She talks cock, real cock because she is clueless about the way the CPF and welfare system works. The article reporting her comments is at the end of this rant.
Reading the comments, it’s clear that she thinks that the employers’ contributions are not part of our salaries. Hello? What planet is she on?
Even employers think that their payments are part of the employee’ salaries. I’ve been at job interviews where “my salary” includes “XYZ’s contribution”. And when I had to decide how much to offer someone to do a job, I took account of the CPF contribution that I, as employer, had to pay: which is why FTs are so popular.
As to .”because I’m not the only person contributing to the fund, I cannot be the only person to call the shots”, doesn’t she realise that what we have in our CPF (less the peanuts of govt handout) is dependent on what we put in, not a cent less or more.
And since when have we a comprehensive welfare system for the elderly poor? She implies that we have: At the very least, I have a moral obligation to spend it wisely. Why do I say that? Because if I’m not judicious in my spending at the end of the day, who’s going to maintain me in my twilight years – the state? Who? Ultimately it means someone else is bearing it right, another taxpayer.
This is S’pore. If die, not govt’s problem.
What planet is she on? Or was she smoking ganja before her speech?
Update at 6.45 am: Shumething I wrote some time back
Money in your CPF account is your money
This is what MoM Tan, a paper general, blogged, inter alia, recently.
Best riposte I’ve come across.
Come on Baey, surely you can help him come up with better lines?https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/pap-needs-a-public-communications-swat-team/. Or maybe you can’t? You no longer the CEO of an int’l PR firm’s S’pore office.
The use of “xenophobia”and “your money” reminds me of, “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Nominated MP Chia Yong Yong spoke out against greater flexibility in withdrawing CPF savings in Parliament on Tuesday … Ms Chia noted that it should be viewed in the context of personal responsibilities. For instance, on CPF savings – she felt that people shouldn’t be spending like they would be spending their own salary. This is because CPF savings are enhanced by co-payment by employers and through top-ups from public funds.
Ms Chia said: “In relation to the use of CPF money, we have heard proponents who say that the CPF monies is theirs. “It’s our money, it’s in our account, it’s our retirement money. I want it out, I will spend it anyway we want.” Fine. 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.
“I know at the end of the day, that because I’m not the only person contributing to the fund, I cannot be the only person to call the shots as to how I am going to spend it. At the very least, I have a moral obligation to spend it wisely. Why do I say that? Because if I’m not judicious in my spending at the end of the day, who’s going to maintain me in my twilight years – the state? Who? Ultimately it means someone else is bearing it right, another taxpayer. So if I’m not judicious and I’m arguing this is my money, I’m not going to be responsible in my use and if I argue this is your money, you use it anyway you want – I’m not responsible as a citizen.”
Ms Chia cautioned against a Budget that leans too heavily to the left.
“We have a Budget that has been praised and approved as leaning to the left. But I would also argue that if we lean too much to the left, we will not have much left. So what I will also want to end up with and conclude is that when we talk about collective responsibility, we need to understand that collective responsibility must also be exercised responsibly on a collective basis, as well as on a personal basis.”
Ms Chia also touched on the SkillsFuture initiative and said that unlike infrastructural investments, it would be difficult to measure the scheme’s positive outcomes. Hence, she stressed that the onus is on those who will conduct the training sessions – to exercise integrity and professionalism.
Ms Chia, who is also the President of the Society for Aid to the Paralysed, called on the government to place a greater and more integrated emphasis on training those with disabilities. This will help to empower and equip them to be financially independent.