Tuesday, 18 September 2007

Speech on the Ministerial Statement on CPF Reforms: 18 September 2007

This is the prepared text of my speech delivered in Parliament earlier today. I have some further thoughts on the points made in my speech, which I'll post another day -- need to work on my speech for the en bloc changes. The CNA video clip of my speech is here. [Update: Me on YouTube, in 2 parts at here and here]

Speech on the Minister Statement on CPF Reforms and Other Measures for a Secure Retirement

1. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

2. At the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister had announced some far-reaching changes to the CPF scheme. The Minister provided some important details to this House yesterday.

3. Any Government measure that enhances and increases Singaporeans’ savings can only be a good thing. Based on the figures and projections released by the Government yesterday, Singaporeans would be better off and better prepared for the hard realities of a longer life. The Minister’s assurance that under the new system, all CPF members would receive higher interest payments, is comforting.

4. But to me, the real question is whether we can do more. Can we do more, in a manner that is balanced and sensible, and does not involve unwarranted or unjustifiable risks, costs or trade-offs? I think we can.

Poor rate of returns on CPF balances

5. Sir, the poor rate of returns on CPF balances is one of the main reasons why the existing CPF scheme, without reform, will be inadequate to meet Singaporeans’ retirement needs. As a long-term retirement savings plan, the CPF’s rate of return is crucial. Unfortunately, the rate of return enjoyed by CPF members has been poor.

6. In a 2006 paper[1], two NUS economists argued that “CPF members have not benefited from the power of compound interest”. They estimated that from 1987 to 2004, the real rate of return credited to CPF members was only 1.2% per annum. This was contrasted with an equivalent rate of 3.39% for EPF members in Malaysia. This shows just how poor CPF returns have been, when compared with other countries’ provident fund systems.

7. Now, the Minister has announced an improved rate of 3.5% for up to $20,000 in the Ordinary Account. Let’s put that into perspective.

8. Since last December, insurance company Aviva has advertised a product called BIG e. This insurance product targets CPF members, providing a guaranteed return of 3.5% per annum for CPF funds parked with it, subject to a minimum investment of $5000. Aviva fixes this rate every month in advance, but it has stayed at 3.5% since the product was introduced in December 2006. Funds invested with Aviva can be withdrawn at any time without penalty.

9. How is Aviva able to offer such a product and still make profits? Why can’t the CPF Board match Aviva’s rate for all CPF balances in the Ordinary Account? My layman’s perspective cannot comprehend this, and I hope that the Minister would explain.

10. More fundamentally, I remain unconvinced that the CPF Board cannot obtain better returns on members’ balances. The Minister took pains to explain why the full investment route, as he called it, was unsuitable, and I thank him for the explanation.

11. This presumably means that the previously proposed low-cost pension fund will now be shelved. The key obstacle seems to be the need to ensure that CPF returns are risk-free.

12. Sir, in the first place, I think some Singaporeans would ague that the CPF is not risk-free, but is instead subject to different risks, specifically, the risk of government intervention. It can take the form of deferred withdrawals, higher Minimum Sum requirements, and now even a compulsory annuity, but the net effect is the same: interference with members’ entitlement to their funds.

13. I will put that aside for now. I would like to discuss the Minister’s reasoning, about the impracticability of delivering higher returns while shielding members from volatility. The Minister said that this would have meant subsidising losses using other members’ or taxpayers’ money.

14. But CPF savings are meant for the very long term. Let’s just take the SMRA funds for example. The Minister himself acknowledged that the ideal peg for the SMRA rate would actually have been a 30-year Singapore Government Security, which the Minister estimated would return 4% per annum if it did exist.

15. Over a 30-year time frame, market volatility would even itself out. The Minister referred to recent financial market turmoil as a timely reminder of the risks of the full investment route. But Sir, even with the recent turmoil, even with the ST Index briefly dipping below 3000 points a few weeks back, the STI still closed at 3,476 points yesterday, up 14.4% year-to-date.

16. Yes, short-term fluctuations may be difficult to stomach. But over the very long run, they will smoothen out. Surely, over a 30-year time frame, the average returns would exceed 4% per annum. Surely, even if the short-term risk is borne by the Government, it will be able to even out that risk over the long term.

17. The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation provides a great example. Last July, at the GIC’s 25th anniversary dinner, the Minister Mentor disclosed that the GIC had earned returns of 8.2% in Singapore dollar terms over its 25 years of existence. I understand that the GIC has indicated that over the next 25 years, a more realistic expectation would be 6 to 8% per year.

18. The GIC manages our reserves. I would expect the Government to be no less careful with our hard-earned reserves, than the CPF Board is with members’ balances. I am confident that the Government will agree, that the chances of the GIC earning less than the CPF rates are very, very low at the very most. Shouldn’t we structure CPF policy around the likelihood of long-term gains, and not the improbability of sub-par gains, especially bearing in mind the substantial opportunity costs to CPF members of the latter option? If the Government is able and willing to adopt a long-term view with our reserves, then why cannot the CPF Board take a similar approach with at least the SMRA balances, or even a portion of Ordinary Account balances?

19. Indeed, it seems that the GIC may already be managing CPF balances. It is just that CPF members are not benefiting from it. The CPF Board invests the bulk of CPF balances in Government bonds. These bonds pay a rate equal to the rate that the CPF Board has to pay members. But what does the Government do with the funds it raises?

20. According to a 2002 paper published by the Asian Development Bank Institute[2], the Government invests those funds with the GIC. If the returns are as high as 8.2% per year in Singapore dollar terms between 1981 and 2006, or 6 to 8% for the next 25 years, then why are CPF members being deprived of the benefit of the GIC’s fund management expertise?

21. What does all this mean for members? The 2002 paper said, and I quote:

This arrangement has not provided members with high enough real returns to capture the power of compound interest. To the extent the Government earns a higher rate of return on the CPF funds than what it pays to members; there is an implicit tax on CPF wealth. This tax is likely to be fairly large and regressive, as low-income members are likely to have most of their non-housing wealth in the form of CPF balances.

22. That paper went on to state:

To the extent that the [GIC’s] return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, large implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members.

23. Sir, how much has this contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves, with an aging population with insufficient retirement savings? And if we do not rectify this, are we not perpetuating this undesirable state of affairs?

24. Going back to the proposed low-cost pension fund, its purpose was to give all Singaporeans, especially lower-income Singaporeans, better returns on their CPF balances. Such investment opportunities are typically unavailable to lower-income Singaporeans.

25. Even as Fullerton Fund Management, a Temasek Holdings unit, seeks to manage funds from institutional investors and high-net worth individuals, the Government declines to set up a low-cost fund for lower-income Singaporeans. That seems inequitable to me. Worse, it condemns Singaporeans to an unjustifiably low rate of return, one that contributes greatly to Singaporeans needing to continue working longer.

Nature of members’ rights over CPF funds

26. Sir, the Minister has also announced that a committee will be formed to study the proposed compulsory annuity scheme. I trust that this House will be given the chance to debate the committee’s findings at the appropriate time.

27. But for present purposes, it is worth discussing what a compulsory annuity would mean for CPF members. It represents an unprecedented inroad into members’ ownership rights over their CPF funds. Prior to this, members have been restricted in what they can do with their funds, but they are not forced to spend on anything. Schemes like MediShield, ElderShield, the Dependent Protection Scheme and the Home Protection Scheme are all optional, although some are opt-out.

28. The compulsory annuity, even if limited to some but not all members, would be a very different animal. Members will be compelled to purchase an annuity, from which they may get nothing.

29. In insurance terms, it is risk pooling. But viewed in a different way, it is equivalent to the Government expropriating CPF balances to fund an annuity for the group of Singaporeans living beyond 85. From yet another perspective, it is tantamount to a tax for the same purpose.

30. All this represents a sea-change in the nature of CPF members’ rights over their CPF balances. It means that CPF members do not really own their CPF funds, because the Government is able and willing to impose policies to compel members to use their funds in a certain way, even against their strongly-expressed wishes.

31. This week, it is a compulsory annuity. But if we take that first step, will it prove to be a slippery slope of encroachment onto CPF members’ rights? What will it be next week, next year, next decade? An increase in the annuity amount? Some other compulsory scheme?

32. We really do need to have a thorough debate on what it means to be a CPF member. Do CPF funds belong to CPF members individually, and what rights do they have in determining how it is spent?

33. I hope that the Government, the committee to be set up, and my fellow Members will think about and debate this fundamental question. The potential consequences are much more far-reaching than simply insuring against longevity risk.

Adequacy of proposed changes

34. Sir, the final part of my speech touches on the adequacy of the proposed changes, in facing the challenges posed by an aging population.

35. CPF is a fully-funded, defined-contribution scheme. It is premised on members getting what they pay in. But what about those who do not pay much, or anything, in?

36. In 2005, two World Bank economists published a paper setting out the World Bank’s thinking on how countries should structure their pension systems[3]. They recommended a five-pillar approach to retirement funding. One of their key recommendations was for the state to provide a mandatory basic pillar of minimal pension payments, to provide for the poor.

37. We do not have such a basic pillar in Singapore. But we do have the lifetime poor, those who are born poor, who will die poor, and in between make too little to contribute much, if anything, to CPF. We have the informal workers, who by definition do not contribute to CPF. We have full-time homemakers and other groups, all of whom pay little or nothing in, and so will have little or nothing to take out.

38. The proposed measures will do little for all of these groups. They fail to address the fundamental issue of Singaporeans without any meaningful level of CPF balances in the first place.

39. Some may argue that we have Public Assistance, which is available to those aged 60 years and above who have no means of support. But few people are on PA. Earlier this year, this House was told that less than 3000 households are on PA. And that figure includes all recipients of PA, not just those who are too old to work.

40. I am sure we have a lot more than 3000 elderly persons with little or no CPF or other retirement savings. Yet, they are not on PA, for whatever reason. Obviously, PA does not fulfill the function of the basic pillar recommended by the World Bank.

41. What do we do about them? We encourage them to work, and to work longer. What if they do not, or cannot? Does that mean that they do not deserve to be supported in their old age? I hope not. But the proposed changes do nothing to help them.

42. So from this perspective, the proposed changes are inadequate. Indeed, focusing our approach to an aging population so heavily, arguably even exclusively, on the CPF scheme will inevitably result in such a gap.

43. The proposed changes are inadequate from another perspective. The proposed compulsory annuity as described would result in a payout of $250 to $300 per month to those aged 85 as of 2042. Assuming 1.5% inflation every year, that amount in 2042 would be worth only $149 to $178 in today’s dollars.

44. The compulsory annuity is supposed to provide a subsistence payout in case people live longer than they thought they would. But is $149, or even $178, enough even for a subsistence existence?

45. Remember, the fundamental premise for the compulsory annuity is that people are myopic and unable to save enough to support themselves, so they need a lifeline if they happen to live past 85. So there must also necessarily be the assumption that those relying on the annuity would have no other sources of income. What would they then do?

46. Sir, the Minister did acknowledge these gaps in his statement. It is therefore a little bit of a pity that the Minister did not also announce help measures that would be made available to those who need assistance. Unless and until that is done, the proposed changes do not, in my view, provide a comprehensive or adequate response to the issue of an aging population.

Conclusion

47. Sir, I do agree with the Minister on the need for a strong and fully-funded CPF system, based on defined contributions and not defined benefits. That has to be the foundation. That is a given. Any other system would be difficult to sustain.

48. But at the same time, I think we need to do better. And we can. We are able to extract higher returns from CPF balances, thanks to the GIC’s expertise. So why are we not passing these higher returns to CPF members?

49. Until we do so, why are we considering implementing a compulsory annuity, which will fundamentally change the nature and dynamics of CPF members’ relationship with their CPF balances? Why are we so ready to encroach on their ownership rights over their CPF funds?

50. We explicitly acknowledge that problems will remain, despite the proposed changes. So why were there no policies announced on how to address the residual problems? This is a significant omission.

51. We all agree that the aging population is an important and pressing issue facing Singapore. I only differ from the Minister on what can be done.

52. The Government is already doing a lot: the re-employment legislation to kick in by 2012; the higher Workfare payments for those aged 55 and above; the proposal for the HDB to “buy-back” the tail-end of certain HDB leases. These are all excellent initiatives. I hope, for the sake of the future of all Singaporeans, that the Government will do more. Because it can, and it must.

[1] Social Security Policy in an Era of Globalization and Competition: Challenges for Southeast Asia, Mukul G. Asher and Amarendu Nandy, 2006

[2] The Role of the Global Economy in Financing Old Age: The Case of Singapore, Mukul G. Asher, 2002

[3] Old-Age Income Support in the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform, Robert Holzman and Richard Hinz, 2005

27 comments:

family man said...

Thank you Sir.

I am sadden that this speech was truncated in the MSM to such a point that the key points were all left out. I thank you for speaking out the truth on how many of us feels, and wish you more good years in parliament!

@drian said...

you really bring up very good points. now we can only hope these will be heeded.

simple said...

Hi Mr Siew,

You are indeed a true Son of Singapore. The issues you have fearlessly brought up here are dear to the hearts of everyone but which we are all handicapped by limited avenue to express. I can't think of a public policy more crucial or far reaching for present and future generations than the one the govt is initiating to craft in respect of the ageing population and the funding required, with CPF or otherwise. No doubt it is a challenging problem which the govt has no real experience whilst we had a young population. I am also of the view that the currently proposed changes to the CPF funds is fundamentally flawed and at best not even a half measure to solve the financing we need for our retirement-to-deathbed. The most important ingredient for any pension-like programme has to be MONEY. But the govt true to form is not putting much public money on the table ( for reasons stated below I don't count the 1% CPF rate increase). It is ironic that in a first-world and prosperous country which has one of the highest individual savings rate, the populace are aggravating over the ability to live the last years of their lives with dignity and even just basic comfort. This while the public coffers are growing and bulging and regretably while the govt seems to be on a free spending military program. For decades, 30% or more (ie $10 billion) of our annual Budget is spent on Defence. In comparison, our Health Budget is a mere one-fifth of the Defence Budget while the regressive GST rate had to be raised to fund Workfare and other help schemes. From this perspective, the govt seems to have an almost insatiable appetite for military spending and accumulation of state-of-the-art arsenal of missiles, fighters, tanks, submarines etc but have been very reluctant and slow in providing funding for the welfare of its people. Imminent military aggression from neighbouring countries or otherwise, in these days of multi-lateral global secuirty pacts and diplomacy, is most unlikely and arming our country to a high state of readiness for battle is sheer mis-allocation of finite public funds. Strong we should be but spending 5%-6% of our GDP on Defence while most of the rest of the world, large and small, are spending on average less than half of this rate and while the rest of ASEAN in aggregate spends less than Singapore alone, is an overkill.
The govt has got its priority and balance wrong, choosing military prowess over people's welfare. Just a 10-15% annual savings on Defence spendings, for example, will do wonders for our people welfare programs.

I also stongly agree with you about getting better returns on our CPF funds. For decades we have been shortchanged for the poor CPF rates. Whatever initiatives or enterprises that the Singapore govt takes, let's not lose sight that we the people are the primary and principal stakeholders. In so far as our CPF moneys are entrusted with the govt and being ultimately put to good and profitable use, I fully agree with you that it is totally reasonable, equitable and rightful that CPF contributors have a fair share of the returns, and not just the crumbs. Drawing an analogy to a bank, we should be compensated as funded stakeholders ( as preferential if not as ordinary shareholders)and not merely as depositors. I believe GIC, as compared to Temasek Holdings, has a more conservative and less risky investment policy and I have no problem to use it as the vehicle for funds management in this respect

In parting, I urge you to push these issues unrelentlessly in Parliament and to the public at large through all kinds of media possible. We should not let this govt's initiative get cast in concrete and bring this precedence down the wrong road of no return. Paying higher rates on our CPF funds is what we basically deserve but which is long over-due. Solving the ageing population challenge is a job the govt is paid to do for the people. Paying 1% more on CPF funds as proposed should not be taken as a carrot to justify and make us abdicate our rights over our CPF money.

Thank you, and please be strong and crusade on.

Gerald said...

Well said! Bravo!

at82 said...

Great Speech! You really hit the core issues!

Maybe u can post the youtube clips up, cos CNA clips will be taken down after awhile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu9LZv3ws3E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YKtoFT3vnI

o said...

I find it incredible that it isn't known whether or not CPF funds are invested in the GIC. Complete transparency should be required for mandatory savings plans. Singaporeans should not tolerate this situation.

Overall, I think this was an excellent speech. But there are two points that I wish to nitpick:

-The Aviva product is guaranteed by Aviva, which is different than a guarantee by the Singapore government. This is not a trivial point given the events that occured in the last month with Coventree Inc., Sentinel Asset Management and Northern Rock.

-You say that "Over a 30-year time frame, market volatility would even itself out." However, there have been various 30-year time frames over which the Dow Jones Index has declined in value on an inflation adjusted basis.

On another subject altogether, you were recently referenced in a CNA article at: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/300607/1/.html

The first three paragraphs:
Foreigners will not be allowed to interfere in Singapore's domestic political scene and this includes support for or against the gay cause.

The Home Affairs Ministry reiterated this in Parliament on Tuesday, when it explained why it revoked an approved licence for gay activist Professor Douglas Sanders to speak at a public lecture in Singapore on 7 August.

Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong had voiced concerns that the Police may not have fully deliberated the circumstances before they granted the licence the first time around.


Is it just me, or does this make it seem as if you are suggesting that the police should have more fully deliberated before granting the licence, and should have initially not granted the licence rather than later withdrawing it? I know your views on the subject so do not think this to be case. Maybe I'm reading this wrongly.

Siew Kum Hong said...

To family man: I will not guess as to why the MSM omitted those parts. But it may well be innocuous -- with limited news inches, it's a little hard to explain the somewhat complicated concepts involved.

To @drian, gerald and at82: Thank you.

To simple: You may want to see my next post, which will contain some thoughts on the issues you have raised here.

To o: I agree re the 30-year timeframe for DJI. It all depends on the start and end dates. But my understanding is that if the entire lifetime of DJI is used, then there is a net gain at a substantial rate. So it is a question of when the member has to withdraw his funds, which is where the question of the 30-year time frame comes in, because that is the average duration that SMRA balances stay there. I have some thoughts on how that risk can be buffered, in a fiscally responsible manner. I will post about that in my next post.

As for the Douglas Sander issue, CNA did not misquote me. In an ideal world, I think the police should have granted the licence. In our real world, I think that given the realities, if the police are not going to grant a licence, then they should have done it right the first time round instead of wasting everyone's time.

In any event, there is a back-story which I am not at liberty to disclose.

at82 said...

Dear O,

I agree with your point, however I doubt that bonds during that period you mention is a good hedge against the inflation either.

Moreover, it isn't necessary to just invest in a sole index. The money can can be invested in all sorts of indexes all over the world.

If the $ is kept there for 30 yrs, the returns the chances are the returns will be much better than what is currently available.

James Chia said...

Well said Mr Siew! Singaporeans really need more people like you who are willing to ask tough questions in the Parliament. We don't need 'Yes' men who will praise the govt for whatever policies that they dish out. Neither do we need a compliant media who will report all the 'good news', painting a very good picture.

o said...

SKH: I didn't think that they had misquoted you, but I thought that the context in which they framed your reference was misleading. But again, maybe I'm misreading it.

SKH & at82: I agree, it would be better to invest in a global basket of indices rather than a single index like the DJI or STI. And yes, the chances are that the returns will be much better than what is currently available. The key word is "chances". There is still a non-zero chance that this basket of indices will lose value over some period. For a savings account, there should be absolutely no dependence on equities. If somebody wishes to invest this money in equities, then my understanding of the CPF is that they are free to do that (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point).

Usual bonds may not be a good hedge on inflation, but the US Treasury offers a product called TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_security#TIPS
These are bonds that are indexed to the inflation rate, as measured by CPI. The Singapore government should be able to offer a similar product.

Ruok said...

Mr Siew,

You've earned my RESPECT.

moneyyyy said...

Thumbs up for your Speech for your CPF. Singapore needs more people like you to be in politics.

Regards

Andy

Hannes said...

Hello Siew Kum - fantastic speech! We have one question though:

Are these CPF changes decided, is this a new law, is it passed in parliament or how is this process?


In all democracies I know, the process goes like this:

1) Discussion in parliament
2) Details are fixed
3) It is decided.

In Singapore, it seems to be the exact opposite, first the decision is announced in a speech, then details are revealed in a particular newspaper, and THEN these details are discussed in parliament for one day!

So, when and how is this change which is a drastic one decided?

This is a crucial question in a democratic country. No Singaporean can answer me this question!

Hoping for an answer, thanks

ExExpat

Teoh Yi Chie said...

Nice argument with constructive suggestions. The next question is, what's preventing the government from going forward.

Terence said...

Mr Siew,

Just a sincere thank you for making that speech regarding cpf reforms.

Its been an extremely long time that I remember (maybe even I cant remember at all) a speech that matches yours in precise details, passion and simple understandable terms, in our one-party dominated parliament.

God bless you and please, I urge you to continue to speak on our behalf, 'the silent majority'.

Regards
terche911

Kaffein said...

Just 2 words of sincerity - Thank you.

Kaffein

Siew Kum Hong said...

To everyone: Thanks for the kind words.

To o: I've been taking a break from all this stuff (this past week has been really tough), but hopefully I can respond more fully to you in a separate post later tonight or tomorrow.

To hannes: This week's debate was on the announced changes. It was not on a piece of legislation per se. I think most/all of the changes do not require legislation to pass, but if they do, an amendment bill will be introduced in due course. For more details on how Parliament works, you can check out Wikipedia.

Focus said...

I really think you've earned your allowance in parliament unlike some of the other NMPs or even the opposition members (apart from Slyvia Lim).

Hope to see more of your outstanding commentary before PAP feels the heat and co-opt you into their wings.. haha.. Hmm.. that would be good pay too. :)

Siew Kum Hong said...

To focus: Thank you.

Yeazid said...

Dear Sir,

To make a difference, we have to be THE difference.. and you have shown that.

A lot of things go on behind the curtains and far too many heroes like you have gone unnoticed.

I would like to thank you on behalf of every concerned citizen.

May God maintain your courage, nobility and strength to face the day to day crusades that comes your way.

God Bless,
Yeazid

dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

Choirul said...

koran terbaru, facebook login, fb login, login fb, fb, informasi terbaru, profil artis, berita

terkini
, berita terkini, cerita

lucu
, foto lucu, cara menurunkan berat badan, cerita lucu, sms lucu, point

blank
, cara mengencangkan kulit, cara menyembuhkan sakit autis, cara menghilangkan bau keringat, cara merampingkan perut, cara menaikkan berat badan, tangga lagu indonesia, alamat twitter artis, tante girang

Juan said...

gulamin chat en kaliteli sohbet chat siteleri ve sohbet odaları olmaya aday canlı sohbet sitesidir. sohbet siteleri arasında lider olmaya devam ediyor.
Ayrıca ahmet kaya sitemizde sanatçıya ait albümler ve haberler bulunmaktadır. bedava sohbet etmek icin linklere tıklayınız.sohbet siteleri engüzel sohbet burda...
sohbet odası sohbet odası

lagu indonesia mp3 terbaru said...

thanks to admin new cars review, auto price, cars review, cars specs, informasi terbaru, berita terbaru, film terbaru

lagu indonesia mp3 terbaru said...

good blog, i like this, thx admin, please suport my post :D Peluang Bisnis Online Tanpa Ribet and Peluang Bisnis Online Tanpa Ribet

Mufid said...

Hi.. Thanks for this awesome and useful post..
News Car Info Daily Health Tips Growing Houseplants 
Dhandycraft Feminine Beauty

indonesia said...

thx to admin
Century 21 Broker Properti Jual Beli Sewa Rumah Indonesia
century 21,
jual beli properti,
century 21 broker properti,
Jual Beli Rumah,
Kontes Century 21 Broker Properti,
Jual Beli Sewa Rumah Indonesia,
Ajang Kontes SEO Century 21