Today I went to the washroom at Clementi MRT station. On my way out, I noticed that the toilet attendant - an elderly man who looked in his 60s – 70s, was preparing a bowl of plain porridge to eat. I felt sorry for him, especially when I am so lucky compared to him. If my mom gives me a bowl of plain porridge, I’ll probably refuse to touch it. At the same time, I felt very sad that he had to work at that age and eat plain porridge.
A couple days ago, I saw in the news that Singapore was ranked somewhere near the top in some global survey on the percentage of people in their 60s who are still working (I wasn’t really paying attention to what was exactly being said and I can’t really be bothered to go and verify the details). If I recall correctly the authorities were actually quite proud of it.
I find it quite strange to be proud of such an “achievement”. As in, I hope I don’t have to work anymore when I am in my 60s. I feel that at that age, I should be sitting back in an armchair and watching my grandchildren grow up. Or, if I am in better health, do some gardening and go travelling.
Neither do I expect my mother to be still working in her 60s. It’s quite sad isn’t it, to work and work until death? Life is only so short. Why do we have to spend the bulk of our lives working to pay for an overpriced HDB apartment that we will have to give up one day for a coffin?
A HDB apartment isn’t exactly comfortable to live in anyway. They are getting smaller, crampier and more expensive these days. I’d settle for a condo or house in Thailand anytime for the same amount of money.
When I was in the army, my boss once told me he had to pay his HDB loan up to the age of 63. Although his household income is quite high, it still sounded quite bad. It means that he has got to work till at least 63 to ensure that he will have enough money to pay the loan and for retirement.
I feel that our government should think about it’s policies on the workforce. It is true that it’s good for the economy to have lower-cost (elderly) workers. It’s also commendable that some Singaporean companies are willing to employ these elderly people. However, why do our elderly need to work at that age in the first place?
I feel that there should be some kind of state pension program for the elderly, instead of making the people work for their every cent (the use of CPF for old age savings). Afterall, if we think about it, it is that generation of people who helped to build up Singapore’s prosperity.
I know Singapore is a meritocracy. But no matter how big or small a role they played in their working lives, there is no reason to base everything on merit. For example, a cleaner plays a very small role, but he also helps to maintain Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green country, right? In his old age, shouldn’t the government do more to help him enjoy his remaining years… rather than trying to be “helpful” by encouraging him to work longer (possibly to his death)?
Similarly, when I get to that age, I would have helped to maintain Singapore’s prosperity with over 30 years of working life. The country prospers partly because of my hard work, why can’t the government give something back to me when I am old? How much money does an old person need to survive on? If European countries can have such schemes, why can’t a wealthy country like Singapore do so?
Afterall, our government has more cash reserves that many other first-world countries. Our government is rich. And it still wants to earn more revenue from the people (think the GST rise), while being miserly and ultra-selective in giving out handouts to those who need it. Like, taking in a dollar from every person and giving out cents selectively.
No related posts.
Keep dreaming and hoping that the mandarins will do something about your concerns – their major concern is how to stay in power as long as possible!
I have seen and known many people who are over 60’s working, happily and voluntarily, in other countries. It is their choice with the kind of work/job they like. The sad thing in Singapore is that many old folks are forced to take work that hey hate to survive – with no pride nor joy.
MM> That’s the point I’m trying to make. If an elderly person wants to keep himself occupied, he can choose whatever that makes him happy – be it volunteer work, hobbies, whatever. When the government takes good care of them, money will probably be a secondary consideration. The primary goal is to be able to do something they like at their age, when they probably don’t have much time or energy left.
In Singapore they are forced by circumstances (the need for $$$) to do work like cleaning… and are paid peanuts.
I wonder if there are any surveys done on the number of elderly Singaporeans who had to work till their last days.
I really don’t get your logic… You have an idealized notion of what retirement is. That’s changing, everywhere in the world. Even in the US and Europe, people are working till older and older. The idea of retirement at 55 was sound in the days when projected life expectancy was in the 60s. Now that life expectancies have increased to the late 70s, it no longer makes sense for retirement to happen at 55. Should you live till 80, and only work for 30 years of your life, that means the government has to take care of you for about 30 years! Would you have contributed enough taxes in your productive years for that to happen realistically?
Next, you ask for a state pension program. You ask why European countries can have such programs while we can’t. As usual the dollars and cents have to add up. Those programs are sustainable (for now at least) because citizens there pay higher taxes! Now if we had to ask for higher taxes from Singaporeans (think 2% hike in GST)… guess what’ll happen? Even in the US, the Social Security program is starting to break down due to many reasons… longer life expectancy, higher costs of living and medical care etc.. They younger generation’s contribution is no longer enough to sustain the pension programs promised to the elders. Now what?
As I said, I think you have a romanticized view of retirement and pensions.
Akira> Just wondering, are you one of the anonymous “pro-establishment” blog readers?
Of course, I am being silly. Even if you are you won’t admit it.
Anyway, you’ve got some point there on the increasing life expectancy.
However, you missed my point. You dissected my words and did not take a holistic view of my opinions.
Alright then, since you prefer to play with numbers:
Even if retirement age is now 62, we still see people beyond that age having to work for a living.
Life expectancy for Singaporeans is now in the 70s. If retirement age is 62, we can safely say that a person at that age has worked for more than 30 years already.
Since life expectancy is 70+, will it be too much to ask the country to pay a pension to the person for the remaining perhaps 15 years of his life?
Subsequently, as life expectancy continues to improve, retirement age will continue to go up and so the number of years that a person will be on pension is kept at about the same level.
Of course, European countries and the USA do have problems with their welfare policies like what you pointed out. However, which country doesn’t have any problems?
Since we do not have a pension program here, we do not face the problems that those countries do. That doesn’t mean that we are any better off than them.
Perhaps for a pension program to be put in place, there needs to be higher taxes. If we consider that out of 4mil people, about 20% are retirees, and that the govt pays $400/mth for each of them… it will cost $3.84 billion annually.
The GST hike will bring in an additional of $1.5 billion revenue annually. That is of course on top of the Net Investment Income and other revenue (income tax, company tax, liquor/tobacco tax, etc).
Add to that Singapore’s current financial position is extremely good considering the foreign reserves of US$134.6 billion (2006 est.) that we have compared to about $24 billion of debt.
This is way better than USA’s $69 billion reserves against $10 TRILLION debt.
In addition, Singapore’s current account stands at $35 billion compared to the USA’s $-862.3 billion (negative).
Considering our reserves have always been growing, there isn’t much fear that a pension program will erode our funds.
Will it be financially difficult to implement a pension program? I doubt so.
Hi Mr Biao,
Working, for the elderly, should be a choice and not a necessity. However, in singapore, it is no longer a choice. There are many reasons why this is so. Globalisation is only part of it. The main problem, I feel, is wages not keeping up with the cost of living, especially for the lower income – as shown by govt statistics.
The main bulk of singaporeans’ savings is in the CPF. But the CPF is also used mainly to pay housing mortgages or loans. Savings are thus depleted by this.
How do we solve this problem? My guess is that the govt will try as much as they can to take care of those who are already “old” but it’s main focus is on those who will be “öld” in about 20/30 years. That’s where the govt’s concern lies.
According to MCYS’ website, we will have about 20% of singaporeans 65 years old and above by then.
Regards,
theonliniecitizen
Yup, I suppose you are right. The govt is certainly encouraging the younger generation to save up for their old age now.
However, my concern is that as per the usual gripes of middle and lower income groups, it is difficult to save up when costs of living are so high and income isn’t catching up.
Those people who are already old, some of them are poor but like many elderly people, perhaps are too proud or stubborn to come out and ask for assistance. We can’t really blame them, because one day we might just become one of them, old and stubborn. When the day comes we will understand how exactly they feel.
Along the lines of welfare, a pension program will certainly benefit this future 20% group of Singaporeans. Or perhaps a pension program can be tweaked to do more for elderly with lower savings and payout less to those wealthy ones.
Add to that Singapore being a small country and well-equipped with tech infrastructure, it would mean that the administrative overheads won’t be as high as administering such a program in other larger countries.
Actually to give some credit to the govt, I must say that in recent years it is certainly putting more attention on welfare programs such as Medisave/CPF tweaks, baby bonuses and so on. However, like what I mentioned in my post… is it a case of taking a dollar from everyone (think GST raise) and giving out cents selectively? Also, do we need to give out baby bonuses to encourage procreation? The responsibilities of parents go far beyond the first few years of baby expenses. We might just end up having lots of children with irresponsible parents who had them just because of the baby bonuses. I suppose the problem is not about how much is being done, but whether the policy makers are climbing up the wrong trees.
Maybe I am over-simplistic about it. To be honest, I don’t really know about how much damage a pension program will cause. I am not an economist, but sometimes I think we really need to think beyond dollars and cents when thinking about the welfare of citizens.
Mr Biao, I would like to add my support to your call for some form of pension to the old folks. You have put up some convincing numbers, but alas, I think our government of the day seems to think that they have to continually grow the reserves till they reach even more astronomical billions, probably because their life and performance bonus depend on this. Money can grow, but I too am concerned that if we are unwilling to spend on the citizens who need it, the government loses its compassion and soul. For a start, the old folks in those poorer household per capita (lowest 20 percentile) can be helped first?
I think most pple would not like to work until their last breath, unless they are hugely compensated for their work (think a politician in his 80s). the only reason why they work then is simply that they simply have no $$$.
“romantization” is linked to economics. of course, if pple had been hit by structural economy changes and global competition at their door-step, then of course retirement in leisure is a romanticized vision for them.
now, if the same agents who brought about these changes can find some compassion in their “socialist” hearts, and since our reserves have posted so impressive returns, then maybe we can help these elderly workers.
i think akira should put on some weights around his joints and go around doing menial tasks for hours before he opens his big mouth… or he can go visit a cardiologist to see if his heart is still there…
“Akira> Just wondering, are you one of the anonymous “pro-establishment” blog readers?”
mrbiao, I would refrain from using ad hominem attacks if I wanted to be taken seriously. Discussion based on the merits of the argument (or lack thereof) is a lot more productive than random attacks on people. Thats the beauty of the internet and the blogosphere isn’t it – purity of ideas.
That said (and as an aside), I think the idea of PAP members (ministers?) posting anonymously on the internet smacks to high heaven of hypocrisy…. but I digress…..
I’d like to touch on your point about Singapore being able to afford a pension due to our large foreign reserves. You give a comparison to the U.S.
“…..Add to that Singapore’s current financial position is extremely good considering the foreign reserves of US$134.6 billion (2006 est.) that we have compared to about $24 billion of debt.
This is way better than USA’s $69 billion reserves against $10 TRILLION debt……”
The reason that the USA doesn’t need foreign reserves is that the US dollar IS the default foreign reserve currency of the world. No need to hoard dollars because you can simply print more of them (or issue more US Treasury bonds to borrow money).
A more accurate measure would also be to use ratios instead of absolute numbers. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt , Singapore is #11 on that list, compared to the USA, which is #34. Why can the US afford a HUGE sovereign debt? Because its got a even bigger economy.
I suspect that you are thinking of our reserves as a “common resource” that all Singaporeans can draw upon. Can I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
and this rather cute game, The Tragedy of the Bunnies http://www.bunnygame.org/
Perhaps you could also model out the effects of raising taxes (no free lunch – any attempt to implement government welfare should be revenue-neutral, at best), on Singapore’s economy in the future. Would it be likely to drag or boost our growth (and hence GDP, and hence tax revenues, which pay for this in the first place)?
awanderingshark> Just like I mentioned, I was just wondering if Akira was one of them. That doesn’t constituite an attack I believe. In fact, I am also wondering if you are one of them. Strange that pro-establishment commentors are all using foreign IP addresses. Again, I’m just wondering, so don’t take me too seriously.
The way they post anonymously, it isn’t surprising for people to wonder whether a pro-establishment commentor is one of them or just somebody interested to discuss without any political motive.
Anyway, just for the sake of clarity I do not blog in support of any party. I just wanted to point out some issues that a little citizen like me will like to see being done.
So you say that US can afford a huge debt because it is a large country. True to a certain extent. However, can you tell me how long more do they need to pay off a $10 TRILLION debt, when they have a negative $800+ billion current account?
I am reiterating again, I am no economist. Maybe I am just being naive, but I still don’t think it is not possible for Singapore to afford a pension plan.
Anyway, I am not saying to draw on the foreign reserves to support the pension plan. That is foolish, although it is true that the reserves are really more than adequate. What I’m trying to point out is that, since our government’s revenue is so healthy and results in growing reserves, putting aside some money for a pension plan wouldn’t be painful.
The tragedy of the commons, is afterall still a controversial issue after nearly half a century. It doesn’t prove anything. Or maybe I am just too stupid to understand it.
With reference to the list of countries by public debt as a ratio of GDP, it doesn’t prove anything either. Estonia is right at the bottom of the list with only 4.8% public debt/GDP… so does that show anything about Estonia’s prosperity?
I do think it’s a better approach to look at absolute figures, and compare them relative to one another… rather than using some vague metrics. Just as some people would say that the Gini coefficient that measures income disparity is not representative of the true situation.
Since you seem so learned in this field, can you enlighten me on why Singapore cannot afford a pension plan? The ball is in your court, and I hope you can convince me and everyone else supporting a pension plan that it isn’t a good idea afterall.
Not too much of textbook stuff, I hope. Real figures are more convincing.
“The way they post anonymously, it isn’t surprising for people to wonder whether a pro-establishment commentor is one of them or just somebody interested to discuss without any political motive.”
My my, someone is paranoid. For the record, I’m not affiliated to a political party, not am I pro-establishment per se. Some parts of their policy I agree with (mostly the economic ones), and most parts I disagree with (mostly the political and freedom of speech related issues). Same way that I agree with the Republicans on most economic isues, and on the social issues, I am essentially very far to the left (e.g., gay marriage (yes please), abortion (yes please), gun control (no thanks))
Foreign IP addresses are there simply because I’m posting from a foreign country! Can’t help that. There are a quite a few Singaporeans overseas who are still interested in the country of their birth and family.
Metrics are useful. That is the reason why banks lend to you based on various ratios (debt to income, loan to value, or why you need a down-payment). Companies are evaluated based on ratios. Real ratios, using real figures – just as real as absolute figures using real figures.
Metrics and ratios make figures more comparable. I’d hazard that Exxon-Mobil owes a few billion dollars more than me, but no problem, since their net income per year is also a few tens of billions more than mine. Metrics make figures more comparabe, not less (given that they are simple and used correctly).
I’m not an economist by training, so I’ll leave the economists to come up with a plan (or you, since you like the pension so much, come up with a way to pay for it!).
I think I’m done here….
awanderingshark> No offence I hope, and thanks for clarifying your non-partisan status.
Paranoid? I don’t insult anybody here, nor do I make fun of any person in particular. As I mentioned, I am just a little citizen voicing my concerns. I have not much confidence in any political party in Singapore. Nor am I interested to be involved in politics. So, I’ve got nothing much to be worried about.
Anyway, it’s always hard to tell who is right and who is wrong. That’s why there is always an endless debate on policies that can go on till the end of time.
However, I would appreciate more commentors to be like theonlinecitizen who are more polite and refrain from making personal attacks.
Hi Mr Biao,
In my opinion, the policies of the 80s and early 90s are the reasons why we’re in the state we are. HDB flats were priced so highly that it was quite frightening. That was a time when people could sell their houses and make a pile.
So, the govt changed the rules.
One of the policies was that of ‘asset enhancement’ brought about by then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong. “Asset enhancement” took the form of HDB upgrading. What people may not have realised is that HDB upgrading sucked up more of your CPF savings. Upgrading is not free – unless it’s the IUP (Interim Upgrading Programme). The MUP and LUP are co-payment programmes.
So, besides paying for a highly-priced HDB flat, we are also asked to pay for the upgrading cost.
Thus, CPF savings become less – this is one of the reasons why we do not have enough in our CPF for retirement.
This is a very strange phenomena when you consider that singaporeans have one of the highest – if not the highest – savings rate in the world.
If the govt keeps on using HDB upgrading to tempt singaporeans to vote for them, singaporeans will continue to not have enough for retirement.
My opinion is that HDB upgrading should be fully paid by the govt.
And they should leave the CPF alone – for retirement.
Of course, this is just one problem.
I am not sure if a pension scheme is viable, to be honest. This is because singapore will have about 600,000 people 656 years and older in 20/30 years.
I am not sure if the number of younger singaporeans will be able to support them through a pension scheme.
But having said that, it is also amazing to me that ministers and senior civil servants still do get pensions once they hit 55 years old.
Regards,
theonlinecitizen