The Central Provident Fund: More Than Retirement - Civil Service ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Central Provident Fund: More Than Retirement5For members with less than $5,000, they canwithdraw all their savings. For those with morethan $5,000 and less than or equal to $10,000,they can withdraw up to $5,000 and set aside theremainder in the RA. For those with more than$10,000 in their Ordinary and Special Account,the 50% withdrawal rule would apply. However,if they have balances which are more than twicethe MS, they will be required to set aside the fullMS before they can withdraw the balancein their Ordinary and Special Accounts.The MS of $30,000 when introduced in 1987 wasbased on an estimate of subsistence living forretirees. To preserve the real value of this MS withregard to inflation, the MS and monthly payoutwere revised accordingly over the years. In 1995,it was decided that the MS would increase by$5,000 each year until it reached $80,000 in 2003.This took into account the rising life expectancyand standard of living. The monthly payoutswere computed in relation to the amount of MSset aside. Monthly payouts from the MS were alsopegged to prevailing retirement age, in line withthe MS objective of catering to post-retirementneeds.In the meantime, legislation raised the retirementage from 55 to 60 in 1993, and subsequently to62 in Jan 1999. To avoid a similar backlash fromHowe’s proposal back in 1984, the withdrawalrule at 55 was left untouched.Part 2: CPF as a Macro-Economic ToolThe CPF’s role in meeting social objectives isjust one side of the coin. On the flip side,the CPF has evolved to impinge upon thenation’s broader economic and employmentconcerns. This was evident first during the 1985recession when CPF was first used as a macroeconomictool.The 1985 recession marked a turning point for therole of CPF. When the CPF system was originallydeveloped, cost competitiveness was not an issue.Prior to 1985, Singapore enjoyed two decades ofhigh growth rates of an average of 9% perannum. As wages rose, CPF contribution rates wereincreased steadily until they peaked at 50%in 1985, with a 25% contribution rate by bothemployers and employees.While studying Singapore’s economic strategiesto face the recession, the Economic Committee(EC), chaired by then MOS (Trade and Industry)BG Lee Hsien Loong, identified the loss ofcompetitiveness as a result of total wage costsoutstripping average productivity growth rates.Singapore’s competitiveness had weakened 50%against Hong Kong, 15% against Taiwan and 35%against Korea. CPF contributions were identifiedas an overhead and a burden on operating businesscosts in Singapore. As a result, the Governmentaccepted the EC recommendation to slash theemployers’ CPF contribution rate from 25% to10%. With the employees’ rate unchanged, thetotal rate thus dropped from 50% to 35%. Thismeasure helped the economy to recover.This shift prompted a reconsideration of the longterm sustainability of the CPF contribution rate.Sustainability has to take into account adequateprovisions for old age needs as well as CPF’s newrole as a macro-economic tool in adverse economictimes. The CPF rate was again cut in the aftermathof the Asian financial crisis. In Jan 1999, theemployers’ CPF rate was cut by 10 percentagepoints as part of a $10 billion cost reduction packageto lower business costs and help companies copewith the regional economic crisis.
6 Ethos, July 2004The CPF rate thus became an economic lever forwage flexibility and cost competitiveness ingood and bad times. As the economy recoveredfrom 1988 to 1994, restoration of employer’scontribution rate was made in stages of 2%in 1988 and 3% in 1989, followed by smallerquantum increases in subsequent years. Employees’contribution rates were also reduced by 1% in1988 and 1989. The long-term contribution rate of40% was achieved in July 1991 and remained atthis level till 1 January 1999 when the contributionrate was lowered to 30%. In April 2000, the CPFrate was restored by 2% to 32%. This was basedon projected economic growth rate and wagepressures.Policy changes to the CPF were therefore madenot just through the lens of providing for old age,but within a broader context of wage adjustment,job protection and competitiveness. The quantumand timing for the restoration of the CPF rateswere decided within this complex paradigm. Totake care of the long-term health of the economy,the Government has to ensure that social objectivesare not attained at the expense of economiccompetitiveness and jobs.Part 3: Refocusing CPFThe Economic Review Committee (ERC) wasset up in December 2001 to recommendstrategies for Singapore’s economy. Itreleased recommendations in 2002, includingproposals to reform the CPF model. The mainobjective was to optimize the usage of CPF whileseeking to minimize the statutory burden of highcontribution rates.The ERC aimed to focus the CPF on the basic needsof retirement, healthcare and home-ownership.Some of the significant changes suggested were:• Delay the original intention to restore thetotal CPF rate to 40% for two years.Aim: to effect the restoration when theeconomy recovers.• Lower the employee contribution rate from20% to 16% for older workers, 50-55 yearsof age.Aim: to ease structural unemployment andenhance the employability of older workers.• Limit CPF withdrawals from the OA forhousing to 150% of the value of the propertystarting from 2002, and bring this ValuationLimit down to 120% over 5 years.Aim: to tighten OA withdrawals for housingso that they are not excessive in relation toproperty value.• Increase the income floor and reduce incomeceiling for CPF contributions.Aim: to focus the CPF system on incomeearners between the 10 th and 80 th percentile.The rationale is that the lower end ofspectrum will include people who cannotrely on their CPF savings alone but needother forms of support. The top 20 percentwill be able to take care of their ownfinancial affairs, including planning for theirown retirement needs, beyond relying ontheir CPF savings.• Increase the MS and MA and SA rates.Aim: to build up retirement savings morequickly.• Facilitate low cost, privately managedpension plans.• Peg the interest rate paid on SA balances toan appropriate long-term interest rate, suchas the yield on long-term government bonds.Aim: to encourage long-term investmentand enhance rates of returns to build upretirement savings.In the National Day Rally of 2003, Prime MinisterGoh Chok Tong announced a complete overhaul ofthe CPF system, which built on and went beyondthe ERC recommendations. Most significantly, heannounced that the 40% long-term targetcontribution rate would be replaced by aflexible range of 30%-36%. There would also bean immediate cut, from 36% to 33%, whichreflected a considered balance to address costcompetitiveness without severely dampeningdomestic demand. A more drastic cut would havebeen to reduce the rate to 30%.The most major and politically sensitive changewas to increase the MS and Medisave MS and tophase out the 50% withdrawal rule. The CPF MSwill be steadily increased annually to reach$120,000 (in 2003 dollars) in 10 years; the amountthat can be withdrawn at 55 will be reducedgradually from 2009 by 10% each year. From 2013,CPF members at age 55 will only be able towithdraw surpluses over the CPF MS and MedisaveMS.
Page 1 and 2: 2 Ethos, July 2004The Central Provi
Page 3: 4 Ethos, July 2004be to align the u
Page 7: 8 Ethos, July 2004“Retirement-cen

The Central Provident Fund: More Than Retirement - Civil Service ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?