Family court now don't have to bother about CPF.
You seem to be
blissfully unaware of how the Family Courts and CPF actually work.
They cannot make or change policies just to suit a few people but should cater to vast majority.
Nobody is married in Singapore?
Currently CPF LIFE is reasonably well designed for singles.
A simple and fuss free CPF Nomination to the spouse can also do this.
Nope. CPF nominations convey only residuals, and residuals aren't life annuities. Residuals drop to zero frequently. A joint/survivor or joint/contingent life annuity establishes the monthly payout stream for life for both individuals jointly, and that has to be done up front to work effectively.
Easy for you. But a lot more work for CPF board. Means more budget needed.
No, not really. It halves the number of separate life annuities the CPF Board has to administer for members that choose this hypothetical option. There are no residuals to worry about (at least from RAs/CPF LIFE) either, and that's simpler, too. (The CPF Board currently has a fair amount of work to do to find nominees.) And I wouldn't object to dropping the CPF LIFE Basic Plan to keep the payout plan choices to three if the CPF Board sees fit.
Also, destitute widows (usually widows) are an actual problem in Singapore, and the bureaucracy is burdened with those cases via ComCare and other programs. Reduce elder destitution and you reduce those administrative burdens, not to mention the pain and suffering of Singaporean survivors.
If anyone can be partner, then government later have to handle disputes subsequently such as scams， joint with mistress or tourguide etc.
There'd be some rules about who could qualify as a partner, but the CPF Board already has to deal with such issues in CPF nominations. This is effectively a nomination, too.
Just keep it simple lah. Already so complicated.
It *is* currently complicated if you're married or have a significant other. Financial planning is much less complicated with a joint life annuity.
but seriously, the partner plan is not too bad an idea. but as what andrew mentioned. there is no free lunch. every advantage comes with a cost. the payout in the partners plan is lower than 2x single plan.
It depends on how it's structured. Joint/survivor (100%/100%) would have a slightly lower monthly payout initially (on a household basis) in typical scenarios but higher (even much higher) after the first partner dies, which is the whole point really: to protect your longer lived loved one against longevity risks. Joint/contingent is an "it depends" situation.
A hypothetical CPF LIFE Partner Plan would probably be a choice, although I can think of one possible exception. Let's suppose Legal Spouse A has a CPF Retirement Account funded to the Full Retirement Sum and Legal Spouse B has zero in CPF. Under current rules Spouse A can only choose an individual CPF LIFE plan because that's all there is. Once Spouse A dies there's no more household income from CPF LIFE, and the residual could easily be zero. (Just live long enough.) Surviving Spouse B then has to figure out how to carry on with zero income. Not pretty.
OK, now let's assume the Partner Plan is available. Spouse A makes a payout plan choice. The CPF Board could simply look at his/her legal spouse's CPF balances. If Spouse B doesn't have at least the Basic Retirement Sum (for example), then Spouse A would have to choose the Partner Plan unless Spouse B explicitly gives permission otherwise. For example. The government has a reasonable interest in making sure that spouses take care of each other to a reasonable extent, and this approach would respect the government's reasonable public policy interest in better defending widows (usually widows) against destitution.
