(22-08-2014, 12:17 PM)Big Toe Wrote: [ -> ]It's a double edged sword for the government as well.
Because they are in total control of so many things, any slight error will be amplified many times by the citizens. Life is gettiong harder for them as well. That's the way it has been, and always will be. Unless we decide to hand less power to the them, I am still in the opinion that we can ultimately decide what is best for us, especially on issues(such as cpf) that directly affect us, irregardless of who is in parliament. All come together, demonstrate more maturity, argue with logic, be vocal about it and put the point across strongly.
Its a tough problem to solve. To refer it as a "problem" may not be appropriate too. It seems more like a trend where needs have to be met. In this case, the cost of living and especially health care.
As the guys at the helm, there are surely things within their control, such as cost of health care and housing. There are much to be done. With the cost of these two necessities managed, retirement may not be such a night mare for many.
Rising costs also has the impact on socio behaviour and values. It has far reaching effects, such as younger generations deferring marriage and child bearing exercises and even kids avoiding their duties to take care of the elderly.
Perhaps, if i can make a diff (though I can't), these are things which i would surely be keen to resolve. With costs of living managed, some of the other spill over issues (like low fertility) may start to mitigate.
CPF is surely one that deserves some "fixing". Even now, with my mum (almost) on her death bed, we have no way to draw down her cpf funds to help fund her medical cost. Terminal illnesses drain medisave like no one's biz. Yet, the money is stuck cos she didn't meet the minimum sum, which obviously she can't..... she is terminally ill. She has no "retirement" ahead of her which makes the purpose of cpf minimum sum quite redundant or may be.... irrelevant. (can't think of a better way to phrase this)
Stuff like that has to be addressed. Medisave is still cash based, rather than insurance based. (pardon me for my crude explanation). Instead of having just compulsory contributions to cpf, why not compulsory state endorsed medical insurance? Allocate 5% of the monthly cpf contributions to medical insurance. That alleviates pressure on the state to worry about elderly falling sick without ample health insurance. (sounds crazy, but well.... that would be better than none). Leave no room for anyone to siam medical insurance, but let the average joe have a choice in how he or she wish to plan for retirement and how they would save for it, through a few of those state endorsed pension funds. This would better fit financial needs of the individual. Then again, this is what i think.
For the miw, they have much work to do. While some measures are unpopular, there is great pressure to fix (or be seen to be fixing, at least) some of the issues before the next ge.
PS: Post does not endorse any political party in anyway. No offense intended. Just my humble views. Correct me if i'm wrong.