>The parent contributor has conveniently left out the fact that the 37% of CPF contributions is split 20-17 in terms of employee-employer contributions[1]

This point is a shell game, because the employer's share is still effectively being taken from the employee. It's equivalent of "tariffs are paid by foreigners!" that's trotted out for supporting tariffs.

I almost feel like the employee/employer distinction is actually worse than tariff fakery because at least tariffs are somewhat confusing to the average person, so you almost see why they get fooled.

But I feel like no-one would be fooled if you changed an e to an r on payslips (employee contribution to employer) - it's just obviously the same.

$8000 is considerably above median income, no?

Yes. Bluntly put, the government maximizes residence of high net worth individuals, and a 37% forced purchase of low interest bonds would be outrageous to them.

Also Singapore is reasonably good about applying paternalism mostly to the poor.

(I say, mostly, because they still don't allow rich people to take arbitrary drugs. Unless you count getting a doctor to give you a prescription.)