Proposed annuity scheme could benefit you just as much as the next person
Letter from TEO CHENG PEOW
I REFER to Christopher Tan’s enlightening article, “Annuities: It’s risk-sharing among all” (Aug 31), which offers readers insights into some essential issues on annuity schemes.
I agree that some Singaporeans are unhappy over the Government’s introduction of the compulsory annuity scheme because of a lack of knowledge and a matter of perception.
The recent comments in the media have also set me thinking, not so much about the scheme but of people’s unwillingness to share!
I hope that only a small group of Singaporeans share this attitude. Admittedly, there is a lack of understanding of how the annuity scheme will work simply because the details have not been finalised.
What we do know is that the scheme will be based on the principle of risk-sharing by all members and will be funded from a portion of the individual’s CPF minimum sum.
But some people are already up in arms, questioning the right of the Government to make the scheme compulsory. It is their money they say, and worse still, they would not want to leave their money to benefit others should they die before they are 85 years old.
However, I think risk-sharing works both ways. What if the very people who are complaining about the annuity scheme live beyond 85? Wouldn’t they benefit from those who died earlier? What about their relatives who may also live to be older han 85 years?
I too do not wish to wait until I am 85 years old to receive my annuity payment, but I am for risk-sharing as it is a sign of cohesiveness within the community.
Our lament that we are not a gracious society is reflected in the fact that we are not prepared to make a small sacrifice for the well-being of our fellow Singaporeans.
I admit that there are many generous Singaporeans who donate money to charities and perform volunteer work.
However, I am saddened to see that some Singaporeans lack compassion for the less fortunate among us.
Singapore may be a young nation but we have come a long way. It would be a pity if we cannot gel as “One People, One Nation”.
The Government has spared no effort in creating strong community bonds through grassroots organisations. But there is only so much the Government can do. We should support these initiatives if we want to live in harmony. Is this asking too much?
Yes, we come from different social and cultural backgrounds and we have gone through good and bad times together.
However, I still feel there is a vital piece missing — we should accept our fellow Singaporeans as members of a big family. We must learn to share and help one another.
Should high-risk individuals with already high premiums be forced to buy an annuity?
Letter from TAN SIEW LIAN
I WISH to applaud Christopher Tan’s article “Annuities: It’s risksharing among all” (Aug 31) and how the scheme has caused unhappiness among some Singaporeans.
This is only natural as much of the scheme has not been finalised. But hopefully all the feedback allows the Government to fine tune the scheme to allay the concerns of Singaporeans.
One question that has been asked by some Singaporeans is whether people who have been rejected by insurance companies or already pay high premiums due to pre-existing medical conditions can be exempted from buying the annuity.
This is a very important issue for the Government to consider.
If insurance companies will not insure someone for fear of that person “cashing in” if they die relatively soon, they should also not sell annuities to this high-risk group for ethical reasons. The Government should also not make the purchase of annuities compulsory for this group.
No comments:
Post a Comment