This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The section on disputes added by Yosri was incomprehensible, until I read the reference provided. The reference is dedicated to bias opinion for workers' rights. Yosri, in this case, use a paragraph of the page for the disputes section in a bias way. If you would like to add anything, even if there's reference, please make sure that it is a NPOV and unbias. Anti.Exams ( talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-did the entire page taking out the redundant criticisms and whatever stuff about people wanting CPF to move here and there. So putting this article against others, I rate it as Start class. Please tell me if you beg to differ. Also, I will be adding much more stuff later on during the day as of the time I post this comment. ^^ Anti.Exams ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
its terrible. I should not need to parse the text of the entire section to understand what the current contribution rates are. -- 180.214.70.94 ( talk) 03:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Say about the pinyin, wouldn't a multilingual infobox be preferred instead? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:CPFLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Does the CPF invest in tradable assests? If so who controls these investments, and how much is owned? Kevlar67 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Kervlar, I think you should write to CPF regarding this and ask them to post information about this or you can contribute by finding out as well. ^^ Anti.Exams ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised by seing CPF referred to as a "social security savings plan".
My understanding of "social" security means fundings are centralized by a State or local administration controlled body, which controls distribution of the benefits to a population according to specific rules : you don't get what you save, you get what you are entitled to by such rules.
CPF is a compulsary savings plan at individual level, whereby each one funds its own benefits, even though it is controlled by a State organization : therefore it is a "private" security savings plan : you will get exactly what you save, and nobody else (except family) will benefit from this savings.
This is particularly true under a western European understanding : poorer population fund little or nothing, but will benefit the most from the social security; wealthier population will fund much more, yet will benefit little or nothing from the Scheme (true in France for government medical insurance schemes, unemployement schemes and retirement schemes). Toh-mah ( talk)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Central Provident Fund (Singapore) →
Central Provident Fund – Rather than revert the move
as Tony suggested, I would rather have a discussion about it. Tony's contention is that using what could be a generic term to refer exclusively to a specific instance of that term is misleading, and that such uses ought to include parenthetical qualification (Tony, correct me if I got that wrong). However, I contend that our usual practice is to only provide disambiguation where necessary, and that in this case there are no other "central provident funds" with articles, and so no disambiguation is needed.
Powers
T 12:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
Is there a primary topic?
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title). If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page where more than one term is disambiguated on one page). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article [linked] as mentioned above.
With all that in mind, I simply see nothing persuasive about the argument to keep this article at the unnecessarily disambiguated name. I think the concepts of primary topic and avoiding over-precision are good ones. As has been noted, even any other Central Provident Fund is clearly much less important (or it would have had an article before this week).
I would like to say that the idea that "Central Provident Fund" cannot be a primary topic for anything because "there exists a primary topic associated with the expression 'central provident fund'" is particularly far-fetched. I'm glad that the example of National Park Service was raised, and it was confirmed that per their argument it's problematic too. What this argument amounts to at its essence is that only entities with names that are obviously names should even be considered for primary topic treatment (no parenthetic disambiguation). Well, that, frankly, is a radical idea in the realm of WP article titles, and one for which I believe the reasons to oppose far outweigh the reasons to support. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Central Provident Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Holzmann has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
It is a good descriptive article that sets out the basic mechanism of the SQ PF. It covers well contributions, eligibility criteria and benefit types (and what is presented is in line with my recollection). What would be useful to add are a few small tables/graphs with annual data on scope of participants (contributor, affiliated, beneficiaries), contribution rates (employer, employee), the interest rate provided, and total revenues, expenditure and accumulations.
The article is void/silent of any discussion of social policy issues that need further attention (e.g. concerning rates of return provided that have and keep being very low, the (low) accumulation level by income level, benefits level in comparison to labor market income (for pensions) and to other comparators.
Final comment: I would definitely add to the title Singapore.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Holzmann has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 11:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Central Provident Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, the following is an exact "massive" copy of what appears on Roy Ngerng's page itself. It is totally inappropriate. Nothing to do with CPF policies, but about his libel case in which he was found guilty. It's like a promotional piece for his cause.
Does anyone care to comment or dispute this? Else I shall be removing it. Thanks.
Controversies
On 15 May 2014, Roy Ngerng made a post entitled "Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial" on his blog the Heart Truths. [1] Within the post, Ngerng created a chart which mapped the relationships between the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). [1] Ngerng claimed there was an "uncanny resemblance" between this chart and another chart by news agency Channel News Asia regarding the relationship among City Harvest Church leaders, who were being charged with misappropriating funds. [1]. Roy Ngerng’s contract was terminated by his employer, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, in June 2014 because of "conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees, and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits". [2]
The CPF has been described as "a forced savings scheme" for Singaporeans with "monthly contributions into the fund" to be saved for retirement, or for expenses on "property, healthcare, and their children's education", while the GIC has been described to have "indirectly invested" funds from the CPF. [3]. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance on its part has put forth its explanation as to why CPF funds are invested in Special Singapore Government Securities, to enable CPF Board to be able to pay its members all their monies when due, and the interest that it commits to pay on CPF accounts. The government securities are invested as part of a combined pool of funds managed by GIC, rather than managed in a separate dedicated fund, as a standalone fund would have to be managed conservatively to avoid the risk of failing to meet obligations to CPF members. [4]
On 18 May, Prime Minister (PM) Lee responded through his lawyer Davinder Singh, who stated that the blog post alleged that Lee "is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF" and that the allegations were "false and baseless". [5]
Ngerng said that the article was a call for greater transparency on the CPF, the GIC and Temasek Holdings. [6] and called for PM Lee to rebut the points made in his blog post. [7]. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance has publicly stated that CPF monies are safe as all CPF monies are invested in securities that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government, which is one of the few remaining triple-A credit-rated governments in the world. [8]
Ngerng apologized "unreservedly" on 23 May, admitting that his allegation was "false and completely without foundation". [9]
On 29 May 2014, Prime Minister Lee filed a defamation lawsuit against Ngerng. [10] In a 4 August affidavit, Ngerng argued that his blog post had been misunderstood, and that he was merely asking for more transparency and accountability for CPF monies. [11]
On 7 November 2014, the High Court of Singapore found Ngerng liable of defamation with damages to be assessed, which was the first such ruling in Singapore over a purely online article. [12] Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there was "no triable defence" and "no doubt that it is defamatory to suggest that the plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation". [12] An injunction against Ngerng was granted, barring him from publishing future similar accusations regarding PM Lee and the CPF. [13] Ngerng expressed disappointment at the verdict, but maintained that he would "still continue to speak up on the CPF and other issues that concern Singaporeans". [12]
On 17 December 2015 the court led by Lee Seiu Kin handed down a judgement ordering Ngerng to pay S$100,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages. Ngerng, through his lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam proposed to pay the S$150,000 in instalments which was granted by the Prime Minister on the condition that Ngerng paid the S$30,000 in hearing costs immediately i.e. by 16 March 2016. Ngerng is expected to repay $100 a month from 1 April 2016 onwards over five years until 1 April 2021 when instalments are increased to S$1,000 until the full sum has been paid by the year 2033. [14] Lee also rejected Ngerng's request to reimburse part of the damages i.e. S$36,000. [15]
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The section on disputes added by Yosri was incomprehensible, until I read the reference provided. The reference is dedicated to bias opinion for workers' rights. Yosri, in this case, use a paragraph of the page for the disputes section in a bias way. If you would like to add anything, even if there's reference, please make sure that it is a NPOV and unbias. Anti.Exams ( talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I re-did the entire page taking out the redundant criticisms and whatever stuff about people wanting CPF to move here and there. So putting this article against others, I rate it as Start class. Please tell me if you beg to differ. Also, I will be adding much more stuff later on during the day as of the time I post this comment. ^^ Anti.Exams ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
its terrible. I should not need to parse the text of the entire section to understand what the current contribution rates are. -- 180.214.70.94 ( talk) 03:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Say about the pinyin, wouldn't a multilingual infobox be preferred instead? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:CPFLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Does the CPF invest in tradable assests? If so who controls these investments, and how much is owned? Kevlar67 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Kervlar, I think you should write to CPF regarding this and ask them to post information about this or you can contribute by finding out as well. ^^ Anti.Exams ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised by seing CPF referred to as a "social security savings plan".
My understanding of "social" security means fundings are centralized by a State or local administration controlled body, which controls distribution of the benefits to a population according to specific rules : you don't get what you save, you get what you are entitled to by such rules.
CPF is a compulsary savings plan at individual level, whereby each one funds its own benefits, even though it is controlled by a State organization : therefore it is a "private" security savings plan : you will get exactly what you save, and nobody else (except family) will benefit from this savings.
This is particularly true under a western European understanding : poorer population fund little or nothing, but will benefit the most from the social security; wealthier population will fund much more, yet will benefit little or nothing from the Scheme (true in France for government medical insurance schemes, unemployement schemes and retirement schemes). Toh-mah ( talk)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Central Provident Fund (Singapore) →
Central Provident Fund – Rather than revert the move
as Tony suggested, I would rather have a discussion about it. Tony's contention is that using what could be a generic term to refer exclusively to a specific instance of that term is misleading, and that such uses ought to include parenthetical qualification (Tony, correct me if I got that wrong). However, I contend that our usual practice is to only provide disambiguation where necessary, and that in this case there are no other "central provident funds" with articles, and so no disambiguation is needed.
Powers
T 12:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
Is there a primary topic?
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title). If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page where more than one term is disambiguated on one page). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article [linked] as mentioned above.
With all that in mind, I simply see nothing persuasive about the argument to keep this article at the unnecessarily disambiguated name. I think the concepts of primary topic and avoiding over-precision are good ones. As has been noted, even any other Central Provident Fund is clearly much less important (or it would have had an article before this week).
I would like to say that the idea that "Central Provident Fund" cannot be a primary topic for anything because "there exists a primary topic associated with the expression 'central provident fund'" is particularly far-fetched. I'm glad that the example of National Park Service was raised, and it was confirmed that per their argument it's problematic too. What this argument amounts to at its essence is that only entities with names that are obviously names should even be considered for primary topic treatment (no parenthetic disambiguation). Well, that, frankly, is a radical idea in the realm of WP article titles, and one for which I believe the reasons to oppose far outweigh the reasons to support. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Central Provident Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Holzmann has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
It is a good descriptive article that sets out the basic mechanism of the SQ PF. It covers well contributions, eligibility criteria and benefit types (and what is presented is in line with my recollection). What would be useful to add are a few small tables/graphs with annual data on scope of participants (contributor, affiliated, beneficiaries), contribution rates (employer, employee), the interest rate provided, and total revenues, expenditure and accumulations.
The article is void/silent of any discussion of social policy issues that need further attention (e.g. concerning rates of return provided that have and keep being very low, the (low) accumulation level by income level, benefits level in comparison to labor market income (for pensions) and to other comparators.
Final comment: I would definitely add to the title Singapore.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Holzmann has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 11:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Central Provident Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, the following is an exact "massive" copy of what appears on Roy Ngerng's page itself. It is totally inappropriate. Nothing to do with CPF policies, but about his libel case in which he was found guilty. It's like a promotional piece for his cause.
Does anyone care to comment or dispute this? Else I shall be removing it. Thanks.
Controversies
On 15 May 2014, Roy Ngerng made a post entitled "Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial" on his blog the Heart Truths. [1] Within the post, Ngerng created a chart which mapped the relationships between the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). [1] Ngerng claimed there was an "uncanny resemblance" between this chart and another chart by news agency Channel News Asia regarding the relationship among City Harvest Church leaders, who were being charged with misappropriating funds. [1]. Roy Ngerng’s contract was terminated by his employer, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, in June 2014 because of "conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees, and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits". [2]
The CPF has been described as "a forced savings scheme" for Singaporeans with "monthly contributions into the fund" to be saved for retirement, or for expenses on "property, healthcare, and their children's education", while the GIC has been described to have "indirectly invested" funds from the CPF. [3]. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance on its part has put forth its explanation as to why CPF funds are invested in Special Singapore Government Securities, to enable CPF Board to be able to pay its members all their monies when due, and the interest that it commits to pay on CPF accounts. The government securities are invested as part of a combined pool of funds managed by GIC, rather than managed in a separate dedicated fund, as a standalone fund would have to be managed conservatively to avoid the risk of failing to meet obligations to CPF members. [4]
On 18 May, Prime Minister (PM) Lee responded through his lawyer Davinder Singh, who stated that the blog post alleged that Lee "is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF" and that the allegations were "false and baseless". [5]
Ngerng said that the article was a call for greater transparency on the CPF, the GIC and Temasek Holdings. [6] and called for PM Lee to rebut the points made in his blog post. [7]. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance has publicly stated that CPF monies are safe as all CPF monies are invested in securities that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government, which is one of the few remaining triple-A credit-rated governments in the world. [8]
Ngerng apologized "unreservedly" on 23 May, admitting that his allegation was "false and completely without foundation". [9]
On 29 May 2014, Prime Minister Lee filed a defamation lawsuit against Ngerng. [10] In a 4 August affidavit, Ngerng argued that his blog post had been misunderstood, and that he was merely asking for more transparency and accountability for CPF monies. [11]
On 7 November 2014, the High Court of Singapore found Ngerng liable of defamation with damages to be assessed, which was the first such ruling in Singapore over a purely online article. [12] Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there was "no triable defence" and "no doubt that it is defamatory to suggest that the plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation". [12] An injunction against Ngerng was granted, barring him from publishing future similar accusations regarding PM Lee and the CPF. [13] Ngerng expressed disappointment at the verdict, but maintained that he would "still continue to speak up on the CPF and other issues that concern Singaporeans". [12]
On 17 December 2015 the court led by Lee Seiu Kin handed down a judgement ordering Ngerng to pay S$100,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages. Ngerng, through his lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam proposed to pay the S$150,000 in instalments which was granted by the Prime Minister on the condition that Ngerng paid the S$30,000 in hearing costs immediately i.e. by 16 March 2016. Ngerng is expected to repay $100 a month from 1 April 2016 onwards over five years until 1 April 2021 when instalments are increased to S$1,000 until the full sum has been paid by the year 2033. [14] Lee also rejected Ngerng's request to reimburse part of the damages i.e. S$36,000. [15]
References