Gms: Did cpf withhold the 76 year old lady's cpf money unconstitutionally?

[makapaaa]

[h=1]DID CPF WITHHOLD THE 76 YEAR OLD LADY'S CPF MONEY UNCONSTITUTIONALLY?[/h]
Post date:
21 Jun 2014 - 12:28pm








At Hri Kumar’s CPF dialogue, an elderly lady got up to ask Kumar how she could get her money back.

The event, titled “CPF- An Honest Coversation: Public Dialogue with Thomson-Toa Payoh Residents” was held by MP Hri Kumar at the Thompson Community Centre.

Many residents showed up to the dialogue to ask questions about the CPF and in particular, one elderly lady’s plea caught the attention of attendees and a video of her speech was shared widely online.
So only people make a big hoohaa and through New Media, things get done? Lucky that Kenneth Jeyaretnam, his kakis and Jaclyn Teo were there to take video and post it out on Youtube else this retired teacher won't get her money back!

But after this "clarification", I am still very puzzled:

1) This retired teacher apparently speaks and understand English very well. Why was there any "misunderstanding"?

2) According to the retired teacher, the minimum sum should not apply to her at all! (i.e. when she retires at 55 which is 21 years ago, minimum sum may not apply to her!) So, why does CPF need her to "pledge" her property for minimum sum? No logic right? Or is this just an excuse or what?

3) According to Hri Kumar, this retired teacher has met him before, most probably in his MPS. So my question is, did Hri Kumar write to CPF on behalf of her but can't help her to get her CPF money back? What was the reasons given by CPF?
As I have said, did CPF withheld her CPF money unconstitutionally?

Goh Meng Seng
*Comment first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203359146552573&set=a.15280596...

 

[jw5]

GMS for Prime Ministar! Hurray! :p

 

[borom]

If indeed the CPF DID withheld her CPF money unconstitutionally, than its no longer a political issue but a legal
one.

Lawyers like Sylvia and Chen Show Mao of the WP should than step forward and voice their opinion.
How about the legal experts in our "world class" universities-including Tan Kheng Boon Eugene , Assistant/Associate Professor of Law, SMU ?

Ironically her own MP, HK , a lawyer and Senior Counsel was not able to offer her a satisfactory LEGAL way out of her dilemma and seems to present it as a policy matter. Even if it is so, isn't the Minister empowered to make waiver's ?

It is strange that a country that aspires to be a global legal services centre, a dispute resolution centre for Asia and a major hub for the world, nobody seems to be able to solve this old aunties problem.

 

[tanakow]

I believe she is talking about the RA not the Minimum Sum. The fund in the RA account can come from the OA and the SA when one reaches 55 years old. It can also come from the Topping Up scheme. The money from the Topping Up scheme goes straight to the RA. While the Minimum Sum may not apply to her, the RA rule applies.

 

[laksaboy]

In Singapore, 'constitutional' has no meaning, because the Constitution is itself a blank cheque for tyrants.

Please go to the Statutes website and have a look for yourself.

 

[batman1]

Irene Yap argued that those born before 1958 (she was born in 1938)should be exempted from the Minimum Sum(MS) rules and regulations.
The CPF was wrong to apply the MS rules and regulations retrospectively to when she was 55 years old in 1993.
The MS was set at $80,000.00 in 2003.
Now,even if she had not withdrawn all her CPF money in one lump sum at 55 years old in 1993 and instead had chosen to leave her CPF money with the CPF Board to earn steady and reliable interest income at age 55 years old in 1993,the CPF should NOT transfer her CPF money to her newly created Retirement Account (RA) and then apply the MS requirement to her retrospectivly to 1993 when she was 55 years old.
Have the CPF been dishonest in NOT giving the correct information to her so that she can make an informed decision ?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Yes, that is precisely my point. They have anyhow apply the rules on her and now, going by the wrong application of rule, wanted her to pledge her property in order to take out her CPF? What rubbish are they talking about?

Goh Meng Seng

Irene Yap argued that those born before 1958 (she was born in 1938)should be exempted from the Minimum Sum(MS) rules and regulations.
The CPF was wrong to apply the MS rules and regulations retrospectively to when she was 55 years old in 1993.
The MS was set at $80,000.00 in 2003.
Now,even if she had not withdrawn all her CPF money in one lump sum at 55 years old in 1993 and instead had chosen to leave her CPF money with the CPF Board to earn steady and reliable interest income at age 55 years old in 1993,the CPF should NOT transfer her CPF money to her newly created Retirement Account (RA) and then apply the MS requirement to her retrospectivly to 1993 when she was 55 years old.
Have the CPF been dishonest in NOT giving the correct information to her so that she can make an informed decision ?

 

[jw5]

You should contact: Mark Andrew Yeo Kah Ch$ng.

Start the conversation with: "Dear Scroobal".

Yes, that is precisely my point. They have anyhow apply the rules on her and now, going by the wrong application of rule, wanted her to pledge her property in order to take out her CPF? What rubbish are they talking about?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[GoMadSeng]

GMS Party Manifesto 2016

Haha.... it just prove that WP people lack creativity or even know what shame is!

Some WP people who are closer to me, have already admitted that some of their comrades have done so lah!

WP people aren't really First World and you are right, they don't make sense at all! Enough said!

WP leadership should thank me to teach their members a hard lesson on Freedom of Speech.

WP people are incapable of evolution and will continue their Dumb and Dumber ways...

One by one, WP MPs will prove to be disastrous.

It is strange Sylvia Lim didn't use her usual WP's "no comment" style when approached about this little romance.

WP MPs including LTK tried to do is to act blur about their contractor attempted to charge hawkers for high rise cleaning when they are not supposed to.

WP has lost quite a bit of respect from the middle ground with such wishy washy dealings

I know WP is now a famous University of Smart Alec

LTK has already surrendered, putting his head into the sand like an ostrich

CSM is "opportunist" when he spent most of his time, decades, outside Singapore but only come back for the GE when it was due in 2011.

It is apparent that the way WP handled this issue is dishonest and the quotation has actually put more doubts on WP's management.

Just too bad, SL and LTK have to continue that dishonest line of argument.

WP AHTC just act blur, see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil.

Has it occurred to you that it would be worst if VB mentioned about that email, to make a solid point about WP's inconsistent dishonest flip flop in its argument?

Don't underestimate PM Lee, he won't just step in if he doesn't have full confidence in the case.

I feel so sorry for WP and its people to stoop so low in standards

WP still stinks like shit to many people.

No wonder WP has tripped over itself again and again

It doesn't really matter, what matters most is that NEA is a valid point against WP.

Those WP amateurs have made it so bloody crude by taking photo of themselves with those boxes of masks!

WP just condone such acts and behavior from ATL, shaking off its responsibility.

I know WP can hardly read properly and that is why they keep tripping all over the place.

Alas... you have missed the point totally! Vivian B is just trying to be sarcastic lah!

Pritam has outdone himself again with this silly press statement.

Sylvia should not come out to accuse NEA of playing politics

haha... Pritam is hopeless.

Ego is with the Smart Alec WP before that.

WP cannot be excused of its faults.

Just too bad, all point to bad contradictions of WP AHTC.

WP should stop playing victim now. This is what NEA has attacked them. Don't need to snake in and out.

Why didn't WP do just that? Talk so much for what?

WP has screwed up big time.

WP has made terrible error. It is lucky that I am not the reporter

WP should do a political retreat, apologize and promise to investigate and review the system they have now.

Pritam can't even get basic facts right on what NEA is attacking AHTC of and yet he dares to write such press statement?

Can someone tell Pritam stop embarrassing himself can or not?

WP has been checkmated, dude.

Just to show what is fundamentally wrong with WP....

This may look as if it is a small matter right from the start but WP screw it up even bigger than it is supposed to be.

You will have to face this flatly, WP is walking down the slippery slope of cronyism.

WP is unprofessional. Any professional service and solution provider will always be there to solve problems, not to push blame later.

I guess whole lot of WP members will fall into your category of opportunists!

WP people are trained to shut up on policy issues but just attacking their critics...

I am sorry but I guess WP IB people also short of fuse as well.

Sometimes I feel that these Blue WP warriors are just too over-sensitive! Maybe even guilty-conscience!

WP is always playing safe but just get whatever good returns from other people's fight

To let WP lead such a movement is really funny.

WP people have been going around to sourly slime other people's good work, out of fear? Jealousy? Envy?

WP needs the change quite badly. This is already past the half way point since last GE2011. The whole problem of WP, from weak performance in Parliament to FMSS, all point to the need to change leadership.

LTK looks very pathetic when he needs to listen to interpretation while PM Lee hoot him while he tried very hard and sometimes LOST when he translated his thoughts from Chinese to English.

I think WP has lots of lapses and room for improvement.

WP the largest opposition only put up posters 3-4 days AFTER nomination day! If they are really serious about contesting, will that happen? Masak Masak, play play, just like chope place with tissue paper lah!

Well, WP people aren't objective at all.

ALL the press releases by WP in recent year will start with praising PAP first, without biting at all!

WP seems to be praising PAP more than attacking PAP policies and actions while other people like me and other activists are doing more than WP!

I am always supportive of WP. In fact, I spent more time supporting WP than any other party because I bother to write about their failings and things they should avoid; Critiques on the flaws and failings are very important for organization to grow and get better.

 

[soIsee]

Irene Yap argued that those born before 1958 (she was born in 1938)should be exempted from the Minimum Sum(MS) rules and regulations.
The CPF was wrong to apply the MS rules and regulations retrospectively to when she was 55 years old in 1993.
The MS was set at $80,000.00 in 2003.
Now,even if she had not withdrawn all her CPF money in one lump sum at 55 years old in 1993 and instead had chosen to leave her CPF money with the CPF Board to earn steady and reliable interest income at age 55 years old in 1993,the CPF should NOT transfer her CPF money to her newly created Retirement Account (RA) and then apply the MS requirement to her retrospectivly to 1993 when she was 55 years old.
Have the CPF been dishonest in NOT giving the correct information to her so that she can make an informed decision ?

The problem with fucktard like this old woman was, she was so blinded by the fact that the trust she gave to the PAP was not to be ''misused' that she thought the Pappies would not play her out.

On another note, I have frds whose fathers reached 55 at or about 1997 or 1998 and took out every damn cent from both the OA and RA and gave the Pappies the middle finger thereafter. LoL

 

[halsey02]

Yes, that is precisely my point. They have anyhow apply the rules on her and now, going by the wrong application of rule, wanted her to pledge her property in order to take out her CPF? What rubbish are they talking about?

Goh Meng Seng

The whole trouble is, we trusted the PAP too much & she being a teacher & living in that area, I cannot blame her for doing so...a long time civil servant. She retired in 1993 at 55 years of age, & most likely worked for many years with Min Ed , as a relief teacher & thus, will still be contributing to CPF. She should have taken out the lump sum in 1993 & whatever contrition thereafter, she can leave it there...but she didn't. Do not think she does not know..teachers are savvy investors & entrepreneurs , know many of that age...living a GOLDEN LIFE, for they have saved, invested, while they work.

My point is..she trusted the government too much, like many of us, especially with our CPF money...

 

[soIsee]

The whole trouble is, we trusted the PAP too much & she being a teacher & living in that area, I cannot blame her for doing so...a long time civil servant. She retired in 1993 at 55 years of age, & most likely worked for many years with Min Ed , as a relief teacher & thus, will still be contributing to CPF. She should have taken out the lump sum in 1993 & whatever contrition thereafter, she can leave it there...but she didn't. Do not think she does not know..teachers are savvy investors & entrepreneurs , know many of that age...living a GOLDEN LIFE, for they have saved, invested, while they work.

My point is..she trusted the government too much, like many of us, especially with our CPF money...

So this old woman DESERVED for what she is getting now.

So WHY COMPLAIN....now? LoL