CPF Account Value Thread 2025

[henrylbh]

That's false. Opting out of CPF LIFE does NOT require any change in one's immigration status in Singapore. It only requires an alternative longevity insurance policy or pension.

Still cannot understand? Non-existent is as good as no choice.

 

[DevilPlate]

You talk like everyone can think like you. The gov got to consider the whole population and not few individuals like you.

So now u are talking about gov/policy makers standpoint liao?

 

[DevilPlate]

You understand his stand on CPF and why he opted for FRS? Nothing to suggest the CPFL is not sustainable.

U got watch the entire video anot wah lau
There are a few more videos from him also.

Anyway i don’t agree with him totally or simply not qualified to comment whether he is right or wrong

 

[BBCWatcher]

Non-existent is as good as no choice.

You're perfectly free to choose some other longevity insurance policy or pension if you wish. Several life insurers offer longevity insurance policies (life annuities), and some employers offer pensions. If someone gave you longevity insurance or a pension (you didn't buy it yourself), that's still OK.

Just read the CPF Board's CPF LIFE exemption page for details. I've linked to it 3 times now.

 

[henrylbh]

An example on regret after 20 years although this case is about voluntary conversion from pension to CPF scheme. The regret came 20 years later


https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2006_SGHC_151

From above

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by Mr Tee Soon Kay, together with and on behalf of 99 public officers (collectively, “the appellants”), against the trial judge’s decision in Originating Summons No 618 of 2006 (“the OS”) holding, inter alia, that the appellants were not entitled to revert to the pension scheme as they had opted to convert from the pension scheme to the Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) scheme in 1973.

Waste of time to appeal after so many years. It was his choice to opt out.

Anyway for CPFL vs RSS, gov should also give choice to opt out and for sure there won't appeal like above.

 

[DevilPlate]

You're perfectly free to choose some other longevity insurance policy or pension if you wish. Several life insurers offer longevity insurance policies (life annuities), and some employers offer pensions. If someone gave you longevity insurance or a pension (you didn't buy it yourself), that's still OK.

Just read the CPF Board's CPF LIFE exemption page for details. I've linked to it 3 times now.

U still dont get it meh?

Henry wants RSS and nothing else lah.
Pte annuities cui cmi as compared to RSS 4%+

 

[henrylbh]

U got watch the entire video anot wah lau
There are a few more videos from him also.

Anyway i don’t agree with him totally or simply not qualified to comment whether he is right or wrong

Of course I watched the entire vdo to see what I can learn or gather But nothing new and wasted my time

 

[BBCWatcher]

U still dont get it meh?
Henry wants RSS and nothing else lah.

Instead of repeatedly posting false information, Henry could post that sentence (or something like it) if that's what he means.

Some insurance coverage is compulsory in Singapore if you're a Singaporean citizen or Singapore Permanent Resident: CareShield Life (if you were born after 1979 and are age 30+), MediShield Life (premiums waived if you cannot afford them, and with an opt out for overseas Singaporean citizens), some reasonable form of longevity insurance or pension income (by age 70, if you can afford it), and car insurance (if you have a car), as notable examples. If you want to argue that there shouldn't be any compulsory insurance, good luck with that argument. (It's a losing argument.)

Pte annuities cui cmi as compared to RSS 4%+

Perhaps, but if longevity insurance or a pension "lands in your lap," that's still OK if you want to opt out of CPF LIFE. It doesn't matter whether you obtained that eligible coverage or someone else did for you, such as an employer with a pension program.

 

[kelhot2001]

Even more stupid statement when the option is almost non-existent. For you, unlike those with pink NRIC, got that option. So it easy you speak with ....

Is it real? No wonder

 

[kelhot2001]

Waste of time to appeal after so many years. It was his choice to opt out.

Anyway for CPFL vs RSS, gov should also give choice to opt out and for sure there won't appeal like above.

Fully Agreed, since it started in 2009, they should have given those that already in CPF to decide on RSS or CPFlife and not 1958 onwards

If they had allow option to choose that, probably CPFlife would failed

 

[henrylbh]

U still dont get it meh?

Henry wants RSS and nothing else lah.
Pte annuities cui cmi as compared to RSS 4%+

Not that I want RSS. It is transparent and there is no real need to bet or gamble your CPF money on CPF Life. You take what's is yours, no more, no less. It is clear RSS will exhaust in about 20 years from PEA. And members can also estimate their own payout even after subsequent top-ups and project quite accurately the balance and bequest at each age. They also have choice to request CPF to stretch their payout to more than 20 years. You can't do the same for CPFL. CPFL is not transparent to the extent that it even removed the earlier life payout estimator and bequest at each age for each plan for god knows what they fear. Now members' life payouts (and bequest, if any) completely depend on the Board's calculation with no way to check.

Members must be given choice to remain in RSS or to opt for CPFL AND the gov can still have a say in the retirement sum, payout date, payout amount and payout period according to changing events.

 

[royalmix]

Ask Chatgpt:


It’s reasonable to describe CPF LIFE as compulsory, even though the official term is “mandatory.”


The reason is simple: for most CPF members who meet the criteria (age, RA balance, etc), there’s no real opt-out in practice.


Yes, you could technically opt out by renouncing citizenship or by having a private annuity approved by CPFB. But those are either extreme (giving up citizenship) or extremely rare (private annuity exemption).


So while “mandatory” might be legally correct, it’s accurate - and fair - for people to deem it compulsory, since they can’t realistically choose otherwise.

 

[henrylbh]

You're perfectly free to choose some other longevity insurance policy or pension if you wish. Several life insurers offer longevity insurance policies (life annuities), and some employers offer pensions. If someone gave you longevity insurance or a pension (you didn't buy it yourself), that's still OK.

Just read the CPF Board's CPF LIFE exemption page for details. I've linked to it 3 times now.

What a way to say that you're perfectly free to choose ... but not perfectly free to choose between RSS and CPFL. Waste of time to read the Board's exemption and links provided are as good as nothing.

 

[henrylbh]

Fully Agreed, since it started in 2009, they should have given those that already in CPF to decide on RSS or CPFlife and not 1958 onwards

If they had allow option to choose that, probably CPFlife would failed

Definitely CPFL won't fail if given a choice. It has benefit that some or even majority may choose, but not overwhelmingly that it should be made compulsory.

 

[royalmix]

You can't do the same for CPFL. CPFL is not transparent to the extent that it even removed the earlier life payout estimator and bequest at each age for each plan for god knows what they fear. Now members' life payouts (and bequest, if any) completely depend on the Board's calculation with no way to check.

100% agree, dunno what they are trying to hide? "Detailed knowledge" is gone!

 

[BBCWatcher]

Ask Chatgpt:

What question did you ask ChatGPT? It shouldn't be hard to copy/paste the question you posed.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Ask ChatGPT:

Yes, Royalmix should post the question he asked ChatGPT alongside the answer. Here’s why:

---

Why it’s important to include the original question:​

1. Context clarity
   • ChatGPT answers are tailored to specific wording and assumptions. Without the original question, readers might misinterpret the scope, tone, or intention of the response.
2. Predicate transparency
   • Readers need to see what was assumed or asked to evaluate the relevance or correctness of the answer. (Especially if the answer hinges on nuanced phrasing.)
3. Avoids misinformation
   • If the question is missing, the answer might appear to make claims out of nowhere or apply too broadly.
4. Reproducibility
   • Other users may want to follow up or refine the query themselves. Seeing the original input helps them understand how to do that.
5. Intellectual honesty
   • It gives credit to the original formulation and helps maintain a clear, open dialogue—especially if the answer is being shared publicly or debated.

---

TL;DR:​

Yes, post the question. Without it, the answer lacks anchor and can mislead. With it, readers get full clarity and can engage more thoughtfully.

 

[royalmix]

Since you're curious, the question was:


“Can CPF LIFE be reasonably considered compulsory, even though it's officially described as mandatory?”


My take (and ChatGPT’s) is yes — for most people, CPF LIFE functions as compulsory in practice, even if it's labelled mandatory on paper.


Hope that satisfies the procedural audit


But let’s not derail the main point!

 

[DevilPlate]

Not that I want RSS. It is transparent and there is no real need to bet or gamble your CPF money on CPF Life. You take what's is yours, no more, no less. It is clear RSS will exhaust in about 20 years from PEA. And members can also estimate their own payout even after subsequent top-ups and project quite accurately the balance and bequest at each age. They also have choice to request CPF to stretch their payout to more than 20 years. You can't do the same for CPFL. CPFL is not transparent to the extent that it even removed the earlier life payout estimator and bequest at each age for each plan for god knows what they fear. Now members' life payouts (and bequest, if any) completely depend on the Board's calculation with no way to check.

Members must be given choice to remain in RSS or to opt for CPFL AND the gov can still have a say in the retirement sum, payout date, payout amount and payout period according to changing events.

No point kpkb here also.

Js do BRS or explore pte annuities to opt out CPFLife altogether?

 

[BBCWatcher]

Alevin K. Chan at SingSaver writes:

Myth 6: CPF Life is compulsory​

Given the nature of our government plans and policies, you might think CPF LIFE is compulsory. The truth is, it isn’t.