80. Commission Of Inquiry

27 Nov 25

Office of the President

Orchard Road 

Singapore 238823

Republic of Singapore

Dear President Tharman Shanmugaratnam,

Commission Of Inquiry To Address Systemic Issues

Administration Of Justice

1. I refer to the letter reference AG/CIV/L/OTH/2024/1 dated 18 November 2025 from AGC to the Minute Sheet Para 1b and 1c in the attachment as follows:

b. Prayer 2 of OA 26 is a request for the court to consider fresh Evidence in the form of the “Schemes-Terms-Conditions” of the Agencies for Integrated Care (“AIC”). Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, this document does not suggest that a “caregiver” is authorised to make decisions on behalf of a patient who lacks mental capacity. There is also no reason why the applicant could not have, with reasonable diligence, adduced this evidence in earlier 

proceedings, given that this document is in the public domain.

c. Prayers 3 to 8 of OA 26 are, in substance, the same prayers sought by the applicant in HC/OA 526/2024, which had already been considered and dismissed by the Court of Appeal in OA 1.

2.  A. Definitions, B. Declarations and Agreement and Clause 18(a) in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions refers to the definition of “Caregiver”, the Patient who “does not have an appointed donee or deputy authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs” in B. Declarations and Agreement(d)(v)(A) and “any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government, if there is no deputy or donee to the best of Government’s knowledge”, “who is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs” respectively as follows:

A. Definitions  

(c) “Caregiver” means the person indicated as the Patient’s caregiver in the Patient’s  Application; 

B. Declarations and Agreement 

(d) Where I am the Donee, Deputy, Caregiver, Patient’s Parent or Patient’s Legal Guardian, I declare as follows (as applicable): 

(v) In the case of a Caregiver: “I am the Patient’s caregiver; and  

(A) the Patient is a Patient who Lacks Mental Capacity and does not have an appointed donee or deputy authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs;

18. Each Relevant Party agrees that the Government has the right to act on a request made by one of the following (as applicable):  

(a) in the case of a Patient who Lacks Mental Capacity: any deputy or donee of the Patient who is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs, or any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government, if there is no deputy or donee to the best of Government’s knowledge.

3. In Item 1 above the judges cannot state “Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, this document does not suggest that a “caregiver” is authorised to make decisions on behalf of a patient who lacks mental capacity” when in Item 2 above the Schemes-Terms-Conditions does suggest that a caregiver is authorised to make decisions on behalf of the Patient in relation to the Patient’s property and affairs as defined in Clause 18(a). Any “person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government” refers to persons listed in Item 5(x) below and to the same list of persons in Item 6(z) below under the definition of “Relevant Parties” that included caregiver. As Clause 18 states each Relevant Party agrees that the Government has the right to act on a request made by any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government if there is no deputy or donee to the best of Government’s knowledge, it means the other persons under Relevant Parties that included caregiver will make decisions on behalf of the Patient.

4. I have been in charge of my mother's financial affairs after the sale of our old house in 1987 and her medical affairs after her 1st cataract operation on 23 May 13. My siblings have not volunteered to be co-caregiver in the application to AIC in October 2020 (Item 10 and 11).

 

Definitions And Issues

5. In page 1 and 2 other definitions in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions are as follows:

(d) “Cooperating Parties” means the Government, participating statutory boards (including CPFB), public healthcare institutions and organisations approved by the Government that are involved in or assisting in the provision and delivery of the Services and Schemes (including AIC and the Insurers);

(k) “MDW Employer” means the person indicated as such in the Patient’s Application;

(m) “Nominated Bank Account” means the bank account nominated in the Patient’s  Application to receive payments or withdrawals under the Schemes (or any of them);   

(o) “Patient” means the individual whose details are provided in the section of an Application entitled “About the Patient”;

(v) “Services” means social services and schemes, financial assistance schemes and  insurance schemes, including:  

(i) the Schemes;  

(ii) financial assistance schemes and insurance schemes administered by AIC; 

(iii) healthcare, aged care, childcare, education, social assistance and counselling services and schemes;  

(iv) any form of financial assistance such as subsidies, grants, tax reliefs, levy

concessions, vouchers or bursaries; and 

(v) retirement, savings and insurance schemes operated by the Government, CPFB or their appointed agents (including MediSave and MediShield Life);  

(w) “Terms and Conditions” means the terms and conditions applicable to the Schemes which is accessible via www.aic.sg/schemes-terms-conditions; and  

(x) “We”, “Us”, “Our” means the following:  

(i) the Caregiver;  

(ii) each Deputy;  

(iii) each Donee;  

(iv) the MDW Employer,  

(v) the MediSave Account Holder;  

(vi) the Nominated Bank Account Holder;  

(vii) the Patient;  

(viii) each Patient’s Legal Guardian;  

(ix) each Patient’s Parent; and  

(x) the Patient’s Spouse,  

and “I”, “Me” or “My” means any one of them. 

6. In page 8 and 9 other definitions in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions are as follows:

(c) “Application” means, in relation to an individual, the application submitted by or on behalf of that individual to apply for financial assistance or Payouts under one or more of the Schemes for the care of that individual;

(e) “Caregiver” means the person indicated as the Patient’s caregiver in the Approved Application;  

(s) “Patient” means the individual whose Application has been accepted and approved by  the Government; 

(x) “Payouts” means payments or withdrawals under the Schemes (or any of them) made or paid by the Government or CPFB pursuant to the Agreement or the Relevant  Legislation;  

(z) “Relevant Parties” means the Patient, Patient’s Spouse, the MediSave Account  Holder, each Patient’s Parent, each Patient’s Legal Guardian, each Deputy, each  Donee, the Caregiver, the Nominated Bank Account Holder and the MDW Employer, and “Relevant Party” means any one of them;  

(aa) “Schemes” means the following financial assistance or financing schemes run by the  Government:  

(i) the CSHL;  

(ii) the ElderFund;  

(iii) the ESH;  

(iv) the Home Caregiving Grant;  

(v) the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly;  

(vi) the MediSave Care;  

(vii) the Migrant Domestic Worker Levy Concession for Persons with Disabilities; and  

(viii) the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme,  

and “Scheme” means any of them; and  

(bb) “Terms and Conditions” means these terms and conditions, as may be amended, altered or added to from time to time.

7. In relation to Item 5 above on “Cooperating Parties”, the 3rd sister was able to delete a joint bank account of my mother and me that was registered at CPF so that she could open a new bank account for her at CPF. However, after I informed CPF that I am the only caregiver in my application to AIC, CPF replied they would transfer my mother’s CPF payout to her Ordinary Account and stop the Silver Support to the new bank account. It shows that CPF was aware of my caregiver status in the application to AIC.

8. In relation to Item 5 above on “MDW Employer”, “Nominated Bank Account” and “Services”, my mother as a MDW employer (Migrant Domestic Worker employer) makes the monthly payment from a joint bank account of my mother and me for the levy concession. However, the 3rd sister terminated the 1st maid’s employment mid-contract that was registered under our mother’s name so that the employment of the 2nd maid could be registered under the 3rd sister’s name for the reasons (a) the 3rd sister expected the monthly payouts from our mother’s CPF account to be transferred to a new bank account after the joint bank account of my mother and I was deleted at CPF and (b) to allow her to administer the Atorvastatin (statin) to our mother so as to prevent my supervision.

9. In relation to Item 5 above on “We”, “Us”, “Our”, “I”, “Me” or “My”, the persons listed are under “any person within a class or classes of persons determined by the Government” in Clause 18(a). Clause 18(a) shows that the director was in error when he referred to Clause 19 and 31(e) to suspend the 2 payouts from August 2025 pending my application for deputy when I am a caregiver in the application for the 2 payouts that was given from October 2020. Item 3 above shows the same 2 lists of persons determined by the Government where the caregiver and deputy listed are distinct persons.

10. In relation to Item 6 above on “Application”, I am the only caregiver in an application to AIC after a meeting at the 3rd sister's house where all my siblings did not volunteer to be co-caregiver. The application was carried out with the assistance of a MSW (Medical Social Worker) who my siblings had been in contact with and I referred to him in a discussion with my siblings over WhatsApp.

11. Continuing with Item 6 on “Caregiver”, “Patient”, ”Payouts” and “Schemes”, a court order to AIC to produce the application form would show (a) our mother lacks mental capacity to provide consent for her long term care as certified by a doctor, (b) I am the only caregiver listed and (c) 2 payouts made by the Government for Home Caring Grant and Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme from October 2020. I am a caregiver for my mother who lacks mental capacity because an application for the 2 payouts were successful.

12. In Item 2 above on the Minute Sheet, I have shown Para 1b is not reflected in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions. The key issues of Prayers 3 to 8 in Para 1c would have to be reconsidered. CA/OA 26/2025 was filed based on the discovery of the Schemes-Terms-Conditions showing that I am authorised to make decisions for my mother in Item 3 above. I have brought up my role as the caregiver many times in the 15 legal proceedings, but I was prevented from making the discovery as shown in Item 15 to 19 below and in my affidavit and written submission in CA/OA 26/2025 attached.

Document In Public Domain

13. Schemes-Terms-Conditions in www.aic.sg/schemes-terms-conditions is the document in public domain but I was not aware of it until a director from AIC referred to the document to suspend the 2 payouts in Item 9 above. It shows the various schemes and the terms and conditions may be amended, altered or added from time to time. From the document I was able to show the director was in error and the legal proceedings were biased where as a caregiver I am authorised to make decisions for my mother.

14. The biases are as follows:

(a) The Definition, Declarations and Agreement, and Clause 18 in the Schemes-Terms-Conditions show that the Government has the right to act on a request from each Relevant Party and the Government makes the Payouts. In an Application to AIC I am the Caregiver from October 2020, but the Payouts were suspended from Aug 2025 by a director pending my appointment as a Deputy in which he referred to Clause 19 and Clause 31(e). This is a mistake where the definition of Caregiver, Deputy and other persons are each given (i.e. “classes of persons determined by the Government”).

(b) The taking away of my responsibilities began when a police officer would not allow me to have my mother’s NRIC she had in her hand to make an appointment at the polyclinic to replace the appointment blocked by the 3rd sister that was arranged by Dr Lim for a family doctor at the Family Physician Clinic on 1 Jun 21. The police officer’s action to place the NRIC with the 3rd sister allowed her to change the residential address in my mother’s NRIC to hers on 12 Jun 21 when my mother and I are joint tenants.

(c) The termination of the 1st maid mid-contract registered under our mother’s name and the employment of the 2nd maid registered under the 3rd sister’s name was carried out because the 3rd sister expected the monthly payouts from our mother’s CPF account to be transferred to a new bank account she opened for her after the joint bank account of my mother and I was deleted at CPF and to allow her to administer the statin to our mother so as to prevent my supervision.

(d) At the Service Bureau I wanted to file the Application For Judgment In Default of Defence / Defence to Counterclaim 21 days after date of service, but was unable to because it seemed the Service Bureau did not know what to do with the defence filed by the 3rd sister in an altered Form 1. This contravened ROC 2021 O. 6, r. 7 (3) which states "The defence must be in Form 13". If the Application For Judgment In Default of Defence / Defence to Counterclaim was allowed, it would have ended the lawsuit early. The 3rd sister was able to file the altered Form 1’s defence because of their connections.

An Application Made To AIC In October 2020

15. I emailed AIC on 23 Jun 21 to request for a copy of the application form submitted to show our mother’s lack of mental capacity and I am the only caregiver listed. There was no direct reply to my request except an officer called me over the telephone to say they could not do so unless there was a court order, but did send a certified copy to show permanent lack of mental capacity to provide consent for her long term care.

16. In the Pleadings With Statement Of Claim in MC/OC 237/2022, the Statement Of Claim has Item 69 f) “To ask the court to make a request of AIC to give a certified copy of a letter to show that he was properly appointed as the only caregiver for their mother in the form submitted to them for two grants that were successful”. As our mother prefers staying at the 3rd sister’s house, the rest of the 10 claims in the Statement Of Claim were for the 3rd sister to assist in taking care of our mother, for reverting to prior situation before the lawsuit and for court orders if required.

17. In the Checklist For Case Conference (For Order 65 Cases), I ticked the box that I intended to obtain direction for the filing of a SAPT at the 1st CC (1st Case Conference). One of the 9 items listed is as follows:

An order to AIC to give a copy of the application for the 2 grants that were given showing that the claimant was the only caregiver listed.

18. The Summons for Judgment in Default of Defence supported by an affidavit dated 27 Sep 22 in MC/SUM 3684/2922 had 9 orders largely similar in content to the Statement Of Claim where one of the order is as follows:

4. Defendant to acknowledge that she knew that the claimant was the only caregiver in an application submitted to AIC for 2 grants with the help of a Medical Social Worker at SACH, after a meeting with all her siblings at her flat and of texts over WhatsApp Chat.

19. The statement with supporting affidavit dated 14 May 24 in HC/OA 526/2024 for a judicial review had 4 mandatory orders, 1 quashing order and 9 declaratory orders. The mandatory order to AIC is as follows:

Mandatory order to AIC to allow a copy of the application for 2 grants that was given to their mother in which their mother was certified by a doctor from SACH to lack mental capacity to provide consent for her long term care and the applicant was the only caregiver listed in the application

Taking Care Of Our Mother

20. The statin that was given continuously to our mother since 3 Mar 21 caused her to be confined to bed and her physical condition to deteriorate such that she complained each time during the 5-min exercises I conducted with her twice a week with the help of the maid. She has gotten worse recently although the 3rd sister would not admit such has been so.

21. Our mother was able to walk 80m and did all the exercises asked of her at the 1st session of the 2nd rehabilitation at All Saints Home on 1 Mar 21 after Dr Ong from Singhealth-Tampines stopped the statin for a week from 25 Feb 21 to 4 Mar 21. But my siblings made an appointment to have Dr Hosanna prescribed 3 months of statin on 3 Mar 21, one day before Dr Ong was to make his assessment on the effects of the statin on 4 Mar 21. Although I am the only caregiver listed in the application to AIC, I have lost the responsibility to my mother since 3 Mar 21 when the statin was continuously given to her.

 

Incidents Since 2007 Have A Bearing On The Issues At Present 

22. The incidents I encountered began after a complaint against a neighbour in 2007 although the noise from the working of a trade could be traced back to 1998. At the time I wrote to the HDB Branch Office and sent a letter of appreciation to the HDB Feedback Unit when the occupier (not the neighbour who I first saw as a young couple) was evicted. Not long after, an officer facilitated the transfer of the flat to the neighbour who became the second owner of the flat to continue with their work. The first owner appeared to be another person who spoke to my mother. In 2010, I wrote to the police that the-people-in-flat-across-the-neighbour were installed to protect the neighbour. I may not be accurate with the narrative, but the working of a trade, eviction of the occupier and change of ownership after the eviction and the-people-in-flat-across-the-neighbour could be checked.

23. I was unable to sell my 5-room flat later. When I was assisted to sell my flat the Resale Operation Section at HDB did not return my deposit, I was not allowed the refund into my CPF Account after sale of the flat, CPF LIFE was shown to miscalculate my payouts and my CPF Account was deducted toward the CPF LIFE payouts without my approval. It appeared matters set out in documents were not followed by the officers involved. Although brought before the MPs many times, there was no direct response by the authorities.

24. I did not get a fair hearing in 15 legal proceedings of which the first is MC/OC 237/2022 and the last is CA/OA 26/2025. A review could be made of (a) the Originating Claim in MC/OC 237/2022 based on the Pleadings With Statement Of Claim, (b) the Summons For Judgment In Default Of Defence in MC/SUM 3684/2022 allowed by the Court, (c) MC/SUM 2503/2023 to strike out MC/OC 237/2022, (d) MC/RA 9/2023 and MC/SUM 3833/2023 in an appeal against the decision in MC/SUM 2503/2023 and (e) the decisions of judges in the High Court, Appellate Court and Court of Appeal in light of Item 3 above.

25. My affidavit and written submission, State Counsels’ Written Submission and Bundle of Authorities, and Order of Court and Letter from AGC to Court in CA/OA 26/2025 are attached. 

Conclusion

26. I hope an inquiry could be made in view of my mother’s health and, where there was no evidence of issues against me, of public welfare. 

Yours Sincerely

cc

media@wp.sg

contact@psp.org.sg

78. Six Issues

19 Aug 2019

Ms Sun Xueling
Blk 308B Punggol Walk
#01-364
Waterway Terraces 1
Singapore 822308

Dear Ms Sun,

Bringing Up The Six Issues In Parliament

The letter Documents Provide The Explanation dated 14 Jun 19 was addressed to Mr Teo but handed to you at Meet-the-People Session (MPS). There was no reply to me on each of the five issues in the letter after you wrote to CPF, HDB and CEA. They may have replied to you. I learned from CPF Tampines when they asked me whether I had received a reply on 19 Jun 19 to the letter after I visited them on a new issue.

The next letter Being Accountable To Parliament dated 22 Jul 19 was addressed and handed to you at MPS. The letter was in six pages and the petition writers did not know where to begin although I asked only that they read the first and seventh item. They had not written and when you spoke to me you said CPF had replied many times. Not much more was said because you had to attend to the others. I continued to talk to the person who was listening in to our conversation by referring him to the example of the refund to CPF Account, which officers disallowed. It is common knowledge that refund is required and it is indicated in 2012 CPF Act. The senior assistant director reference to Section 15(15)(e) for disallowing refund was incorrect because it required an application to be made on the occurrence of events as listed in 2012 CPF Act. No such application was made. 

I therefore wrote No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given dated 5 Aug 19 addressed to you and handed in at MPS because there was no MP in session. I got to talk with a petition writer by going through all six issues, including the new issue, specifically on items not addressed by officers in their letters. As I wrote in Documents Provide The Explanation, these were by reference only to documents possessed or provided by the agencies.

The issues are supposedly with the neighbour, the property agents or my lack of understanding, but it   has more to do with the officers in HDB, CEA and CPF. I showed where the mistakes were made. I noted in Being Accountable To Parliament why the problem could not be resolved.

You have not given a reply to No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given whether to bring up the problem in parliament.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

Observation

Bringing Up The Six Issues In Parliament

"I therefore wrote No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given dated 5 Aug 19 addressed to you and handed in at MPS because there was no MP in session. I got to talk with a petition writer by going through all six issues, including the new issue, specifically on items not addressed by officers in their letters. As I wrote in Documents Provide The Explanation, these were by reference only to documents possessed or provided by the agencies.

The issues are supposedly with the neighbour, the property agents or my lack of understanding, but it   has more to do with the officers in HDB, CEA and CPF. I showed where the mistakes were made. I noted in Being Accountable To Parliament why the problem could not be resolved.

You have not given a reply to No Full Reply Or No Reply Was Given whether to bring up the problem in parliament."

78. No Full Reply

5 Aug 2019

Ms Sun Xueling
Blk 308B Punggol Walk
#01-364
Waterway Terraces 1
Singapore 822308

Dear Ms Sun,

No Full Reply Or No Reply was Given

At the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) of 22 Jul 19 I handed a six-page letter Being Accountable To Parliament and asked you to bring up the complaint in Parliament. The letter was another summary, but broadly to reflect the situation that led to the six issues complained about. The other two summaries in more details were Bringing Up To The Prime Minister and Documents Provide The Explanation. I have to refer to letters, emails and postings in the blog to make the issues clear. Hard copy of all the documents were handed over to MPS, Ang Mo Kio to be submitted to Parliament.

The petition writer should have written to inform you about the situation because you still said that CPF had replied to me many times.

I have therefore printed copy of replies by officers to show the issues were not addressed under Annuity Premium Deduction, Refund to CPF Account and CPF LIFE, and $5,000 Deposit in Resale Documents. Noise from the Neighbour and Sales Agents were covered in the summaries. Officers were involved in all six issues. Noise from the Neighbour was the cause of all the others.

Salient Points 2 (40) is my comments on the issues.

Please give me a reply as to whether you could bring up the problem in Parliament.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

1. Annuity Premium Deduction

Quoted From Salient Points 2 (40)

SP2-Annuity Premium Deduction
1.
27 Jun 19
Letter from Lifelong Income Department, CPFB
CPF LIFE

“As you are reaching your payout eligibility age of 65, you will start to receive your CPF LIFE monthly payout from August 2019. The monthly payout had taken into consideration an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances. You will receive payouts from your CPF LIFE plan for as long as you live. You may refer to the Policy Certificate for your policy details and read the enclosed Important Notes on CPF LIFE.”

(The letter was written without officer’s name and signature. When I told the officer who attended to me at CPF Tampines Service Centre that the letter was not signed to avoid responsibility, she said the letter was computerised. But the mistake was with “an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances”, which the officer had acknowledged. Without question, the rest of the letter could be computerised.

This is a new issue and the second time the letter for the issuance of Policy Certificate was sent without name and signature because officer knew mistakes were made in the Policy Certificate. Please refer to my comments of the latter Policy Certificate in Salient Point (40) of 12 Jan 15 and 4 Feb 15 and the former Policy Certificate is the next item below.)
2.
9 Jul 19
Letter handed in at CPF Tampines Service Centre
Annuity Premium Deduction And Retirement Account Balance Toward CPF LIFE

“The letter stated “The monthly payout had taken into consideration an additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, and the extra interest earned on your CPF balances.”

Is the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 the extra interest earned on CPF balances or are they separate items? How did the $2,134.32 come about. It seems to me the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 is a purchase of additional CPF LIFE, commencement date 27 June 2019, which I did not make.

2. The monthly payout of $1,461.32 is also an issue. If the increase of the monthly payout came from the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32, what was the amount of the increase? I subtracted the monthly payout of $1,461.32 from the lower range and upper range monthly payout of the previous additional CPF LIFE to calculate the rate of returns, but the two rates of returns varied too widely to be of any use.”

“3. From the Important Notes on CPF LIFE on CPF LIFE Annuity Premium:

If you join CPF LIFE before your DDA, there will be deductions of two annuity premiums.

The first annuity premium has been deducted upon the issuance of your CPF LIFE Plan.

The second annuity premium will be deducted two months before your DDA, subject to the available balances in your Retirement Account (RA) for the premium deduction. The second deduction will be done automatically, and you will be informed of the exact monthly payout that you will receive from your DDA after the deduction is made.

Why was the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as indicated in the Policy Certificate not deducted?

4. Mistakes were made when I was asked to purchase the two additional CPF LIFE. In my case Item 3 applies. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE listed all the situations for the deduction of annuity premium.”

(It seemed the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 came from the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018. When the officer told me I had an amount in my RA from the record, I asked her to add the amount to the $2,134.32. The sum came to be the same as the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018. The sum of $3,484.32 was shown in the Policy Certificate as RA Balance at policy issuance. The letter from Lifelong Income Department to inform the start of monthly payout and the enclosed Policy Certificate were both dated 27 Jun 19.

Statements from two documents, Important Notes on CPF LIFE on Annuity Premium and Policy Certificate, are clear on the matter. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE on Annuity Premium stated “The second annuity premium will be deducted two months before your DDA, subject to the available balances in your Retirement Account (RA) for the premium deduction. The second deduction will be done automatically, and you will be informed of the exact monthly payout that you will receive from your DDA after the deduction is made.” The Policy Certificate stated “The monthly payouts include the extra interest earned on the CPF balances and the CPF LIFE balances.”

Therefore it seems to me the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018 and the extra interest earned on the CPF balances including the extra interest earned on the CPF LIFE balances, should go into the monthly payout. The extra interest earned on the CPF LIFE balances comes from the unused annuity premium under CPF LIFE. The whole process is done automatically and the exact monthly payout begins on Aug 2019.

This was why I wrote to CPF Tampines Service Centre that “It seems to me the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 is a purchase of additional CPF LIFE, commencement date 27 June 2019, which I did not make.” and “Why was the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as indicated in the Policy Certificate not deducted?”)
3.
15 Jul 19
Letter from Lifelong Income Department, CPFB
CPF LIFE

“We would like to explain that the premium deducted from your RA on 27 Jun 2019 is indeed for the issuance of an additional annuity. However, this additional annuity is the one that will be done automatically for all members at two months before their payout eligibility age.”

“Regarding the monthly payouts under CPF LIFE, we would like to clarify that the range provided to you previously does not represent the upper and lower limits of the payout. The range is meant as a reference for members who are not due to receive monthly payouts, based on the interest rate assumptions of 3.75% and 4.25%. However, for members like yourself who are starting their payouts, the computation will be done based on the current CPF RA interest rate of 4% per annum.”

(The reply did not show how the additional annuity premium deduction of $2,134.32 came about nor why the available balance in RA of $3,484.32 as of Jan-Dec 2018 was not deducted two months before DDA.

I could understand the payout done based on the RA interest rate of 4% and the premium deduction two months before the Draw Down Age (DDA). In my case, the payout should then be added to the payouts of the first CPF LIFE and the two additional CPF LIFE to arrive at the starting payout.

My spreadsheet showed that the rate of return of the first CPF LIFE was within the estimated range but not the two additional CPF LIFE, which were below the estimated lower range of 3.75%. The calculation of the upper and lower range of the first CPF LIFE, the two additional CPF LIFE and the earned interest for the year 2014 were 3.814% and 4.340%, 2.959% and 3.462%, 2.652% and 3.227%, and less than 0.001% and less than 0.001% respectively.

From the Important Notes on CPF LIFE on CPF LIFE Annuity Premium I should not have been asked to purchase the two additional CPF LIFE. There should have been only two deductions. The first upon issuance of the first CPF LIFE and the second done automatically for the starting payout two months before the DDA. The money that would have been left in the RA would have earned based rate of 4% and the extra interest, which included the unused annuity premium under CPF LIFE. 

As it is, my payout has been lowered by the two additional CPF LIFE.) 

2. Refund to CPF Account and CPF LIFE

Quoted From Salient Points 2 (40)

SP2-Summing Up
15.
12 Mar 19
Email from CPFB
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

“We have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that we will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.

Please refer to our reply dated 16 December 2014 on the details of the housing refund amount and our reply dated 30 April 2015 on the computation of CPF LIFE payout.”

(The senior executive avoided the questions just as the deputy director of 26 Feb 19. The reply of 30 April 2015 from a director did not show any computation except repeated the amount of payouts from document sent to me. She too stated “As the issues in your latest email are similar to those we have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that [we] will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.” I followed with 4 questions:

i) whether she agreed with the senior assistant director’s stand that there was to be no CPF refund,
ii) why was there no reply from CPF within the 7 working days stated in the application form for SHB submitted by the principal estate manager,
iii) whether the $4 more in payout from interest earned for the year that was included in the Policy Certificate issued for the second additional CPF LIFE was correct and
iv) why I was asked to purchase the first additional CPF LIFE with no safeguard in place.

She did not give a reply.

Please refer to the following:

i) Summing Up Item 16 of 14 Mar 19;
ii) Summing Up Item 22 of 31 Mar 19 Item 15d), Item 16;
iii) Summing Up Item 27 of 10 May 19, last question in italics; and
iv) Explanation (72) Item 3

The issues in the 4 questions were explained respectively.)

Quoted from Salient Points 2 (40)

Summing Up
16.
14 Mar 19
Email to MP
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

Dear Mr Teo,

1. CPF Refund

The senior assistant director’s email of 21 Nov 14 is better than her email of 16 Dec 14 as it referred directly to the 2012 CPF Act.

She stated Section 21B(11)(b) applied. But Section 21B(11)(b) refers to Section 15(15)(e), which states: “the charge shall on the application of the member or any other person having an interest in the property be cancelled if the Board is satisfied of the occurrence of any one of the following events...”. Since we did not make an application, Section 21B(11)(b) and Section 15(15)(e) do not apply.

The second paragraph of her reply quoted here cannot be followed because she did not expand on the various sub-sections. In any case it does not apply to our case because we did not make an application for withdrawal.

I stated Section 21B(11)(a)(i) applied. If it is Section 21B(11)(a)(ii), then the charge “are no longer required by any regulations made under section 77(1) to be repaid to the Fund”. Is there any reason why these two should not apply?

Her reply and the portion of 2012 CPF Act she quoted are as follows:

Her Reply

There was a CPF charge imposed on your HDB flat under section 21B(1) of the 2012 CPF Act due to the CPF moneys you used to purchase your flat. Section 21B(11)(b) of the 2012 CPF Act stated that a housing charge imposed under section 21B(1) would lapse when any of the events listed in section 15(15)(e) of the 2012 CPF Act happens.

Section 15(15)(e)(iii) of the 2012 CPF Act refers to a member complying with requirements of section 15(6). Section 15(6) refers to setting aside the Minimum Sum. Since you have set aside the full Minimum Sum before 1 Jan 2013, the CPF charge on your flat had lapsed pursuant to section 21B(11)(b) read with section 15(15)(e) of the 2012 CPF Act.

The Portion of 2012 CPF Act She Quoted

2012 CPF Act provisions:

15.- (6) Subject to subsections (6A), (8) and (8A), where a member of the Fund is entitled under subsection (2)(a), (3) or (4) to withdraw the sum standing to his credit in the Fund, at the time of the withdrawal and in accordance with any regulations made under this Act —

(a) a prescribed sum (referred to in this Act as the minimum sum) shall be set aside or topped-up —
(i)by the member; or
(ii)from the sum standing to the member’s credit in the Fund; and

(b)unless the Board otherwise allows, such amount as may be specified under subsection (6D) shall be set aside or topped-up in the member’s medisave account —
(i)by the member; or
(ii)from the sum standing to the member’s credit in the Fund after deducting any sum standing to the member’s credit in his retirement account.

(15)  The following provisions shall apply to a charge created over any immovable property under subsection (9) or (9A):

(e)the charge shall on the application of the member or any other person having an interest in the property be cancelled if the Board is satisfied of the occurrence of any one of the following events:
(i)the death of the member;
(ii)the member is suffering from a terminal illness or disease;
(iii)the member has complied with the requirements of subsection (2A), (6), (7B) or (8A);
(iv)the member’s minimum sum has been exhausted on account of withdrawals made by him under subsection (7), the payment by him of a premium referred to in section 27L(1) or (1A), or both; or
(v)the member satisfies any of the grounds for withdrawals under subsection (2)(b) or (c).

21B.—(1)  Where in accordance with any regulations made under section 77, a member of the Fund had or has before, on or after 1st January 2003 withdrawn any money standing to his credit in the Fund —

(a)to make full or partial payment towards the purchase or acquisition of an HDB flat;

(b)to repay or to make periodic payments towards the repayment of any loan taken by the member to finance or re-finance the purchase or acquisition of an HDB flat;

(c)to pay any improvement contribution due to the Housing and Development Board in respect of upgrading works carried out on an HDB flat under Part IVA of the Housing and Development Act (Cap. 129), or any improvement contribution due to a Town Council in respect of lift upgrading works carried out in relation to an HDB flat under Part IVA of the Town Councils Act (Cap. 329A), including the payment of costs, fees or other incidental expenses arising from such works; or

(d)to pay any costs, fees or other expenses incurred —
(i)for the purchase or acquisition of an HDB flat;
(ii)for obtaining a loan to finance or re-finance such purchase or acquisition; and
(iii)in connection with withdrawals of any money from the Fund,

there shall, immediately upon any such withdrawal, be a charge constituted on that HDB flat to secure the repayment of the money withdrawn from the Fund including the whole or such part, as the Board may determine, of the interest that would have been payable thereon if the withdrawal had not been made and to secure the payment of the minimum sum into the member’s retirement account.

(11)  Any charge constituted under subsection (1) shall continue in force until —

(a)all moneys secured by the charge —
(i)have been repaid to the Fund; or
(ii)are no longer required by any regulations made under section 77(1) to be repaid to the Fund;

or

(b)the Board is satisfied of the occurrence of any of the events mentioned in section 15(15)(e).

2. CPF LIFE

The spreadsheet submitted on 3 Mar 14 shows three rate of returns lower than the lower range estimated by CPF LIFE.

The director’s letter of 30 Apr 15 did not explain why the rate of returns were low. It cannot be right that one of the them was lower than 0.001%. The rate of returns were adjusted to give the same monthly payout as estimated by CPF LIFE.

What the director wrote was statements from records. They were not explanation of mistakes made or not made. A copy of the director’s reply of 30 Apr 15 was submitted at MPS, Ang Mo Kio.

I forward the reply of 12 Mar 14 on the above CPF Refund and CPF LIFE.

Yours Sincerely,
hh

(Attachment - letter from director CPFB dated 30 Apr 15, Sheet L24 and L23)

15.
12 Mar 19
Email from CPFB
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

Dear [Sir]

We refer to your email of 3 March 2019 to Prime Minister Office (PMO) concerning the CPF refund upon sale of the flat at Pasir Ris St 11 and your CPF LIFE payout.

We have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that we will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.

Please refer to our reply dated 16 December 2014 on the details of the housing refund amount and our reply dated 30 April 2015 on the computation of CPF LIFE payout.

If you require further clarification, you may contact me at 6202 2060 from Monday to Friday (9.00am to 5.00pm).

Thank you.

Yours sincerely
      [       ]
Senior Executive
Lifelong Income Department
Central Provident Fund Board

7.
26 Feb 19
Email from CPFB
Refund to CPF Account and Return of Deposit After Sale of Flat

Dear [Sir]

I refer to your request made through Mr Teo Chee Hean, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, to clarify on your CPF refund upon sale of the flat at Pasir Ris St 11.

As we have explained to you several times on this matter, we regret that we will not respond to you further on the same matter. You may refer to the details regarding the refund amount in our last reply to you on 16 December 2014.

HDB will be responding to you on your remaining queries.

Yours sincerely
       [       ]
Deputy Director
Housing Schemes Department
Central Provident Fund Board

2.
13 Feb 19
Letter from CPFB
Request for Clarification on CPF refund upon sale of flat

Please refer to Sheet SU2.

(Attachment - Letter from deputy director CPFB dated 13 Feb 19, Sheet SU2)

3. $5,000 Deposit in Resale Documents

Quoted from Salient Points 2 (40)

SP2-Summing Up
24.
16 Apr 19
Email from Resale Section of HDB
Sale Of Flat At [address]

“2        As we have explained to you in our earlier reply, you and your mother, [name of mother] have granted the Option To Purchase (OTP) to buyers on 25 Jan 2014 and received an Option Fee of $1,000 in cash. The buyers had paid you an Option Exercise Fee of $4,000 when they exercised the OTP on 25 Jan 2014. Together, the Option Fee and Option Exercise Fee form the deposit and is considered part of the agreed resale transacted price of [dollar amount]. You can refer to the OTP attached for reference.”

(Summing Up Item 25 of 29 Apr 19 below was my reply. I did not receive the OTP and no option fee and option exercise fee was received on 25 Jan 14.)
25.
29 Apr 19
Email to Resale Section of HDB
Sale Of Flat At [address]

“I negotiated the price with the buyers on 25 Jan 14 in the presence of salespersons for seller and buyer. If the Option To Purchase (OTP) was signed on 25 Jan 14 as indicated in the OTP, why wasn’t the OTP handed to me on the same day. Clause 5.1(b) of the OTP stated “deliver the signed Option (original copy) to the Seller”. And if I had received payment of option fee and exercise fee, were there receipts.”

SP2-Option To Purchase

(The question came about because I enquired of the $5000 deduction shown in the resale document from Resale Operation Section of HDB.

Please refer to the resale document at Salient Points (40) under SP-CPF Refund of 11 Mar 14 and 8 Apr 14  and their replies at SP2-Summing Up Item 12 of 4 Mar 19 and Item 24 of 16 Apr 19 above.

They stated the $5000 deposit was option fee and option exercise fee we had received that form part of the resale price of the flat. Although the fees were indicated in the OPT we had signed, the OTP was not given to us as required and there was no receipt to show we had received any fee. The situation is explained in Explanation (72) Item 4.)