Rejected by the Straits Times Forum.

    contribute | contact us | about us

Don't short change us on CPF partial restoration

Original Version ST Forum Page Version

DON'T SHORT CHANGE US ON THE CPF PARTIAL RESTORATION

As expected the partial restoration of the CPF was lauded with much praise and greeted by exuberant jublilation by the NTUC. The NTUC said that the goverment has "kept faith with workers". But have they really. The fine print shows it: The full 4% restoration will go into the special account of those over 36, the very people who need this money to make their mortage payments. These are the people who are probably most in debt with school going children, car payments and other household and family committments. Many of these people are probabaly topping up their mortgage payments with cash or are rapidly depleting their ordinary account balances. They need the relief that this extra 4% will bring in having to make less cash outlays and reducing the rate of depletion.

It is the ultimate insult to the hardworking people of Singapore and an outrage that when ministers increased their salaries, most of this flowed directly into their pockets. Why did they not direct it to a special account for their retirement instead.? But when the CPF is only partially restored, this measely 4% is whisked away from under our noses to a special acocunt which we cannot touch, not even to pay for the roofs over our heads.

I think the goverment owes the people of Singapore an explanation. All this partial restoration has done is increase the burden on the employer without any real benefit for the employee. The biggest beneficiary is again the goverment. Most of this restoration contributed by the employer will now sit in the CPF and will increase the already large coffers of cheap funds for use by the goverment to pay ridiculous multi billion compensation amounts to telcos and other soon to be privatised utility companies who have already been making billions from the people of Singapore.

Lets not short change the people of Singapore. They paid their dues during the crisis. Its time that we are paid our dues, fairly and squarely.

FUND BOOST WITH STRINGS ATTACHED COMES UP SHORT

 

As expected the partial restoration of the CPF was lauded with much praise and greeted by exuberant jublilation by the NTUC. The NTUC said that the goverment has "kept faith with workers". But have they really. The fine print shows it: The full 4% restoration will go into the special account of those over 36, the very people probably most in debt with school going children, car payments and other household and family committments. Many of these people are probabaly topping up their mortgage payments with cash or are rapidly depleting their ordinary account balances rapidly. They need the relief that the extra 4% pont restoration will bring in- having to make fewer cash outlays and reducing the rate of depletion.


  

When the CPF is only partially restored, this measely 4% is whisked away from under our noses to a special acocunt which we cannot touch, not even to pay for the roofs over our heads.

I think the goverment owes the people of Singapore an explanation. All this partial restoration has done is increase the burden on the employer without any real benefit for the employee.

 

 

 

Lets not short change the people of Singapore. They paid their dues during the crisis. Its time that we are paid our dues, fairly and squarely.


   REASON FOR PUBLICATION IN OUR PAGES

The editing did two things to this letter: 1) It downplayed evidence of the psychological cost of ministerial pay policy. 2) It suppressed a legitimate question on how should CPF funds be put to use by the government. Consequently, the only point left in Mr. Singh's letter is that the CPF restoration is a burden on employers, with crucial supporting arguments why this burden is not acceptable to the writer of the letter removed.

A responsible paper states its views in its editorial column and defend them when challenged. It does not doctor readers' letters to mute challenges to its own views. It is one thing for ST to hold the view that ministerial pay and compensation is justified. It is quite another for it to edit Forum Page letters to remove contrary opinions.

In the interview with Charlie Rose after his Harvard lecture, SM Lee said his government's treatment of foreign media in Singapore was justified because they doctored the government's letters. Why is Straits Times doing the same thing here?


    contribute | contact us | about us