ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

I have a slightly different perspective. For me, the issue is "trust" but from two levels:

The first and easier level is - do I "trust" the government / political party that they are competent and pragmatic. The answer is unequivocally YES for the PAP old guards, a definite NO for the Goh Chok Tong era (asset enhancement scheme, infrastructure falling behind population growth etc) and a MAYBE for the current leadership because I perceive too much populist tendencies (when you appease a monkey with peanuts, it grows into a chimpanzee and if you continue it grows into a gorilla and finally into King Kong!). But I do not "trust" the opposition to do a better job either.

The second and more difficult level is - do I "trust" that those who join the political party have Singapore's interest at heart or are they in it for the money and power. Again the answer is unequivocally YES for the PAP old guards but a MAYBE since ministerial salaries went through the roof! My interactions with them have been mixed, I find some sincere BUT I do find others unworthy of public office. The interesting bit is that my answer to this level of "trust" for the opposition has moved in the opposite direction. I did not "trust" many of the old guard opposition parties but I find some of the WP MPs (and some other opposition candidates) relatively sincere. Therein lies the tendency to give them a chance and measure them against a lower standard than the existing government.

A final point. LKY in 1994 suggested that Singaporeans who are between 35 and 60 who are married with children should get an additional vote for the sake of "their children (who) have an interest that needs to be protected". The interesting thing is that I lean towards the current Government for their past successes but I tend towards some of the opposition because they seem more willing to protect the future interests of my children.

Would you trust a company tell you they been in business long long time have very great business very healthy profit and show you very nice accounts but no auditor has been engaged to vett their material. Of course not right? how would anybody know they not a banana company in business for a long long time that's why companies engage and put in place auditors. But how do we know the internal auditor are effective after all they are also employees of the same company so then we go to having external auditors to double check also and to sign off on these checks. All this are put in place to show everybody that they are clean transparent company and to dispel any notion that they doing funny business.

So same thing here having 1/3 opposition as an "external auditor" is good for image of PAP that at the core they they are really looking after the people's interest. If they are not looking after people's interest then the auditor will not signoff. We not trying to kick out the government and we don't want that to happen.

Singaporeans are not stupid any opposition try to make trouble or sabo the country will be gone by the following election.

This is our home also we are not trying to wreck it just trying to make it better.

(06-06-2014, 01:16 PM)chialc88 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2014, 12:32 PM)CY09 Wrote: [ -> ]Raising the returns for selected cpf accounts is entirely possible under the current cpf system.

what do you mean?
Can elaborate a little bit on which/what "selected" ac?

Let me see whether I can benefits B4 casting my vote.

LC



yesterday enemy has become tomorrow friend

Extract of what I had sent. To VB members: Do feel free to post it in your blogs if you wish

"Increasing only the interest for the first $40,000 of a CPF member’s MA and SA accounts from 5% to 6% is one solution to help all CPF members fund their basic retirement needs. This solution promotes an equitable society because members with a large CPF balance (owing to their higher wages) will not benefit much as only a small proportion of their CPF savings will enjoy this increase in returns. However, for low and middle income workers, the first $40,000 in their MA and SA account can constitute a large proportion of their CPF savings. Therefore, the increase in returns will be a great boost towards meeting their medical and retirement needs.

In addition many low-income Singaporeans often deplete their CPF MA funds in order to fund their family and own medical expenses as they do not have much bank savings. These results in a low MA account balance, in turn hindering their ability to meet the minimum sum required for their medisave and RA at 55. As of 1 July 2014, the minimum sum an individual has to set aside at 55 is $198,500 ($155,000 for the CPF minimum sum and $43,500 for the medisave minimum sum). For low income workers’, reaching this $198,500 is almost impossible given their low wages unless their properties are pledged. Therefore increasing the returns for the first $40,000 is a way to help them meet this $198,500 figure. Putting it into numbers at 5% interest, an amount of $40,000 will grow to $111,438.50 over 20 years. While at 6%, this $40,000 grows into $135,982.54. The additional $24,544 will go a long way towards helping low/middle workers meet their basic retirement needs or be used to pay urgent medical expenses, if necessary.

While others may highlight a higher return implies a higher risk; GIC, the manger of our government’s assets has generated annual returns of 6.5% over the past 20 years through its diversified portfoilo and investing experience. This 6.5% return factors the market volatility experienced by equities and other asset classes during this period. Using this as a track record, increasing only the interest for the first $40,000 of CPF member’s MA and SA accounts from 5% to 6% is financially possible given our current CPF system only awards interest ranging from 2.5-4.0% for the rest of the account balances."

There other ways our scheme can be enhanced to help Singaporeans meet retirement adequacy.
Other measures may include 1) topping up the MA and SA funds of 45-50 year old members whose total are less than $70,000 (this is similar to what was suggested by yeokiwi in a few posts in front) or 2) increasing the threshold of $40,000 to $80,000 to benefit more middle-income workers as well.

For 1), if CPF members at the age of 45 have amassed a figure less than $70,000, it is likely to point to: a) they are of low wages (therefore their CPF contribution is low), b) they or their family member have fallen into hardship, resulting in the depletion of their SA or MA balance to tide over the crisis. This are the groups of people who really need help to ensure retirement needs are met.

Even if you have 1\3 majority of a "HARD DISK",(aka Parliament) it does not mean the files(G's policies) can not be corrupted. That is 1/3 majority may be in name only.
Citizens always need to be alert what is happening in Singapore.

waos, so why not stand up and be counted? go join PAP or WP!!

Which ever party you join or not is the same. You are only entitle to one vote every 5 years for your self interest and/ or the Nation's interest.

(07-06-2014, 12:34 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ]Which ever party you join or not is the same. You are only entitle to one vote every 5 years for your self interest and/ or the Nation's interest.

I agreed to try to understand this, and I am in agreement with the author's previous post. Just leave it as it is until something really special - in the negative - happens and do not be the one to rock the boat?

Nevertheless, always watch and be properly interpretive. How to define "proper"? This is life and define it the best way you can.

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister by Catherine Lim



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kpyD...edit?pli=1

Actually i feel the G. no longer care about regaining our trust quite sometimes ago. i think the white paper on population times onwards or even earlier. It is like a given mandatory thing PAPies will rule forever in Singapore.

(07-06-2014, 03:45 PM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ]Actually i feel the G. no longer care about regaining our trust quite sometimes ago. i think the white paper on population times onwards or even earlier. It is like a given mandatory thing PAPies will rule forever in Singapore.

With more new citizens created by the huge number , they know they will still win , why should they bother to care ?