AS the debate continues in Parliament over the CPF changes, the consensus in kopitiams seems to be:

'Huh, kong simi?' - say what?

One glance at the numbers is enough to make you 'peng san' (feel like fainting), or feel like a 'kan cheong spider' (unnecessarily anxious).

In this debate, many will 'gasak' (bluff) their way through. Many will 'kao peh kao bu', (complain loudly) without the backup of 'powderful' arguments.

In the next few months, simplified messages will be sent out to aid public understanding, said Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen.

But in the meantime, the kopitiam talk will continue. Theories will be espoused and myths invented over kopi and half-boiled eggs.

But how to separate hard talk from cheap talk, rumours from truth?

We listen to the souring grapevine...

YOU QIAN MEI MING NA
(Got money but not alive to enjoy)

The gripe: Why work so hard when you have no time to enjoy your CPF?

With the postponement of the draw-down age for the CPF Minimum Sum from the present 62 to an eventual 67, CPF now seems like a broken promise to many.

The reason: What if you die early?

The reality: Whether it's a broken promise or a blessing in disguise depends on how you look at it.

The promise is 'broken' because Singaporeans' life expectancy has shot up.

No matter how much you have in your CPF, you can't take it along when you die.

So do you want to die with a lot of CPF money left over for your children? Or ensure that, should you 'heng heng' (lucky, lucky) lead a long life, you do not become a burden to them?

It's about how you hedge your bets.

We'll go along with MP Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central).

His take? 'Got money no life' is better than 'got life no money'.

Rating: 2/5

BOH CHI, BOH KANG
(No money, no job)

Call it a Catch-22 situation. Or a double whammy.

With the higher draw-down age for the CPF Minimum Sum, heartlanders are asking: What if I'm unable to get re-employed and yet unable to draw down on my Minimum Sum?

New legislation requiring employers to offer re-employment to workers when they reach 62, although not necessarily at the same job or at the same pay, is supposed to help Singaporeans stay employed longer.

But MP Amy Khor (Hong Kah GRC) says there is a need to implement it early, before the postponement of the draw-down age starts.

This way, its effectiveness can be measured and workers' future employment assured before the savings are locked up.

Rating: 4/5

PAU SU
(Sure lose)

The horse-betting, kiasu Singaporean wouldn't put a wager on the compulsory annuity scheme.

It's 'pau su', or 'sure lose'. Like betting on Spurs against Arsenal.

Many still cannot believe what the statistics tell them.

According to the Department of Statistics, one in two alive at 62 last year will go on to live beyond 85.

But in a poll done by The New Paper, 54 per cent of respondents did not believe they will make it to 85, the age at which the payouts from annuities begin.

But while buying an annuity is not a 'pau chiah' or 'sure win' proposition, it is also not as bad as a 'pau su' case, said Dr Khor.

Rather, it is 'pau ho', which means 'sure good'. No one knows how long you will live. Who knows, you just could be one of them.

Rating: 2/5

The answer, ultimately, could lie in the much-cherished phrase of the kopitiam - 'kaki lang'.

When someone is 'kaki lang', he's counted as family. No such thing as your money and my money.

Should we, after 42 years of nationhood, start thinking of other Singaporeans, not just our immediate families, as 'kaki lang'?

Too idealistic, perhaps. Too naive.

But that's the only way the annuity scheme will work.

We'll all be old one day. Old age is going to be tough. But it's going to be tougher out on your own.

As the old getai favourite goes: Jilang ji bua, gum cheng buay sua.

Share and, perhaps, the burden will be lighter.

Is this article useful to you?