2025-09-13
Author: Cai Jialiang (Reader)
Lianhe Zaobao
=====
A few weeks ago, a woman repeatedly called me, claiming to be a financial advisor appointed by the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board, saying she could help me achieve more than 6% returns on the money in my retirement account. Because I was busy, I did not have time to accept the invitation, but she insisted that she could not send me the relevant information or explain it over the phone—it had to be discussed in person. Two weeks later, she still patiently called and even traveled all the way to the eastern, remote industrial area of the island to meet me.
In the end, two women came. They asked me to open the CPF app and pointed out that I had chosen to subscribe to “CPF’s educational content and schemes,” which was why they had contacted me.
Then, A explained policies regarding the CPF Retirement Account (RA): if you mortgage your house to CPF, you can withdraw half of your RA funds, but only under two conditions. First, you need a doctor to issue a certificate of shortened life expectancy, but doctors generally do not issue this easily; second, the funds must be used for a retirement plan—if you invest in Bitcoin, CPF would claw back the funds. These were conditions I had never heard of before.
B then introduced the retirement plan: the sum was $90,000, paid in three installments. The first year’s $30,000 would yield $1,800 in interest, with $150 received monthly; in the second year, another $30,000 would be invested, yielding $300 monthly; and in the third year, after completing all contributions, one could receive $450 monthly. In addition, there was the option to compound interest, and after 10 years, one could withdraw at any time.
The scheme was indeed attractive, and without much thought, I decided to sign up. So, B immediately processed an insurance policy from a certain insurance company for me to sign and even helped me set up PayNow with my ID number, supposedly for CPF to disburse funds. She also told me to ignore any contact from the insurance company. A carried out a risk tolerance assessment for me, and although she said the policy was low risk, she still chose a high-risk tolerance for me, saying it would make processing easier and that I should not worry.
The documents were lengthy and complex, so A only highlighted the key points before asking me to sign on a tablet. After returning home, my wife reminded me: could this be a scam? I could not figure out how I might lose money. But eventually, I called the Anti-Scam Centre. Their response was immediate: this was highly likely a scam, and they advised me to file a police report at once. I quickly changed my Singpass password, froze my bank accounts, and lodged a report at the police station. First, to clarify the situation; second, to have it on record; and third, to prevent more people from falling victim. After an investigation, the police confirmed the two women were professional financial advisors. Since I had not suffered any monetary loss, they suggested I contact the insurance company the next day.
The next day, I called CPF and found out that RA withdrawals had no such conditions, and the CPF Board had never appointed any financial advisors to approach me. The insurance company also told me my policy was still being processed and not yet finalized.
After much thought, I guessed that they had used the relatively low returns of the RA as a selling point, intending to get me to transfer my funds into an investment-linked policy. Putting money into such an uncertain direction might yield returns, or it might cause even my retirement savings to vanish. So, I refused further contact with them.
Did this happen because the Special Account (SA) was closed at age 55? This is indeed worth reflecting on. After the SA closes, are RA interest rates less attractive than market returns? Does this create opportunities for financial advisors to exploit, enticing investors to withdraw CPF funds for investments with promises of higher returns?
RA’s return rate is not high, and transferring funds into investment-linked policies that promise both high interest and capital protection does carry certain appeal. In reality, mortgaging one’s house to withdraw RA funds essentially turns them into cash. But compared to asking clients to use cash directly for insurance, this comparative tactic is more persuasive, making people overlook the basic principle that high returns come with high risks. One must remember: RA funds are retirement savings. A moment’s greed could wipe out years of hard-earned savings. Frankly, even as someone with a financial background, I was almost swayed by these advisors’ sophisticated sales techniques—how much more vulnerable might others be?
To cope with these varied tactics, first and foremost, individuals must remain vigilant. Always stay calm and cautious when approached, and discuss with those around you to avoid blind spots. Always remember the principle that “high returns inevitably come with high risks,” so as not to fall into a trap.
Second, the authorities should strengthen supervision of sales personnel. Even legitimate financial advisors from licensed companies should not be allowed to lure the public into diverting CPF funds into investments.
Third, raising public awareness of prevention is crucial. Beyond widely publicizing various scams or scam-like tactics, authorities should consider setting up platforms for the public to share and report their experiences. If I could share my experience with more people, it would help prevent others from foolishly falling into traps.
Finally, such irresponsible behavior should be dealt with seriously, as a warning.
The author is the Chief Operating Officer of a medical components manufacturing company.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment