Release CPF savings for hardship needs

　　By Peter Ong 　　I believe more and more people today are crying out "money no enough." Having "not enough money" to spend is but a small matter. What is more troubling is having no money to meet daily expenses. Imagine a family that is short on food and the basic necessities， and the breadwinner is compelled to turn to loan sharks for money. Could this happen in Singapore? 　　I am afraid the answer is yes. And as the number of jobless increases， more and more families are likely to meet this fate. 　　 Not long ago， Mr Lim Swee Say， NTUC Deputy Secretary-General， projected that the rate of unemployment would rise to 4 per cent before the end of the year， and reach 7 per cent next year. Given a workforce of 1.8 million， the number of unemployed could exceed 120，000. 　　Unemployment affects both the men and women， and the young and old. But the most vulnerable are those aged 40 and above. Likely to be the sole breadwinners， these middle-aged workers hail from white- and blue-collar jobs and different educational background. 　　Generally， when women workers are retrenched， families get to lose one of their income earners. When young workers are laid off， most of them will just fall back on their parents for financial support. And when workers about to retire lose their jobs， they can dig into their CPF savings (once they reach withdrawal age) to tide them through. However， when men aged 40 and above are asked to quit， mos of them run into a dead end.Men aged 40 and above are most vulnerable because they are a favourite target for retrenchment. They are also likely to be shunned in any recruitment exercise because their salary is generally higher than young new recruits due to their longer length of service. Management realises that they could lower costs if they replace these older workers with younger but lower-salaried ones. 　　Older workers are also likely to have greater financial commitments - such as car and mortgage loans， children still attending school and， for some， elderly parents to look after. 　　A human resource manager from a cruise company told me recently that she detected a desperate sense of "hunger and thirst" when this category of workers showed up for job interviews. 　　She said: "Most of them have been looking for jobs for several months. Some of them are even prepared to accept half of what they used to earn because they understand that， without any job， they would have no income. Even if they had some savings， these would be depleted in a few months' time." 　　Nevertheless， her company's stand is to recruit the most suitable candidate-not the person who is willing to work at the lowest pay-for the job. So， even

　　though she empathised with the candidates， she had to reject them. 　　The manager's observations have not been off the mark. Very few Singaporeans have enough cash savings. If they lost their jobs， they would find themselves in a tight spot within a few months. 　　Well， perhaps the salaried workers arenot to be blamed for being caught in this situation. Not too long ago， it was common social practice for Singaporeans to go for an overseas holiday at least once a year. For those with more cash， they would dream of owning a car or a house. There is an even greater number of Singaporeans who do not see the need to save because they are already contributing to the CPF. 　　 I， too， often heard Singaporeans complain that they found it difficult to save because of the high cost of living. 　　So， when the economy suddenly took a turn for the worse， many Singaporeans were caught unprepared. Even economic analysts were feeling optimistic that "tomorrow will be better" just before July last year， when the financial crises hit the region. 　　No matter what the cause， the current economic situation has led to the emergence of a large number of unemployed Singaporeans， who are becoming increasingly anxious not only because they have no jobs， but also because they have put their families in dire straits. 　　What can be done? Some of them are prepared to "lower their social status" and sell their car and property. But prices have dropped. Worse still， it is difficult to find a buyer at this juncture. For HDB property owners， buying and selling of flats are further restricted by government regulations. 　　Someone once told me that Singaporeans used to be "property-rich but cash-poor." Today， they are equally poor in both aspects. 　　Recently， the newspapers had reported that many Singaporeans tried to make ends meet by terminating their insurance policies， forgoing tuition classes for their children and even ending maids' contracts. But what about the other running household expenses-the daily meals， children's school fees， electricity bills and transport costs? 　　I am sure no one will object if we suggest that something be done to help these financially-strapped families. The issue is: how do we help them? 　　Unemployment subsidies? We have learnt from the experiences of other countries that this form of social welfare does not work. It not only puts a strain on th country's limited resources， but also does nothing to encourage the unemployed to look for a job. So we have to be steadfast against implementing such a measure. 　　Lately， we have repeatedly heard a lot about structural unemployment and the government's and NTUC's efforts to encourage Singaporeans to train and re-train for new higher-skilled jobs. While these eff

　　orts are welcomed， they mean little to the unemployed， whose bank savings are fast dwindling. Moreover， training requires time and the effects will not be known till much later. 　　Last week， the NTUC announced that it will set up a thrift and loan cooperative that can provide low-interest loans to needy workers. The labour movement hopes that the cooperative can serve as the "people's bank" and reduce their dependence on loan sharks to finance their needs. This is good news indeed， as police statistics have shown that more and more Singaporeans from the middle- and lower-income groups are resorting to loan sharks for financial help in times of difficulty. 　　But whether the loan comesfrom NTUC Thrift or the loan sharks， it still has to be repaid. So， why don't we allow the unemployed to use their own money - locked in their CPF savings - to finance their own needs? 　　The CPF started off as a savings scheme for old age. This initial purpose was considered "sacred." Today， we are even able to use our CPF savings for investments. As such， it does not make sense if our savings could not to used to meet our urgent needs in times of economic difficulties. 　　 If we view the issue from a different perspective - that is， regard savings as a protection against rainy days -then we should all the more allow those in financial difficulties to use their CPF savings to help them tide over the stormy period. After all， what we are experiencing now is an unprecedented major financial crisis. 　　Of course， we need to ensure that there is no abuse of the system once the CPF savings are opened up for this purpose. There are several ways to go about this. For instance， the account holder can only withdraw monthly a certain percentage of his last drawn salary. He can also be allowed to withdraw his CPF savings for a period that is limited to six months or a year. 　　The CPF Board must be satisfied that the applicant has truly been retrenched by his employer， and not someone who chose to be retrenched because he does not feel like working. The authority should also consider the applicant's family background before granting him access to the funds. The applicant must be above a certain age， and has CPF savings that exceed a certain minimum level. 　　 In addition， an applicant who was paid retrenchment benefit should be entitled to withdraw a smaller sum. 　　Times are bad now. It is perhaps the right occasion to allow CPF account holders to dip into their savings to meet their urgent financial needs. Of course， the whole purpose is to help them tide over the difficult period and the key word is "to cope with an emergency." Given that understanding， when the economy picks up or recovers， the Board can consider getting the account holder to return (with

　　interest) what he has taken out. 　　 After all， this is a form of borrowing. The only difference is that the applicant borrows from his own savings. This way， he does not have to turn to a banker who is likely to reject his request， or resort to loan sharks and run the risk of having them knock at your door in the middle of the night demanding repayment.

用公積金解燃眉之急

　　這一陣子，大喊“錢不夠用”的人一定很多。

　　錢不夠用事小，最可怕是口袋沒錢可用了，家中斷糧斷奶粉，逼 得四處找大耳窿。有這樣的家庭嗎?我斷定有，而且隨著失業(yè)人口的 增加，還會越來越多。

　　根據(jù)全國職總副秘書長林瑞生的預測，失業(yè)率有可能在今年底之 前攀升到4%，明年則可能是7%;以180萬就業(yè)人口來算，失去飯碗的 人有可能超過12萬。

　　當中有婦女也有男性職工，臉孔從年輕到年老都有，不過最為脆 弱的，應該是40歲以上，靠自己一份收入撐起整個家的中年人。他們 不限于藍領，也不限于任何教育程度。

　　一般上，婦女被裁，可能是雙收入的家庭少了一個收入來源;年 輕人被裁，也多數(shù)可以“回”家靠父母;快退休的人，則差不多可以 按時領公積金。但40多的男性雇員，多數(shù)無路可退。

　　他們的脆弱性，主要表現(xiàn)在3個“最”：最容易被裁、最難找工 作，以及經(jīng)濟負擔最大。

　　前兩者和年資、收入有關。制訂裁員名單時，一些公司發(fā)現(xiàn)裁掉 他們，成本可省得最多;反之找人手時，請年輕人又比請他們便宜。

　　談到經(jīng)濟負擔，這個年齡層的雇員，往往有孩子在上學，有房子或汽 車要供，一些甚至還有年邁的上一代要養(yǎng)。

　　一家郵輪公司的人力資源經(jīng)理告訴我，上門應征者當中，她從這 群人身上，感受到最強烈的“饑渴感”。

　　她說：“很多人已經(jīng)找了幾個月工了。一些甚至不介意拿比以前 少一半的薪水，因為手�？谕�。就算有儲蓄，幾個月內也會坐吃山空 。” 　　不過她承認，公司認為工作合不合適比愿意拿多低的薪水重要， 因此盡管同情，也往往要向這些應征者說“對不起”。

　　她的觀察應該錯不了。很少新加坡人有真正足夠的現(xiàn)金儲蓄，一 旦失業(yè)，沒幾個月就會陷入困境中。

　　其實也難怪受薪階層。沒多久以前，社會的大氛圍就是這樣：出 國旅行每年總要一次，錢再多些，則打房子汽車的主意。還有很多人 認為，他每個月繳交公積金，已經(jīng)是儲蓄了。

　　經(jīng)濟風球說變就變，也叫很多人措手不及。不是嗎?在去年7月 之前，有多少專家不是天天在唱“明天會更好”。

　　我也常聽到這樣的埋怨：“生活費太高了，真要儲蓄，也不是容 易的一件事。” 　　不管原因是什么，眼前的事實是社會上正出現(xiàn)許許多多焦慮的失 業(yè)者，他們的背后，則多數(shù)有一個陰霾籠罩的家。

　　怎辦呢?有人要“降級”，但賣汽車時發(fā)現(xiàn)沒價錢也沒買家。屋 子的情況也一樣。有人告訴我，以前新加坡人是“房地產(chǎn)富人，現(xiàn)金 窮人”，現(xiàn)在兩邊都窮了。組屋有條例限制，也不是想賣就能賣的。

　　近日則有報道說，終止保單、孩子補習或女傭聘約的家庭多了起 來。但不管怎樣省，一日三餐總是要的。孩子的學費、水電、交通費 、房子期款等等，也都得照付。

　　對這些“一家之主”伸出援手，相信沒有人反對，現(xiàn)在的關鍵是 選擇怎樣的幫助途徑。

　　提供失業(yè)補助金的“惡果”，已經(jīng)在許多國家有了前車之鑒。對 這類福利制度，我們還是要堅決說“不”的。

　　結構性失業(yè)、訓練和再訓練的概念近來談得很多，也實實在在進 行著。不過要看到成績還需要時間。對失去工作的人來說，銀行存款 快完了，進修不可能是優(yōu)先要做的事。

　　上個星期職總宣布要帶頭成立貸款合作社，借錢給工友。這無疑 是好消息。職總希望這類“小市民的銀行”，能減少大耳窿的負面影 響。

　　這個動機很好，警方的數(shù)字也證實了問題越來越嚴重。陰暗的路 總好過走投無路，許多中下階層人士就是在這種無奈中，走向大耳窿 的。

　　不過貸款終究是貸款，條件不管多“寬厚”還是別人的錢。為什 么不讓失業(yè)者，用自己的錢自救呢?是的，我是指公積金存款。

　　過去，公積金有養(yǎng)老之用，是“神圣不可侵犯”的。但今天連投 資都可以了，不能用它來解救存戶的燃眉之急顯得說不過去。從另一 個角度看，儲蓄如果是未雨綢繆，此刻這場暴風雨也夠大的了。我們 的經(jīng)濟情況，從沒有如此嚴峻過。

　　網(wǎng)開一面的同時，當然也要確保這個過渡性安排不被濫用。這方 面做法很多，例如限定只能支取最后薪金額(last drawn salary) 的一個百分比，來應付學費、三餐等最基本的生活開銷。有效期也可 以設限，如最多支取半年或一年。

　　申請者也須是真正被裁的員工，而不是不想工作打算吃老本。當 局還可以考慮申請者的家庭背景、規(guī)定年齡必須超過多少歲、須有一 定的最低存款額等等。

　　此外，任職3年以上的員工，都享有遣散費，也就可以少領一點 。以上種種，除了生活開銷外，要核實并不困難。

　　日子艱難，允許存戶提取一些錢來應急或許是時候了。當然，計 劃是過渡性質的，關鍵字眼是“救急”。因此將來情況好轉，要求存 戶連利息一起“回繳”也不是不可能。

　　畢竟，這其實也是借錢。只是跟自己借心里踏實多了。起碼不會 有銀行給臉色看，或擔心大耳窿半夜來噴漆掛豬頭。

【Release CPF savings for hardship nee】相關文章：