the great escape
it has been 3 months since mas selamat escaped from whitley detention centre, and we just got the investigation report of how he did it - the escape was planned carefully beforehand and not spur of the comment as soon as he saw the opportunity; it remains puzzling why he did not arrange for someone to pick him up with a vehicle, if the report that a woman saw him wandering around a street nearby is correct; maybe the pickup plan fell through, leaving him not know where it would be safe to escape to and without money even to catch a bus
whose fault was it? I think the main culprit was the lack of initiative on everyone's part involved in the centre's security: the window not having metal bars (so the contractor forgot to install it? why not make him come back and do it, or hire another one just for the job? too much trouble going through the tender/budget process for such an "unimportant" matter? ), the uriinal with lockable doors that go from floor to ceiling (obviously some remodelling from a urinal-only toilet to be part of a larger toilet; the visitor toilet that came to be used by inmates; the guards that waited a long time before forcing open the door; the woman manager who needed to get a man to do this...everyone was doing what he/she was ordered to do by the superiors or by the rulebook, without noticing the problem contained in the situation, or at least not seeing the need to do anything about it; it is a cultural thing
Old Age Pension from 85 Please!
this just came in Today; I am somewhat intrigued by the government's steadfast refusal to introduce a simple old age pension scheme, for citizens aged 85 onward; the annual cost would be well within the ability of the budget to absorb; by making CPF contributors pay for the cost, you are bound to generate arguments about those not surviving beyond 85 losing out, those dying soon afterwards not getting back enough, etc
Though there are a huge array of schemes for supporting retired people, the simple fact is: the people who work must in some way support the people who do not, e.g., we have retired people who live off income from their savings: what is "income from savings"? interest from bank deposits? that comes from banks lending out the money to people and companies who do work and can pay back the loans with interest; dividends from shares? these come from company employees who work to generate profit; rent from property? that has to be rented out to individuals or companies that work to produce income to pay rent; and obviously, if retired people live on government pensions, then of course working taxpayers are supporting them.
So if CPF pays people above 85 an annuity, the outward cashflow has to be balanced with the inward cashflow from current contributors and past investments; the people receiving annuity are therefore supported by current contributors and people who work to generate the income for those investments. In contrast, if they receive an old age pension, they are being supported by taxpayers generally. The difference is simply different contribution distribution formulae.
added on 10 September: just saw announcement that the chronically ill will be exempted from the annuity scheme since they wont live long enough to enjoy the benefit; I am sure other groups will soon join the crowd claiming exemption because they will not live long for whatever reason; why put up with all this complexity? there are only 25000 people over age 85 in Singapore; if everyone is given $300 a month, the total is $100M a year, quite insignificant as a budget item
| Annuities scheme begins to take shape |
If you are a Singaporean aged 50 or younger, you will have a "small portion" of your Central Provident Fund (CPF) minimum sum set aside for compulsory annuities. .
This contribution will be pooled with others and once you hit the age of 85 and your minimum sum is exhausted, the annuity payouts will begin — possibly a monthly sum of $250 to $300 — assuring you a financial lifeline until the day you die.
.
For the first time since Minister Lim Boon Heng hinted that the Government was looking at making annuities compulsory and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong confirmed it on Sunday, citizens have been given an idea of what shape the scheme will likely take.
.
The actual premium amount has yet to be decided. But Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen gave the reassurance that a major portion of the minimum sum will still be meant for CPF members to withdraw when they reach the official draw-down age.
.
Also not fixed: How the money will be drawn out, whether as a lump sum or monthly premiums.
.
But the tentative plan is to pay out $250 to $300 a month from the time members hit 85 – when the 20-year payouts from the minimum sum cease – until the day they die, said Dr Ng. "I'm trying to protect you for very long life expectancy," he added.
.
But should one not live to 85, the premium would be used to support others in the pool still alive. You can have the money transferred to your family members instead, but at the price of a higher premium.
.
Observers say the Government now has to "sell" the scheme to Singaporeans.
.
"To my knowledge, no country has ever made it compulsory for such a large chunk of the population to contribute to a pool in this manner. Most of us are waiting to see how much the premium will be," said Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals.
.
Minister-in-Charge of ageing issues Lim Boon Heng urged insurance companies to come up with "creative" annuity products.
.
"They could have variations of life annuities, they could pay the person's estate in case he passes on too quickly after buying a life annuity. If those kinds of products came onto the market, more people would accept the idea of buying an annuity," he said.
.......
Latest news - I guess the government is now inclined to accept old age pension/annuity cannot work without taxpayer subsidy
| MPs suggest ways to make annuity scheme attractive |
THERE will be no shortage of ideas for Professor Lim Pin to ponder when his new committee to design the national longevity insurance scheme meets.
The second day of debates in Parliament threw up many suggestions from 14 MPs on how to make the annuity scheme as attractive as possible to the masses.
The plan is to have Central Provident Fund (CPF) members purchase an annuity when they turn 55, using a small portion of their minimum sum. The annuity will begin paying out, at age 85 when the minimum sum is depleted, a monthly sum until they die.
Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta argued that it did not make sense to pay out only at age 85, when Singapore's average life expectancy was currently 80 years. She proposed paying out from age 80 so more could benefit.
Figures from the Department of Statistics show that half of Singaporeans currently aged 62 will live to 85.
She also had doubts about the usefulness of the monthly payout amount of $250 to $300.
"What use would such a paltry sum be to an 85-year-old? It cannot even cover his food and transport. Are we assuming his family is prepared to foot his bills?
"Not everyone at that age would have a family. Even if they did, their children would also be about 65 and require financial security themselves," she said.
Ms Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) suggested paying for this longevity insurance directly using the Deferment and Voluntary Deferment Bonuses — a one-off amount to be given out in view of the upcoming delay in drawing down the minimum sum.
Madam Cynthia Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) proposed paying the lump sum over 10 years, so members pay less up front.
Prof Lim's committee will submit its report within six months.
--------------
latest news: seems someone is getting things mixed up; if every citizen above 85 gets a pension of $300 a month, the annual expenditure is less than $100M, nothing comparable to 14% of GDP
SINGAPORE: Some had called for larger payouts from the proposed longevity insurance scheme. Others said the families of those who die early should get some money back. .......
In like vein, the Government should not start a state pension system, which would "take us many steps backwards", he said. He cited the example of Italy, which spends 14 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product on pensions — the same proportion Singapore uses to run "the whole government". The argument of dipping into the reserves to fund a pension system was "seductive but short-sighted". Said Dr Ng: "Surely, the old have contributed to the reserves. Every generation would claim it has built and has a right to the reserves. But our reserves belong to all generations of Singapore, including future generations."
Rugged Society
For many years after coining the term "rugged society" in 1968, LKY has urged singaporeans to retain the spirit of thrift, hard work and other old fashioned virtues. The term "rugged", in addition to the meaning of "hardy and robust", also has the intonation of "rough edged and not concerned with appearances". When hippies coming into singapore were denied visas at the airport unless they accepted an on the spot haircut, the rugged society was living up to its name in several senses of the word - except perhaps the need to maintain a certain type of appearance: it is OK to be tough despite international criticism, but not OK to have long hair.
When I joined NUS in 1983 and got involved in managing the CS department, including buildings and facilities, the university's architect firm, Indeco, had standing instructions to use a particular template for designing all buildings, so that all the buildings have similar looks and structures. Interior decorations were severe and low budget, and a height restriction of five storeys (a carry over from some previous instruction whose origin was by then forgotten by everyone - probably related to Kent Ridge being a major British army defense line against the Japanese invasion, so that no tall buildings in front of it can block the line of fire), and our first building, S15, was constructed on that model. By the time it was completed in 1984 we had already grown too big for it, and a second building S16 was finished in 1992 (much temporary space was found and used during the 8 years - another story another time), by which time various restrictions had already been removed and a much nicer building resulted. However, in comparison to the new University Hall, completed in 2005, it is pretty plain.
In short, today things are very different. Government ministries and public corporations now all have plush buildings, and arts have come into fashion instead of being dismissed as economically of no value. Money chasing is no longer looked on with doubt or even comtempt like it used to be, with Singapore Inc justifying its own unique socio-politcal system by the wealth its policies generated, while paying less attention to issues like equitable distribution of resources. A constant stream of important visitors, often as part of major international events like WTO amd IMF/World Bank meetnigs generously sponsored by Singapore, come to provide confirmation for the country's success.
Looking at today's Singapore society, "rugged" would not be the first impression, "self-indulgent", "decadent", perhaps even "mindless", seem to be more applicable. But then, who am I to criticize? Other than posting some blog articles, what makes me different from others? Even if I wish to have things being different, what can one do?
But if individuals have little capacity to change anything and might as well not worry, the government should be worrying. The rugged society is no more, and something else, with a new catchy name, need to be coined.
Echoes of Rome
For all its negative association with slavery and colonial exploitation, the Roman Empire, under which the civilized western world of west europe, north africa and middle east were a unified nation, whose disintegrated fragments have even now not yet become re-united, was looked upon as a grand and glorified age. Its dominance of our thoughts is indicated by its frequent appearance in conventional wisdoms "romantic" "all roads lead to rome" "in rome do as romans do" "caesar's wife must be above suspicion" "a roman feast/carnival" etc (which may or may not have originated in rome itself). Does Emperor Augustus's self-flattering words "I found Rome a city of bricks, and left it a city of marble" remind anyone of something familiar?
When regulations were changed in Singapore to allow bartop dancing, all night pub openings, integrated resorts, F1 car racing..., I cannot but think back to the old roman formula "bread and circus"... I was amused to read the F1 chief's complaint about how tough it is to bargain with governments - the deal he got did not seem tough to me, nor was the deal University of NSW got. As Mark Anthony said "the greatness of Rome lies not in what it takes from the world, but in what it gives", while he proclaimed Cleopatra's son (the boy's father was Julius Caesar) as king of Egypt so that he and the boy's mother could reign as regents.
In the days when the eastern mediterranean was still dominated by Greek regimes but Rome began its encroachment, Greek authors actually wrote admiringly about Rome because, unlike the Greeks, Roman officials were honest in handling public money. The situation was very different by the time of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who was writing about the Germans as noble savages, superior to his own citizens who had beome very skilled in asserting rights but evading responsibilities. The rich got richer because they knew how to avoid taxes and military service, as well as exploit and manipulate all opportunities of gain, while small farmers found their obligations to the state crushingly heavy and got into debt; as more peasants lost their land to large landowners and changed from freeholders to serfs, the state found it hard to recruit citizen soldiers and increasingly had to rely on barbarian mercenaries. The empire's decline and distintegration became inevitable, beyond the ability to retrieve by the wisest and most able emperors. I am sure that's a roman echo leaders of any country would want to avoid.
