I refer to Dr N Varaprasad’s and Madam Margaret Ong’s letters “Early CPF withdrawals should not burden others” (Feb 10) and “CPF withdrawal: What about pioneers?” (Feb 9, online). Both writers are pioneers, but have opposite outlooks.
There would not be this debate if we could know how long we will live. But since we cannot, I stand on Dr Varaprasad’s side, cautioning against early Central Provident Fund withdrawal.
As he pointed out, dying early is a possibility, but living longer is a probability. In fact, the high probability of Singaporeans living longer is what prompted the CPF adequacy review and the panel’s recommendations.
But the split between Dr Varaprasad’s approach and Mdm Wong’s outlook is irreconcilable. Just as the two ends of a bell curve, there are savers and spenders.
Ironically, it is the latter who want early withdrawal and who need to have the discipline to save for old age.
The CPF started as a mandatory national retirement saving scheme and, therefore, includes the savers and the spenders, the high-income and the low-income.
By the time of retirement, it is probable that savers would have savings to supplement their CPF and spenders would probably depend more on their CPF. So, the recommendation for more withdrawal flexibility goes against the intent of the CPF.
I have passed my 69th birthday and share the same philosophy of my cohort that we cannot bring our money with us when we die. But that is for discretionary savings.
To me, CPF savings should be non-discretionary, for the rainy day that might possibly never come. But what if the unpredictable rain comes? What if we live past the life expectancy of 82.5 years?
I have seen old people left behind by society because their money had depleted for whatever reasons. It is sad because society equates wealth with well-being and respectability.
The problem of our CPF being inadequate is partly because our spending years are getting longer.
I would heed Dr Varaprasad’s voice to be prudent, lest in those later years, I have to be dependent on my children or others/Government and lose my self-respect and my accustomed lifestyle.
There would not be this debate if we could know how long we will live. But since we cannot, I stand on Dr Varaprasad’s side, cautioning against early Central Provident Fund withdrawal.
As he pointed out, dying early is a possibility, but living longer is a probability. In fact, the high probability of Singaporeans living longer is what prompted the CPF adequacy review and the panel’s recommendations.
But the split between Dr Varaprasad’s approach and Mdm Wong’s outlook is irreconcilable. Just as the two ends of a bell curve, there are savers and spenders.
Ironically, it is the latter who want early withdrawal and who need to have the discipline to save for old age.
The CPF started as a mandatory national retirement saving scheme and, therefore, includes the savers and the spenders, the high-income and the low-income.
By the time of retirement, it is probable that savers would have savings to supplement their CPF and spenders would probably depend more on their CPF. So, the recommendation for more withdrawal flexibility goes against the intent of the CPF.
I have passed my 69th birthday and share the same philosophy of my cohort that we cannot bring our money with us when we die. But that is for discretionary savings.
To me, CPF savings should be non-discretionary, for the rainy day that might possibly never come. But what if the unpredictable rain comes? What if we live past the life expectancy of 82.5 years?
I have seen old people left behind by society because their money had depleted for whatever reasons. It is sad because society equates wealth with well-being and respectability.
The problem of our CPF being inadequate is partly because our spending years are getting longer.
I would heed Dr Varaprasad’s voice to be prudent, lest in those later years, I have to be dependent on my children or others/Government and lose my self-respect and my accustomed lifestyle.
