This possibility was pre-emptively shot down by a CPF spokesman who denied that there are "any plans to allocate CPF funds to pay for unemployment insurance".

Hopefully, the government officials involved will re-think the issue.

When the CPF scheme was set up in 1955, with a "5 + 5 per cent" contribution structure, the aim was to provide a nest egg for those who retired at the then official retirement age of 55.

The funds were hoped to last them through their remaining years.

With living standards lower and life much less complicated and slightly more predictable than it is today, this simple goal seemed attainable enough.

However, when inflation set in, and started to move from a trot to a gallop, it became necessary to increase contributions to a peak of "25 + 25 per cent".

This, of course, made all members happy, and even contributing employers were not totally unhappy in those heady inflationary times.

With the Government approving the use of funds for the purchase of homes and providing subsided public-housing towards that end, large numbers benefited from the change in policy.

The objective was eminently laudable, enabling many to purchase public housing flats on what was essentially an "instalment plan" with little to be paid out-of-pocket.

Of course, this also meant that the cash available when people reached retirement age was proportionately less.

But, on balance, the pros outweighed the cons.

When rules were later loosened a little more to permit members to invest a greater portion of their CPF holdings in stocks and shares, gold, a second property, etc - so they could achieve a greater return than the official CPF interest rate - the temptation proved too great for many people.

They fell to with gusto, and one could say with some degree of indiscriminateness.

Many had what turned out later to be a misguided faith in their own investment skills.

And certainly there were many who had the mindset that their CPF was "play money" or at least untouchable capital for several decades.

If there were profits available after shaving off the notional CPF interest rate, these could be withdrawn and spent.

It looked too good to be true, and the worst happened, as a series of unfortunate and unpredictable occurrences created the worst economic crisis in our country's history.

Unemployment is high, with many unable to get a job even with lowered expectations.

Official pronouncements are no longer encouraging, and overall the outlook does not offer much in the way of comfort.

Nevertheless, even those with no income have to find some means to survive, and that goad to work in better times - "nobody owes anybody else a living" - takes on a macabre significance in today's much changed environment.

A financial planner commented that members with as much as $800,000 in their CPF accounts were hard pressed to meet their daily needs.

As most people will attest, making daily ends meet is not cheap in Singapore.

Any argument in favour of unemployment insurance at this stage would seem to come too late to be of any practical benefit to those who need it most.

By the time rules and regulations are drawn up and put into effect, many deserving recipients would have been pushed to the wall.

An earlier insurance scheme to dole out regular income when citizens attained "senior" status was not particularly successful.

No doubt, the Government is sincere about ensuring that citizens are adequately provided for and not left penniless in their so-called golden years.

However, the existing CPF policy has surely provoked considerable ill-feeling, particularly when almost $100,000 has to be locked up in CPF accounts, some of it until death.

The Government should consider releasing some CPF money to those who are in need.

It seems ridiculous that funds can be used to gamble (OK, "invest") at the risk of sizeable losses, but cannot be released to facilitate basic survival.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Unless economic conditions change dramatically for the better, the Central Provident Fund may become the last hope for the "improvident".

"Rendering (or even loaning) unto Caesar what is Caesar's" might prove to be a politically astute move which would pay dividends in the future.

The writer is a retired stockbroker and regular contributor to Today's Letters page.

                                                            Home