CPF Rant

A ranting comment on the CPF minimum sum, and a ranting rebuttal. From Facebook comment.

I should mention that there are some salty language, but it is in Hokkien (I believe) and most young people probably don't know Hokkien. Those that do know Hokkien, and salty Hokkien at that, they don't need my protection.

Sam Lee wrote: "U all keep your Fxxking mouth shut !!! Answer my question if u can . Dont talk cock & simg song . In 1970' s when i start working , they said i can withdraw CPF at 55 . When i reached 55 , & i cant withdraw CPF , why ? If they want to change CPF rules , should effect from that date , not when they promlsed us , in 1970's . So who is telling the truth !!!"

You are over 55 and you still argue like a like a si gin-na. Grow up lao chiao! Last time is last time. Now is now. Last time your grandmother was a virgin! So what?

Last time (in the 70s) when you started working, CPF contribution was 16% (1970). in 1977, the Special Account (which eventually became the minimum sum was created. Contributions from Employer and Employee totaled 31%. DID YOU OBJECT AT THAT TIME? 1977 was 38 years ago. HHH and RN were not even born yet. What did you do? Accept it, right?

In 1981, the CPF was allowed to be used for buying Residential properties. If you eventually bought property (Private or HDB Resale) you made use of this scheme WHICH WAS NOT AGREED TO WHEN YOU STARTED WORK. So, **IF** you did buy private property or HDB resale flat eventually, you are a hypocrite. But I'll assume that you didn't.

In 1987, the Minimum Sum scheme was introduced starting at $30,000. Did you object? That was 28 years ago. HHH was still not born yet. Roy just started Primary School. What did YOU do? Nothing?

In 1990, Medishield was introduced. This was also not agreed to when you started work. Did you object? Have you ever used Medishield? If you have, hypocrite!

And all the while, between 1970 and today, the CPF contribution starting at 16% (total of both employers and employees) rose to a high of 50% (1984), then was cut in order to reduce costs for employers during a financial downturn (1987/88), and then slowly restored, until today it is about 37%. 

If you started working in 1974, did you refuse to pay more than 15% when the rates increase all the way until 25% in 1984? Did your employers have a right NOT to pay the increase CPF contributions?

Do you know what would happen if they did? They would be charged in court, and if found guilty for not complying with the law, fined and even imprisoned. Why?

Because it is not a promise or just terms of employment between the govt and the employer and the employee. IT'S THE FAR KING LAW, goondu!

Break promise? Break your far king HEAD ah! So old already still arguing like gin-na, taking goondu ideas from shit-for-brains si gin-na and chow gin-na. 

House/Family got rules. Country got laws. Shit-for-Brains Goondus have wet dreams and Old Fools following them. There is no fool like an old fool, and no old fool like an old fool who listens to young fools... and have a CB mouth.

Last time is last time. Now is now. in 1970, the life expectancy for a man was 65 years old. What if there is a CPF scheme? If you can confirm you will DIE when you reach 65, you can get ALL your CPF at 55? Good idea? 

No need new scheme. Already have. If you have terminal illness they will Give Back Your CPF! Don't even need to promise you will die at 65, as long as you have terminal illness. And don't need to wait till 55.

Sorry, stupidity is not a terminal illness. (So you can't use that to get your CPF early.) That is why we still have so many goondus around. 

You don't like the CPF minimum sum law? You don't like the govt to take your money? So you don't pay income tax, lah? You don't pay GST, issit? Those are laws also. Laws that TAKE your money, and those NEVER give you back money.

Yes, Sam, Singapore does not belong to your father. Or to HHH. Or to RN. Or to you. Not happy with the law and want to change it? Can! Just convince enough Singaporeans that the law is bad and they will HAVE TO change it. Can't convince enough people? Have to harass and heckle children? Decide that if the rest of Singapore won't agree with you, then just break the law? Oi! Your grandfather's Singapore issit? Far King CB Tua Tow Sway Nao!

[Edited 29 Feb 2016. I recently realised that original extract of the comment by "Sam Lee" had been sanitised, and was not particularly "salty". I have retrieved his full comment from 16 Oct 2015 from a ChnnelNewsAsiaSingapore post (on how the trial of the HHH & RN would likely enter a second tranche, and how HHH then said that she would probably plead guilty cos she had holiday plans), and it is now reflected in the post above.]