But we worry for her mental faculties when she argues that our life savings stowed away in the Central Provident Fund (CPF), is not our money.
"Is it our money? Our CPF savings are enhanced and forced CPF savings which are accumulated through our own deferred consumption, through co-payment by our employers and through top-ups from public funds. Is it really my private money? Do I have the right to spend it the way I would spend my own salary? I’m not entirely sure.”
This is not just a gaffe like the one committed by another lawyer who insisted that managing agent (MA) rates at Town Councils are identical for residential and commercial properties. One suspects she spoke not from her heart, or cranium capacity, but political motivations. The clue lies in her other affiliations: member of Our Singapore Conversation Committee (formerly National Conversation a.k.a. NatCon), member of the REACH Supervisory Panel (the Singapore Government’s "feedback" apparatus), member of the Council of the Law Society’s panel of approved Mediators and Investigative Tribunal members. The last being one who sees fit to deem a lawyer unfit to practise because of suspect medical condition.
Be kind with your visceral reaction to an obviously flawed interpretation of the original concept of the CPF. The people who reneged on the promise to release funds at age 55 are just as capable of resorting to all manner of wile to withhold our hard earned monies.