which will be 65 from 2018 onwards.

    Some CPF members may have genuine reasons for needing monthly payouts to start earlier than age 65. For example, they may have been retrenched and, because of a skills mismatch or age discrimination, may not be able to secure another job. Or they may be labourers who are simply be too old to do manual work. When I observed the young men who helped me move the heavy furniture in my home recently, I wondered how long they would be able to continue in that role, and what jobs they would do once they are not strong enough to carry such heavy loads.

    The Workers’ Party therefore proposes lowering the Payout Eligibility Age to 60. This will give CPF members the flexibility to start receiving CPF monthly payouts earlier, if they need to, instead of having to wait until age 65. This was a call made by my colleague, the Member for Hougang, Mr Png Eng Huat, in May 2014.

    I agree with the CPF Advisory Panel’s recommendation to give members flexibility to defer their Payout Start Age to as late as 70, with a permanent 6 to 7% increase in monthly payouts for every year that they defer.[2] In line with this, under the Workers’ Party’s proposal, there would be a permanent 6 to 7%decrease in payouts for every year that members choose to bring forward their Payout Start Age. Members must be made aware that their monthly payouts could be significantly less should they choose this early payout option.

    De-link Payout Eligibility Age from Retirement / Re-employment Age

    Many Singaporeans have expressed frustration about the constantly increasing Payout Eligibility Age. It is was 63 last year, 64 this year and will be 65 in 2018. It seems to be moving up together with the Re-employment Age. Perhaps it is assumed that people are able to work until the Re-employment Age and do not need to draw down their CPF savings before that.

    However, just because the Re-employment Age has been raised does not mean that everyone will be able to work until 65, as I explained earlier. Furthermore, the statutory Retirement Age is now only 62. This leaves a gap of 3 years that a retiree will have to tide over, should his company not offer him re-employment until 65.

    I would like to reiterate the Workers’ Party’s earlier calls for the Payout Eligibility Age to be de-linked from either the Retirement Age or the Re-employment Age. Even if the Retirement Age is increased, the Payout Eligibility Age should remain constant at 60. This will provide members with more assurance of when they are eligible to start drawing from their CPF, regardless of their employment status, instead of wondering when the target will move again.

    Public education on CPF system

    Madam, I would like to touch on the public education aspects of the CPF scheme. The CPF Scheme is not easy to understand, regardless of one’s level of education. The large amount of technical jargon, acronyms, figures and different conditions that apply to people with different birth years, all add to the confusion.

    There is a pressing need to increase and improve public education about the CPF scheme. The CPF Advisory Panel has also recommended that more public education on CPF is needed.

    A recent poll by REACH, the government feedback unit, found that only 13% of respondents under 55 were able to provide the estimated monthly payout amount under CPF LIFE if one met the Minimum Sum requirement. With greater choices provided in the CPF scheme, it is important that CPF members are fully aware of the implications of their choices, including the lower payouts if they choose to start withdrawals earlier or withdraw a lump sum.

    I am aware that there are many ways in which CPF Board tries to get its message out, including pamphlets, public seminars and even advertisements on YouTube. However, none of these ensures that a CPF member is fully aware of the choices he has to make at critical junctures, like at age 55 and 65. A letter is sent to CPF members just 1 to 2 months before they turn 55, to inform them that they can apply to withdraw their CPF. This may not give them enough time and information to consider their choices carefully.

    My observation is that public education on CPF currently focuses a lot on how CPF benefits Singaporeans, or to clarify misunderstandings about CPF. The questions asked in the REACH poll are quite telling. They include questions like “If you do not meet your Minimum Sum requirement, do you need to top up the shortfall in cash?” and “Do you think you will receive a monthly payout from age 65 if you do not meet the full Minimum Sum?”

    Public education on CPF should be more tailored to individual members, focusing on the information and numbers that are directly relevant to them and the choices they have to make. We should not confuse people with numbers that are irrelevant to them, like the different Minimum Sum amounts and Draw-Down Ages for different age groups. While the CPF website has a number of useful calculators, not every retiree is technically-savvy enough to access and use them correctly.

    I would therefore like to suggest that before reaching the age of 55, every CPF member should be invited to meet one-on-one with a CPF Board officer, who should explain the details of the scheme, including how much he has in his account, how much he can withdraw, when he can withdraw, the choices of CPF LIFE plans and what his monthly payouts will be. This should be conducted in a language or dialect that he is comfortable with, and he should be allowed to bring a few family members to the meeting. It should be done at least a 3 months before the member becomes eligible to withdraw his CPF.

    This personalised meeting should be done on top of the public seminars that are available to CPF members. It will provide a channel for important information to be explained personally to the member and to give him an opportunity to seek clarifications from the officer.

    Silver Support Scheme

    The last matter I wish to raise concerns the Silver Support Scheme. While CPF payouts are usually enough to meet the retirement needs of seniors who have the Full Retirement Sum or more at retirement, there is a sizeable number of Singaporeans whose CPF payouts are insufficient to meet basic household expenditure.

    The solution for these individuals cannot be to postpone their CPF withdrawals or place further restrictions on their use of CPF and Medisave. This will only exacerbate their difficult financial situation. I am glad the Government has finally acknowledged that individual responsibility through the CPF system has its limits, and that it is time to provide a form of old age support for needy senior citizens.

    While the details of the Silver Support Scheme are still being worked out, I would like to make some remarks on the scheme based on what the Finance Minister has announced.

    First, the Silver Support quantum seems rather low, ranging from $100 to $250 per month. This is much lower than what even the poorest 20% of households spend each month on basic household necessities, which is $761 per month for all households[3] and $317 per month for retiree households, according to last year’s Household Expenditure Survey.[4]

    Can the DPM share his basis for deriving the Silver Support quantum? Does it look at household expenditure, and does it assume that all retirees receive additional forms of income like children’s contributions?

    Given the increasing cost of living in Singapore, I urge the Government to ensure that Silver Support is enough to cover retirees’ basic household expenses and that it also increases over time to account for inflation.

    Second, while I agree that the Silver Support Scheme should provide targeted support, the evaluation criteria should take into account the current financial situation of the seniors and should not be so stringent that genuine cases end up being excluded. In particular, the “household support” criteria must not deny Silver Support to seniors whose children are unable to support them or whom they are estranged from. Needy seniors should not have to suffer for their children’s inability or unwillingness to support them.

    My third request on Silver Support is that it should be paid out monthly instead of quarterly. Silver Support recipients are not working and receiving a salary, unlike Workfare recipients, yet they still have monthly household expenses like bills, food, transport and rental. A monthly payout would help seniors in their cash flow management.

    Conclusion

    Madam, in summary, I would like to reiterate the four main proposals in my speech:

    First, more flexibility should be given to CPF members to start receiving CPF payouts as early as age 60, if they need to, so as to help those who are not able to find work at that age. Second, the CPF Payout Eligibility Age should be de-linked from the Retirement or Re-employment Age, to provide more certainty for seniors.

    Third, personalised public education should be conducted for all CPF members, in their preferred language or dialect, well in advance of their 55th birthday, so as to give them more time to consider their options and discuss with family members. And fourth, the basis for calculating the Silver Support quantum should be made public and it should take into account the current financial situation of seniors to ensure that the needy are not excluded. It should also be paid out monthly instead of quarterly.

    Thank you, Madam.

     

    Source: http://wp.sg

  • Has Lawyer M Ravi Had Enough Of His Client CPF Blogger Roy Ngerng?

    Has Lawyer M Ravi Had Enough Of His Client CPF Blogger Roy Ngerng?

    The following video, believed to have been recorded on Friday, Feb. 6, 2015, outside the Subordinate Courts, shows lawyer M Ravi talking at length about his client, CPF blogger Roy Ngerng.

    The purpose of Ravi’s court attendance, as he explains in the video, appears to be for an application for Ngerng to leave Singapore’s jurisdiction to go to Norway.

    But Ngerng didn’t show up.

    Here is a snippet of what Ravi said to the camera at 3 minutes 25 seconds:

    “And you know what, to date, I’ve done so much of work and he’s keeping all the money, a hundred thousand I guess, to the tune of $70,000 or so. And what has happened?

    He’s now blogging I understand.

    Why is he not in this court when he wants to leave jurisdiction today to Norway? The application had been… the court is just waiting for him. Why is he not turning up to court? Why is he not answering anybody? Why is he not calling my office? Why did he not say that ‘Ravi or even a message I’m sorry I’m not turning up, I’m not leaving the country’. There’s no respect for the judge. Yet he has the gall and temerity to say that our judges are corrupted, our judges are not independent and this and that. And what respect do you have?

    He goes behind my back, he goes and blogs, you know? And I’m going to discharge, if he is continuing his behaviour, either he goes and see a psychiatrist…

    […]

    … because I’m fighting for him tooth and nail and he’s swindling the money.”

    Here is the video:

     

    Update, Feb. 8, 2015, 12.30am: The previous uploaded video is no longer accessible:

     

    A rift appeared to have occurred between lawyer and client when Ravi had to publicly distance himself a few weeks ago from a potentially libellous online article put out by Ngerng and his friends.

    Ravi also said Ngerng is “too impulsive” to contest the next General Election with him in the same team.

    We’d include more details about the origins of the video when we find out more.

    *Update*

    The video was produced by an individual by the name of Teo En Ming, who is popularly known in the Hardwarezone forums as sgvideoman.

    Teo raised eyebrows last year when he filed a police report after his Hardwarezone forum account ‘sgvideoman’ was banned from the forums by one of the moderators.

    His ‘fame’ on the Hardwarezone forum stemmed from his claim that he is being targeted by the Singapore Government and had lost two jobs because of it. His claim can be found in this Hardwarezone thread titled “(Wanbao material) Guy gets fired for shltting everywhere in the company“.

    Teo also stated that he has filed a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Council about the Singapore Government for persecuting and blacklisting him. He also claimed that he could have been poisoned by the Singapore Government in his complaint.

     

    Source: http://mothership.sg

  • Roy Ngerng: $29,000 Already Paid To Lee Hsien Loong’s Lawyers From Drew & Napier

    Roy Ngerng: $29,000 Already Paid To Lee Hsien Loong’s Lawyers From Drew & Napier

    Hello everyone,

    I just left Drew & Napier’s office a while ago.

    I got to their office at 5pm today and sat there for nearly 3 hours.

    The court had asked me to pay $29,000 to the lawyers of the Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, from Drew & Napier, for the summary judgment last year, for his lawyers’ costs.

    However, no one from Drew & Napier wanted to see me just now for nearly 3 hours. I sat at their waiting area for 3 hours while Drew & Napier would only speak to me via their receptionist. I even had to write down my queries on a piece of paper so that the receptionist could convey the message.

    When I made a call to an Angela Cheng from Drew & Napier, she hanged up my call halfway and did not want to speak to me.

    Later, I found out that the prime minister’s press secretary, Ms Chang Li Lin, once again issued a statement for him.

    She said that, “under the lawyers’ professional rules, a lawyer cannot, without the consent of the opposite party’s lawyer, deal directly with the opposite party”.

    So, Drew & Napier refused to accept my payment and Ms Chang went ahead to say that Drew & Napier can file an application in court “to compel payment and for costs”.

    “If that order is granted and payment is still not made, Mr Lee will avail himself of his legal remedies,” she also said.

    The prime minister wants to apply to the court to make me pay for most costs, if I don’t make the payment. But I was actually sitting in Drew & Napier’s office for 3 hours, waiting to make payment.

    I was initially unable to contact my lawyer earlier as he had a court case to attend to. Eventually, I managed to contact him and he was able to inform Drew & Napier to collect the payment of $29,000 from me.

    You can see the receipt below.

    Please note that this $29,000 is not what I have to pay to the prime minister in damages. This is only for his lawyers’ costs for the summary judgment.

    There will still be another hearing in June to determine how much I would have to pay the prime minister in damages. The prime minister has filed for the defamation suit in the high court, which oversees cases of more than $250,000, so this is the least that the prime minister wants me to pay to him.

    I am appalled that the prime minister’s press secretary has once again issued a statement on his behalf. The prime minister is not allowed to sue me in his position as a prime minister. As such, he is not allowed to use state resources, such as his press secretary, to release statements or act on his behalf.

    The payment to the prime minister’s lawyers has now been made. I will have to pay even more when the hearing on the damages is heard in June.

    On Wednesday, the CPF Advisory Panel released their recommendations. But I have explained yesterday that nothing has changed about the CPF. Singaporeans’ CPF will still be trapped inside and Singaporeans will still not be able to earn more in our CPF. The PAP businessmen will not help Singaporeans. The PAP businessmen will not protect Singaporeans.

    What happened today has caused much distress. But it’s settled. If you want your CPF to be returned to you, the only way you will get it back if you stand up and fight for it.

     

    Source: http://thehearttruths.com

     

  • Public Accounts Committee: Excercise Greater Diligence When Using Public Funds

    Public Accounts Committee: Excercise Greater Diligence When Using Public Funds

    The Public Accounts Committee has responded to a report by the Auditor-General flagging irregularities in the use of public funds for the financial year 2013/14.

    In a report submitted to Parliament yesterday (Feb 4), the committee – comprising eight Members of Parliament, and chaired by Mr Cedric Foo – urged government agencies to “exercise greater diligence in managing public resources and to review their usage regularly so as to optimise their use and minimise wastage”.

    Released in July last year, the Auditor-General’s report highlighted lapses in the administration of grants, schemes and programmes, as well as instances of weak management of resources which resulted in wastage.

    LAPSES IN LICENSING OF LAND

    Among the ministries and statutory boards cited in the report was the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), which entered into an agreement with its contractor in 1995 to sublet land at a nominal rate of S$45 a year to provide services solely to MINDEF. However, the ministry did not raise the rent even after the contractor was privatised in 2000 and used the land for commercial activities.

    MINDEF clarified that the contractor was a wholly Government-owned company prior to 2000, and there was no clause in the 1995 agreement to state that the land leased was not to be used for commercial activities. MINDEF told the committee that it has since entered into a new agreement with the contractor and would be charging it annual rental for the land used for commercial activities.

    UNDER-UTILISATION OF ASSETS

    The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) was cited for the under-utilisation of land, buildings and facilities at two of its sites, as well as assets being under-utilised or left unused.

    In response, the Ministry of National Development (MND), which oversees the AVA, said that the AVA will conduct a comprehensive review on the usage of all its land, buildings and facilities by early 2015. It has since completed a review of its Sembawang site and submitted a land return proposal to the Singapore Land Authority, the MND said.

    The AVA has also identified under-utilised equipment and machinery, and reminded departments to dispose of those no longer required. In addition, its finance department plans to carry out annual independent checks on the assets, the MND said.

    ERRONEOUS MEDISAVE CLAIMS

    The Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB) was rapped for erroneous Medisave claims by medical institutions, and has since taken several remedy actions: Formalising and documenting procedures on the follow-up of erroneous claims, improving the tracking system, and sending reminders to all restructured hospitals to improve their medical classification of claim cases and to make the appropriate refunds to the claimants’ Medisave accounts.

    As of January 2015, 90 per cent of erroneous claims have been settled, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said.

    The CPFB has also been working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) since 2011 to explore various deterrent measures against medical institutions that made erroneous claims, such as the possibility of imposing administrative or penalty fees.

    According to the MOM, the majority of the erroneous claims arose from misinterpretation of the surgical procedures and guidelines. The MOH has since stepped up efforts to educate clinical practitioners and providers, and will update the list of surgical procedures claimable under Medisave or MediShield more regularly, the MOM said.

    ADMINISTRATION OF SCHEMES

    The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) was cited for “lax controls” over the approval of applications for the import of medicinal products. Of 1,479 import applications checked, 386 contained errors.

    The committee was told that the HSA has since conducted checks on the 386 applications and verified that the products had been licensed or approved for importation. The MOH added that the HSA would be enhancing the current trade declaration system to ensure that information in the application forms are verified electronically.

    PROCUREMENT

    The HSA was also rapped for awarding contracts to five incumbent contractors even though their tender proposals did not fully meet tender requirements. The agency has since tightened its procurement process and amended its procurement guidelines, the MOH said.

    The Public Accounts Committee said it was concerned that the instruction manual on procurement did not specify if agencies should invite a fresh tender if variation works exceeded a certain percentage of the approved original procurement value.

    In response, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) said there are “complex and multi-dimensional considerations” in determining whether a contract variation is justifiable. Setting a threshold may drive agencies towards calling contract variations as long as it is within the threshold and not considering calling fresh tenders, even when it may be more appropriate to do so, it said.

    However, the MOF said it has recently enhanced its guidelines on contract variations. Where additional works are necessary, and especially if the additional works are substantial, calling fresh tenders remains the default option, it said.

    BACKDATED AUDIT DOCUMENTS

    During the audit of the National Parks Board’s (NParks) development of the Gardens by the Bay, certain documents were found to have been created and backdated to give the impression that they existed when the transactions took place.

    An internal inquiry by the Ministry of National Development (MND) confirmed that an NParks officer had created and backdated 16 letters, purportedly issued by NParks to its suppliers, to satisfy audit queries. The same officer also arranged for the suppliers to issue a further 11 backdated letters – five of which were created by the officer on their behalf.

    According to MND, Gardens by the Bay has taken disciplinary actions against the officer for misconduct. It will also tighten its internal procurement, project management and contract management processes to prevent future recurrence, the MND told the committee.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com