• 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.

Guaranteed That Poor People Will Squandered Away Their CPF Money

If we allow the lazy poor people to withdraw their CPF, they will develop a crutch mentality and who is going to take care of these dumbasses when they get old. I am certainly not going to pay huge taxes to feed these lazy goons.

Those poor people who claim that they can take care of their own CPF money are bullcrapping. If they knew how to manage their money, they would not be poor in the first place.

Thank you for providing much needed entertainment in this forum, otherwise the forum will just be too one-sided. :D

Your argument about poor people not being able to manage their money is not without merit though. But could you explain why the CPF is allowed to be used for reasons other than retirement and medical care? This is a problem as it allows the CPF to be frittered away by those buying shares and HDB. If it can be used for all these purposes, why can't it be used to help those who need some help whilst unemployed (it is their money after all)?
 
You know very well that the money in your CPF would not be there in the first place if the government did not enforce this savings scheme. You would have squander all the money that you earn and you would still be poor.
:

This is true. The average Singaporean is hopeless when it comes to managing his money. They live for today, live and spend beyond their means and seldom set aside for a rainy day. If they did, would they be insisting on tapping into their CPF account today?

This begs the question - if they are unable to set aside some savings on their own accord, how long before they squander their mandatory savings? What happens after that?
 
You retarded Dog of Dogs :oIo:

With access to free money, these lazy morons will never work another day and when they used uo all their CPF money, then what.

And I will bet my last dollar that the money they get will be used to bet on
4D, Toto etc. in their dreams to get rich quick.

Do kek kek. I know you reporting my idea to your scholar boss waiting for next promotion. Haha, cheapo shithead:D:D:D:D:D
 
If we allow the lazy poor people to withdraw their CPF, they will develop a crutch mentality and who is going to take care of these dumbasses when they get old. I am certainly not going to pay huge taxes to feed these lazy goons.

Those poor people who claim that they can take care of their own CPF money are bullcrapping. If they knew how to manage their money, they would not be poor in the first place.

REPEAT. Giving these lazy riff-raffs access to their CPF money is akin to giving them crutches. They will never learn to walk again.

In fact, only rich people like me should be allowed to withdraw our CPF money since we are well educated and have proven that we have to know-how to take good care of our money.

Those who are in dire financial straits already do not have any assistance from non-existent or insignificant govt welfare, hence their call for the CPF funds to be used in this 'emergency' is made.

If NO assistance exists NOW, why should assistance suddenly be made available if CPF funds are squandered?
The argument that these cash strapped S'poreans would pressure the govt to rescue them if they should squander whatever little cash value still available in their CPF accounts is therefore a moot point and ignoring the main problem - poor financial management, budgetting etc.

The only logical argument against allowing the emergency release of CPF funds in this case should be:
CPF is likened to a LONG TERM FIXED deposit or a life/annuity insurance scheme. Early termination or partial withdrawals is akin to surrendering the policy or breaking the Fixed deposit- ie incurring some form of drastic monetary penalties which has to be spelt out in clear terms.

Clearly therefore, there are NO social safety nets or if there are any; they are not working for those cash strapped in this economic downturn. Something has to be worked out soon and the status quo cannot go on indefinitely.

Financially desperate people eventually commit desperate actions that could directly or indirectly impact on the rich and well off eg armed robbery, murder etc
 
the more u reply 2 dis faggot the more he gets credited by his masters :rolleyes:

Aiyah. Seekorlah. Always with no idea, say no no no then secret steal others and say I came up with brilliant idea. Now have to save country, let shithead take credit for the people no choice. Or else if people riot and kill PAP, no good lah.
 
Those who are in dire financial straits already do not have any assistance from non-existent or insignificant govt welfare, hence their call for the CPF funds to be used in this 'emergency' is made.

If NO assistance exists NOW, why should assistance suddenly be made available if CPF funds are squandered?
The argument that these cash strapped S'poreans would pressure the govt to rescue them if they should squander whatever little cash value still available in their CPF accounts is therefore a moot point and ignoring the main problem - poor financial management, budgetting etc.

The only logical argument against allowing the emergency release of CPF funds in this case should be:
CPF is likened to a LONG TERM FIXED deposit or a life/annuity insurance scheme. Early termination or partial withdrawals is akin to surrendering the policy or breaking the Fixed deposit- ie incurring some form of drastic monetary penalties which has to be spelt out in clear terms.

Clearly therefore, there are NO social safety nets or if there are any; they are not working for those cash strapped in this economic downturn. Something has to be worked out soon and the status quo cannot go on indefinitely.

Financially desperate people eventually commit desperate actions that could directly or indirectly impact on the rich and well off eg armed robbery, murder etc

You retarded dog :oIo:

Pray tell me how this family of 10 survived without anyone in the family working for 10 years.

Family with 8 kids moved 12 times in 2 years, even staying at beaches and parks
HOPELESS?
Broke parents won't find jobs, spending welfare money on cigarettes
They're penniless but won't work, living on any help they can get. We start the first of a four-part series on troubled families By Genevieve Jiang

December 09, 2008


WE MUST BE TOGETHER: Madam Juliana Saib (squatting with baby), her husband Mohamad Hider Abdul Kabis, 33 (second from right, standing), and their eight children have been moving from place to place for the past two years.

FOR the past two years, they have been living like nomads - in Singapore.

The family of 10 has lived with friends, relatives, in parks and on beaches. They wash in public toilets and live off charity.

They ended up in a shelter for homeless families in June this year. But barely three months later, they were back on the streets after breaking the shelter's rules.

Madam Juliana Saib, 32, her husband, Mr Mohamad Hider Abdul Kabis, 33, and their eight children aged between 16 and 1, live their lives one day at a time.

When they outlast their welcome, the hunt for their next place to stay begins yet again.

Said Madam Juliana: 'It's not been easy moving from place to place, but so long as the family is together, we'll survive.'

The couple have five sons, aged 16, 15, 12, 11, and 3, and three daughters, aged 9, 6 and 1.

Why have so many children when they have no home? Madam Juliana said it was 'God's will' and the children were 'a joy'.

She was so adamant that the family stay together that she rejected an offer earlier this year to house the children and her at a shelter, without her husband.


--TNP PICTURES: KELVIN CHNG

The couple also rejected several jobs recommended by social workers from various agencies, ranging from cleaning to delivery, citing reasons such as 'workplace too far', 'not suitable' or 'not convenient', said MrRavi Philemon, manager of the New Hope Shelter for Displaced Families.

The family's problems started when they decided to upgrade from a three-room flat in Bedok to a four-room flat in Serangoon in late 2005.

Mr Mohamad Hider was then taking home $1,600 as a warehouse assistant. When they bought their new flat in early 2006, they took a $32,000 bank loan.

Around the same time, Mr Mohamad Hider quit his job as he wasn't happy at his workplace.

He soon found another job, as a delivery man, but that brought in only half his previous salary - about $800 a month. Madam Juliana was not working then.

By August 2006, the couple found they could no longer pay their loan instalments.

They went to their Member of Parliament for help to get them another bank loan to downgrade to a three-room flat, but were advised not to do so.

Instead, they were asked to consider renting a flat or living with relatives until their income improved.

Their flat was repossessed by HDB, and they were then put on a waiting list for a rental flat.

The family moved in with Mr Mohamad Hider's 42-year-old brother at his three-room flat in Khatib.

Madam Juliana was then seven months pregnant with their eighth child, and that was where she recovered after giving birth in January last year, and where the family stayed until June. But staying under the same roof soon resulted in misunderstandings and arguments, which forced them to move.

It marked the start of the family's nomadic lifestyle. (See time chart on page 8.)

Mr Mohamad Hider had quit his delivery job in the middle of last year to 'help take care of the children'.

But in July, he started working as a cleaner, earning $700 a month.

Madam Juliana had, since Febuary last year, been working part-time as a cashier, earning about $850 a month.

In October, the family moved to East Coast Park, where they lived for a few days in a tent after outstaying their welcome at a friend's place.

It was then that social workers from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports discovered them and referred them to the Singapore Children's Society's Yishun Family Service Centre (FSC).

They then moved again, to another relative's place, where they stayed for six months.

But a misunderstanding with the relative landed them back on the streets in May this year.

This time, they spent a night at a void deck in Yishun. The next day, they moved to Sembawang park.

Said Mr Mohamad Hider: 'The night we were thrown out, my 3-year-old boy was running a fever, and sleeping in the open was cold and uncomfortable.

'We had to give him some panadol. Luckily his fever went down.'

Mr Mohamad Hider again quit his job to 'take care of his family'.

In January this year, Madam Juliana, too, had left her cashier's job for the same reason.

The family spent three weeks at Sembawang park, living in a tent, and surviving on instant noodles boiled over a portable gas stove.

A social worker from Yishun FSC referred Madam Juliana to a shelter, where she could stay with her children. But she refused to go. She said: 'The shelter was only for women, so my husband would have to find his own way. I refused to accept because I didn't want the family to be separated.'

The family was told it was illegal to camp at the park indefinitely. So they moved again, to Changi beach, where they stayed for two weeks in June this year.

A social worker referred them to the New Hope Shelter on 20 Jun. They were housed in a three-room flat in Marsiling with two other homeless families.

But during their time there, they flouted the rules - which include not allowing visitors at the unit after 10pm.

When they moved to another unit in July, they continued to visit the tenants at their former unit without permission, though that too was against the rules.

They were warned by the home's staff seven times, and had to leave the shelter on 15 Sep.

They then moved in with their second son's classmate and his grandmother in Hougang, but were asked to leave late last month.

It is understood the couple are now staying temporarily at Changi beach with their youngest daughter, while the other children live with various relatives.

Both husband and wife are jobless and have no savings.

The family has, since earlier this year, been surviving on welfare.

They get $180 every month for four months from Muis, $60 worth of food vouchers a month for four months from a mosque, $590 a month for three months from the Northwest Community Development Council, $225 every month from the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund, and occasional food rations from the Yishun FSC and other welfare groups.
Despite not having a home, Madam Juliana made sure the family had new clothes to wear during Hari Raya in October.

She also spends on cigarettes.

The couple's 9-year-old daughter is deaf.

Their eldest, An-nafy Yusman, 16, stopped going to school and went to work at a fast food joint in May, earning $600 a month. But he returned to school in October, and is now staying with a friend.

Said An-nafy: 'Life hasn't been so bad. It's not like we've had no food to eat, or no new clothes to wear.

'I don't feel there's been much change to my lifestyle at all.'
 
Thank you for providing much needed entertainment in this forum, otherwise the forum will just be too one-sided. :D

Your argument about poor people not being able to manage their money is not without merit though. But could you explain why the CPF is allowed to be used for reasons other than retirement and medical care? This is a problem as it allows the CPF to be frittered away by those buying shares and HDB. If it can be used for all these purposes, why can't it be used to help those who need some help whilst unemployed (it is their money after all)?

I am here to hammer the brutal truth into these morons who like to like jack off each other with their anti-govt trash.

If they do not use CPF to buy their housing, do you expect them to live in the longkang. :oIo:
 
This is true. The average Singaporean is hopeless when it comes to managing his money. They live for today, live and spend beyond their means and seldom set aside for a rainy day. If they did, would they be insisting on tapping into their CPF account today?

This begs the question - if they are unable to set aside some savings on their own accord, how long before they squander their mandatory savings? What happens after that?

They will squander their mandatory savings in double quick time. Easy come easy go.

You have to ask youself why they are poor in the first place.
 
You retarded dog :oIo:

Pray tell me how this family of 10 survived without anyone in the family working for 10 years.

Family with 8 kids moved 12 times in 2 years, even staying at beaches and parks
HOPELESS?
Broke parents won't find jobs, spending welfare money on cigarettes
They're penniless but won't work, living on any help they can get. We start the first of a four-part series on troubled families By Genevieve Jiang

December 09, 2008


WE MUST BE TOGETHER: Madam Juliana Saib (squatting with baby), her husband Mohamad Hider Abdul Kabis, 33 (second from right, standing), and their eight children have been moving from place to place for the past two years.

FOR the past two years, they have been living like nomads - in Singapore.

The family of 10 has lived with friends, relatives, in parks and on beaches. They wash in public toilets and live off charity.

They ended up in a shelter for homeless families in June this year. But barely three months later, they were back on the streets after breaking the shelter's rules.

Madam Juliana Saib, 32, her husband, Mr Mohamad Hider Abdul Kabis, 33, and their eight children aged between 16 and 1, live their lives one day at a time.

When they outlast their welcome, the hunt for their next place to stay begins yet again.

Said Madam Juliana: 'It's not been easy moving from place to place, but so long as the family is together, we'll survive.'

The couple have five sons, aged 16, 15, 12, 11, and 3, and three daughters, aged 9, 6 and 1.

Why have so many children when they have no home? Madam Juliana said it was 'God's will' and the children were 'a joy'.

She was so adamant that the family stay together that she rejected an offer earlier this year to house the children and her at a shelter, without her husband.


--TNP PICTURES: KELVIN CHNG

The couple also rejected several jobs recommended by social workers from various agencies, ranging from cleaning to delivery, citing reasons such as 'workplace too far', 'not suitable' or 'not convenient', said MrRavi Philemon, manager of the New Hope Shelter for Displaced Families.

The family's problems started when they decided to upgrade from a three-room flat in Bedok to a four-room flat in Serangoon in late 2005.

Mr Mohamad Hider was then taking home $1,600 as a warehouse assistant. When they bought their new flat in early 2006, they took a $32,000 bank loan.

Around the same time, Mr Mohamad Hider quit his job as he wasn't happy at his workplace.

He soon found another job, as a delivery man, but that brought in only half his previous salary - about $800 a month. Madam Juliana was not working then.

By August 2006, the couple found they could no longer pay their loan instalments.

They went to their Member of Parliament for help to get them another bank loan to downgrade to a three-room flat, but were advised not to do so.

Instead, they were asked to consider renting a flat or living with relatives until their income improved.

Their flat was repossessed by HDB, and they were then put on a waiting list for a rental flat.

The family moved in with Mr Mohamad Hider's 42-year-old brother at his three-room flat in Khatib.

Madam Juliana was then seven months pregnant with their eighth child, and that was where she recovered after giving birth in January last year, and where the family stayed until June. But staying under the same roof soon resulted in misunderstandings and arguments, which forced them to move.

It marked the start of the family's nomadic lifestyle. (See time chart on page 8.)

Mr Mohamad Hider had quit his delivery job in the middle of last year to 'help take care of the children'.

But in July, he started working as a cleaner, earning $700 a month.

Madam Juliana had, since Febuary last year, been working part-time as a cashier, earning about $850 a month.

In October, the family moved to East Coast Park, where they lived for a few days in a tent after outstaying their welcome at a friend's place.

It was then that social workers from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports discovered them and referred them to the Singapore Children's Society's Yishun Family Service Centre (FSC).

They then moved again, to another relative's place, where they stayed for six months.

But a misunderstanding with the relative landed them back on the streets in May this year.

This time, they spent a night at a void deck in Yishun. The next day, they moved to Sembawang park.

Said Mr Mohamad Hider: 'The night we were thrown out, my 3-year-old boy was running a fever, and sleeping in the open was cold and uncomfortable.

'We had to give him some panadol. Luckily his fever went down.'

Mr Mohamad Hider again quit his job to 'take care of his family'.

In January this year, Madam Juliana, too, had left her cashier's job for the same reason.

The family spent three weeks at Sembawang park, living in a tent, and surviving on instant noodles boiled over a portable gas stove.

A social worker from Yishun FSC referred Madam Juliana to a shelter, where she could stay with her children. But she refused to go. She said: 'The shelter was only for women, so my husband would have to find his own way. I refused to accept because I didn't want the family to be separated.'

The family was told it was illegal to camp at the park indefinitely. So they moved again, to Changi beach, where they stayed for two weeks in June this year.

A social worker referred them to the New Hope Shelter on 20 Jun. They were housed in a three-room flat in Marsiling with two other homeless families.

But during their time there, they flouted the rules - which include not allowing visitors at the unit after 10pm.

When they moved to another unit in July, they continued to visit the tenants at their former unit without permission, though that too was against the rules.

They were warned by the home's staff seven times, and had to leave the shelter on 15 Sep.

They then moved in with their second son's classmate and his grandmother in Hougang, but were asked to leave late last month.

It is understood the couple are now staying temporarily at Changi beach with their youngest daughter, while the other children live with various relatives.

Both husband and wife are jobless and have no savings.

The family has, since earlier this year, been surviving on welfare.

They get $180 every month for four months from Muis, $60 worth of food vouchers a month for four months from a mosque, $590 a month for three months from the Northwest Community Development Council, $225 every month from the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund, and occasional food rations from the Yishun FSC and other welfare groups.
Despite not having a home, Madam Juliana made sure the family had new clothes to wear during Hari Raya in October.

She also spends on cigarettes.

The couple's 9-year-old daughter is deaf.

Their eldest, An-nafy Yusman, 16, stopped going to school and went to work at a fast food joint in May, earning $600 a month. But he returned to school in October, and is now staying with a friend.

Said An-nafy: 'Life hasn't been so bad. It's not like we've had no food to eat, or no new clothes to wear.

'I don't feel there's been much change to my lifestyle at all.'

If you examine the story above closely, the conclusion is all the welfare comes MAINLY from NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS that receive funding from public donations and NOT from the govt or tax payers.

Therefore, if people were to squander their CPF, it is NOT the govt or tax payer money that will go to their rescue. What moral right then does the govt have in sitting on their high horse of 'protecting' the CPF from being squandered or giving people the crutch mentality as you would call it

The govt GRCs and GLCs themselves are just as guilty of 'squandering' the nations' assets in overseas losses and NOT being transparent about it, the only people who truly know the true state of accounts are the 'LEES'.
 
Squandered away is better than letting the white scums go buy up some loss making biz. Can one imagine the best and talented people on this red dot actucally make so many investment before the World Financial Meltdown? How in the world can it happen without their notice?

And the only excuse to bail themselves out is to tell the public to look at "their 30 years record". As if the record chairman is there for 30 years... Hahaha
 
I am here to hammer the brutal truth into these morons who like to like jack off each other with their anti-govt trash.

If they do not use CPF to buy their housing, do you expect them to live in the longkang. :oIo:

Using CPF for housing is the very reason why HDB flat prices have spiralled beyond control. If they really want to let people use CPF to buy houses, they should have just let them use whatever amount they have in their CPF at that point in time. Installments should not have been allowed to be paid out (or at least a big portion monthly needs to be retained for retirement purposes) from CPF.

:oIo: as well.
 

Attachments

  • 1359_infuriated_fuck_you_smiley.gif
    1359_infuriated_fuck_you_smiley.gif
    340 bytes · Views: 173
this is a fact! so it's right our world class gahment should control the cpf and help to control these singaporeans. right move! lock the cpf and release it monthly as allowances.hallelujah!!!


If people are gambling their CPF can fix the problem easily by closing the SP booths, or limit them to town area.

That will of course not happens since its $$$ for the gov't.
 
If you examine the story above closely, the conclusion is all the welfare comes MAINLY from NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS that receive funding from public donations and NOT from the govt or tax payers.

Therefore, if people were to squander their CPF, it is NOT the govt or tax payer money that will go to their rescue. What moral right then does the govt have in sitting on their high horse of 'protecting' the CPF from being squandered or giving people the crutch mentality as you would call it

The trouble with your logic is the assumption that the losers and believe me there will be plenty of them around in no time, once they have squandered away the CPF monies, can rely on the goodwill of the public via donations.

This coming for a society where we have CDAC, SINDA and Mendaki. Self help along racial lines.

Public donations are fickle to say the least. People will donate for a worth cause. It remains to be seen if the public would actually have any sympathy for a loser who has inflicted the misery upon himself. More so when there are plenty of other such losers around.

What happens when the public donations are no longer pouring in or insufficient, given the sheer number of losers who have squandered away their CPF monies and dependent on charity and goodwill???

The govt or taxpayers will have to step in to clean up the mess and its going to be goddamn expensive to those who are still productive and financially responsible. Do you want to pay half your salary in taxes??? I won't.
 
Last edited:
If people are gambling their CPF can fix the problem easily by closing the SP booths, or limit them to town area.

This is the Chinese way of solving problem. When the tree is infected with worms, simply uproot the tree. Nope. I don't think this will work. The Chinks will simply find another outlet to squander their CPF.
 
Using CPF for housing is the very reason why HDB flat prices have spiralled beyond control. If they really want to let people use CPF to buy houses, they should have just let them use whatever amount they have in their CPF at that point in time. Installments should not have been allowed to be paid out (or at least a big portion monthly needs to be retained for retirement purposes) from CPF :oIo: as well.

So if a newly married young couple have a combined CPF total of $15,000, HDB should have EITHER, sold them the property at $15,000 as no installments are allowed OR told the couple to fuck off and go live in a longkang somewhere.

I do agree with you though on utilization of CPF. Its about time the govt changed the laws overnight so that monthly mortgages are paid in cash instead of CPF going forward. This will wake the motherfuckers up.
 
The Government should keep their promise and returned the people cpf at 55
CPF Money is after all our money AND NOT the Government's money
 
The Government should keep their promise and returned the people cpf at 55
CPF Money is after all our money AND NOT the Government's money

And believe me the govt would. The problem is we have too many stoopid Chink Ah Peks with limp cocks who would be quickly relieved of their CPF by the conniving China Mei Meis. The govt was quick to realize this and decided to delay and eventually pay these dumb Chinks in installments. If these miserable Chinks actually live past the age of 85, then they can have the mother lode or whatever is left in the CPF account.
 
Back
Top