CPF Changes

problems with the adjustment to the CPF scheme:

I have worked hard, I want to enjoy now
the other problem that the government faces is the mentality many older workers have. many feel that they have worked hard, contributed to their families and nation. they ought to have the luxury of enjoying themselves. psychologically, the delay in the DDA is to these people a great blow as they find themselves having to push back their plans to 'chill'.

of course, our government, being clinically rational, has good intentions for the delay in the DDA. the move is necessary because it is a fact that Singaporeans are going to live longer. the question is whether people, while living longer, will be living better as well. or will these people, while living longer, become a financial burden to the state. the idea is then that the government should do something to ensure that Singaporeans, while living longer also live quality, independent lives. the way to do this, in the government's view, is for people to save more for themselves so that they rely on themselves. the government's role, in their own opinion, is therefore to set up schemes and put up structures to help Singaporeans save more to ensure long quality lives.

however, rational as the government's thinking might be, it still does not address the psychological and emotional impact on a person who was hoping to retire and enjoy life's luxuries. this is further compounded by the second problem.

Employability of lowly skilled, lowly educated elderly workers

our economy has evolved to become a 'knowledge economy'. jobs created are in the higher end scale, demanding for highly educated people or at least someone skilled enough to operate in an environment of high technology. while this is happening, jobs at the lower end, production line staff, technicians, are quickly dwindling. lowly educated workers find themselves irrelevant to the new economy.

for those who are younger, they might be able to retrain, re-educate themselves. employers might even find it worthwhile, economically, to provide for this retraining and re-education. the mathematics is simple. a young worker, if i spend $x training him, he might be able to provide me $10x worth of value-add because he can work for me for many years. but what about the older workers?

they are caught by 2 problems. firstly, a good portion of them are trained to fit into the 'old' economy, one where manufacturing was a very major engine of the economy. now they find that much of what they do are either relocated to other countries or taken over by machines with cheaper processes. the same pool of people now fight for less jobs, possibly resulting in many of them losing their jobs. secondly, they find that they do not have skills/educational level that allows them to be re-employed in the high growth sectors of today's economy. many of them do not have the financial resources to re-train/re-educate themselves. employers won't want to do so either, because it just does not make economic sense.

the delay of the draw down age therefore means that those who lose their jobs at say 50 would potentially have to live 15 years without a stable source of money. now if the government legislates that employers hire these older workers, the knock-on effect would be that the young lowly educated and lowly skilled will now have to compete with a large number of lowly skilled and educated workers, all the while the pool of work available is shrinking.

therefore, it would be a good idea for the government to seriously consider how to constantly ensure that workers, not just older ones (because by the time the worker becomes old, it is already too late) upgrade themselves to stay relevant to the changing demands of our economy.

personally, i will take care of my parents. since i'm already taking care of my parents, why should i take care of other people's parents? if i want to take care of anyone's parents, i will do it on my own, not through the government. i therefore object to the tax money that i pay to be used to take care of other people's parents. so i want a government that creates an environment where people can take care of themselves, take care of their own parents without depending on the state to give out money. of course that is ideal which in reality cannot be achieved. that being the case, i want my government to create a situation where it can minimise the amount of money being given out. train workers so that they can continue working, increase the returns on investments of our savings. at most supplement income. but as a citizen, i am completely against the idea of just handing out money. the day that happens, i think that the government would have failed, that we, as a people, would have failed.