Prime Minister Lee unveiled quite a few proposed changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme during his national day rally speech and the changes have been debated in Parliament recently.
Quite a few changes have been proposed to address the ageing population the country is facing. Top of the list are measures to encourage re-employment of older workers, followed by increases in the CPF interest rates and lastly, and most controversial, measures to make savings last for life expectancy.
While official statistics show that more people are living till an older age, the cold hard facts do nothing to address the perceptions that these statistics do not apply to the individual. The common view on the ground is still that the government has once again moved the goalposts and made our money out of reach; everytime one moves near the markers where we can lay our hands on OUR money, the criteria is moved so that the marker moves that slightly further out of reach... Will people ever live to enjoy the fruits of their many years of labour, to pocket the money that had been kept out of their reach for decades.
Already, today's retirement age at 62 is being moved to 67. The age of 67 is definitely not cast in stone. In another decade or 2, will it be possible that the retirement age is moved even further to 70 years old or beyond? I doubt it not. It may even eventually reach a stage where retirement age is scrapped and people are given the option to work till the day they drop dead.
What about increasing the interest rates on CPF savings? An additional one percent on the first $60,000 in the CPF accounts will definitely be welcomed but the catch is that the initial $20,000 of the Ordinary Account can no longer be invested under the CPF Investment Scheme for higher returns. Furthermore, the Special, Retirement and Medisave Accounts (SRMA) will no longer offer fixed interest rates but instead be pegged to a long term bond rate.
Not being able to invest the first $20,000 of the OA is likely to impact the potential returns that can be obtained by those who are financially savvy. Utilising the money to buy into stable dividend-paying blue chips is highly likely to yield returns beyond 3.5%. The long term bond rate is also an unknown. Will it better the 4% that CPF currently pays on the SRMA? While past data appears to indicate that CPF members will be able to expect similar or better returns, the standard disclaimer that appears on brochures of financial products must be kept in mind - Past performance are not necessarily indicative of future performance.
The one proposal that really got everyone talking is that of making longevity insurance compulsory. While this is still tentative and a committee had been setup to look at it, I really hope that the committee will eventually propose that it not be implemented. The basic idea is to get every CPF member to buy into an annuity scheme so that those who do live beyond 85 will be guranteed an income for life. Yet again, there is a catch to this. The proposal in its current form will see CPF members paying for the annuity and getting nothing back if they die before the age of 85. Why should the government stipulate how I should use MY money to subsidise others whom had not planned for their own longevity? The intention behind CPF was that individuals will be self sufficient and fund their OWN retirement with the government stepping in to help those who are unable to help themselves. The oft quoted slippery slope of welfare appears to be being tested here. While sounding selfish, there is no reason why I will want to fund the longevity costs of someone whom I do not know. If I die, my assets should be directed to the benefit of those related to me, those whom I will be most concerned about.
Personally, with the exception of the longevity insurance, I am fine with the CPF changes proposed. In reality, CPF is a retirement scheme that will not suffice to fund a comfortable retirement. For those who can, they must make alternative plans to ensure a reasonable standard of living upon retirement. Eventually, with the constantly moving criteria, being able to lay our hands on the CPF money needs to be considered a bonus. But! DO NOT dictate that I should spend my hard earned money funding the needs of someone whom had not taken pains to need his own retirement needs.
Quite a few changes have been proposed to address the ageing population the country is facing. Top of the list are measures to encourage re-employment of older workers, followed by increases in the CPF interest rates and lastly, and most controversial, measures to make savings last for life expectancy.
While official statistics show that more people are living till an older age, the cold hard facts do nothing to address the perceptions that these statistics do not apply to the individual. The common view on the ground is still that the government has once again moved the goalposts and made our money out of reach; everytime one moves near the markers where we can lay our hands on OUR money, the criteria is moved so that the marker moves that slightly further out of reach... Will people ever live to enjoy the fruits of their many years of labour, to pocket the money that had been kept out of their reach for decades.
Already, today's retirement age at 62 is being moved to 67. The age of 67 is definitely not cast in stone. In another decade or 2, will it be possible that the retirement age is moved even further to 70 years old or beyond? I doubt it not. It may even eventually reach a stage where retirement age is scrapped and people are given the option to work till the day they drop dead.
What about increasing the interest rates on CPF savings? An additional one percent on the first $60,000 in the CPF accounts will definitely be welcomed but the catch is that the initial $20,000 of the Ordinary Account can no longer be invested under the CPF Investment Scheme for higher returns. Furthermore, the Special, Retirement and Medisave Accounts (SRMA) will no longer offer fixed interest rates but instead be pegged to a long term bond rate.
Not being able to invest the first $20,000 of the OA is likely to impact the potential returns that can be obtained by those who are financially savvy. Utilising the money to buy into stable dividend-paying blue chips is highly likely to yield returns beyond 3.5%. The long term bond rate is also an unknown. Will it better the 4% that CPF currently pays on the SRMA? While past data appears to indicate that CPF members will be able to expect similar or better returns, the standard disclaimer that appears on brochures of financial products must be kept in mind - Past performance are not necessarily indicative of future performance.
The one proposal that really got everyone talking is that of making longevity insurance compulsory. While this is still tentative and a committee had been setup to look at it, I really hope that the committee will eventually propose that it not be implemented. The basic idea is to get every CPF member to buy into an annuity scheme so that those who do live beyond 85 will be guranteed an income for life. Yet again, there is a catch to this. The proposal in its current form will see CPF members paying for the annuity and getting nothing back if they die before the age of 85. Why should the government stipulate how I should use MY money to subsidise others whom had not planned for their own longevity? The intention behind CPF was that individuals will be self sufficient and fund their OWN retirement with the government stepping in to help those who are unable to help themselves. The oft quoted slippery slope of welfare appears to be being tested here. While sounding selfish, there is no reason why I will want to fund the longevity costs of someone whom I do not know. If I die, my assets should be directed to the benefit of those related to me, those whom I will be most concerned about.
Personally, with the exception of the longevity insurance, I am fine with the CPF changes proposed. In reality, CPF is a retirement scheme that will not suffice to fund a comfortable retirement. For those who can, they must make alternative plans to ensure a reasonable standard of living upon retirement. Eventually, with the constantly moving criteria, being able to lay our hands on the CPF money needs to be considered a bonus. But! DO NOT dictate that I should spend my hard earned money funding the needs of someone whom had not taken pains to need his own retirement needs.
Comments