Or the CPF coffer is empty! They don't have enough to pay for the current withdrawal rate. So every year must raise the minimum amount to keep the CPF afloat.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
NMP Chia Yong Yong: CPF Is Not Your Money, You Cannot Call The Shots
- Thread starter xingguy
- Start date
Or the CPF coffer is empty! They don't have enough to pay for the current withdrawal rate. So every year must raise the minimum amount to keep the CPF afloat.
She is not only physically challenged but visually. She’s is blind. Or pretends to be. However when it comes to money or anything that has value to her or is directly beneficial to her, she is a eagled-eye predator. Questioning the Govt’s mindless spending is suicidal for CYY for she has just won a coveted seat in the PAP gravy train that is going to take her to places and maot important – wealth.
Why is she not challenging the real issues of the day....the mindless spending by the govt?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/03/07/why-dont-chia-y-y-question-govts-mindless-spending/
Why is she not challenging the real issues of the day....the mindless spending by the govt?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/03/07/why-dont-chia-y-y-question-govts-mindless-spending/
The intelligent argument is fear of other members 'defaulting' so need to keep the collective and also the rising cost of living.
The basic problem is that when supposedly smart people (went to uni, lawyer etc) do not even understand the basics of how Sinkies' salary package is worked out by employers and employees, it is really very worrisome.
Worse, NONE of the ministers (including the Toothpick Thief who reads his monthly statement with glee and Overtime Tan Chuan Jin who is on record as acknowledging that CPF is our money indeed) have deemed it fit to correct her.
The gall of all the MIWs to just keep quiet over the wrong statements tells you that we really have a pack of dogs and bitches who have zero principles when it comes to even basics like correcting wrong comments. These would be the first pack to go after oppo MPs if they had even said half of what this really dumb Ironside lawyer.
Source: TR EMERITUS
Joke of the year 2: CPF money is still not your money!
March 7th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
I remember penning this article last year, mocking a PAP diehard supporter for suggesting that your CPF monies doesn’t belong to you. But hey, he’s a typical PAP fanboy, and you’d expect people like him to ‘go the extra mile’ to justify whatever policy his political heroes have implemented – in this case, the raising of the CPF Minimum Sum. But it’s another thing altogether when a Parliamentarian repeats the same ‘bullshit’ in the House.
Perhaps Ms Chia's disability is not
just limited to her legs, but
her cranial matter as well.
Until this week, few really knew who Ms Chia Yong Yong was. Even fewer knew she’s a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP). But she decided to etch her name in Parliamentary folklore with a most ridiculous assertion in the House. I think the following article captures her ’15 minutes of fame or rather 15 minutes of shame:’ [Link]
He has also listed the ‘famous lines’ of her speech while giving a good riposte to her unbelievable take. She says:
If it isn’t our own monies, whose is it? Does she think employers contribute to CPF out of the kindness of their hearts? Or that the Govt doesn’t really have make top ups from the Budget or reserves?
Employers contribute to CPF because if they don’t, they will have to pay extra taxes. And also to retain employees. Let’s go back in time a bit, before CPF became the norm, what did most major companies or employers offer? They offered a pension and gratuity scheme to long serving staff. My first employer worked in a bank all his life (a foreign one at that), and was given a gratuity and pension when he retired after 33 years of service. And this was very common before CPF became the norm. Even all civil servants then had a pension and gratuity plan. The Govt eventually phased all this out because they realised people were living longer and as such, the pensions could last for well over 20-25 years. And on top of that, after a certain number of years, the retiree would be able to get his last drawn pay. Accordingly, the Govt came out with a policy whereby they calculated all of these and gave civil servants on the pension scheme, 1 lump sum payment. And for new civil servants, they had to go under the CPF scheme.
The fact of the matter, wherever you go in the world, there’s always some kind of pension or gratuity scheme for civil servants and many private companies also employ this policy. Is there any question of these monies not belonging to the employee? The answer is a resounding NO. And Govts who tried to amend this policy faced widespread protests and strikes. France, Japan, the UK, and certain US states all attempted to rein in pension plans and had to back down in the face of widespread protests. And no Govt in the world has ever declared that these monies doesn’t belong to the employee. But somehow Ms Chia thinks it’s not the employee’s just because the employer also has to make contributions.
And what about top ups? Do you think people will keep silent and happily carry on voting PAP, if the Govt doesn’t make any top ups, especially with our progress from 3rd World to 1st? Yes it’s taxpayers’ monies, but who are the taxpayers? Every working citizen. So making top ups is not some generous and benevolent action by the Govt. It’s a return of a portion of the overall contribution of every taxpayer who helped build the nation and grow the reserves.
And as the writer says, employers already make adjustments and take into account CPF contributions they have to make when offering a salary. In fact I know some people who ask employers not to make a CPF contribution, but instead give them a higher pay in lieu of the CPF contributions. But many employers reject this because they know they are at the losing end – higher taxes and the chances of getting licenses, rebates, even being able to hire foreign staff, is aligned to their CPF contributions for Singaporean workers.
Of course as Ms Chia and others suggest, a minimum sum is needed to ensure that people do not foolishly squander all their savings. But the problem lies when the Minimum Sum is so prohibitive – $160,000. To people like Ms Chia and others of her ilk, this sum is nothing, and they justify it, saying it can ensure a comfortable monthly stipend in old age. I know a few people who have above $500,000 (some even a million) in their CPF accounts. To them $160,000 is nothing and a good figure to stash away. But how many people can afford this?
The problem of the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme is tied directly to housing. In the past when HDB flats were much cheaper, many people were quite alright with the idea of not seeing most of their CPF monies, so long as it was used to pay for their flats completely. But the Govt is happy to let prices skyrocket, make a profit and allow market forces to dictate, so much so that flats now cost ‘a bomb’ and beyond the reach of many people. And to add insult to injury, they are now told, ‘hold on, once you’re 55, your monies go into your retirement fund’ and you got to find alternative ways to pay for your flat.’ Of course, they’ve now come up with some convoluted scheme where you can use some of it or take out some. But it’s far from sufficient to pay off the flats. So the idea now is to downgrade to a studio apartment – which aren’t very cheap either. Perhaps a Minister or 2 would like to try downgrading and stay with their families in a studio or 2 room apartment?
There are some, who through sheer hard work and tenacity, have enough CPF to pay for their flats before 55. Having nearly exhausted all of that, they hope to have say $50-60,000 or slightly more left, as a reward for their hard work all these years. Then what? “Sorry” is the reply, because a few have squandered their savings and the cost of looking after you in old age, is something the State cannot be expected to bear, we need to lock this $50-60,000 away and give it back to you piecemeal once you’re 65. Try and do this anywhere in the world and see how long such a Govt stays in power,
Conclusion
So whose money is it? Do employers have a share in your CPF monies? Does the Govt have a share? Ms Chia thinks they do. But the easiest way to find out if she’s right or wrong is to look at the PAP Govt for the answer. Do you think any single Minister or MP will dare to come out in the open and repeat Ms Chia’s words – to say point blank – your CPF money doesn’t really or fully belong to you? Why not say it during an election campaign? Until now, no matter what their views to the contrary are, none have dared to repeat this ‘bullshit’ openly. Why? Because if any 1 of them dares to say this, we can already foretell their political fate - it and they will become the main issue during the campaign and will face a major voter backlash.
First Calvin Cheng, now Ms Chia. It's time this whole charade
of the NMP scheme is either scrapped or given to ordinary
citizens, who can relate to the everyday issues. We already
have enough elites in the House. (Photo: MediaCorp)
But Ms Chia can say all of this, because she’s just an NMP. And in doing so, shows the problem with the whole NMP scheme, instead of getting views from a broad spectrum, especially ordinary people, the scheme is awarded to ‘eminent persons’ who use this as a chance to further ingratiate themselves with the political elite. No doubt Ms Chia is handicapped and wheel-chair bound, and yes, she had some tough spells in her life as such, but at the end of the day, she just happens to be a lawyer as well. I have met a few wheel-chair bound persons who are no where close in qualifications to her. Some can find work, and some can’t. But theirs is a real slog. They need every assistance they can get, every subsidy and it’s plain insulting to suggest whatever monies they have in the CPF doesn’t actually or fully belong to them. Ms Chia can well afford it, but they and many others can’t and it’s a sick joke to make such an outrageous statement in Parliament. The other writer suggests perhaps Ms Chia smoked ‘ganja’ before making her speech. I’ll cover the other angle – maybe she had a little too much to drink and what followed are the nonsensical words of a drunkard. Or maybe it’s her idea of an early April’s Fools joke. Do us a favour Ms Chia – resign from Parliament now.
Sir Nelspruit
* The author blogs at Anyhow Hantam.
Joke of the year 2: CPF money is still not your money!
March 7th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
I remember penning this article last year, mocking a PAP diehard supporter for suggesting that your CPF monies doesn’t belong to you. But hey, he’s a typical PAP fanboy, and you’d expect people like him to ‘go the extra mile’ to justify whatever policy his political heroes have implemented – in this case, the raising of the CPF Minimum Sum. But it’s another thing altogether when a Parliamentarian repeats the same ‘bullshit’ in the House.
Perhaps Ms Chia's disability is not
just limited to her legs, but
her cranial matter as well.
Until this week, few really knew who Ms Chia Yong Yong was. Even fewer knew she’s a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP). But she decided to etch her name in Parliamentary folklore with a most ridiculous assertion in the House. I think the following article captures her ’15 minutes of fame or rather 15 minutes of shame:’ [Link]
He has also listed the ‘famous lines’ of her speech while giving a good riposte to her unbelievable take. She says:
Is it our money? Our CPF savings are enhanced and forced CPF savings which are accumulated through our own deferred consumption, through co-payment by our employers and through top-ups from public funds. Is it really my private money? Do I have the right to spend it the way I would spend my own salary? I’m not entirely sure.
If it isn’t our own monies, whose is it? Does she think employers contribute to CPF out of the kindness of their hearts? Or that the Govt doesn’t really have make top ups from the Budget or reserves?
Employers contribute to CPF because if they don’t, they will have to pay extra taxes. And also to retain employees. Let’s go back in time a bit, before CPF became the norm, what did most major companies or employers offer? They offered a pension and gratuity scheme to long serving staff. My first employer worked in a bank all his life (a foreign one at that), and was given a gratuity and pension when he retired after 33 years of service. And this was very common before CPF became the norm. Even all civil servants then had a pension and gratuity plan. The Govt eventually phased all this out because they realised people were living longer and as such, the pensions could last for well over 20-25 years. And on top of that, after a certain number of years, the retiree would be able to get his last drawn pay. Accordingly, the Govt came out with a policy whereby they calculated all of these and gave civil servants on the pension scheme, 1 lump sum payment. And for new civil servants, they had to go under the CPF scheme.
The fact of the matter, wherever you go in the world, there’s always some kind of pension or gratuity scheme for civil servants and many private companies also employ this policy. Is there any question of these monies not belonging to the employee? The answer is a resounding NO. And Govts who tried to amend this policy faced widespread protests and strikes. France, Japan, the UK, and certain US states all attempted to rein in pension plans and had to back down in the face of widespread protests. And no Govt in the world has ever declared that these monies doesn’t belong to the employee. But somehow Ms Chia thinks it’s not the employee’s just because the employer also has to make contributions.
And what about top ups? Do you think people will keep silent and happily carry on voting PAP, if the Govt doesn’t make any top ups, especially with our progress from 3rd World to 1st? Yes it’s taxpayers’ monies, but who are the taxpayers? Every working citizen. So making top ups is not some generous and benevolent action by the Govt. It’s a return of a portion of the overall contribution of every taxpayer who helped build the nation and grow the reserves.
And as the writer says, employers already make adjustments and take into account CPF contributions they have to make when offering a salary. In fact I know some people who ask employers not to make a CPF contribution, but instead give them a higher pay in lieu of the CPF contributions. But many employers reject this because they know they are at the losing end – higher taxes and the chances of getting licenses, rebates, even being able to hire foreign staff, is aligned to their CPF contributions for Singaporean workers.
Of course as Ms Chia and others suggest, a minimum sum is needed to ensure that people do not foolishly squander all their savings. But the problem lies when the Minimum Sum is so prohibitive – $160,000. To people like Ms Chia and others of her ilk, this sum is nothing, and they justify it, saying it can ensure a comfortable monthly stipend in old age. I know a few people who have above $500,000 (some even a million) in their CPF accounts. To them $160,000 is nothing and a good figure to stash away. But how many people can afford this?
The problem of the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme is tied directly to housing. In the past when HDB flats were much cheaper, many people were quite alright with the idea of not seeing most of their CPF monies, so long as it was used to pay for their flats completely. But the Govt is happy to let prices skyrocket, make a profit and allow market forces to dictate, so much so that flats now cost ‘a bomb’ and beyond the reach of many people. And to add insult to injury, they are now told, ‘hold on, once you’re 55, your monies go into your retirement fund’ and you got to find alternative ways to pay for your flat.’ Of course, they’ve now come up with some convoluted scheme where you can use some of it or take out some. But it’s far from sufficient to pay off the flats. So the idea now is to downgrade to a studio apartment – which aren’t very cheap either. Perhaps a Minister or 2 would like to try downgrading and stay with their families in a studio or 2 room apartment?
There are some, who through sheer hard work and tenacity, have enough CPF to pay for their flats before 55. Having nearly exhausted all of that, they hope to have say $50-60,000 or slightly more left, as a reward for their hard work all these years. Then what? “Sorry” is the reply, because a few have squandered their savings and the cost of looking after you in old age, is something the State cannot be expected to bear, we need to lock this $50-60,000 away and give it back to you piecemeal once you’re 65. Try and do this anywhere in the world and see how long such a Govt stays in power,
Conclusion
So whose money is it? Do employers have a share in your CPF monies? Does the Govt have a share? Ms Chia thinks they do. But the easiest way to find out if she’s right or wrong is to look at the PAP Govt for the answer. Do you think any single Minister or MP will dare to come out in the open and repeat Ms Chia’s words – to say point blank – your CPF money doesn’t really or fully belong to you? Why not say it during an election campaign? Until now, no matter what their views to the contrary are, none have dared to repeat this ‘bullshit’ openly. Why? Because if any 1 of them dares to say this, we can already foretell their political fate - it and they will become the main issue during the campaign and will face a major voter backlash.
First Calvin Cheng, now Ms Chia. It's time this whole charade
of the NMP scheme is either scrapped or given to ordinary
citizens, who can relate to the everyday issues. We already
have enough elites in the House. (Photo: MediaCorp)
But Ms Chia can say all of this, because she’s just an NMP. And in doing so, shows the problem with the whole NMP scheme, instead of getting views from a broad spectrum, especially ordinary people, the scheme is awarded to ‘eminent persons’ who use this as a chance to further ingratiate themselves with the political elite. No doubt Ms Chia is handicapped and wheel-chair bound, and yes, she had some tough spells in her life as such, but at the end of the day, she just happens to be a lawyer as well. I have met a few wheel-chair bound persons who are no where close in qualifications to her. Some can find work, and some can’t. But theirs is a real slog. They need every assistance they can get, every subsidy and it’s plain insulting to suggest whatever monies they have in the CPF doesn’t actually or fully belong to them. Ms Chia can well afford it, but they and many others can’t and it’s a sick joke to make such an outrageous statement in Parliament. The other writer suggests perhaps Ms Chia smoked ‘ganja’ before making her speech. I’ll cover the other angle – maybe she had a little too much to drink and what followed are the nonsensical words of a drunkard. Or maybe it’s her idea of an early April’s Fools joke. Do us a favour Ms Chia – resign from Parliament now.
Sir Nelspruit
* The author blogs at Anyhow Hantam.
What happen to our 1st world Parliment?
$
ah pek said wp low also recruiting disabled potential GE candidates
What crap are you talking about.
Able or disabled candidates does not matters, what matters are candidates that care and can speak up for the people.
What NMP Chia Yong Yong, for a start she was not even elected by the people, did was spewing a vile lie with her twisted logic to cover the government's broken promise of returning our hard earn CPF at age 55. As it is, CPF is already one big ponzi scheme with the ever increasing minimum sum and extending of withdrawal age.
Now, she have the gall to say that this is not our money. Pinky is retarded enuff to say that her moronic speech is excellent.
I am not surprise to see a change of PM or government comes the next GE.
What crap are you talking about.
Now, she have the gall to say that this is not our money. Pinky is retarded enuff to say that her moronic speech is excellent.
I am not surprise to see a change of PM or government comes the next GE.
That is because this kind of speech , Pinky loser got no balls to say it himself and need to abuse a handicap to say it for him.
Last edited:
Oh my goodness, what she said is really stupid and illogical. What not sure whether it is our private money? What is private money in the first place? I only heard of public money paid by taxpayers. Our CPF account money is ours, the money is part of our salary be it contributed by ourself or employer. Whatever the top-ups given by govt is allocation of public money to the citizens and once allocated is definitely our money!
she offers and they took it
Seriously i have no idea who is she but i don't know most of them anyway. But she showed a total lack of understanding of CPF.
But but......boss Sam say CPF is our money and he has no trouble withdrawing 600k out like its his grandfather bank.
Let's forget about CPF for the time being and focus on the delicious neh neh pork on the left :p
If a paraplegic want to play basketball,a paraplegic can play basketball.if a paraplegic want to park at a bus stop,a paraplegic can park at a bus stop.if a paraplegic want to bring a dog into a restaurant a paraplegic can bring a dog into a restaurant.who are you to tell us what a physically or mentally handicapped person can or cannot do?
Similar threads
