Ms Sun Xueling
Blk 308B Punggol Walk
#01-364
Waterway Terraces 1
Singapore 822308
Dear Ms Sun,
Repeated Request
1. At Meet-the-People Session (MPS) of 2 Sep 19 I said to the person-in-charge that it would be better if the petition writer wrote down what I had to say before meeting you. The first writer did and, after all your other constituents had left, the second writer asked me why I requested MP to give a reply, whether there were not more important matters at Parliament and other questions.
I know there are difficulties. If not, the problem would not have taken so long over so much correspondence without any nearer a solution. I always referred to the issues directly, but time and again it was dodged. From the end of last year, I made another attempt in earnest. There is no question the problem is of consequences and in the public interest. It is in my letter There is no fair play, Honourable Members of Parliament dated 2 Sep 19 to you.
2. An example of the problem is CPF LIFE.
The Important Notes on CPF LIFE stated that only two deductions from Retirement Account (RA) were required. One upon purchased of CPF LIFE and the other two months before age 65. Payout started at 65. The two additional CPF LIFE that I was asked to purchase were not required.
The spreadsheets that I submitted showed the rate of return of the first purchase, the second additional purchase and the third additional purchase to be 4.082%, 3.216%, 2.944% respectively. On similar terms as the first purchase the rate of return of the two additional purchases were found to be lower and below the estimated lower range of 3.75%. Without the two additional purchases, the money left in the RA would have earned 4%.
Two other mistakes were found. One with the addition of interest earned for the year right after the second additional purchase. The spreadsheets showed the rate of return of the addition of interest earned to be below 0.001%.
The other with the transfer of available balance from RA to CPF LIFE two months before age 65. The whole of available balance was supposed to be transferred, but only part of the available balance was transferred. The record of the previous year showed the amount of the available balance and the Important Notes on CPF LIFE showed that the transfer of available balance was required. The officer I met agreed, but the officer who replied to my letter did not reply to the question.
3. I had attended four of your MPS, spoke to two of your writers in length and spoke to you and your other writers asking for an investigation by Parliament. It cannot not be avoided.
This is my fifth letter to ask whether you could bring up the problem in Parliament.
Yours Sincerely,
hh
No comments:
Post a Comment