Has CPF lost it's mission?

From the CPF website (accentuation and cute pics are my own):

Mission
“To enable Singaporeans to have a secure retirement.”
Vision
“A world-class social security organisation enabling Singaporeans to have a secure retirement.”

Corporate Philosophy

Our Commitment

The Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a social security savings scheme jointly supported by employees, employers and the Government. CPF members are employees and self-employed persons in Singapore.

The basic purpose of the CPF is to help members meet primary needs like shelter, food, clothing and health services in their old age or when they are no longer able to work. Benefits offered are to help meet one or more needs of the CPF member in his retirement. They include withdrawals by the member for retirement, permanent disablement, home ownership and medical care. The amounts available depend on how much the member has saved in the CPF.

The Central Provident Fund Board

The CPF Board is the trustee of members' CPF savings. We seek to protect and preserve the value of the savings. We provide fair market returns at minimal risk, while opening avenues for members to seek higher returns on their own after carefully considering the risks involved. The guiding principle is prudence. And returns should contribute towards the member's well-being in his retirement.

Singaporeans spend their entire working lives contributing to this savings fund in the expectation that the money will be safe from marauders, thieves, mismanagement and the vagaries of the real world. They diligently save (albeit compulsory savings), whether in cash or in property, towards the day when they will be able to draw down on thier lifelong savings to finance themselves and their loved ones in their dotage. CPF was always the conservative protector, protecting members even from themselves, restricting what, when and how much members could utilize their savings. CPF rules are myriad and Singaporeans, by and large, have benefited greatly from this unique Singaporean scheme.

.

So what went wrong?

.

What happened to this grand scheme and vision when Waterfront View put them in the spotlight? Why were tens of thousands of dollars allowed to disappear from member accounts without so much as a squeak of protest from the trustees? Why did the CPF allow en bloc sales to go through knowing that members would lose large chunks of their precious retirement savings? Why didn't they fight back?

.
As trustees of members' savings, can they be trusted with our nest egg anymore?

.

Building on the fine decision of Horizon Tower's Court of Appeal, perhaps the pendulum of common sense and justice can swing a littel further to the centre and put right the wrong that sprung up in April 2007, when the CPF allowed LTSA to undermine it's mission statement and surprisingly opened it's doors to en bloc marauders. When the LTSA came in the door, CPF prudence and purpose went out the window.

.

Words are just words, facts speak volumes. See again my post CPF LOSS to recap on the numbers and the irrationality of the 1st charge vs second charge ...

.

Will CPF reconsider their uncharacteristic and unpopular decision to waive outstanding amounts owed to it should the sale proceeds of an en bloc sale be insufficient? Will they repair the damage that this have done to their reputation as guardians? Will they compensate people for their retirement losses?

.

If the Appeal Court can restore order to sale committees, I have faith the CPF Board can still review and revert back to it's primary mission of protecting and preserving the value of the savings even in an en bloc.