atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Ministry of Manpower’

African example PAP govt will follow?

In Economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 30/10/2018 at 9:47 am

The Tanzanian government is in the process of amending its statistical legislation so that it can impose fines or jail time on anyone who questions the accuracy of official figures.

Not a big step from what Ng Eng Hen did as a newbie cabinet minister (Manpower) many yrs ago when he roughed up some academics who published analysis based on extrapolation (I think) of officially published data on a sensitive issue (FT employment rates vis-a-vis locals). Appparently there was some unpublished data according to Hen that contradicted the extrapolation: they should have asked his ministry whether their analysis was correct.

After the row died down (the academics sucked XXXX), the long-standing head of the stats dept resigned. As a noted economist (then and now) remarked tongue -in-cheek: “Wow, govt admits data published on website is not accurate”.

Whatever, Hen never looked back: his star was on the rise.

Advertisements

Mom trying to out BS CSA’s CEO

In Economy, Public Administration on 24/07/2018 at 10:45 am

Here I reported that CSA’s CEO downplayed the importance of the loss of NRIC numbers, names and addresses: Is Computer Security Agency CEO talking thru his ass about stolen info?

Well Mom is almost as bad in its PR BS. After the constructive, nation-building digital newspaper belonging to Mediacorp asked Mom to comment on the following

Hundreds of IBM Singapore employees are being laid off, amid the technology giant’s global restructuring efforts.

The firm is cutting manpower from its Singapore Technology Park, a manufacturing plant at Tampines, as it is relocating manufacturing of its Power Systems product to a facility in Guadalajara, Mexico.

IBM staff and subcontractors told TODAY that at least 200 people were being laid off, and they comprised Singaporeans and foreigners working in a variety of positions. They included blue-collar workers, professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ibm-singapore-lays-workers-its-tampines-plant

a Mom spokesperson said:

 “We do not comment on any impending or speculative restructuring exercises of any company.”

Excuse me, people have been retrenched. It’s not

any impending or speculative restructuring exercises of any company.

It has happened. It;s not

any impending or speculative restructuring exercises of any company.

Doubtless the Mom spokesperson and the CEO of CSA are from Bizarro S’pore like PM and Tharman:

PM visiting from Bizarro S’pore?

Tharman also from Bizarro S’pore?

Tan CJ loves FTs

In Economy on 14/09/2017 at 5:22 pm

Tan Chuan Jin was the acting minister at the Ministry of Manpower between 2012 and 2014. Between 2014 and 2015 he was the MoM minister. In 2011, he was the junior minister at MoM. Tharman was the minister but had other portfolios.

The MoM report for the second quarter 2017 showed

The number of Employment Pass holders – professionals and executives who earn at least S$3,600 – declined for the first time in four years, while the number of S Pass holders – mid-skilled technical staff who earn at least S$2,200 a month – remained flat.
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/resident-unemployment-rate-down-fewer-retrenchments-in-q2-9215154

The employment pass numbers were going up for four years prior to 2Q 17. This despite the slowing economy in 2015 (1.9% from 3.6% in 2014) and 2% last year. Growth in 2013 was 5%.

So despite the slowing economy since 2014, Tan let FTs in to steal the jobs of professionals and executives.

 

Will CEO of TLC behave in the recommended PAP way?

In S'pore Inc on 09/02/2017 at 6:06 am

The PAP administration likes to say that S’poreans should follow the Japanese way accepting responsibility for cock-ups: apologise and, where necessary, resign.

So will the CEO of Surbana Jurong follow the Japanese practice, after the  Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say on Tuesday (Feb 7) scolded Surbana Jurong in Parliament describing the company’s behaviour as unacceptable? The GLC had publicly labeled the 54 employees it sacked as poor performers,

—————————–

Surbana Jurong is a Singaporean government-owned consultancy company focusing on infrastructure and urban development. It was formed in June 2015 with the merger of Surbana International Consultants and Jurong International Holdings. It is wholly owned by Temasek Holdings and has about 4,000 employees

Surbana’s labelling of sacked staff as poor performers ‘unacceptable’

Surbana Jurong group chief executive Wong Heang Fine said: “We cannot allow our 1 per cent of poor performers to continue to affect the rest of the 99 per cent of staff who are performing.” The company later said the process could have been better managed after even the running dog that is NTUC KPKBed.

———————————————————————

“To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that an employer conducted such a major termination exercise and … labelled the workers as ‘poor performers’. I think as Manpower Minister, it’s something I do not find acceptable.”

Adding that one’s work environment and a company’s human resource practices may be contributing factors to performance: “I hope we will not come across another case where a company does a major termination and labels employees as having poor performance publicly.”

He said Surbana Jurong’s management and the unions reached an agreement on ex gratia payment, “which in our view is a fair outcome for the affected employees”.


The law on unfair dismissal

If an employee files an appeal of unfair dismissal to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the ministry will first mediate. Should that fail, MOM will conduct an inquiry and require the employer to produce evidence to justify the termination.

If the employer is unable to substantiate claims that the affected employee’s performance is poor, the employer may be ordered to reinstate the employee or provide compensation. If it does not comply, it can be prosecuted.

By settling Surbana Jurong has effectively admitted that it cocked-up.

——————————————————–

Will the CEO accept Japanese style responsibility for cock-up? Or will it be usual “move on” that so discredits our so-called meritocracy system? Sadly the latter is more probable.

The PAP believes that “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/why-khaw-vikram-must-commit-hari-kiri/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/learn-from-japanese-set-example-leh-elites/

After all, a Surbana Jurong spokesperson said the matter had been resolved “amicably” with the unions, adding “It is currently reviewing our performance management processes to improve the system.”

This means that some S’porean human resources manager is going to get the sack (Replaced by a Peenoy or Arneigh FT? Cheaper leh.), while the CEO will continue smiling when he gets his monthly CPF statement like Lim Swee Say.

Sad!

 

Zorro: Sotong or trying to sotong us over FT, local numbers

In Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 24/08/2015 at 4:25 am

Shielding Workers

But first, dare PM, Zorro, Kee Chui or anyone in the PAP or the NTUC dare say they are safeguarding S’poreans’ jobs or wages? (Sorry, the image can’t appear in the post: OK in draft. Go to http://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2015/aug/08/the-bodleian-treasures-online-in-pictures and scroll down) (I’ll leave PM’s outrageous attempt at misrepresenting our views on FTs for another day)

Let’s look at the facts of job protection for locals here. I”ll let Manpower Minister (and previously NTUC head) Lim Swee Say speak first.

In an interview last week,  said that the government will hold fast to its goal of having a two-thirds Singaporean core in the economy, and this will be the structure of the country’s workforce in the “medium to long term”. BS

NCMP Yee says Lim talking cock over optimistic view of maintaining 1/3 FTs in “medium to long term” For starters, FT workforce already more than 1/3

On his blog [Link] on 21 Aug, JJ pointed out that former Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin had admitted that the one-third FT target is possible only for this decade, during a Parliamentary debate 2 years ago.

“That I agree with.”

“Whilst doing our own computations for alternative models, we had then studied all the publicly available numbers about population in Singapore. There will be net addition to the local workforce from 2013 till 2020, the end of this decade. This is because there will be more Singaporeans turning of age to be included into the workforce than there are Singaporeans retiring.”

He noted that beyond 2020, in order to get the kind of economic growth the PAP government had wanted in the White Paper, there has to be more addition of foreign labour without any addition of local manpower.

“How much to add will depend on productivity growth, which the government had set a target of 2-3%. Sadly, this productivity growth has been near zero or negative in recent years.”

He therefore questioned Lim’s talk of maintaining the 2:1 ratio of Singaporean to foreign workers in Singapore’s workforce in the “medium to long term”.

“So, Mr Lim’s comments that the two-thirds Singaporean core will be something for the  ‘medium to long term’ is rather puzzling. What is ‘medium to long term’?”

“His predecessor (Tan Chuan-Jin) had already agreed with me that ‘by 2020 our own domestic labour force growth will basically end up at about zero. So whatever growth we have thereafter will largely be foreign labour growth’ and that ‘it (foreign workforce) is really about one-third for this decade until about 2020.”

Worse, the proportion of local work force seems to be decreasing while that of foreign work force is increasing.

“At the point that I had asked the question in March 2013, based on available manpower data of 2012, locals made up 63.0% of the workforce. By 2014, this figure has dropped to 61.9%. It was 62.1% in 2013 (Source: http://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/Labour-Force-Summary-Table.aspx).”

Mid 2012 Mid 2013 Mid 2014
Total Workforce (‘000) 3,361.8 3,443.7 3,530.8
Local Workforce (‘000) 2,119.6 2,138.8 2,185.2
% Local 63.0% 62.1% 61.9%

In other words, as of last year, the proportion of foreign workers in our work force was already 38.1%, more than 1/3.

“Is Mr Lim’s definition of long-term up to 2020 only? If it is beyond 2020, how is he going to achieve that because even with a growing local workforce in this current decade, the ratio has been declining well past the two-thirds ratio already while productivity has failed to improve?”

Hear, hear for JJ, This is the kind of questioning I expect when I voted for WP at the last GE.

Back to the interview. Zorro said that the tightening of Singapore’s foreign manpower was not a reaction to past mistakes, but was rather a reflection that realities had changed. The inflow of foreign manpower was a hot topic during the 2011 General Election, and Mr Lim identified the “determination to manage” the growth of the foreign workforce here as the key shift in manpower policy since.

“It’s not so much because the policy of the past was a mistake but rather, we are now having a new stage of growth and therefore we have to pursue a new direction,” he said.

Oh how very convenient that “a new stage of growth” comes at a politically convenient time?

If anyone believes this, they’ll believe anything.

He went on to say, “Every country has to find the right balance … But on the whole, I would say that we have managed the process a lot more effectively compared to some other cities and countries. Through the manpower quota system, we have ensured foreign manpower spread across all sectors and companies.”

Manpower quota system? As TRE pointed out: for foreign PMETs, that is, foreign EP holders, there is no quota imposed in Singapore.

In the US, for example, the congress controlled their H-1B visa (equivalent to Singapore’s EP) for foreigners tightly. The current US law limits to 65,000 the number of foreign nationals who may be issued a H-1B visa each fiscal year. US laws also exempt up to 20,000 foreign nationals holding a master’s or higher degree from US universities from the cap on H-1B visas. In addition, excluded from the ceiling are all H-1B foreign workers who work at universities, non-profit research facilities associated with universities, and government research facilities. Universities can employ an unlimited number of foreign workers as cap-exempt. This also means that contractors working at but not directly employed by the institutions may be exempt from the cap as well. In FY2010, 117,828 H-1B visas were issued by US government. In FY2012, it was 135,991 [Link].

In Singapore, for example, the figures given by the government for the number of EP holders at the end of 2010 and 2011 were 142,000 and 176,000. That means, there is an increase of 34,000 foreign EP holders in Singapore in 2011 [Link]. If we were to add in S-Pass holders, the increase in number of foreign PMETs in 2011 came to 49,000. That’s already almost half of what the whole of US issued in FY2010.

Also, spouses of H-1B visa holder in US are not allowed to work at all. But in Singapore, spouses of EP holders can work through obtaining a Dependant’s Pass [Link].

Coming back to the protection of jobs and wages, it would seem that the PAP and NTUC can safely say that they are protecting FTs jobs and wages here, given the absence of quotas for employment pass holders. What do you think?

SDP’s Dr Paul Tambyah said something recently that deserves to be very widely known. At a recent forum organised by the National University of Singapore Society where representatives from nine opposition parties and the ruling PAP were present, Dr Paul Tambyah said that young local doctors complaining about the hours and working conditions in hospitals, were told that the hospitals could always employ FTs at lower salaries. If our brightest citizens (even straight As can’t get into the local medical schools)  are threatened with FT replacements, what about the Vocational Institutes’ grads?

Yet at the forum Sim Ann representing the PAP said, “We always put SGs front and centre.”

I ask again, “If our brightest and most expensively educated get threatened with being replaced by cheaper FTs, are the Normal streamers safe?”

If MoM is really serious about jobs for S’poreans

In Internet, Uncategorized on 17/06/2015 at 4:38 am

Employers and jobless  S’porean PMEs KPKB about the difficulty to fill available vacancies because the unemployed have difficulties knowing waz available, while employers don’t know what experience is outb there.. Even NTUC says, echoing the public, that merely requiring employers to post an advert on the MOM Jobs Bank for 2 weeks does not necessarily do anything to ensure S’poreans are employed before foreigners partly because of the way the system works in matching jobs to those looking for jobs.

Matching those looking for jobs with the vacancies is a world-wide problem, not unique to S’pore.

Here’s a solution that suggests using online dating software (modified of course).

Economists believe that much of this difficulty lies in matching the supply of graduates to the available jobs. In 2010 Peter Diamond, Dale Mortensen and Christopher Pissarides won the economics Nobel prize by demonstrating that unemployment can stay high in times of vacancies. It is not possible to assume that buyers and sellers of labour immediately find each other; in many markets this only happens after a costly and lengthy search process. To understand this problem, economists have started to look in a surprising direction for inspiration: online dating.

With its complex matching processes, costs of looking around, and emotional highs-and-lows, a job search shares many characteristics with the world of virtual love (or virtual world of love). In both, there are search costs. It takes time and effort to create an online dating profile, just as it takes time and effort to create a curriculum vitae. And then there is the problem of so-called “mutual choosing options”. Those looking for love and careers cannot simply make their choice and be done with it; they need the person or employer they like to also pick them as well.

But if digital dating suffers from many of the same afflictions as the graduate job market, it may also offer solutions. In 2012 Sean Rad, a college dropout, created Tinder, which shows users photos of potential suitors nearby and matches those who mutually “like” each other’s pictures. Now it has accumulated over 50m users.

As a result, graduate recruiters are falling over themselves to copy the idea. Among the new crop is Switch, which allows candidates to thumb through job listings: flick left if uninterested and right to register for a potential work match. A competitor, Jobr, which also employs the swipe-if-you-like model, uses information from LinkedIn to recommend jobs that candidates might find interesting. Since its launch last year, Jobr has submitted more than 100,000 job applications for its members each month. Large firms are joining in, too. Last year, Zappos, an online retailer based in Nevada, scrapped formal job postings and replaced them with a new site encouraging candidates to engage with each other and the firm in a way not dissimilar to existing online-dating forums.

For the anxious 21-year-old leaving campus for the last time, the worlds of economics and online dating have a few lessons. First, pick a thick market. Just as the most successful lonely hearts go to the apps with the highest-number of potential suitors, so should graduates also head to where the most job opportunities are. Second, just as online daters “signal” their qualities by posting photos, job applicants should also try to communicate their strengths to employers effectively. And finally, settle. Expend the costs of searching for a partner or job only if those costs are outweighed by the expected benefits of a new opportunity or lover. Who said economics wasn’t romantic?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/graduates-and-employment

MoM if it really prefers locals to FTs can fund some software development. Or maybe NTUC?

Maybe Richard Wan (MD of of software developer) of TRE could also do something along these lines, sourcing funds from the cybernuts who infest TRE . Juz joking, pigs will fly first before the cybernuts fund anything*.

Meanwhile TeamTRE has to fund itself while also working for free to give Goh Meng Seng (founder member of the Cynernut Movement) and his fellow nutters the opportunity to help the PAP win votes from the swing voters.

Related post

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/smartphone-way-of-short-listing-300-from-33000-job-applicants/

*Reminds me of Amos’s ang moh tua kee friends? Where Amos Yee was absolutely right was when he F***ed the ang moh tua kees that were posturing on social media about how concerned they were about him, while he rotted in remand: none offered bail.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/amos-talk-is-cheap-very-cheap-harry-really-needs-no-monument/

The ang moh tua kees and the cybernuts are related? Talk cock, sing song.

 

Degree mills are scams, not unaccredited institutions

In Public Administration on 21/05/2015 at 4:42 am

In response to https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/mom-thinks-we-that-stupid-or-they-really-that-stupid/, a regular reader and most intelligent commenter explained why degree mills are not “unaccredited institutions” as Zorro and the staff at MoM is insisting the are. He says (Emphasis is mine. My comments are within [ ] in normal print):

Aiyah, it is factually wrong to say all degree mills are unaccredited institutions. Why?? Because degree mills are mutually exclusive from all & any educational institutions. You can say that unaccredited institutions are a subset of educational institutions, but it is false to say that degree mills are a subset of educational institutions.

[Zorro and his officials are talking cock, real cock. Meritocracy? What meritocracy?]

Degree mills are scam jobs, pure & simple, just like pyramid schemes. The perpetrators know it and the consumers know it. Any person with average intelligence who participates in it will realise something is not right, even if he benefits. A consumer who pleads innocence and “sincerely believes it is genuine” is merely being disingenuous and acting in self-preservation.

[Heard that IDA about its beloved new citizen Nisha.]

And yeah it’s easier (& cheaper) to fake work experience than fake degrees. In my younger days, I was bumming around doing odd jobs & contract jobs for about 2 years in-between “real jobs”. When I went for job interviews later, I got so fedup with having to explain & justify my 2 years “hole” in my resume that I put in fake work experience with a fake company. And I got a good pal to act as my ex-supervisor in case any prospective company wanted to check. No company ever checked & my pal never got any calls.

Lim Swee Say also says that MOM conducts 100% checks on papers from known unaccredited institutions or degree mills. What about fake degrees obtained from degree mills?? I can get a bona-fide look & feel posh degree scroll + academic transcripts from the University of Sydney by paying some Peenoi degree mill US$350. US$500 if I also want someone to impersonate as my professor with Aussie accent & fake Uni letterheads & fake email account to act as my reference.

[If you think the last two para are rants,

Woman entered Singapore under false identities

She had fled over fake degree, but returned using various passports

She fled the country after being charged in 2002 with using a fake degree to apply for permanent residency. But that did not stop Lin Lifen, 39, from repeatedly coming back to Singapore over the next 12 years using different identities. She is now appealing against a 16-week jail sentence for her offences.

– See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/woman-entered-singapore-under-false-identities-20150520#sthash.2Ye39gOg.7aaisx26.dpuf%5D

And all these doesn’t even touch the millions of sub-par & 3rd-rate ahneh, cheena, peenoy, burmese graduates from the mass of “accredited universities” that have so lax academic & ethical standards that you can get 1st class honours 4.0 GPA without studying if you’re willing to prostitute yourself, either with your body or with your money.

[Steady bro, don’t want FT lovers and ang moh tua kees like Kirsten Han and Lynn Lee making police complaints against this blog. LOL]

MoM thinks we that stupid? Or they really that stupid

In Public Administration on 19/05/2015 at 4:15 am

Or they juz trying their luck, throwing smoke, hoping to confuse S’poreans? And hoping smoke also protects FTs with fake degrees?

I mean if people fake their qualifications, why should they be trusted not to fake their work experience (see Zorro’s comments in parly below*? I would say even likeier because it is easier to fake work experience than to fake qualifications.  They could pay ex-supervisors or ex-employers to issue fake reports on his experiences, etc. Or they could fake reports themselves. How to verify meh?

On to something very serious: Not all unaccredited institutions are degree mills

A TRE reader points out there is a difference between an “unaccredited” institution and a degree mill, and that it’s wrong for MoM to say that they are the same: The Ministry of Manpower is now trying to pass off degree mills as “unaccredited schools” through its infographic (link). (In the extract* below, Zorro says the same thing as his staff: As for qualifications obtained from an unaccredited institution (degree mill) …)

The TRE reader goes to explain that while all degree mills are unaccredited institutions, not all unaccredited institutions are degree mills citing our very own SIM and SMU who are “unaccredited” in NZ.

SIM, SMU, which both teach undergraduate courses in Singapore, are by all means bona fide educational establishments. Their courses require rigour and a level of standard befitting a tertiary qualification. Ask any SIM or SMU graduate and they will tell you there was nothing fake about their educational experience at these institutions. They were required to submit assignments, pass exams, and complete internships if the course calls for one.

That said, both SIM and SMU are considered “unaccredited” universities in New Zealand for the purpose of immigration and/or employment in licensed sectors for example, teaching, health and law. I am sure SMU or SIM graduates will strongly disagree that it is because their course is not rigorous or of a poor standard. More importantly, their course was not fake. The “unaccredited” status just means New Zealand authority has little understanding of the rigour of these courses and their entry requirements or deems the learning outcomes are not at a level New Zealand recognises as compatible to the skills the country seeks in its immigrants and workforce. This, in no way illegitimise the qualifications from these institutions.

A qualification obtained from a degree mill, on the other hand, reeks of non-existent education experience and absent rigour. Degree mills have long been considered fraudulent schemes which are really “dollar for paper” printing machine. One need not mug through exams or sweat through assignments. There probably aren’t much course readings to do, even. There is no internship or practicum to speak of. The tuition fee you pay does not give you face-to-face support from a tutor or lecturer, not even by distance through Skype. What it does give you is that piece of paper to “qualify” you as a graduate in a certain field of study whether you have actually studied it or not.

Degree mills are not new. They have been around for many decades. Singaporeans had previously not heard much of it because the laws of our land are so strict that few would contemplate jeopardising their future by buying into such a scheme**. We have been brought up to mug, to burn the midnight oil and to put in the hard mile. The government always prided itself for having built a nation of honest, hardworking citizens with integrity.

The Ministry of Manpower is now trying to pass off degree mills as “unaccredited schools” through its infographic (link). The government may have brought Singaporeans up by the rod but it certainly is handling its adopted children with cotton gloves.

No, I will not let the authority pull wool over my eyes. Degree mills are not merely “unaccredited schools”. They are fraudulent schemes and people who use them to gain entry into our country or workforce should be recognised as such and properly chastised.

Been There Seen It

Thank God for IDA’s and now MoM’s attempts to defend FTs with fake degrees. They are helping to offset the “feel good” factors of Harry’s funeral and the PAP administration’s spending of our money on ourselves that were working in the PAP’s favour in making the ground sweet for GE.

Here’s two constructive suggestions to make us feel good: free “S’pore” Lego kits for all voters, not just teachers, and throw Amos into a cell without internet access and throw away the key.

—-

*“As for qualifications obtained from an unaccredited institution (degree mill) that does not ensure that its students are properly qualified, MOM conducts 100% checks and disregards these qualifications completely,” Mr Lim assured.

“They will have to meet more stringent criteria in terms of experience and salary in order to qualify for the EP or S Pass.”

In other words, foreign applicants with qualifications from degree mills can still qualify for a work pass based only on their experience and salary.”

**I remember a few years back when a degree mill was exposed, ST reported S’poreans who were taken in, resigning from their jobs, before their private sector employers found out and asked them to leave. Some of them had proper degrees and took the “fake” course to better themselves.

Now S’poreans who kanna sien can point out to Nisha and IDA. WTF MoM.

If MOM correct about CPF, why need FTs, growing population? Cont’d

In CPF, Financial competency on 15/08/2014 at 4:23 am

Someone claiming to be a civil servant (and ex-reporter) replied to an article of mine on the above, As he has some good points, I tot I’d share it. My comments follow.

I’ll answer briefly the two questions you posed.

Firstly, why we need a larger population if each individual saves for his own retirement. Strictly speaking, we don’t. What we need is a larger *working* population because only those who have active incomes pay taxes. The taxes collected is used to run the country. It is simply not tenable nor sustainable to run a country with *both* a shrinking pool of tax revenue and a growing proportion of retirees.

For instance, even with steady population numbers, we expect the size of our law enforcement to maintain its strength (if already adequate). Our law enforcement staff is mainly supported by tax payers. Retirees generally enjoy their services but do not pay for the police. With waning tax revenues, it would be reasonable to cut funding and strength of our law enforcement agencies. And it stands to reason that crime rates would go up.

The same reasoning can be applied to health care, defense, or education expenses. Retirees don’t pay for these (other than a token co-payment).

Secondly, why the need for minimum sum and CPF Life. In my opinion, the Government is trying to be tactful in stating their reasons. I’d be more blunt here. Simply stated, the minimum sum is a proxy for your financial acuity throughout your working life. Financially savvy individuals would, by the time they retire, have a nest egg many times the minimum sum. Folks like you would be in that category. The Government does not have to worry for these folks.

Conversely, if you hadn’t even been able to save the minimum sum, what basis does the Government have to believe that you will be able to manage your own money to sustain you till death and not burden the rest of the population? If someone hadn’t been financially successful during their most productive years, would you believe that he is more likely to multiply his retirement account, or if given a chance, misspend or “mis-invest” his money. What then? What if they have no children or their children couldn’t support them or are themselves retired. Are you willing to support these folks for the rest of their life?

You yourself mentioned that life expectancy is much greater than before. That means whatever savings a retiree has would have to last for a longer time. If someone hadn’t sufficiently planned for his own retirement, what makes you think he could plan for his sustenance till death?

The views expressed here are mine and mine alone.

Whatever it is, it ain’t brief. So there goes his/her “briefly”.

Absolutely correct on first point though. My question was aimed at hopefully drawing out this answer.

This answer shows the BS (OK “incompleteness”, “economy with the truth”) that is the govt’s explanation here:

..a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more aged people …
In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account.
(Emphasis is mine)
Whether the Western system or ours, there is a need for “shared services’, MOM conveniently ignores.
It’s this kind of “answer” that gets me annoyed. S’poreans deserve better explanations.
On the second point, chap’s very cocksure: I’d be more blunt here. Simply stated, the minimum sum is a proxy for your financial acuity throughout your working life. Ever heard of the fickle finger of fate? “The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
Seriously, he has a point. Recently FT reported
Behavioural economist Dan Ariely, meanwhile, says it is “illusory” to expect education to lead to better financial outcomes. He points to a 2014 meta-analysis of 201 prior studies on the subject that found financial education had virtually no effect on subsequent financial behaviour. This is largely because most people forget what they have learnt within 20 months.

Mr Ariely therefore recommends a degree of compulsion. People should have to buy some insurance against longevity risks just as they are required to buy a basic level of car insurance, he says.

The problem is the govt’s solution, CPF Life. We juz don’t know if it’s any gd: black box calculations and no protection against default (yr CPF Life, it dies, you die). Sometime soon I’ll give blog further on these points.

As to Kee Chui’s *Population figures – nobody knows” comments last week: This is what the moderator at the event where he spoke (and a respected economist) posted on Facebook Chan Chun Sing, this is what

As an economist all I can say is that it’s not a very helpful answer.

A final population of below 4 million implies a drastic collapse of the economy not seen even in the Great Depression

10 million implies an impossibly crowded, highly unequal, socially divided society.

That we want to look after our citizens, or provide good jobs for our young is an independent truism.

No comment on an issue that is a key determinant of long term well being for future generations?

Gau Siam!

 

 

 

If MOM correct about CPF, why need FTs, growing population?

In CPF, Financial competency on 05/08/2014 at 4:53 am
One message we always get from the govt and the constructive, nation-building media is that an aging population and the refusal of married S’poreans to do NS when having sex means we need FTs to grow the population so that S’pore can finance the needs of an aging population.
But another message is that in our CPF system, we finance our personal retirement needs (see yesterdays ad in ST),
unlike the ang mohs who have a pay-as-you-go system. The Manpower Blog from MOM describes it thus, ... a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more aged people …
In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account.
(Emphasis is mine)
So my question is why do we need to worry about an aging population? MOM says that we oldies don’t depend on younger S’poreans to pay for our pensions? It’s our money that is funding ourselves.
So why need population 6.9m by 2030? Or is it now 10m? Juz excuse to import FTs by the A380 cattle-class?
But then MOM also says CPF monies is S’poreans money, even when govt tells us how we can spend it: sounds like
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.” .
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
And then there is this rubbish
When the British introduced the CPF scheme in 1955, we could withdraw all our savings at 55. Do we remember what our retirement age was then? It was 55. What was the life expectancy in 1955? It was about 60. Hence, what you withdrew at age 55 would have to last you for just a few years.
Today, the retirement age is at 62 and we could be re-employed until 65.And life expectancy is at least 82 and rising fast. For those turning 65 years old today, 1 in 2 will live beyond 85, and 1 in 3 beyond 90. What would happen if we withdrew everything at age 55? Or even 65? Would we ourselves be able to manage our monies for two decades or more? 
Well there are many other solutions other than forcing Minimum Sum and CPF Life down our throats at age 55. Ask the SDP about one possible solution. and the ang mohs too have ideas. Related post on ang moh view supporting PAP’s stance