Here's a research paper by Mukul G. Asher and Amarendu Nandy from the LKY School of Public Policy, NUS on Singapore's Policy responses:
This link provides a ppt presentation of the paper:
The entire paper (20 pages) can be found here if you have access:
I got the link to this paper from Mathia Lee's site [Link]. She has a copy of the 20 page paper and you can request a copy from her (email : firstname.lastname@example.org).
If you have time, read the ppt presentation yourself and form your own opinion. The conclusion you MUST read....given this fellers come from LKY School of Public Policy, it is surprising what the paper says about our govt's policies. Many of my postings attempt to shed light on what the govt is trying to accomplish with its policy formulation....here's a paper by academics that discusses the same issues with greater rigor. After reading what they wrote, you'll think our govt and its policies are far worse than what I describe them to be. I've been too kind to the PAP with my postings!
Here is a highlight of the main points on each area, the statements are all taken from the slides:
" CPF system will not be adequate to meet the ageing challenges."
"There are several reasons for this inadequacy. A single‐tier, involving mandatory‐savings, can never provide adequate replacement rate; or address inflation and longevity risks; or provide survivand disability benefits (Asher and Nandy, 2006b)."
"A well designed multi‐tier system is needed, as has recently been recognized in Chile."
"Design and governance issues also act against the adequacy objective; and so does the tendency to use the CPF system as short‐term stabilization instrument."
"Given its multiple focus, the proportion of contributions withdrawn during the pre‐retirement period is very high, averaging 81.8% during 2001‐2005 period (Table 4).
The share of contributions devoted to retirement is therefore low"
On Welfare and Poverty
"Ad‐hoc social welfare schemes of Singapore are also inequitable (Ramesh, 2004)."
"Singapore has no official poverty line".
"Relative poverty is half of the median per capita household income. Approx. 27% households".
"Less than 5% of households in the low income group are beneficiaries of state funded systems; and only 0.07% of the population received public assistance in 2004."
"The amount of assistance is kept deliberately extremely low at around 5‐8% of per capita income."
"It has relied on single tier mandatory savings scheme (CPF) for housing (primarily); for health care (minor importance quantitatively but major ideologically); and retirement".
"It has many schemes, designed to increase social‐political control of the ruling party, with stringent means‐testing".
"The end result of these social policies has been to make individuals and their families bear disproportionate risks of old‐age and low incomes with grossly inadequate social risk pooling which is the hallmark of the OECD countries"
"The CPF system, and the current extensive set of schemes will become even more inadequate, inefficient, and inequitable".