3Boys:

Go figure.

pirate:

WeiHan:

[quote=\"pirate\"]
But it is not in secret. The CPF rules are public. Whether one agrees with them or not is a different matter. But at best, you can only call it a tax, not embezzlement.

Actually, I think you just proved the PM's point that he was in fact defamed by Roy Ngerng's blog post, because you apparently believed what he said and can't tell the difference.

Well..maybe you are right...we will see if PM makes the same point in court. \"I move CPF fund around for my personal usage but it is legal and is according to CPF rules\"

WeiHan:

3Boys:

.


I've read Balding since, nothing more than the usual drivel.

I'll be interested if you can point out a few Balding's \"drivel\".

WeiHan:

pirate:

[quote=\"WeiHan\"]Even taking the money temporary away for self investment and then put back secretly IS embezzlement by definition. That was what happened at CHC.

But it is not in secret. The CPF rules are public. Whether one agrees with them or not is a different matter. But at best, you can only call it a tax, not embezzlement.

Actually, I think you just proved the PM's point that he was in fact defamed by Roy Ngerng's blog post, because you apparently believed what he said and can't tell the difference.

3Boys:

.


I've read Balding since, nothing more than the usual drivel.

WeiHan:

3Boys:

Well, he changed his tune. He started with implying that CPF could not meet it's obligations due to losses at GIC and Temasek, then he says later on that it's not about whether CPF meets it's obligations but about 'transparency', and even if CPF paid out what it promised, there is still 'embezzlement' if somehow dollars were 'moved' around.

Did I ever accused that CPF will not be able to meet its obligation? Not everybody will be drawing their CPF together, the fact that some people reaching their retirement age are able to withdraw their fund isn't a proof that 100% of the CPF fund is intact. Therefore, transparency is important. That is my point. And even in the case when someone move the money around for personal interest and move it back, it wouldn't prevent CPF from fulfilling its obligation unless the issue get serious and the fund involved gets big enough. But that doesn't mean that unauthorised shifting of CPF is not illegal.

Surely you have not read Balding'saccusation yet because you were still asking for the link. And of course one can't be making right argument if he has not even get what others are talking about.

pirate:

WeiHan:

Even taking the money temporary away for self investment and then put back secretly IS embezzlement by definition. That was what happened at CHC.

But it is not in secret. The CPF rules are public. Whether one agrees with them or not is a different matter. But at best, you can only call it a tax, not embezzlement.

Actually, I think you just proved the PM's point that he was in fact defamed by Roy Ngerng's blog post, because you apparently believed what he said and can't tell the difference.

3Boys:

Well, he changed his tune. He started with implying that CPF could not meet it's obligations due to losses at GIC and Temasek, then he says later on that it's not about whether CPF meets it's obligations but about 'transparency', and even if CPF paid out what it promised, there is still 'embezzlement' if somehow dollars were 'moved' around.

3Boys:

ngl2010:

I think I would like to be able to withdraw all my CPF (except Medisave) once I have critical illness 1-3 months before I die. Maybe I want to go for my last vacation or give money to somebody or buy gifts for my grandchildren. If I die, even if my grandchildren will get something from my will, I won't be able to see their expression, right?


Can I withdraw all my CPF once doctors estimated that I only have 3 months to live?

Such predictions are fraught. What happens if they got it wrong (they often do) and you live another 5 years? Estimates of survival are in ranges and percentages, not absolutes.

AC_Power:

WeiHan:

I don't understand your logic especially the last statement. Why shouldn't POOR people expect a decent return in their saving?

The issue here is that if the gov make money from the borrowed money from CPF, they keep the excess return, but if there is a loss, then the tax payer will bear the cost.

We should all be expecting a decent returns from CPF, just that everyone's expectations are different.

I also don't understand what you meant by tax payer will bear the cost if there is a loss. Has anyone fails to draw out their CPF because the GIC or Temasek suffered losses and their CPF monies and returns are adversely affected?

WeiHan:

Even taking the money temporary away for self investment and then put back secretly IS embezzlement by definition. That was what happened at CHC.

ngl2010:

I think I would like to be able to withdraw all my CPF (except Medisave) once I have critical illness 1-3 months before I die. Maybe I want to go for my last vacation or give money to somebody or buy gifts for my grandchildren. If I die, even if my grandchildren will get something from my will, I won't be able to see their expression, right?


Can I withdraw all my CPF once doctors estimated that I only have 3 months to live?

3Boys:

Good grief, how self contradicting you are and you don't even realise it. How can it be that CPF monies are embezzled if in fact CPF monies are paid back in full, with the published interest accrued and when due?

If AIA promised to pay you back capital + 3% p.a. at the end of 20 years on your policy, and that's exactly what they did, and in between, they made some gains and they made some losses on investments, does that count as embezzlement?

Please cite Balding's link here again, I'd like to see exactly what it says. His methods have been suspect in the past......

WeiHan:

3Boys:

Oh please lah, your lack of understanding on this is glaring. CPF may purchase G'ment bonds as they are a safe instrument to generate 2.5% for the CPF holders. BUT, SG government DON'T NEED CPF to purchase it's bond at all, it is in good financial standing and can easily sell its bonds to other institutional investors locally and overseas, no problem.

Don't get this backwards, like that idiot Balding, who knows this well but deliberately inverts it to fool gullible Singaporeans.

If CPF were to invest in foreign g'ment bonds, which country do you feel it should invest in, of better financial standing than Singapore? Don't you get it?

They are not saying that the SG gov issues bond to cover its debt or to buff up its financial position but they are saying that it is a mechanism for the government to use money in CPF for investment through GIC and Temasek. And when there is excess in return in the investment, the benefit was retained for self interest (maybe) and has never benefit the CPF contributors.

Why should CPF investment in any government bonds in the first place? The trend is for sovereign funds to invest in equities. There are even instruments that tracks return peg to inflation.

WeiHan:

Is that what you are mad about? Moron going around claiming that CPF is insolvent. CPF don't have to be insolvent. It is serious enough if some part of the money have been embezzled and have not been able to fill back. Due to lack transparency, we will never know. And the fact that CPF is able to pay all retirees the sum they are due is not adequate to replace transparency.

Even Balding isn't that strawman moron that set up. Don't confuse the issue His point was that the amount numbers published by National reserve-GIC-Temasek self contradicts and not that CPF is insolvent. Even Roy isn't saying that.

3Boys:

Oh please lah, your lack of understanding on this is glaring. CPF may purchase G'ment bonds as they are a safe instrument to generate 2.5% for the CPF holders. BUT, SG government DON'T NEED CPF to purchase it's bond at all, it is in good financial standing and can easily sell its bonds to other institutional investors locally and overseas, no problem.

Don't get this backwards, like that idiot Balding, who knows this well but deliberately inverts it to fool gullible Singaporeans.

If CPF were to invest in foreign g'ment bonds, which country do you feel it should invest in, of better financial standing than Singapore? Don't you get it?

3Boys:

Are we able to draw our CPF fund when we have reached our retirement age when the amount is below the limit?

Are we able to use the amount in medisave account in full if we are contracted with a terminal illness that will definitely lead to death within a short period of time. As far as i know, the answer is NO as most of time we will need to co-pay with cash and there are limit setted to prevent us from using the full sum even when our days is numbered due to serious illness.

As for being Balderash, sorry, that is probably the only \"transparent\" data we can obtain regarding CPF, GIC, Temasek.

WeiHan:

3Boys:

[quote=\"WeiHan\"]

I don't understand your logic especially the last statement. Why shouldn't POOR people expect a decent return in their saving?

The issue here is that if the gov make money from the borrowed money from CPF, they keep the excess return, but if there is a loss, then the tax payer will bear the cost.

How do you mean? The loss is born by the institution making the investment. The CPF return is guranteed to the CPF holder.

The government already CLEARLY demonstrated it can borrow money at CHEAPER cost than CPF. It does not NEED to borrow from CPF at 2.5% to 4%, it can issue 5 year bonds at 2.5%, it can issue 20 year bonds at 3.375%, with NONE of the political and social hassle.

And they are getting grief for that?