Many Singaporeans want to migrate – Why?

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>goodnessm1 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Apr-3 10:42 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>Calm28 <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right> </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Here is the answer
Many Singaporeans want to migrate – Why?






http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/many-singaporeans-want-to-migrate-why/4340599515_e68dcd240a/Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Singapore envies Kiwi lifestyle” (New Zealand Herald, Feb 9).

It states that
“The bait was better working hours, cheaper cars and housing – and in three weeks thousands from Singapore have registered their interest in living in New Zealand.

An Immigration New Zealand pilot project aimed at attracting Singaporean migrants has resulted in over 1000 registrations each week since it was launched last month, with 3565 potential immigrants having registered their interest in just three weeks”.

According to another article “Survey finds that workers in Singapore put in longest hours” (The China Post, Jan 12),
“Singapore’s workers continue to lead the pack when it comes to the number of hours they put in at work, according to a report by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The report puts them at the top of 13 economies in the group’s Global Wages Report for 2008-09, surpassing even the notoriously hardworking Japanese and Taiwanese”.
Singaporeans are among the hardest workers in the world, but do not have enough, upon retirement, to live in comfort in their home country. Is there any wonder why they should choose to migrate to other places that are much more affordable?
Cars for example, are so expensive in Singapore that a car owner may end up with $2 million less in retirement. This is calculated from an estimated cost of $1,000 monthly compounded at 6 per cent over 40 years.
To explain the poverty of retired Singaporeans, we’d have to explore the possible link between the 2 largest entities that effectively ‘lock up’ the wages of Singaporeans – HDB and CPF.

Increasing flat prices decrease the amount of CPF upon retirement
In line with the government’s policy of letting Singaporeans use their flats for asset enhancement, many Singaporeans have bought their flat, using the bulk of their CPF in a typical 30-year mortgage, in hope that the continued increase in property prices would serve as a boon during retirement.
By pricing flats under ‘market subsidy’ pricing, asset ‘enhancement’ schemes such as upgrading inevitably become a burden to Singaporeans who have no choice but to use even more of the CPF for their upgraded HDB flat. In addition to that, HDB has never disclosed the cost of building flats. Thus, flat pricing, and the amount of CPF ‘locked’ in it, is really at the whim of property speculation.
With 80 per cent of the population living in public housing, and with a bulk of a typical homeowner’s CPF savings ‘locked’ by the flat, social security for the average Singaporean is contingent on HDB policies. When you can’t pay your mortgage, you may lose your home and maybe your life CPF savings too.
Consequently, with the bulk of their CPF ‘locked’ in unliquidated assets, many Singaporeans end up with very little CPF when they retire.

CPF gets transferred out of Singaporeans’ hands, into HDB’s pockets
When the HDB sends a notice of Compulsory Acquisition to flat owners, 90 per cent of the flat’s valuation is used to offset the loan arrears; HDB makes a profit of 10 per cent of the valuation. While it is understandable that HDB as a statutory board has to run on a sustainable business model, it seems counterintuitive that a public housing board should profit from the destitution of its citizens.
For example, flat owners in addition to losing 10 per cent of their flat valuation to HDB, are only given one month to vacate their flats. Why does the HDB not give them a bit more time to find alternative accommodation?











</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

___________As a public housing authority with the mission to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans, is the HDB not in a sense, in breach of its fiduciary duty, in this arbitrary practice of ‘pinching’ 10 per cent of the valuation?
Are there any public housing authorities in the world that takes an additional 10 per cent profit on foreclosure?[/SIZE]

Parliamentarians may like to raise this issue with a view to refunding the ‘pinched’ valuation to all past foreclosed flat owners.
Why it’s almost impossible to get enough cash upon retirement
Effective last year, if you sell your HDB flat after age 55 to downgrade to a smaller flat and to monetise your flat for retirement, any CPF utilised plus accrued interest has to be returned to the CPF account if the CPF Minimum Sum (MS) has not been met.
With the current MS at $117,000, what this policy change means is that this sum cannot be used to purchase the smaller flat downgrade.
Why are we making it harder for Singaporeans to downgrade to monetise their flat for retirement?
Many Singaporeans subscribed to the call for asset enhancement by purchasing HDB flats – only to be hit by the policy change now, which in effect, may result in their inability to cash out of their “enhanced” HDB asset.
The CPF Minimun Sum (MS) was raised from July 1, 2009, for those aged 55 years, to $117,000, up from $106,000. 

This is an increase of 10.4 per cent, much more than the inflation rate for the previous year, which was 6.5 per cent. How can the increase in MS be “an adjustment for inflation, is to ensure that Singaporeans set aside sufficient savings for their retirement?”
Similarly, the MS was increased by 6.4 per cent in July 2008, from $99,600 to $106,000, when inflation was only 2.1 per cent in 2007.
With the current recession, some of those reaching age 55, may have lost their jobs or failed in their businesses, and thus a large increase in the MS, may cause some financial stress to them. 

As last year’s increase is the highest in the history of the MS scheme, at its current quantum of increase, does it mean that by 2013, the MS may be about $161,000 ($117,000 now plus $11,000 increase for 4 years)?

Can anyone afford to retire in Singapore in future?
The Longevity Insurance Committee’s (LIC) CPF Life report last year only projected a MS of $134,000 in 2013 (chapter 4). 

Adding the projected Medisave Required Amount (MRA) of $36,000 in 2013, does it mean that those reaching age 55 may only be able to withdraw $5,000, if they have less than $197,000 (MS $161,000 plus MRA $36,000) in their CPF? 

How many Singaporeans will have more than $197,000 in their CPF in 2013?
The answer can be found in the LIC report: only 60 per cent are projected to have at least $67,000 in their CPF in 2013.
At the current rate of increase of $15,500 per year ($11,000 MS + $4,500 MRA), will the combined MS and MRA be $352,000 and $507,000 in 2023 and 2033 respectively?
In conclusion, is it any wonder why so many Singaporeans may be thinking about migrating to New Zealand?
Photos courtesy of Wilfed Wong

 

[kiwibird7]

In conclusion, is it any wonder why so many Singaporeans may be thinking about migrating to New Zealand?
Photos courtesy of Wilfed Wong

Those who want to emigrate to NZ better do so quickly. To be entitled to the NZ Universal Pension scheme, one must be resident in NZ for at least 10 years before reaching the age when the pension is given.

One must reside 5 years before age 50 and 5 years after age 50 (total of 10 yrs) to qualify for the pension that pays 2/3 the average wage (adjusted for inflation) at age 65 till death.

 

[manokie]

Those who want to emigrate to NZ better do so quickly. To be entitled to the NZ Universal Pension scheme, one must be resident in NZ for at least 10 years before reaching the age when the pension is given.

One must reside 5 years before age 50 and 5 years after age 50 (total of 10 yrs) to qualify for the pension that pays 2/3 the average wage (adjusted for inflation) at age 65 till death.

NZ immigration not very kum lan one.. they will only admit the younger ones or those already retired

 

[kiwibird7]

NZ immigration not very kum lan one.. they will only admit the younger ones or those already retired

You must view it from the perspective of the NZ govt which is answerable to the NZ people.

The NZ govt protects her own citizens by screening useful immigrants who are either young either to contribute in special skills that are lacking in NZ or who are old but with significant cash assets to boost foreign capital in the country.

Those retrenched Singaporeans in their late 40s who have been 'betrayed' or played out by the PAP are in the "NO MAN's" land. Too late for emigration, too late to restart in a new career in Singapore to be employable.

 

[tonychat]

The NZ govt protects her own citizens by screening useful immigrants who are either young either to contribute in special skills that are lacking in NZ or who are old but with significant cash assets to boost foreign capital in the country.

All countries do that except sinkieland. It is due to the citizen's cowardice in going against their very own govt who screw them. what to do. This is how it happens. the cause fits the effect nicely.

If they want to change the effect, then change the cause by having balls.. The logic is this.

 

[manokie]

yeah in sinkie land.. we are now paying a price for trusting the Pap too much

we betrayed ourselves by not voting in solid opposition when there were qualified people like Francis Seow and JBJ.

now we have only ourselves to blame