行动党是如何操纵我们的公积金资金?为什么他们不让新加坡人民知道公积金的历史真相?《第二部分》

What PAP Has Done to Your CPF and Doesn’t Want Singaporeans to Know (The Real History) (Part 2)

由于方便大家阅读,作者把文章分成两部分。《第一部分》已经在2014年8月22日发表在如下网址。这是第二部分。全文如下。

The English version of this article was first published here.

行动党在1984年已经引进保健储蓄作为‘国家医药储蓄计划,个人必须把自己收入的一部分存入保健储蓄户头里,为将来个人或其亲属住院、日常手术和部分门诊的开支。’

In 1984, PAP introduced Medisave as “a national medical savings scheme, (where) … individuals (have to) aside part of their income into their Medisave Accounts to meet their future personal or immediate family’s hospitalization, day surgery and certain outpatient expenses.

杜进才先生批评保健储蓄时说,‘没有任何人有能力拥有两个医药福利计划。’

Mr Toh Chin Chye criticised the Medisave. He said that, “No firm can afford to have two parallel medical welfare schemes.”

他也说,

He also said that:

保健储蓄是一种税收,对于低收入阶层而言,这是一种隐藏性的税收。因为公积金的缴交率是极其低的,他们将会支付全部的金额。然而,那些高收入者并不需要支付全额的公积金缴交率,因为公积金缴交率是有顶限的。我个人认为(保健储蓄)这是一短视的做法。

(Medisave) is a taxation, and it is a recessive tax for the simple reason that those who are at the lower income level, because their CPF contributions are lower, will have to pay the full amount, whereas those with higher incomes do not pay the full percentage of their income towards the CPF because there is a ceiling. It is recessive. I feel that all this is a very short-sighted myopic view.

他们是否费时去调查卫生部和贸工部与财政部是否有共谋,他们从这里拿经费去维持自己部门的运作?卫生部的第一个反应是确保医疗服务的存在。这是卫生部的第一个责任。他们必须四处去向财政部要钱。但是,他是在执行财政部的工作。我完全不同意有关处理保健储蓄的问题。

Has the Minister for Health, who was in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, who was in cahoots with the Minister for Finance, taken the trouble to investigate how he is going to get the money to run his Ministry? The first responsibility of the Minister for Health is to ensure the availability of health care services. That is his first responsibility, that he must go round and nag at the Minister for Finance for the money. But he is taking on the job of the Minister for Finance. I totally disagree with the approach of Medisave.

Slide115

陈树群在国会也说,

Mr Tan Soo Khoon had also said in parliament:

议长先生,单从国家保健计划本身和强调经济上的考量方面看,我个人有一个令人不快的感觉,财政部的手伸入其中。政府承担的社会责任在哪儿?议长先生,我相信,在政府的关系负责健康保健社会责任和提供费用之间,我们必须需求平衡点。但是,我对计划的主要批评是,因为它忽视了一些疾病将会

这是涉及关心保健和提供医疗费用的问题。但是,我主要批评的是有关(保健储蓄)计划。不论个人有没有任何过失、个人付出多大的努力去坚强的面对以防止疾病的发生,但是,由于它忽视了认识到这个计划的疾病已经侵入体内。

Sir, looking at the National Health Plan itself and the emphasis on financial considerations, I have the nasty feeling that the Ministry of Finance had quite a hand in it. What has happened to the Government’s social responsibility? I believe, Sir, that somewhere along the line we have to strike the proper balance between what is the Government’s social responsibility in so far as health care is concerned and the cost of providing it. But this is my main criticism of the scheme, because it fails to realize that certain illnesses do occur through no fault of the individual no matter how much effort you put in to stay fit and to prevent illnesses.

议长先生,没有任何人知道他们的肾脏和心脏已经出现问题了。没有人知道癌症已经能够袭击他们了。医疗护理对于长期的疾病有许多的例子。事实上,应该是所有的例子,长期的疾病对于个人和他的家庭将会是一个沉重的经济负担。因此,保健储蓄不是一个可以适合解决这些需求的。议长先生,在这样的情况下的结局是是深远的。价假设一个病人无法使用他们的保健储蓄户头的钱去支付全部或一部分这样的开支,他们可能会寻求延期入院治疗直到他们的健康恶化或者更严重的是他们可能自己寻求自我医治的途径。

Sir, nobody knows when his kidneys or his heart will fail him. Nobody knows when cancer will strike. Medical treatment for chronic diseases is in many instances, in fact, in almost all instances, life-long and can be a heavy burden on the individual and his family. Medisave is therefore inadequate in meeting such needs. The consequences, Sir, can be far-reaching. If individuals cannot use their Medisave account to cover either wholly or partially such expenses, they may delay seeking hospitalization till their health deteriorates or, worse still, they might resort to self-medication.

最终,人民将会发现保健储蓄是一项完全无法吸引人的提议,因为当人们发现存入保健储蓄户头的钱一旦他们需要用时无法动用,那么,人民将不会积极的把钱存入这个户头。

Finally, people may find Medisave a wholly unattractive proposition because there might not be the incentive to put money into the Medisave account if they find that their savings cannot be used when it really matters.

事实上,今天我们都知道,新加坡人宁可选择死亡也不愿到医院寻求治疗。

Indeed, today, we know of Singaporeans who have had to choose to die instead of seek medical treatment.

今天,政府收到保健储蓄户头的钱已经是660亿元,但是,在2012年只有7.68亿元从保健储蓄户头里提取出来作为直接开支,或者是只占了保健储蓄结存总额的1.3%。

Today, Medisave has collected $66 billion but in 2012, only $768 million was withdrawn for direct expenses, or only 1.3% of the total Medisave balance.

Slide4

 在2011年从保健户头提取的数额是7.22亿元。与2011年保健储蓄户头的存款总额131亿元相比较,占保健储蓄总开支的5.5%。

And when you look at the $722 million withdrawn from Medisave in 2011, as compared to the total health expenditure of $13.1 billion in 2011, Medisave would account for only 5.5% of total health expendfiture!

Slide5

现在,如果从保健储蓄户头里提取相等于2011年总提款额的7倍,就是51亿元,这将会帮忙新加坡人通过保健储蓄户头支付保健费用的总额是38.5%,再加上目前的保健津贴,就可以为保健费提供总款额的70%的开支,或者是其平均开支与其他发达国家在保健的开支一样。

Now, if withdrawals from Medisave grew by just 7 times to $5.1 billion in 2011, this would help Singaporeans pay for 38.5% of total health expenditure using Medisave, and together with current health subsidies, cover for 70% of total health expenditure, or the average expenditure that governments in other developed countries would spend on health.

Slide6

The Real History of the CPF and the Singapore Economy

即使从保健储蓄增加7倍的提取款额,也即等于新加坡人只是需要花费相等于2011年保健储蓄结存总额的9.1%!这就是说,在保健储蓄户头里还有超过90%的存款。这足够行动党拿我们的保健储蓄户头的钱干他们要干的事。

Increasing the Medisave withdrawals by 7 times would mean Singaporeans would still be only spending 9.1% of the total Medisave balance in 2011! There would still be more than 90% inside the balance for whatever uses PAP wants to take our Medisave to use for!

Slide7

那么,为什么行动党只允许新加坡人从保健储蓄户头里提取那可怜的1.3%款项,自己还得从兜里拿出超过60%的现金去支付医药费呢?

Then why does PAP only let Singaporeans take out a miserable 1.3% from Medisave and have to spend more than 60% out of our own pockets for healthcare?

梁志轩先生也估算了,在2013年,新加坡人存入保健储蓄户头的钱约80亿元,包括保健储蓄户头所赚取的利息,合计健保储蓄户头的总存款款额是108亿元。

Leong Sze Hian also estimated that in 2013, Singaporeans would have paid about $8 billion into Medisave, and including for the interest earned on Medisave, this would add up to a total inflow of $10.8 billion into the Medisave.

梁志轩先生同时也计算了,当您看到政府在医疗保健支出的总开支是71亿元。即便是包括从健保储蓄户头提取的15.6亿元,健保储蓄保费8.176亿元,保健基金支付1.02亿元,以及建国一代配套第一年的费用2.6亿元。所有支出的项目总额也就是97.6亿元。这比起新加坡人缴入保健储蓄户头和赚取利息的总款额108亿元还要少。

Leong also calculated that when you look at the total government expenditure of health of $7.1 billion, and even including for expenses for Medisave withdrawals ($1.56 billion), MediShield premiums ($817.6 million), Medifund payouts ($102 million) and the first-year costs for the Pioneer Generation Package ($260 million), this would only add up to $9.76 billion, or lesser than the $10.8 billion that Singaporeans would have paid into and earned in the Medisave!

这些款项的数据说明了:新加坡人每年存入保健储蓄户头的钱是足于覆盖政府所有的医疗保健开支的。假设这些数据是正确的,为什么新加坡人还需要缴交税收?那些保健医疗津贴去了哪儿?

This means that Singaporeans are paying more than enough to Medisave every year to cover for all of the government’s health expenses. If so, why are Singaporeans still paying tax and where have the health subsidies gone?

Slide8

事实上,在1984年开始实施保健储蓄制度时,政府说要承担津贴50%的医疗保健开支的。但是在保健储蓄制度实施了两年后。行动党突然把政府应承担的保健医疗津贴削减到30%,造成了新加坡人必须从保健储蓄户头为自己支付更多的医疗费用。

Indeed, prior to the introduction of Medisave in 1984, the government would subsidise for 50% of total health expenditure. But two years after Medisave was introduced, PAP suddenly pushed down subsidies to 30% and made Singaporeans pay more by ourselves, from our Medisave.

Slide117

今天,行动党是发达国家中支付医疗开支最低的国家,同时也是世界上最低的国家。

Thus today, at 30%, PAP spends the lowest health expenditure among the other developed countries and also one of the lowest in the world.

Slide119

在1990年,当保健储蓄实施时,政府说,‘保健储蓄的存款额是帮忙公积金会员能够应付可能无法足够支付B2/C级病房的费用。’

In 1990, MediShield was introduced, which the government says is “to help members meet large Class B2/C hospitalisation bills, which could not be sufficiently covered by their Medisave balances.”

李绍祖医生在国会里说,

Dr Lee Siew-Choh had said in parliament:

很明显的,保健储蓄首要任务不是为了受保人,而是为保健储蓄本身。这是为了确保政府不会涉及到任何可能需要支付额外的开支。保健储蓄的运作就如私人的商业保险商业公司。它营运的目标就是:保证利润和不亏损。同时,它提供给受保人的在住院和外科手术的利益比私人商业保险公司来的少。

It would appear that MediShield’s first responsibility is not to the insured person, but to MediShield itself, to ensure that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure… It operates just like private commercial insurance companies. It operates with the object of sure profit and no loss. Yet, it provides less benefits than private commercial hospital and surgical schemes.

但是,政府的保健储蓄运作并不需要如商业保险公司一样。政府的责任是必须照顾所以年龄的投保者和各种病患。因此,必须确保保健储蓄是真正为全部年龄的人的低成本的医保。保健储蓄必须真正承担全部的责任为照和治疗那些长期遭受严重疾病折磨的病患。

But Government MediShield does not have to operate like a commercial business undertaking. Government has a responsibility to look after the aged and the sick. Therefore, it should ensure that MediShield is a truly low cost medical insurance for the aged, that it truly accepts full responsibility in the care and treatment of those stricken with serious illnesses.

在今年6月份,工人党非选区议员严燕松揭露说,‘在2001年和2013年,根据公积金局的年报,保健储蓄收到的保费是37.04亿元,但是,支付保险索赔是21.9亿元——就是说,扣除了索赔费后还有余额是15.14亿元。’他说,‘我让新加坡人自己去评估这笔15.14亿元是否是保费多过索赔款款的‘一笔可观的数额款’。

In June this year, the Worker’s Party Gerald Giam revealed that “Between 2001 and 2013, based on CPF Board Annual Reports, MediShield collected $3.704 billion in premiums but paid out $2.190 billion in claims — a difference of $1.514 billion.” He said, “I leave it to Singaporeans to assess whether or not they consider $1.5 billion to be “a lot more” in premiums than pay-outs.”

这就是说,从2001年开始,政府收到的保健储蓄保费只支付了59%的索赔款,其余额款项被视为利润所得。

What this means is that of the MediShield premiums collected since 2001, the government only paid out 59% and keeps the rest as profit.

Slide10

工人党非选区议员严燕松也详细的说明,保健储蓄基金‘截至2012年底的资本充足率是165%’。他说,这个资本充足率是远远超过了金融管理局所规定的最高45%资本充足率的120%。他指出,政府‘已经设定了保健储蓄基金的资本充足率是200%。这是比金融管局所要求的还要高’。他问政府有这个必要吗?。‘自2013年底,保健储蓄基金也有的净资产是6.133亿元。这个数额是比去年支付方索赔款高出了1.8倍。’

Gerald Giam had also detailed how the MediShield Fund has a capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of “165% at the end of 2012“. He said that this is 45% higher than the MAS’s requirements, which is only 120%. He pointed out that the government “has set a target CAR of 200% (for the MediShield Fund), which (would be) 80% higher than MAS requirements” and asked if this is necessary, since “At the end of 2013, the MediShield Fund had net assets of $613.3 million dollars, which is more than 1.8 times the total claims paid last year.”

在1984年, 当行动党要推迟公积金提取的年龄从55岁延长到60岁时,杜进才先生很快看穿了行动党的伎俩并嘲笑他们的这一决定。

When PAP wanted to defer the CPF withdrawal age from 55 to 60 in 1984, Mr Toh Chin Chye again quickly saw through the government’s poly and quickly derided them:

这些令人不安的问题是在与公积金的年龄相关的。年龄的问题已经被遗忘了,因为政府已经触碰到人民的储蓄问题了。

The reason for all this uneasiness on the problems of the aged is related to the CPF. The problems of the aged have been forgotten because you are touching people’s savings.

这个涉及公积金的问题是与动用公积金、管理公积金和公积金的缴交相关的。我已经一再不断的重覆,公积金上调到50%已经是令人无法承受的了!这不仅仅是雇员的问题,也是雇主的问题了!

This problem of touching the CPF should be related to the use of the CPF, the management of the CPF and the contribution of CPF. I have repeated, time and again, that the CPF, having risen now to 50% of wages, is becoming a vexatious burden, not only to the employee but also to the employer.

杜进才说,财政部特别关心那些钱被锁在公积金而导致商业银行流动资金的减少。我想,财政部必须特别担心这件事。这是一个极其正常的关心的想法。它应该不允许卫生部把手伸入公积金或者调高公积金缴交率。因为这将会引发的社会问题了。我们必须更加仔细看待这个问题。我们要有宏观的观点。我要知道,我们是否有长远的观点。但是,议长先生,我没有这样的狭窄观点。那就是,在不受干扰的情况下沿着这条线索看下去,或者深入探讨它对其他方面所产生的冲击。

The Minister for Finance is extremely concerned with the amount of money being locked into CPF, reducing the liquidity in commercial banks. I think that is a very genuine concern which, as the Minister for Finance, he ought to be very worried out. He should not allow his Minister for Health to dip into the CPF or to increase the CPF, because this is a social problem that is popping up. It must be thought out in breadth. We must have a vision which encompasses breadth. Do not have tunnel vision. I would like to know that we have got telescopic vision. But, Mr Speaker, I have never had the problem of tunnel vision, and that is, looking at a problem along just one line without bothering, or researching in depth, the impact on other areas.

杜进才说,我个人认为,基本的原则已经背离了。这个基本原则就是:到底公积金性质是一个定期存款?还是借给政府的贷款?总之,这两者的性质在佼佼者年龄达到55岁时都是可以按期赎回的。假设我到商业银行存入一笔钱。在到期时我到银行要取回这笔钱。同行的经历告诉我,杜博士,您必须在明年才来银行提取这笔款项!事情就是这么简单,公积金局管理已经失去了它的信用。这是一个基本达到问题。您被保健储蓄所吃惊。然后,他们说,‘在公积金户头里的6%的存款将会被作为保健储蓄用途。即便是您往生了,您也不可以把这笔款项提取出来’。

Mr Speaker, I think fundamental principles are being breached. The fundamental principle is this. The CPF is really a fixed deposit or a loan to Government, which can be redeemed at a fixed date when the contributor is 55 years old. If I were to put this sum of money in a commercial bank and, on the due date I go to the bank to withdraw the money, the manager says, “I am sorry, Dr Toh, you will have to come next year”, there will be a run on the bank! It is as simple as this, that the CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it. This is fundamental. You were taken by surprise by Medisave. Then they say, “6% of your Special Account will be kept for Medisave and you cannot withdraw that, even if you were to die.”

根据当时的海峡时报报道,‘国会议员为杜进才博士的25分钟充满热情的讲话发出了大声的喝彩。’

According to The Straits Times, “Members applauded loudly at the end of Dr Toh’s 25-minute impassioned speech.

我感到非常遗憾,我无法与杜进才先生交谈。

I regret never been able to speak to Mr Toh Chin Chye.

今天,公积金收到新加坡人的公积金已经累计了2600亿元。但是,去年新加坡人只允许使用公积金的总款额不到这个总 累计的总款项的5.9%。

Today, the CPF has accumulated $260 billion from Singaporeans. But last year, Singaporeans were able to only use 5.9% of this.

Slide9

终于,在1989年,公积金为学生实施了教育计划,这是要‘协助低收入家庭支持他们自己或孩子在政府批准的新加坡教育学院的求学。’

Finally, in 1989, the CPF Education Scheme for students to “help lower income families support themselves or their children through full-time studies in approved educational institutions in Singapore“.

但是,欧进福(麟集选区国会议员)说,

But Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) said then:

主席先生,大学生补习费再一次调高了。这次调高补习费完全不是因为成本的增加。因为过去两年的开支只是增加了20%….。在1987年教育部长在国会里宣布调高补习费时,他说,他不希望在看到另一次大规模的调高补习费。但是,就在他说这些话的两年期间,大学的补习费调高了30%到80%之间。这次调高的比例是117% 到4545%之间。这是数据是Dr Aline Wong提供的。一部分学生受到了接连两次的调高补习费的打击。

Mr Chairman, Sir, once again tuition fees for university students have increased. This increase is not entirely due to the increase in costs but because over the last two years the increase in expenditure has been only about 20%… In 1987, the Minister for Education in announcing a hike in tuition fees in the House said that he would not like to see another major increase in tuition fees. But no sooner had he said this that in the course of a short two years, there is another increase in fees by 30% to 85%. This is in comparison to the fees in 1987. If it is compared with the figures in 1986, the increase rates are 117 to 454%, according to the figures given by Dr Aline Wong. Some students were hit twice by such fee-hikes.

事实上,新加坡人是世界上支付大学补习费最高的国家。

Indeed, today, Singaporeans pay one of the highest university tuition fees in the world.

Slide6

政府花费在国际学生在新加坡的学位的开支是3.54亿元,大学去年的盈余最少是4.51亿元,但是, 新加坡人仍然还要从自己的口袋里拿出4亿元来还补习费。

The government would spend at least $354 million on scholarships for international students, the universities have at least $451 million in surplus last year, yet Singaporeans have to pay about $400 million out of our own pockets to pay for the fees.

Slide11

在这期间,政府为国际学生提供了52%的奖学金,但是,给新加坡人的学生的奖学金是6%。

In the meantime, the government would give scholarships to 52% of international students but only 6% of Singaporean students.

Slide2

不仅仅是大学的收支有盈余,其他的法定机构也累计了盈余,但是,Krause问道,‘庞大的法定机构实质上垄断了整个新加坡和有足够的市场联系足于影响市场的价格。累计盈余是事实上反映了价格是超过平均的成本….为此,与其他的公司一样定出最高的利润为目标,(Krause说)。法定机构在制定价格政策时,可以采取保本的政,从而降低成本。’

And not only in the universities, PAP has also accumulated surpluses in the other statutory boards, but Krause asked, A number of the large statutory boards are virtual monopolies in Singapore, and others are large enough relative to the market to influence prices. The fact that surpluses are accumulated implies that prices are above average cost… (So), Instead of aiming at maximizing profits like any other company, (Krause said that) the statutory boards could adopt pricing policies such that they break even, thereby lowering costs.

The Political Economy of a City-State Revisited Statutory Board Public Sector Surplus 1974-1996

他解释说,‘在最初的几年,政府的财政尚未有盈余时,政府通过向公积金借贷作为其发展开支的预算。’

As explained, “In the initial years, before the government built up budgetary surpluses, it borrowed funds from the CPF for its development expenditure budget.

无论如何,政府的盈余已经增加了,特别是1970年后期,一般而言,作为公积金的管理者,公积金对政府就成为多余的资金了。就在这样的情况下,建屋发展局就介入了。

However, “As surpluses grew, especially by the late 1970s, the CPF became redundant as a financing agent for the government in general, and the HDB in particular”.

Central Provident Fund in Singapore Surplus as Total Expenditure

在1968年,立法通过了允许公积金投资在政府公债或‘新加坡政府债券(SGS)或者是预付存款(那就是)….实际上就是(公积金)会员把储蓄款姐给政府。反过来,做出了实际的投资决策。’

In 1968, a legislation was passed for the CPF to be invested in government bonds or “Singapore government securities (SGS) or Advance Deposits (which) … in effect lends members’ savings to the Government, which (note) in turn, makes the actual investment decisions.”

单单是公积金局的户头的资金就占了新加坡交易所70%的交易活动,这个庞大的交易数额实际上是一种注册股票的形式,而不是股票交易所的第二板投资。

The CPF Board alone accounts for more than 70 percent of the SGS outstanding and these are largely in the form of registered stocks not traded on the secondary market.

Central Provident Fund in Singapore CPF invested in SGS

因为,‘公积金局限定(会员)只能投资在政府的债券。今天,这样(的规定)实际上已经占了GDP的内债110,9%了。’

Because of “The requirement that the CPF Board must invest only in government bonds, (this) has contributed substantially to the large internal debt of” 110.9% of GDP today.

‘从1983年开始,公积金的资产和官方的外汇储备是大约持平的’,这就清楚说明,‘国家的外汇储备中一大部分实际上是把公积金储蓄并入。’。

Since 1983 CPF assets and official foreign reserves have been approximately equal,” thus it is clear that “a substantial portion (of CPF savings) has been used to acquire foreign reserves.

黄分享了他无法忘记的例子,‘我问了一个银行的职员有关利用公积金储蓄投资新加坡政府债券的可能性。他表示惊讶。他认为不会有人会考虑投资在低回报的新加坡政府债券。他解释说, 新加坡政府债券是属于不流动性的资金和具体的发行可能需要特别的来源。’这就是说,‘我们偶尔会有个别的投资者来询问有关新加坡政府债券的事宜。’

Banking, Finance & Monetary Policy in Singapore Reserves and CPF Assets 1974-1990

Ng shared an anecdotal experience that when “A bank officer, asked about the possibility of investments in SGS with CPF savings, expressed surprise. He did not see why anyone would consider investing in SGS given their low yields. He explained that the SGS market is illiquid and specific issues may have to be specially sourced. In his own words, “we get an enquiry from an individual about investing in SGS only once in a blue moon.”

就是这样,我们的公积金是一个没有人要购买的投资产品。为什么行动党要拿我们的公积金储蓄去购买新加坡政府债券呢?

Thus our CPF is invested in an instrument which no one would want to buy. So, why did PAP put our CPF there?

但是,公积金在之后都去了哪儿呢?

But where does the CPF go thereafter?

‘新加坡政府投资有限公司(简称GIC)是在1981年5月22日注册成立了。成立的缴足资本金是2百万元。’Linda Low也揭露说,GIC‘是以3.45亿元投资在36家公司的资金设立的。’假设是这样,那么,这36家公司是那些公司?这36家公司设立的发展资金是不是动用我们的公积金?他们的投资回报在哪儿?

The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) (which) was incorporated on 22 May 1981, with an authorised capital of S$2 million.” Linda Low also revealed that the GIC was set up with “S$345 million in thirty-six companies“. If so, which companies were these and were they set up with the development funds funded by our CPF? Were they returned?

在过去几十年里。行动党一直拒绝让新加坡人知道公积金就是投资在GIC的事实。

Over the past decade, PAP has refused to let Singaporeans know that the CPF is actually invested in the GIC.

然而,在1986年一个由林崇椰教授领导的研究公积金的小组已经揭露,‘基金的筹措是通过政府的国家储备和政府其他机构受委托的金融管理局管理的基金购买新加坡政府发行的债券。然后,再由GIC负责管理这些基金。’

However, back in 1986, the CPF Study Group led by Professor Lim Chong Yah had already revealed that, “Funds raised through the issuance of government bonds are joined with government reserves and the funds entrusted by other government bodies to MAS, and later the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, for management.

Linda Low也同时这样写道,‘从1970年末期开始,公积金储蓄作为公共盈余的一部分,已经与其他的资金混合在一起由淡马锡控股负责在本地进行投资或由GIC在海外负责投资。’

Linda Low also wrote that “since the late 1970s, CPF’s reserves as part of public sector surplus have been co-mingled with other investment either domestically by Temasek Holdings Ltd or abroad by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC).

无论如何,把公积金转给GIC本身就是一个问题了!因为‘GIC的在法律上是一家私人有限公司——他是从国会和公共监督下被移出去的。这样的安排没有为会员提供最高足够的投资回报的复利息’。因此‘当公积金会员知道他们的户头的结存时,他们并不知道投资的基本讯息或投资决策的业绩以及没有关于投资回报和会员的回报的讯息。’

However, the channelling of CPF into GIC is problematic because GIC’s “legal status is that of a private limited company – removing it from parliamentary or public scrutiny. This arrangement has not provided members with high enough real returns to capture the power of compound interest.” So, “While CPF members know their account balances, they do not know the basis or performance of investment decisions and there is no correspondence between investment returns and member returns.

正因为这样,‘法律规定了,GIC并不需要披露它的投资业绩和活动...公积金会员并没有被告知有关最终的投资的结存款额。’

And because “By statutory provision, GIC does not have to reveal their financial performance and activities, … CPF members are not provided information on the ultimate investments of their balances.

Asher and Singh也说,‘为了增加GIC在公积金投资的盈余,然后再支付给公积金会员,在公积金的大量盈余账上是一个隐藏性的税收。这是一个双重的周期性、高度后退行的和经常是巨额的数额...对于低收入的会员而言,公积金的盈余结存是他们的最大非住房产业的财富。’

Asher and Singh also explained that, “To the extent GIC earns higher returns on CPF balances than credited to members, there is an implicit tax on CPF wealth which is both recurrent, highly regressive, and often quite large, … as low- income members are likely to have most of their non- housing wealth in the form of the CPF balances.

Slide12

Asher对于行动党的这种利用公积金的做法提出了告诫说,‘新加坡把作为退休金用途的盈余作为投资方式是与国际最佳设计退休金管理的实践相背而驰和具有巨大的潜在政治风险的。这样一种集中式的储蓄由一只不透明的手、不需负责任的代理管理,它也是扭曲了储蓄的投资过程的。这将会导致没有效益的资产收益回报。’

Asher admonished the PAP government’s practice by saying that, “Singapore’s method of investing the balances meant for retirement financing is contrary to best international practices concerning pension fund management, and have the potential to generate high political risk. Such concentration of savings in the hands of non-transparent, non-accountable agencies also distorts the savings investment process and could lead to inefficiencies in the structure of asset returns.

Linda Low同时也解释说,‘把公积金和金融管理局的基金混合在一起让GIC进行投资可能是一种好的投资方式或者是一种管理策略,因为这样投资回报率就不容易被追查到、制度化和代理投资的政策目标实际上由政府口述....在结存的另一面,集中制度取得低利率回报,这与不良的投资没有多大的关系,而是隐藏性的税收。这个差异大约是3%。授权委托投资的意思就是社会债券基金成了预算案所需要而绑架和做出决定了投资的决策。’

Linda Low also explained that, “Co-mingled CPF and Monetary Authority of Singapore funds invested by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore can neither be good investment nor management strategy as returns and performance cannot be effectively tracked and institutional and agency investment policy objectives dictated de facto by government…. On the other side of the balance, the centralised system suffers from low rates of returns not so much due to poor investments as implicit taxation of returns, with as much as a 3 per cent differential as alluded. Mandatory investments means social security funds are held hostage to budgetary needs and politically determined investment decisions.

在今年6月,淡马锡控股也否认自己管理我们的公积金的钱。

In June this year, Temasek Holdings also denied that they manage our CPF monies.

Temasek doesn't invest or manage CPF savings

但是,正如副总理兼财政部长善达曼所说,‘(政府)把4亿元的资产作为资金注入这家公司(即淡马锡控股)’这就是说明‘这些公司的资金就是政府靠政府投入的。’公积金的钱就是在政府通过(政联企业)私营化后转入淡马锡控股的。这是就意味着:事实上淡马锡控股是管理过公积金的基金!

But as explained, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said that, “about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies” and as shown, these companies were funded by Singaporeans’ CPF monies and which were later transferred to Temasek Holdings when privatised, which in effect means that Temasek Holdings did manage CPF funds!

新加坡政府说淡马锡控股没有用新加坡人的公积金去进行投资

Temasek Holdings Did Invest CPF

在1982年,当时的劳工兼通讯部长解释说,‘公积金的储蓄是占新加坡的(国家)储蓄的一大部分。这个储蓄是用来作为资本的形成。这就是投入建设新厂房、安装新的工厂和设备,扩充基础建设,如道路、码头港口和通讯、建造住房等等。这些设施与新加坡的经济和政治的稳定所取得了效果就是吸引了每年巨额的投资。这样又再继续设立更多的商业、工厂和企业。’

In 1982, Minister for Labour and Communications had explained that, “CPF savings form a large portion of Singapore’s savings. These savings are used for capital formation which means the construction of new factories, installation of new plant and equipment, expansion of infrastructure such as roads,’ ports and telecommunications, the building of houses and so on. These facilities coupled with Singapore’s economic and political stability have in turn attracted large amounts of investments each year. These again go into the setting up of more businesses, factories and enterprises.

Lixia Loh补充说,‘淡马锡控股的成立注册资本是从财政部的盈余注入和接管了国有企业并发展了这些主要的企业。’

Lixia Loh added that “Temasek was set up in 1974 with surpluses from the Ministry of Finance, (and) was set up to take over state-owned enterprises and develop (these) key industries.”

当‘在1980年末新加坡的国营企业开始进行私有化时…..淡马锡控股,这家新加坡政府的投资臂膀现在分享了大部分从政联企业或者GIC分割出来的企业,如新加坡电讯等等。’

When “Singapore began privatizing its state corporations by late 1980s, … Temasek Holdings Ltd, the investment arm of Singapore’s government now has share ownership in most partially divested companies termed as Government-Linked Companies or GLCs, such as SingTel, DBS, Singapore Technologies, etc.

因此,这就足于清楚说明,淡马锡控股是已经动用过新加坡人的公积金。淡马锡控股是否归还这些被动用的公积金?

Thus it is sufficiently clear that Temasek took Singaporeans’ CPF to use. Is the CPF returned?

在1987年,杜进才先生批评了行动党的私有化计划。

In 1987, Mr Toh Chin Chye criticised PAP’s privatisation programme:

让政联企业在股票交易所挂牌并不等于私有化。私有化的意思是(政府本身)从商业领域净身而退和停止与私人企业竞争。让一家政联企业在交易所进行挂牌上市时是极其聪明的做法。它可以从公开市场筹措资金作为运作。否则,就必须从政府那里获得支助或者向政府借贷。相信很多人都不认为这是私有化。

Listing Government companies on the Stock Exchange is not privatization. Privatization means washing its hands off business and ceasing to compete with the private sector. Listing a Government company on the Stock Exchange is certainly a clever idea of raising funds from the public to finance the operations of Government companies which otherwise would be in receipt either of subsidies or loans from the Government. But that is not privatization as most people believe it to be.

政府在股票交易所的运作中扮演着一个控制的角色,他们还需要让这样多的政联企业到股票交易所上市吗?他们是否是担心对股票市场的(无法)控制。这并不是一个虚拟的问题。在1994年,发生了一件有关政联企业吉宝(KEPPEL)与怡和证券的事件。政府在这事件发生时,政府应用对怡和证券的影响力让吉宝脱离困境。

The Government already plays a regulatory role in the operations of the Stock Exchange. But should it also lend itself to fears that with so many Government counters listed, it would also play in the market? This is not a rhetoric question. In 1984, there was the affair between Keppel, a Government company, and Jardine Fleming. The Government on that occasion bailed out Keppel and applied its clout on Jardine Fleming.

与其他私人企业不同,政联企业有政府的直接或间接的旧雇主的关系。…政府通过释放公积金的基金收购信托股来干预股票市场。政府的干预手法包括了政府持有的公司股票…一部分在股票交易所上市的政府企业不是私有化的。我宁愿把这些政府公司一起出售,让它们成为私人企业。

Unlike private companies, Government companies have access to authorities, either direct access or through the old boy network when other private companies do not… The Government has intervened in the market through releasing CPF funds for purchases of trustee stocks which include, of course, Government companies’ stocks… Partial listing of Government companies on the Stock Exchange is not privatization. I would rather have them sold off altogether or keep them as private companies.

在1998年,行动党是否使用同样的手法迫使新加坡人的邮政储蓄银行帮忙发展银行从困境中脱离?

Did PAP apply the same pressure again on Singaporeans’ POSB to ask POSB to bail out DBS in 1998?

Phang解释说,新加坡的‘经济是通过控制跨国家的企业和国有控股企业而享有传统的具有实质意义控制这个资源(例如85%的土地上属于国家所有和在宪法上或普通法上没有任何的地主的权利。)是实质上的垄断权力。’

Phang explained that Singapore’s “economy (is) dominated by multinational enterprises and State-controlled firms (which) have traditionally enjoyed significant control over resources (for example about 85 percent of Singapore’s land area is owned by the State and there is no constitutional or common law right to land ownership) and significant monopoly power.

这也就不会意外,新加坡在世界裙带资本主义排行第五位了,也是世界上最容易搞‘政治关联商人最喜欢发展的地方。’

It might thus not be a coincidence that Singapore is thus ranked 5th on The Economist’s crony capitalism index, where it is the 5th easiest place in the world “where politically connected businessmen are most likely to prosper”.

Slide73

这或许就不会感到意外,通过行动党政府单方面把物价抬高或压低工资,进而让新加坡成了世界上居住环境 最昂贵的地方。

And it is perhaps not accidental that this has resulted in Singapore becoming the most expensive place to live in, in the world, through the PAP government’s unilateral driving up of the prices and the depression of wages.

18209223

更着要的是,淡马锡控股可能要否认它动用过我们的公积金去投资。无论如何,‘在2004年,(国会)修订了一条法令….允许政府把国家储备金转拨给主要的国有企业和公司。 这些国家储备金的转拨过程是获得总统的批准的。就这样,淡马锡控股收到了政府转拨的国家储备金。’假设是这样的情况,这就非常清楚的说明了淡马锡控股可以拿我们的公积金去投资(因为我们的公积金是属于国家储备金的一部分。)

Importantly, Temasek Holdings might want to deny that they do not take our CPF to invest. However, “In April 2004, a constitutional amendment … allowed the government to transfer reserves to key statutory boards and companies, and the transfer of reserves among them with the approval of the president, was introduced. Temasek Holdings has (also) acknowledged that it can access the reserves.” If so, it is quite certainly clear that the Temasek Holdings can take our CPF to use (as our CPF is put into the reserves).

在这期间,淡马锡控股的首席执行员、新加坡总理的太太、前总理的媳妇,何晶说,‘财政部是我们(淡马锡控股)在过去、现在和未来几代的新加坡的主要股东。’

Meanwhile, Ho Ching, the CEO of Temasek Holdings and the Singapore current prime minister’s wife and the previous prime minister’s daughter-in-law, said, “While the Minister for Finance (Incorporated) is our formal shareholder, we recognise that the ultimate shareholders of Temasek are the past, present and future generations of Singapore.

前财政部长胡适道也曾经说过,这些(国家)储备是属于新加坡人民的。

Former Finance Minister Richard Hu had also once said that the reserves are owned by Singaporeans.

Temasek Holdings ultimate shareholders past, present and future generations of Singapore

实际上。一本书名叫:《东南亚的政府企业的改革》(‘Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia’)已经明确的新加坡人民是有权拥有淡马锡控股和成为它的终极股东的。这何晶本身已经承认的。

Indeed, the book ‘Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia’ had illustrated how the citizens of Singapore are the rightful and ultimate shareholders of Temasek Holdings, as Ho Ching herself has admitted.

'Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia Government and Temasek Holdings

假设这样,为什么淡马锡控股却成为‘豁免的私人公司’和GIC是一家‘私人企业’,不需要提交完整的公司业绩报告有关它们动用新加坡人民的钱的情况?为什么行动党要把淡马锡控股和GIC改为私人有限公司性质的企业,暗示要新加坡人无法知道这两家公司如何动用我们的公积金的情况。

If so, why has Temasek become a “exempt private company” and the GIC a “private limited company” which are not required to furnish full reports on what it is doing with Singaporeans’ monies to us? Why did the PAP government convert GIC and Temasek Holdings into private limited entities, where Singaporeans are prevented to know how they are taking our CPF monies to use?

FAQs - About Temasek - Temasek (2)

FAQs (2)

现在,当我们看到在2008年GIC和淡马锡控股亏损了我们已经可以确定了GIC和淡马锡控股事实上是动用了我们的公积金去进行投资。他们没有应该归还我们的这些钱依法是我们的。当我们看到在2008年淡马锡控股和GIC亏损了1170亿元或在2008年我们的公积金结存市值下跌了77.5%时,我们不得不质疑,在2008年行动党政府突然调高了最低存款额是否与此有关联?新加坡人民是否要承担他们的投资亏损?

Now that we have established that the GIC and Temasek Holdings have indeed taken our CPF for their investments and not return what should rightfully belong to us, when we look back at how the GIC and Temasek Holdings have lost $117 billion in 2008, or 77.5% of the value of our CPF balance in 2008, then is the sudden spike in the CPF Minimum Sum in 2008 related? Were Singaporeans made to foot their losses?

Slide13

GIC和淡马锡控股赚取的投资回报是一笔巨额额款项。

The returns earned by GIC and Temasek Holdings which are not returned is a lot of money.

正如我所说的,今天一个人在25岁时开始出来社会工作的薪金是每月1千元。他一直工作到55岁,也就是工作了30年。他将会失掉30万元。这包括他必须支付他的组屋的地价(因为他(租赁)的组屋合约不包括土地,这套组屋单位的产权也不属于他的。)

As I had written, a Singaporean aged 25 who starts work today at $1,000 and works for the next 30 years until 55 will lose nearly $300,000, including for what he/she has to pay for land costs for his/her flat (of which the land he/she doesn’t own, nor the flat).

Slide4

对于一个开始在社会上工作每月赚取3千元的中等入息的新加坡人,(他一直工作到55岁,也就是工作了30年。)他将会失掉75万元。

For a Singaporean who starts work at the median income of about $3,000, he/she will lose almost $750,000.

Slide5

梁志轩先生已经计算了,今天,一个新加坡人在21岁开始到社会工作的新加坡人,每月赚取1500元。他一直工作到65岁的话,他失去的将会超过150万元。

Leong Sze Hian has calculated how a Singaporean aged 21 who starts work today at $1,500 and works until 65 will lose more than $1.5 million.

Slide6

一个新加坡人在21岁开始到社会工作的新加坡人,每月赚取3000元。(他一直工作到65岁的话)他失去的将会超过3百万元.

And for a Singaporean who starts at $3,000, he/she will lose more than $3 million.

Slide7

Christopher Balding教授也计算过,一个新加坡人从1980年到2011年赚取的平均工资将会失掉26万元

Professor Christopher Balding has calculated that a Singaporean who earns the average wage from 198o to 2011 would have lost more than $260,000.

Slide8

假设以我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股,这笔钱又没有全部归还给我们为例子,那么,一个新加坡人将会亏损近4百万元。

And if we are to take the example of how if the CPF is invested in the Temasek Holdings and the returns not fully returned, a Singaporean would have lost nearly $4 million!

Slide9

因此,这就看您是如何看待这个问题了。一般上,新加坡政府将会让新加坡人亏损70万元到3百万元之间,或者应该依法属于我们赚取的超过50%的回报。

Thus depending on how you look at it, the average Singaporean would lose between $700,000 to $3 million to the Singapore government, or as much as more than 50% of what we should rightfully earn!

Slide10

假设以这个论述为基础,您将会看到,本地210万的劳动力人口,新加坡人可能会死去的总款额将是7万亿元。

And if you look at this from the resident workforce of 2.1 million people, Singaporeans might possibly be losing as much as $7 trillion in total!

Slide11

今天,GIC和淡马锡控股在世界上主权财富基金的排名是第8名号第10名。

Today, GIC and Temasek Holdings are the 8th and 10th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

Slide40

无论如何,新加坡人是世界上最少足够退休金的国家之一。

However, Singaporeans have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.

Slide52

Slide53

Slide54

这就是为什么过了10多年的今天,新加坡会出现越来越多的问题。那是因为行动党政府拒绝承认他们拿了我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股。

Which is why it is highly problematic that for more than a decade now, the PAP government had refused to admit that they take our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings.

事实上,今年5月30日行动党政府最终才承认这个事实:‘政府的资产(包括了公积金在内)主要是由GIC管理。‘

In fact, it is only on 30 May this year that the PAP government finally admitted to the truth that “The Government’s assets (which our CPF is part of) are therefore mainly managed by GIC.

CPF How It Works cropped

但是,他们是在过去无数次的否认之后才承认。

But this is after numerous denials.

李光耀在2001年否认这个事实。(我们应该感激工人党国会议员必达星把这个历史事实挖出来!)

Lee Kuan Yew denied the truth in 2001 (thanks to the Worker’s Party’s Pritam Singh who dug this up).

Screenshot (45)

在2006年,李光耀又再一次否认这个事实。

Lee Kuan Yew denied this again in 2006.

Screenshot (49)

在2007 年,时任劳工部长的黄永宏也否认这个事实。当时工人党国会议员刘程强先生询问,‘政府投资在GIC的资金是否来自公积金?’黄永宏回答说,‘答案是没有。’

Then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen also denied this in 2007. The Worker’s Party’s Low Thia Kiang had asked, “Does the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest?” Ng Eng Hen said, “The answer is no.”

lowtk-20070920

事实上,在2008年,第二财政部长又狡辩说,‘政府不需要参与管理(GIC和淡马锡控股)投资’和‘这些基金管理公司自行独立决定商业活动和决策’,因此,(入股破政府参与)‘这将会引发更加多的关注’。

In fact, in 2008, then-Second Finance Minister also claimed that the “Government does not get involved in managing (GIC’s and Temasek’s) investments” and that “these agencies make their own independent commercial and operational decisions”, because it will otherwise “raise even more concerns”.

无论如何,事实上今天引起了关注是更加多了。现在已经毫无悬念的肯定行动党是参与了管理GIC,但是,他们却继续否认这个事实。

However, there is indeed even more concern today now that it is known that the PAP government would undoubtedly be involved in managing the GIC, but has continuously denied their involvement!

政府的内阁就在GIC的董事会。新加坡总理是董事会主席、两位副总理和两位部长和也是董事会董事和前部长李光耀也是高级顾问。

For the PAP Government is on the Board of Directors of the GIC, with the Singapore Prime Minister as the Chairman no less, and the two Deputy Prime Ministers, two other ministers and an ex-minister. Lee Kuan Yew is the Senior Advisor.

GIC Board of Directors

同样的,GIC的董事会成员就是政府政府的内阁成员。

And yet, the GIC Board of Directors are also in the government!

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

Parliament Raymond Lim

这是不是荒唐!GIC说,‘GIC董事会向政府承担资金组合投资的业绩表现的责任,但是,政府没有干预公司的投资决策。’

It is thus ridiculous that the GIC claims that, “The government holds the GIC board accountable for portfolio performance, but does not interfere in the company’s investment decisions.

Screenshot (85)

更可笑的是,行动党政府还狡辩说,‘在GIC、金融管理局和淡马锡控股在投资上的决策是纯粹由他们整个管理团承担责任。在GIC、金融管理局和淡马锡控股董事会里的部长不扮演任何的角色。’

It is even more absurd that the PAP government would claim that, “The Government plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC, MAS and Temasek. At the GIC and MAS, whose boards include Ministers, these investment decisions are entirely the responsibility of their respective management teams.

Ministry of Finance - Section I  What comprises the reserves and who manages them

Slide48

事实上,在2012年和2013年我曾写过两篇文章。那是我特意从政府的网站搜索到有关我们的公积金实际上是被政府动用去投资在GIC和淡马锡控股。尽管如此,政府已经把这些证据从那些网站上删除了。

In fact, I had written two articles in 2012 and 2013 which traced specifically on the government’s websites how our CPF is indeed taken by the government to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings. However, the PAP government deleted the evidence from their websites later on.

因此,新加坡人民从此无法知道,政府是通过公积金局购买政府的债券把我们的公积金投资在国家储备篮子里。

Thus it is no longer possible for Singaporeans to know that our CPF, via the government bonds, are invested in the reserves.

Slide1

这就让我们不可能知道,我们国家的储备金(包括我们的公积金)是由金融管理局、GIC和淡马锡控股负责管理的。

And it is also not possible for us to know that the reserves (and our CPF) are managed by the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings.

Removed reserves managed by

的确。‘从一开始,公积金已经成为进行社会的经济和发展提供了一个现成低廉成本的资金了。’

Indeed, “It was clear from the very outset that the CPF would make available to government a cheap source of credit for social and economic development.

然而,‘毫无根据的说政府是利用“(利息)低廉”的公积金去进行投资。(李显龙)说,‘“一些人说,。。。政府要用(利息)低廉的资金去金投资赚取利润。我们不需要这些(利息)低廉的钱。我们不是那种政府。”’

However, “Noting that some had hit out at the Government for using their CPF funds as ‘cheap money’ for its investments, (Lee Hsien Loong) said: ‘Some people say…Government wants cheap money to go and make a profit. We do not have to make cheap money. This is not that kind of government.’

同时,刘程强先生问道,‘扣住公积金不让已经达到提取公积金年龄的会员提取目的是(不是)要让GIC可以有现存和(利息)低廉的资金可以作为投资?’黄永宏回答说,‘假设(公积金的资金利息)是怎么低廉,将会有一批人排队等着这样的资金。(但是)没有人出现。’

Also, when Low Thia Kiang asked, “is the motive of holding payment of CPF, the draw-down age, to enable GIC to have a readily available and cheap source of funds to invest?”, Ng Eng Hen had replied, “if it was that cheap, we would have a line of suitors waiting for that money. There is none.”

但是,在1983年海峡时报报道说,‘公积金…..被证明是政府的一个(利息)低廉的资金来源。公积金局购买了政府的股票和政府把(利息低廉公积金)便宜的钱借给了建屋发展局。’

But in 1983, it was already reported in The Straits Times that, “The CPF  … provided a cheap source of finance for the government. The CPF purchases government stocks, and the government loans the money cheaply to the HDB.”

Newspaper Article - The dollars and sense of CPF

最后:房子里还是摆着那头大象。——意即:公积金仍然是政府用来投资(利息最低廉)最便宜的资金来源。

Finally, there is still the elephant in the room.

工人党非选区议员严燕松问过国家发展部长许文远。 许文远‘确认政府组屋在99年租赁期届满时的屋值是零!’和整体重新发展计划(SERS)‘不是一个纯粹有意图替代要届满租赁期的组屋的计划。’

Gerald Giam had questioned the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah who “confirmed that the value of the flats will be zero at the end of their 99-year lease” and that the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) “is not a scheme intended solely to replace old flats reaching the end of their lease”.

在(2014年8月17日的国庆群众大会上)星期天,李显龙把自己扮演成财务顾问。他阐明说,新加坡人你将可能会赚取到(足够的退休金),假设在屋契回购计划下,把剩余35年租赁期的组屋卖回给建屋发展局。

On Sunday, Lee Hsien Loong played the financial advisor and illustrated how much Singaporeans could earn if the last 35 years of lease of the flat is sold back to HDB under the Lease Buyback Scheme.

然而,  Joseph Cherian教授指出,政府屋的屋价在66年后将开始贬值,一直到它的99年租赁期满是零价值。这就是说,假设政府屋只剩下33年的租赁期,屋价就开始下跌了。

However, Professor Joseph Cherian had shown that a HDB flat starts losing its value after Year-66 and will eventually have zero value at the 99th year, which means that if the flat only has 33 years of lease left, the flat would start declining in value.

Screenshot (29)_edited

这也就是说,假设您的组屋的租赁期少过33年,那么,在屋契回购计划是多余的。您就不单单是‘没现金的穷人’。您将同时是‘没资产的穷人’。

This means that if a person has less than 33 years on their lease, the Lease Buyback Scheme would be redundant, and not only will he/she be “cash-poor”, he/she will be “asset-poor” as well.

这样一来,您是否会得到额外的资金过退休生活呢?

Then where will he/she be able to get additional funds to retire on?

的确。Koh Seng Kee已经预先警告说。‘就如大多数的产业是以99年租赁期性质出售的,新加坡人把自己毕生的储蓄投资在一个逐渐贬值的产业上。’和‘除非和直到政府发出讯号说他们准备更新产业租赁合约,新加坡人的储蓄(即政府屋)将不会超过两代人。’

Indeed, Koh Seng Kee had forewarned in 1999 that, “As most properties are sold with 99-year leases, Singaporeans are investing their lifetime savings in depreciating assets” and “Unless and until the Government signals that it is prepared to renew property leases, Singaporeans’ savings will not last beyond two generations.”

您看清楚了吧!

行动党是在一座金山里打滚!——我们的公积金!从那个时候开始,由于他们手上握住了我们的便利钱(公积金局),他们是不会停止动用的。他们已经成为了一个强迫性的赌徒。同时开始用我们的公积金去进行各种各样的赌博。首先把公积金切割用在建造住房、接着是保健和后来就是教育。

So you see, the PAP stumbled onto a huge goldmine – our CPF, and since then, because they got their hands on our easy money, they couldn’t stop using it. They became compulsive gamblers who started using our CPF for all sorts of things, first cutting it up for housing, then healthcare and later on education.

他们(动用我们的公积金去投资)已经上了瘾。因为他们不让新加坡人把公积金提取出来。如果我们把公积金提取出来,公积金的户头的钱就越来越少,他们就会像瘾君子一样‘断货’。他们为了不让公积金的来源‘断货’,他们设置了最低存款额的障碍不让新加坡人民提取自己的公积金。接着,他们调高公积金最低存款额的数额和以及提高提取年龄来延长我们提取公积金。与此同时,他们减低支付给我们公积金储蓄户头的利息率。他们的这一切所作所为就是要把我们的公积金紧锁在公积金户头里,这样他们就可以自己动用我们的公积金去进行投资。

And because they needed to feed their addiction, they could not let Singaporeans take our CPF out. If we did, they would have lesser to use and like drug addicts, they couldn’t wean off our CPF and thus started making it more difficult for Singaporeans to withdraw our money with the CPF Minimum Sum, then increasing it and later on delaying withdrawals, and reducing the interest paid to our CPF, thereby locking our CPF inside for their own use.

And when they could do all that and that was still not enough, power got into their heads – the amount of money that they could play with from our CPF is huge! So they used it to control how much we earn, how much we could spend and because they also owned some of the largest companies in Singapore, they manipulated the market, squeezed local businesses out and created inequalities.

他们还是不满足于自己追求的权利和财富!他们打开了引进移民的大闸门让世界上的巨富进来。这些移民到新加坡的巨富可以帮忙他们变得更加富裕。他们为了满足这些巨富的要求,他们从国外引进了廉价劳工以压低新加坡工人的工资。

Finally, still not satisfied with their thirst of power and wealth, they opened the floodgates to immigrants, to rich businessmen who could help them get richer and thereby further depress the wages of Singaporeans with cheap imported labour.

这一切事情30多年前已经发生到现在。

同胞们,他们动用了我们的(公积金)低廉的钱去进行投资。他们已经失去理性了。他们把我们的公积金握在手里疯狂地当成是他们自己的钱使用。这就是为什么今天新加坡人无法储蓄到足够的退休金的原因。在行动党的脑海里,他们从来未曾想过如何帮忙国人计划退休的事。您将为他们提供线程池的信用而工作到死亡

It has been happening for at least 30 years now, my friends. They took our cheap money to use and they have gone out of control, holding on to it fanatically as if it is their money. And this is why today, Singaporeans can simply never save enough to retire. It was never the PAP’s plan to let that happen. You will work to your death to produce for them the ready credit.

以下是公积金局、GIC和淡马锡控股之间盘根错节的商业关系流程图。这足于说明我们的公积金在新加坡的经济对新加坡人所产生的有害坐作用。

Thus it is clear that “the interlocking effects of the CPF in the Singapore economy has detrimental effects.”

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN@chinese

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN

Linda Low解释说,公积金目前自身的用途是‘从1970年开始,公积金是为国家所用的,不是为公积金会员所用的,特别是当政府的预算案从不敷转为长期的盈余时。’总之,政府是不会放弃这个‘永久存在的公积金——财政链接或隐藏性的税收,让行动党政府可以同时控制着资金资源而又能巧妙的处理国家的政治与经济的同时,控制着公积金会员在消费、储蓄和投资方面的选择权利。

Linda Low explained that the CPF in its current uses “is perceived to serve the state, not its members especially when deficit turned into chronic government budget surplus since the late 1970s.” However, the PAP would not want to let go of this as “Perpetuating the CPF-fiscal link or implicit taxation enables the People’s Action Party regime to commandeer both financial resources to finesse the political economy of its developmental state as well as dictate CPF members’ choices in consumption, saving and investment.”

基本上,行动党就是要控制新加坡人民的生活方式。他们是通过公积金和建屋发展局操纵我们新加坡人的工资、需求和消费力的途径来实现的。

Basically, PAP wants to control the lives of Singaporeans, and they have been able to do so via using the CPF and HDB to manipulate the wages, demand and spending of Singaporeans.

Linda Low强调说,‘公积金绑架了许多的计划。它不可能同时的为这些计划服务。’

Linda Low reaffirmed that, “The CPF is slave to so many schemes, it cannot serve all its masters simultaneously.”

B.C. Ghosh说,‘公积金对我而言,是在我们高速增长的日子里一个迷失方向的事’。与其他人的说法一样,他说,‘呼吁让公积金回到照顾老龄人作为其主要目的的原点。’

B.C. Ghosh perhaps succinctly put that, “The CPF, to me, kind of lost direction during our great growth days,” he says and like many others, “call for the CPF to go back to basics and restore old age as its key focus.”

Linda Low 也同时表达了,‘公积金开始的阶段是为了新加坡的经济增长和政治经济发展可能无法对一个成熟的经济和人口老龄产生效利。多种的性质和不幸的经济周期性问题和结构危机结合在一起。。。已经动摇了公积金。’

Linda Low also expressed that, “What worked for the CPF in the initial phases of Singapore’s economic growth and political economy development may not have been as effective with a mature economy and ageing population. The multiple nature and unfortunate coincidence of both economic cyclical and structural crises … have shaken CPF.”

Linda Low 大胆的说,‘公积金会是成功和有前途的。但是, 这需要在一个具有很大的社会安全下新的纪元里才会出现这个大转变。’

Linda Low thus ventured to say that, “The CPF has worked successfully and brilliantly, but is in need of some makeover in the new millennium with greater social insecurity.” But she also stated that, “political will and commitment are as imperative in its remaking.”

最后,Asher ventured大胆的说

Finally, Asher ventured:

假设,让公积金的计划从住房贷款中脱钩这是一个相当危险的考虑。那么,公积金的计划可以考虑分成三个部分:住房、医疗健康和退休金。

If de-linking the CPF scheme from housing finance is considered too risky, then the CPF scheme could be formally divided into three components: housing, health care, and retirement.

其次,投资政策和业绩表现必须完全透明化和与政府的投资公司脱钩。这样的投资必须是按市值计价和公开化。

Second, the investment policies and performance … should be completely transparent, and de-linked from government investment companies. The investments should be mark-to-market and publicly available.

其三,所有的投资回报必须让公积金会员获悉详情并把投资所得归还给公积金会员。

Third, all investment returns must be made known and fully credited to the account of the members.

简单的说,行动党的做法是,他们的生存是通过榨取了新加坡人的公积金和现代化的奴隶劳工为自己的生活而累积财富(不是为我们的生活)。准确地说,只要行动党继续在位,新加坡人的问题将持续的存在。

The short story of it all is – the PAP has styled their survival along leeching on Singaporeans’ CPF and our sustained modern-day slave-labour to generate wealth for their livelihoods (not ours). In all honesty, Singaporeans matter only as much as the lives of the PAP are sustained.

或许,我们可能知道为什么在2014年8月17日的国庆群众大会上,李显龙并没有对公积金的政策进行任何具有实质的改变——行动党政府的调整(公积金的)政策已经来到了终点了。他们在我们的公积金的问题上已经到了极限了。他们现在是在寻找一个使用我们的公积金和一个可以让他们继续延长使用的平衡点。这是为了让他们能够便利的继续占用成本低廉的资金资源(我们的公积金)。对行动党而言,他们是有一个完整回馈建议的渠道的。无所谓。假设这些(建议)不是为了新加坡人民或我们的钱。他们是合法使用的。

Perhaps now we might understand why there were no significant changes made to the CPF at the National Day Rally (17/-9/2014)last night – the PAP government has come to the end of their tweaking. They have over-stretched themselves with our CPF and are willing to strike a balance on the use of our CPF to as far the extend as they are doing now, in order for them to still be able to tap on our cheap source of funds for their easy access. To them, they have perfected this feedback loop for their purposes. Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work for Singaporeans or that it is our money. They have legalised the usage.

非常明显的,行动党是不愿意放走能够让他们获与天一样高的薪金的这头‘金牛’(公积金)。问题是:在行动党的脑海里首位考量的是:他们怎么可能改变(公积金)的政策的同时确保仍然维持自己的薪金水平。朋党资本主义的网络是保护他们在政治合法之上继续维持着与天一样高的薪金的利益的。

It is clear that the PAP is unwilling to let go of the “cash cow” that has brought their salaries to sky high limits. The question that must topmost on the PAP’s mind is – but how can they remake (the CPF) while ensuring that their salaries can still be maintained, and the network of crony capitalism that has helped protect their political legitimacy to stay afloat be similarly maintained via the high salaries?

今天,对于暗示有关重新制定公积金与多种用途脱钩的想法将会导致行动党的朋党资本主义的结束。行动党对此事是非常清楚的。如果产生了这样的想法,这就意味着经济的增长。强烈紧随着他们的就是必须与新加坡人民分享成果。所以这样的想法对行动党而言是不可能。这是直接与他们的政治架构相抵触的。他们的发展是建立在不均衡的财富分配给有利于他们的人。

For implicit in the idea of remaking is that delinking the CPF from its multiple uses today would also put an end to the crony capitalism as the PAP knows it and has created as such, and would mean that the economic growth that they has so fiercely pursued would finally have to be shared with Singaporeans. But how can this possibly work for them, when this would directly contravene with the political structure that they have developed, based on the inequitable distribution of wealth to those of their favour.

正是如此,不惜一切成本追求增长和继续新加坡人的公积金允吸进入政府的金库就是为了强化这件事:行动党是更加顽固的维持自己的优势和情愿把自己的公民锁在他们的制度控制下,而不愿让经济阔步前进到了一个高峰与人民共同分享。因为他们宁可看到新加坡人民的寿命妥协,也不愿意自己的政治寿命受到威胁。

As such, the steadfast pursuit of growth-at-all-costs and the continued siphoning off of Singaporeans’ CPF into the government’s coffers only goes to affirm one thing – the PAP is more dogmatic about maintaining their political dominance and would rather lock the citizens into their system of control, rather than to kickstart the economy towards a new momentum, for shared growth. This will do harm to their political longevity and thus they would rather compromise on Singaporeans’ longevity.

假设情况确实是这样,行动党为什么会为了保护他们的霸权而牺牲我们的利益和违反我们的意愿?也许,行动党作为一个政府必须按照常规发展而苦恼只有这样才有可能让新加坡继续向前进。假设,新加坡人民把行动党与政府切割开来,这将会让我们的国家出现新的生活。

If indeed this is how the PAP wants to protect their hegemony, at the expense of Singaporeans and against our will, perhaps PAP being the government has run its course and it might only be possible for Singapore to move forward, if Singaporeans delink the PAP from the government, and allow our country to have a new lease of life.

那么。 这个问题将是:新加坡人民是否准备出现否决一个坏的政府并使自己从行动党被锁紧的圈套里解套出来?

Then, the question would be – are Singaporeans ready to emerge from our denial of bad governance and release ourselves from the lock-in that the PAP has tied Singaporeans into?

现在,您知道,现在自己已经失去了很多,或者,您将会失去更多!您不要为自己所失去的做一些事吗?

Do you have too much to lose now, or will you have more to lose if you do not do something about it now?

第四场《归还我们的公积金》集会

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

Return Our CPF 4 Poster 1b

在2014年9月27日,在芳林公园将举行第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。

On 27 September, there will be a fourth #ReturnOurCPF event.

请以实际行动参加我们的第四场集会。这是非常清楚,行动党是拿了我们新加坡人的公积金和操纵我们的公积金去为自己的用途。新加坡人还希望行动党会制定新的政策让我们能够储蓄足够的钱过退休生活。这事实是不会发生的——不会在行动党当政的时期发生的。您可以从上述资料里看得非常清楚,假设行动党确实要照顾新加坡人民,那么,他们首先就必须重新解除自己已经制造的紧束圈套。他们制造的这个紧束圈套是在让自己和朋党发达富裕。因此,他们没有理由解除这个紧束的圈套。

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. It is clear that PAP has taken Singaporeans’ CPF and manipulate it for their own uses. Singaporeans still hope that PAP will create new policies to allow us to save enough to retire. It is not going to happen – not with the PAP. You can see very clearly from this article that if the PAP actually wants to take care of Singaporeans, they will have to first undo the system gridlock that they have created, and they have created this system precisely to enrich themselves and their cronies, so why would they undo?

除非,您是能够为他们赚取更多的钱的,同时,您对他们是一无所用的。假设,新加坡人民还是继续希望行动党将会突然间显现出照顾新加坡人民的想法,很不幸的新加坡人民只能继续自己的梦想。假设,今天行动党会照顾新加坡人民, 那么,母猪都会爬树了。

And unless you can help them make the money that they want, you are as good as nothing to them. And so, if Singaporeans continue to hope that PAP will suddenly have an epiphany to help Singaporeans, unfortunately, Singaporeans will have to dream on. If the PAP today will take care of Singaporeans, pigs can fly.

假设说,2014年8月17日的‘国庆群众大会’是一个测试点,那么,这就是证据说明,他们已经来到了一个链接的终点。如果行动党(同意)给新加坡人民更多的钱,那就意味着等于行动党手上的钱就减少了。这是行动党不可能做到的事。如果他们要从新加坡人民手中拿走更多的钱,那就意味着他们将激怒更多新加坡人民。对于他们来说,他们现在是不会去这干这事的,因为在政治上这是不明智的事。

If the National Day Rally 2014 can be used as a gauge, it is evident that PAP has come to the end of the link of their tweaking. To give more to Singaporeans would mean less money for them, and this is a no can do. To take more from Singaporeans would mean angering more Singaporeans and they do not think it is politically viable for them to do so now, as much as they would want to.

请在在9月27日到芳林公园出席第三场集会。让我们在这一天见面。为了我们有一个未来美好的生活和我们的孩子的将来,让我们一块儿团结在一起,发出要求改革的共同呼声。

So on 27 September, come down to Hong Lim Park. We will see you at Hong Lim Park. Let’s come together, be united and speak for change, for the better for our lives, and our children’s.

您可以到以下网站浏览有关这次集会的详情

You can join the Facebook event page here.

同时,我的案件将于2014年9月18日开庭审讯,这是一个全天的聆听审讯。

Also, my first court case will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Poster 2@chinese final

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Poster 2 final

PAP’s Social Engineering Has Hurt Singapore and Singaporeans

I had first posted this on my Facebook and thought to share this here as well.

I am displeased with comments about how Singaporeans are unwilling to work in jobs considered “unglamorous” because Singaporeans only want to do jobs which are glamorous and pay well.

When you have a very successful social engineering system conducted on a national scale, where one minute you tell Singaporeans to study engineering, one minute you tell them to study IT, and then design, then biomedical science, and you steer the country and its people towards a singular mindset, do you blame the people for believing in things in a singular manner, or do you point your finger at a pervasive national propaganda spearheaded by the government which should not be done in the first place?

When you have a government which starts moulding jobs into elite jobs, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, then starts pegging their salaries to these elite jobs, and then put out the idea that Singaporeans should chase after the 5Cs, should aspire towards a rich lifestyle which otherwise you are not good enough, is it the fault of the people to adopt a similar mindset because the “leaders” set the tone? Is it people’s fault that they are led to believe in such an ideal or is it the government, which in its want to create an elite class for itself, which should be the one who should reflect on their policies?

Of course, Singaporeans also have to self-reflect. But have Singaporeans not been blamed by the government too much? Has the PAP taken any ownership or responsibility for the problems that their social engineering have created?

The PAP pursues such a strong path of social engineering, in a bid to create a society it wants but when problems happen down the road, it washes its hands, disowns the problems and blame Singaporeans.

So, when employers similarly complain about Singaporeans, the PAP similarly chastise Singaporeans. Then, to please employers, PAP starts importing labour which will meet these employers’ needs.

Then you see Singaporeans losing jobs by the batches. Where the PAP had asked Singaporeans to study IT in the past, today suddenly many Singaporeans lose their jobs as they are replaced by migrants. Then in accounting, etc.

If you social engineered Singaporeans to study IT, then you jolly well ensure that you make sure they still have a job 10, 20, 30 years down the road. You don’t engineer a problem then leave the people to pick up the pieces! And then bring in competition to make it even more difficult for Singaporeans. Why create layers after layers of problems?

If the PAP does not have the integrity to social engineer something and maintain it, then don’t do it! And if the PAP doesn’t have the foresight to social engineer something, and recognise the social effects that can happen, then don’t do it!

And now, because of the PAP’s social engineering efforts, it contorts the Singapore populace, change our psyche and create the problems we see today.

But will the PAP take any responsibility for doing it? Meanwhile, they continue in their other efforts to social engineer, without cleaning up the mess they left with their past social engineering attempts.

I am honestly very displeased when our society and the PAP especially, is unable to recognise such effects of the social engineering project by the PAP, and we languish into self blame, blame on one another and anger about how Singaporeans do not want to take on certain jobs, etc. When you create a pervasive nationwide campaign to brainwash the people, you get a populace brainwashed.

And if problems rise, is our populace of enough insight to recognise the social side-effects of such social engineering, to forgive one another for the effects it has done to us, and to try to re-engage one another in a healthier manner?

If Singaporeans today become divided, as we have, then I question – where is the PAP’s role in this to admit to its follies of social engineering, and to create a society which has veered away from its natural social evolution.

Perhaps we should have left Singapore and Singaporeans to our own social development and evolution, so that our people would have evolved in our ways and talents, to fill the needs of our society, instead of have a wide scale national social engineering project, which has left so many holes in our economic and social landscape today.

Come down to the #ReturnOurCPF 4 protest on 27 September 2014 at 4pm at Hong Lim Park. You can join the Facebook event page here.

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Poster 2 final

Return Our CPF 4 Poster 1b

Lee Hsien Loong’s Reply to My Affidavit: Roy’s Affidavit is “Irrelevant” and “I Should Not Dignify the Defendant’s Abuse of the Process of this Court”

Lee Hsien Loong has replied to my affidavit.

He said that my affidavit “has not been properly filed and served”. He also said that “I have been advised by my solicitors and verily believe that many parts of (Roy Ngerng’s) 1st Affidavit are inadmissible, irrelevant and/or an abuse of the process of the Court because they deal with matters which are not relevant to the issues in this application for the determination of meaning and for summary judgment, … (and) are designed to advance (Roy Ngerng’s) political agenda, and contain legal arguments, which have no place in an affidavit.” Finally, he said, “I have also been advised by my solicitors and verily believe that I should not dignify (Roy Ngerng’s) abuse of the process of this Court by responding to matters which are inadmissible and irrelevant to the Application.”

You can read my affidavit here. In it, I had detailed the following evidence:

  1. The government has taken Singaporeans’ CPF to invest in the GIC since the 1980s but for at least the past 15 years, they have denied this. Lee Kuan Yew had denied this in 2001 and 2006 and Ng Eng Hen had denied this in 2007. It was only on 30 May 2014 this year that the government finally admitted to the truth.
  2. In two articles that I had written in 2012 and 2013, I had traced evidence on the government websites on how our CPF is taken to be invested in GIC and Temasek Holdings. However, the government later on deleted this information so that Singaporeans are unable to know that our CPF is borrowed into the reserves and managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, GIC and Temasek Holdings.
  3. Temasek Holdings claim that they do not take our CPF to invest but I was able to trace that Temasek Holdings has taken our CPF to invest and Singaporeans still do not know if the interest earned by Temasek Holdings on our CPF was returned.
  4. Because of the government’s management of our CPF and the lack of transparency, today GIC and Temasek Holdings, on the strength of our CPF, are ranked the 8th and 10th richest sovereign wealth funds in the world but Singaporeans have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.
  5. The government and GIC claims that the government does not interfere in GIC but this is implausible as the government also sits on the Board of Directors of GIC. The Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, the two deputy prime ministers Teo Chee Hean and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, two ministers Lim Hng Kiang and Heng Swee Keat, and ex-minister Raymond Lim and the ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew are on the GIC’s Board of Directors.

You can read Lee Hsien Loong’s reply to my affidavit below:

Lee Hsien Loong’s Reply to Roy Ngerng’s Affidavit 21 August 2014

Exposing the Myths in the PAP’s Education Changes: Wages Still Don’t Grow

At the National Day Rally last week, Lee Hsien Loong said, “Do not go on a paper chase for qualifications or degrees, especially if they are not relevant because pathways and opportunities to upgrade and to get better qualifications will remain open throughout your career.

But do you know this is not the first time Lee Hsien Loong said this? In May last year, The Straits Times quoted him as having said, “polytechnic students have many good options after graduating and need not just aim for a university degree.”

In fact, Lee Hsien Loong was not the only PAP minister to have said this.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan echoed by saying that, “If they cannot find jobs, what is the point? You own a degree, but so what? That you can’t eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless.

Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing then also said, “It’s not the degree or the diploma… that is most important… What matters most is the training of the mind and the ability to grasp an issue, ask the correct questions, dissect the problem and find the solutions.

Like many Singaporeans I had heard from, “which government in their right mind will tell their citizens that it is not important to get a degree?”

ASPIRE Committee Recommends Polytechnic and ITE Students to “Deepen Skills”

So, a few days ago, the PAP government released the Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) report. The report made the following 10 recommendations:

  1. Strengthen education and career guidance (ECG) efforts in schools, polytechnics and ITE.
  2. Enhance internships at the polytechnics and ITE.
  3. Increase Nitec to Higher Nitec progression opportunities so ITE students can deepen their skills.
  4. Establish polytechnic and ITE leads for each key industry sector to strengthen linkages with industry and help enhance programme offerings.
  5. Expand online learning opportunities to make it easier for individuals to learn anywhere and anytime.
  6. Provide more development and support programmes for polytechnic and ITE students to help every enrolled student succeed.
  7. Launch new programmes that integrate work and study, such as place-and-train programmes, to provide an additional skills-upgrading option for polytechnic and ITE graduates.
  8. Increase post-diploma Continuing Education and Training (CET) opportunities at our polytechnics to refresh and deepen the skills of polytechnic graduates.
  9. Support vocation-based deployments during National Service (NS) to help polytechnic and ITE graduates maintain their skills.
  10. Develop sector-specific skills frameworks and career progression pathways in collaboration with industry to support progression based on industry-relevant skills.

The ASPIRE committee made 10 recommendations but they can be summed up in a few words – the committee wants polytechnic and ITE students to “deepen their skills”.

But do you notice something that is glaringly missing in the report?

So, after upgrading the skills, will starting wages increase?

Polytechnic and ITE Graduates Still Earn Low Starting Wages

Last year, I wrote about the starting pay of Singaporeans at the different educational levels. According the The Straits Times, “a diploma holder’s average starting salary is $2,000, while that of a degree holder is $3,000“. An ITE student would earn about $1,300. And for someone with a secondary school education of below, the starting pay would be $800 last year or $1,000 (or so) this year.

Slide1

This means that there is a wage gap of $2,000 between the starting pay of someone with a degree and someone who has a secondary school education and below.

And when you compare this with other developed countries, Singapore actually has the largest and most unequal wage gap among the developed countries.

Slide3

Chart: OECD Indicators Education at a Glance 2013

Now, the above is only for starting salaries.

But according to the Ministry of Manpower, if you look at the wages of polytechnic and ITE graduates (earning around $2,000 and $1,300 respectively), you can see that their wages would remain stagnant or even drop over the course of their work life.

However, for someone with a degree, he/she is likely to see significant increases in their salaries across the course of their work life.

photo 4 (16)

Chart: Report on Wages in Singapore, 2011

Thus this means that over time, someone with a degree might see his/her salary rise to an average of $5,000 or so. However, for the other educational levels, the salary would remain stagnant.

Slide4

And because of the wider disparity, this means that over time, the wage gap in Singapore would rise dramatically. And when compared with other developed countries, not only is the wage gap the widest, it would also be several times more unequal than the next country with the widest wage disparity.

Slide6

Chart: OECD Indicators Education at a Glance 2013

Now, note that even though the wage gap is the widest in Singapore, it does not mean that degree holders are paid the highest salaries in Singapore, as compared to other developed countries.

In fact, when you compare Singapore with the other highest-income countries, Singaporeans actually earn the lowest wages.

Slide1

Chart: International Labour Organisation Data collection on wages and income

So, what this means is that degree holders in Singapore are also being shortchanged by the PAP government. So, if degree holders are already being shortchanged, this means that diploma and ITE graduates are even worse off!

Thus even though the ASPIRE committee has made recommendations to “deepen the skills” of polytechnic and ITE graduates, the fact that there was no discussion on wage issues is very problematic.

Now, there is some token news which headlined that, “Outstanding non-graduate teachers could get graduate pay” and “Better career prospects for non-graduates in public service“, but this only refers to any wage increases down the road, such as when “Non-graduate teachers … have demonstrated outstanding performance or have deep experience”, where only then they will be treated as being on par with a degree graduate.

But this is very different from actually increasing the starting salaries of polytechnic and ITE graduates and as long as there is no effort to do this, this would mean that polytechnic and ITE graduates will have to wait several, if not many years, before they are able to see any catch-ups in their salaries. And if they don’t, their salaries will become stagnant or even fall as shown above.

Now, as I have written, at the current CPF interest rates of an average of 3%, a Singaporean would need to earn at least about $2,000 to be able to still buy a flat and retire later on.

Slide6

And this is only if wages increase by 4% every year. But as you can see above, wages for someone who earns $2,000 is likely to stagnate or drop. This means that if a person wants to earn enough to buy a flat and retire, he/she might even need at least $2,500 or $3,000!

Today, there are 30% of Singaporeans who earn less than $2,000 and 50% of Singaporeans who earn less than $3,000.

Indeed, no wonder Associate Professor Tilak Abeysinghe had calculated that the bottom 30% of households have to spent 105% to 151% of their income, because they simply cannot earn enough to survive.

Slide64

Similarly, Professor Mukul Asher had also estimated between 27% and 35% of Singaporeans would be living in poverty.

Singapore Poverty Rate Asher 2007

This would mean that Singapore would have the highest poverty rate among the developed countries and one of the highest poverty rate among the Asian countries.

Slide112

In fact, because of the widest wage disparity, Singapore also has the highest income inequality among the developed countries.

Slide1

And as I had written before, he PAP government has actually been pushing down the income inequality statistics over each reported period (from 2008 to 2010 to 2013), to create the perception that income inequality is not as high as it actually is in Singapore.

Gini Coefficient 2008 vs 2010 vs 2013

Now, if income inequality is a real problem in Singapore, instead of pretending that income inequality is not a problem by fudging the statistics, shouldn’t there be affirmative action to increase wages at the bottom so as to narrow the wage gap in Singapore?

Shouldn’t the government increase the starting salaries of polytechnic and ITE graduates? So again, why is this missing in the ASPIRE report?

In fact, what is even more disconcerting is that not only is the wage gap the widest in Singapore and not only do Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among the highest-income countries, the rich in Singapore actually earns the highest salaries among the developed countries and one of the highest in the world!

Slide100

Chart: ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012

When you look at this in perspective, then something doesn’t seem quite right.

  1. Why are polytechnic and ITE graduates paid the lowest wages when the richest in Singapore pays themselves the highest salaries among the developed countries?
  2. Why does the PAP government create the largest wage gap in Singapore, among the developed countries?

In fact, from 1995, the income share that goes to the richest 10% in Singapore has risen from 30% to 42% in 2011.

Slide1

And the richest 10% only started to keep getting richer and richer a year after PAP announced that they would peg the salaries of their own ministers to the rich in 1994.

Slide21

Thereafter, the richest 10% got richer and richer, and the PAP politicians with it.

Not only that, you can see that every time the income inequality rises in one year, the share of income that goes to the rich will rise in the following year – if so, is the high income inequality in Singapore created by the PAP?

Slide6

Is the PAP interested in ensuring that wages are kept low for non-degree graduates, so that only their cronies can get ahead?

Perhaps it would become clearer when we know that Singapore is actually ranked 5th on The Economist’s crony capitalism index, where it is the 5th easiest for someone to get rich in Singapore if they are affiliated to the PAP.

Slide73

Now, the very idea of education is to also improve social mobility. But because Singapore has the income inequality among the developed countries, we thus have one of the lowest social mobilities among the developed countries.

Inequality vs Social Mobility

So, it is quite clear that as long as the government does not want to actually improve the lot of polytechnic and ITE graduates by actually increasing their wages, no matter what changes the PAP wants to hoodwink Singaporeans with, the end result is that for polytechnic and ITE students, they will continue to be marginalised by the PAP’s policies and it would be difficult for them to move up the social and economic ladder.

In fact, back to the question – which government would encourage its citizens not to get a degree?

As I have written, when you compare Singapore with the other countries, the number of students who enter public universities in Singapore is comparatively lower than other developed countries.

photo 5 (10)

Chart: Report of the Committee on University Education Pathways Beyond 2015 (CUEP)

Now, when you look at the Finnish education system for example, for students who choose to study diplomas or vocational institutions (similar to ITE), they can continue to proceed to study polytechnic degrees and even polytechnic master’s degrees.

Education system in Finland

So, instead of telling you that some people do not like to study academically and thus should not go to a university, the Finnish government actually does it differently and sets up universities that cater to vocational needs, so that all its citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue a degree education, in spite of their academic inclinations.

But when we look back at Singapore and realise how Singaporeans have to pay the second most expensive university tuition fees in the world, this again becomes highly problematic. Where is the equality? Where the poorest families can hardly afford to survive, how can they afford to send their children to university? Is university education being kept to the confines of a self-serving elite who wants to keep a degree education a pedigree for their kind?

Slide6

Not only that, the PAP government would rather give more than 50% of international students scholarships, but would only give 6% of local students (including PRs) scholarships.

Slide1

With the at least $354 million that the PAP gives to international students to study, and the $451 million surplus that the universities accumulate, this would have very easily allowed all Singaporeans to study in the public universities for free. So, why did the PAP government not want to do so?

Slide11

Why would the PAP government pay overseas students to get a degree in Singapore but tell Singaporeans that it is not necessary to get a degree?

On top of that, in the agreement that the PAP government has signed with the Indian government, it allows the free-flow of workers from India into Singapore, without any protection for Singaporean workers. It also allows their spouses to freely come to Singapore to work. Does the PAP government also sign such an agreement with other countries to allow workers to come in freely to work as well?

photo 1 (6)

photo 2 (6)

Chart: Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) Between The Republic Of India And The Republic Of Singapore

If so, does this explain why the unemployment among degree holders have been going up, because of competition from foreign degrees?

Slide3

Chart: World Development Indicators

Does this thus explain why the PAP government suddenly wants to encourage Singaporeans to think that it is not necessary to get a degree?

You can see that the number of migrants coming into Singapore started spiking up over the last decade.

Slide3

And when the number of migrants coming into Singapore increased, so did the number of Singaporeans who earn less than $1,000.

20121230-221903.jpg

In fact, it becomes clearer when you look at the proportion of Singaporeans who earn less than $1,000 – it started spiking up in 2004, when the floodgates were opened.

20121230-222017.jpg

It is thus clear that because of the PAP government’s lax labour policies and unequal wage policies, this has caused a wage depression for the lowest-wage workers.

Has the PAP’s lax labour policies also contributed to the overflow of degree holders into Singapore, which compete with Singaporeans for jobs, and thus the PAP’s sudden about turn to encourage Singaporeans to believe that degrees are not important?

Thus when you look at it as a whole, exactly why does the PAP government suddenly want to encourage Singaporeans to believe that degrees are not important? Doesn’t this fly in the face of logic for a country which wants to advance into the knowledge economy?

Also, even if the government claims that some students might not be academically inclined and should thus go the polytechnic or ITE route, can the government not create polytechnic universities, as the examples of other countries have shown, so that Singaporeans can also receive a university education and get higher pay as well?

In addition, in spite of the government’s changes to the education system, they still have not made affirmative plans to increase the starting salaries of polytechnic and ITE graduates. If the government believes that they do not need a degree and yet it is clear that without a degree, a worker would be stuck with low pay, then shouldn’t the government also increase their starting salaries to account for this?

Otherwise, why stop Singaporeans from getting a university education, when they would otherwise not be able to earn enough to survive in Singapore?

The PAP government’s sudden announcement, with no head or tail, shows a lack of strategic vision as to how they want to shape the education system in Singapore. Why dissuade the pursuit of a university education if we want to advance into a knowledge economy? Why continue to pay low salaries to our polytechnic and ITE graduates, if we do not want them to pursue a university education?

What exactly is on the minds of the PAP government? What exactly are their real intentions behind dissuading Singaporeans from getting a university education? It simply doesn’t make sense. Or is this a knee-jerk response to bad policy planning (as has been shown above with the influx of migrants which depressed wages and increased unemployment, and the agreement with India and the lack of labour protection)?

Or is there an elite agenda to all these?

If so, we can be reminded by what the Vice-Principal of Jurong West Secondary School Pushparani Nadarajah had said that, “How many of our leaders and top officers who say that every school is a good school put their children in ordinary schools near their home? (Only) until they actually do so are parents going to buy (it).

Indeed, the PAP government might want Singaporeans to believe that Singaporeans do not need a university education, but how many of them would think that it is OK for their children not to go to universities?

If not, it would be very hypocritical for the PAP government to claim otherwise.

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Protest on 27 September 2014

On 27 September 2014, join us at the Hong Lim Park at 4pm at the #ReturnOurCPF 4 protest. Why has the PAP government depressed the wages of Singaporeans, while raising the cost of living in Singapore? How does the PAP government expect Singaporeans to survive, when they refuse to implement a minimum wage to protect Singaporeans?

Join us at the next protest as we speak up against the low wages and high cost of living in Singapore.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Also, my first court case will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Poster 2 text

Return Our CPF 4 Poster 1b

15张幻灯片:行动党是如何操纵我们的公积金简要说明!

The Story of What PAP Really Did to Our CPF in 15 Slides

这里用15张幻灯片的形式告诉您行动党如何操纵我们的公积金的。您可以到我的网站阅读网有关这个课题的文章的全文英文版本可以在这里找到

Read what the PAP really did to our CPF in 15 slides. You can read the full article with the references here. You can read the English version here.

Slide1

Slide2

Slide3

住房价格和物价指数:

Slide1

Slide4

1977年到2007年公积金普通户头利率:

CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rates from 1977 to 2007

Slide5

公积金最低存款额与通货膨涨率的变革(%):

Slide36

Slide6

公积金最低存款额的指数:

Slide7

国际移民人数统计:

Slide3

Slide8

新加坡最富裕的10%阶层的收入%:

Slide9

(1995年/货币单位;新元)新加坡实际的GDP指数和医药开销 — 行动党通过健保储蓄的手法,把他们应该支付给新加坡人民的医药费用从40%降到30%,区域由人民自己承担。(1984年):

Slide117

Slide10

Slide11

常年平均补习费(货币单位:美元):

Slide6

Slide12

盈余/不敷的总开支百分比:

Slide13

新加坡政府说淡马锡控股没有用新加坡人的公积金去进行投资

Temasek Holdings Did Invest CPF

Slide14

Slide54

Slide15

GIC Board of Directors

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN@chinese

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN

[Video] My Speech at #ReturnOurCPF 3 Protest on 23 August 2014: Time to Let the PAP Go

I gave a speech at the third #ReturnOurCPF protest yesterday. You can watch the video of my speech below.

You can also read the speech here.

This is a close-up video taken by Matters Of Our Heart:

This is a wider shot taken by cadmiumpureland, with the singing of the national anthem and the pledge at the end:

Here is a video of the introduction by Hui Hui and I to the protest taken by CM Chen:

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Roy Ngerng text

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Roy Ngerng 2 text

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Roy Ngerng 3 text

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Roy Ngerng 4 text

My Speech at #ReturnOurCPF 3 Protest on 23 August 2014: Time to Let the PAP Go

50 years of Singapore.

But will our country have another 50 years.

When Singapore was Temasek in the 14th century, it came to prominence and then disappeared in a hundred years.

Will Singapore go the same fate that our island has, to rise to its peak in the 20th century and disappear before the 21st century is out?

Will Singaporeans Stand and Fight?

What makes a country? A country is not made by its government.

A country is made by its people. And the quality of its people.

How strong Singapore can be does not depend on the government. It depends on what Singaporeans can give, what we stand for and who we are.

But who are we?

Singaporeans are a hardworking people and we are proud of it.

We are kiasu, we speak Singlish and we are proud of it.

It is good to be proud.

But sometimes, has being proud also makes us too proud to admit the truth? Too proud to admit that things need to change? Too proud to admit that we are scared? That we fear what will happen when things change?

Do Singaporeans have what it takes for Singapore to make it? For not just another 50 years, but the next 100, 200 or 500. Do Singaporeans have the grit, the willpower, the courage and the fierceness to do so?

Will Singaporeans fight? For ourselves, for our families and for our country?

Or are we too scared to lose what we have?

And even when we know that if we do not fight, that we will lose even more, will we remain scared and choose not to fight.

Must we wait for the land to be gone, and what we have to be gone, before we decide to do something?

But when things finally break apart and not just the trains break down, but Singapore breaks down, then who can we blame?

The government? PAP?

Or should we blame ourselves for not having risen up, to fight? To fight for our lives, for our freedom, for the truth. For justice, for morality. For ourselves. For our people.

I thank the few thousands of you who are here today and the many who had joined us. You took that step. You are here today, to stand up, to fight. For yourselves. For your families. For your future.

But there are tens and thousands more of Singaporeans who are not here today. Who might be watching the video of this protest in the comfort of your homes. Praying and hoping that things will change.

But things will not change when we do not stand up. When we not speak up. When we are always hoping that someone else can do it. And hope that a hero will help us fight and change things.

There are No Heroes Who Stands Alone

But heroes come and heroes go. They put a face to the fight. But they can only fight for as long as there are fighters among us. They can only fight when there is an army that is willing to charge and take back what is ours, so that we can get our lives back on track.

But when the hero stands alone, when the fight is over, he dies. Everything goes back to normal. Life goes on. We get angrier. Another hero comes. He dies. We get even angrier. And heroes will keep coming and going. Until your country collapses and the heroes could never have done anything, because they were never strong enough. Not by themselves.

He was only one person who took on the fight. Some might call him stupid. Some might say he is naive. Some might say he knows better, and why would he want to play with fire.

But he has a dream. He has a hope. He wants a better future for the people. He wants happiness, justice and compassion. He wants people to be treated right.

I stand here, like many of you here, because I believe that we can change things. I believe that we can make things happen, when we stand up, when we fight and we fight to put things right.

But will things change? This is something I ask myself all the time.

Will things change?

When everything is gone and done, I lose everything but at least I stood for one thing. At least we stood for something.

At least we did what we could.

PAP Took Our CPF as Cheap Money to Use and Got Hooked On It

The CPF is only one issue. But it is a big issue.

For many Singaporeans, they do not care about the CPF system, what happened to it, what PAP did to it.

All we want is to have our money back. All we want is to ask the government to Return Our CPF.

Maybe that is the folly of the title of our protest – #ReturnOurCPF. Maybe that is our mistake. For we created a protest to demand for our CPF to be returned. But it is not just that. It should not be just that.

Many Singaporeans do not care what PAP has done and will continue to do to our CPF. All we want is to have our CPF, so that we can retire.

So that we can continue to go shopping, to go on our holidays, and maybe some, to set up businesses.

But the CPF is more than that.

In 1968, PAP took our CPF as money of their own for social and economic development. They took our CPF to build the port, the airport, roads and other infrastructure.

But most importantly, they took our CPF to build HDB flats.

At that time, Singapore did not have enough money. So the government took our CPF. Maybe it was OK. It helped Singapore to build things up, so that at least we could start somewhere, to start developing and earning the money back.

So that our country could get richer and our people could also get richer.

Since 1964, PAP wanted Singaporeans to “own” homes. If you own your “home”, they believed that you would fight for your country, that you would want to protect your “home”, and you would not do anything to change things.

They were right. How smart they are. How many Singaporeans would protest today? Too scared to lose our homes? Too scared to lose our jobs?

And so, we get to keep our jobs, well most of us anyway. And the PAP gets to keep their jobs.

In 1968, PAP allowed us to use CPF to “buy” their homes. They then increased the CPF contribution rate from 10% to 13%, and then kept increasing it all the way to 50% in 1984.

PAP needed more and more money to use, because they can then build more flats, and earn more money to use.

In 1985, when the recession came, Professor Lim Chong Yah, who headed the CPF Study Group, told the PAP to stop using our CPF for HDB.

Because PAP trapped so much of our CPF inside, there was nothing we could do with our CPF except to buy HDB flats. This created artificial demand and drove prices up.

By the time the recession came, PAP built too many flats that that it also caused the recession to happen in 1985.

Our CPF is such cheap money for the PAP. They took so much of our CPF money and they got addicted to it.

Professor Lim Chong Yah warned the PAP. But did the PAP listen to him?

They did not. By 1994, HDB flat prices started spiralling upwards once again.

In 1997, another recession happened.

This time, Mah Bow Tan said that the PAP built too many flats again and there were more than 30,000 flats that they could not sell.

Today, Singapore Has Become Richer but Singaporeans Have Become Poorer

In 1984, the PAP wanted Singaporeans to “own” our homes because it was the 25th year that Singapore would be independent. And because PAP was going to hold elections.

They wanted Singaporeans to feel good.

Today, Singapore is into the 50th year of independence. Once again, PAP wants Singaporeans to feel good. Once again, PAP will hold elections soon.

Time and again, the PAP gives us a carrot and we take it like a hungry rabbit in a cage.

But why? Because they made us hungry. They pay us low wages, they give us low returns on our CPF and they pay so little for healthcare. And many Singaporeans choose to die instead of go to a hospital.

But the PAP lets themselves get richer and richer. Today, they earn the highest salaries in the world and GIC and Temasek Holdings are also one of the richest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

We have so many millionaires and billionaires in Singapore but we also have so many Singaporean who cannot earn enough to survive!

Are we really a First World Country? Are have we gone back to being a Third World Country?

In the 1950s, poverty rate in Singapore was 20%. Today, it might be even 30%. Singapore has grown richer. But our people have grown poorer. How did this even happen?

After nearly 50 years, is this what the PAP wants Singaporeans to be proud of? That we have to struggle everyday and be so scared that we do not have enough to use?

But the ministers can go on a $8 heart bypass surgery on their million dollar salaries?

PAP Makes Singaporeans Pay for Expensive Flats, Then Sell the Leases Back to Them

In the 1980s, PAP started increasing the prices of flats. They said if you want a good location, a high floor, a good view, you have to pay more for it. Then they said they will start including land costs in the flat prices.

But in 1966, PAP created the Land Acquisition Act so that they can buy our land very cheaply. And then build the flats very cheaply. The land costs next to nothing for them.

Then why do they want us to pay more for the flats? Why do they want us to pay for the land?

Today, land costs take up 60% of flat prices. Singaporeans are paying between $100,000 to $300,000 to the PAP for free money for them to use.

Meanwhile, what happens to our CPF? We cannot save enough, because we spend our life savings to give to the PAP free money.

Then they created the Lease Buyback Scheme.

After making Singaporeans pay so much to so-called “own” our homes, they then tell us maybe our “homes” are not so important afterall.

What is the PAP thinking?

Do they even understand what “homes” mean? Would Lee Hsien Loong sell his own house, so that he can get money just so he could retire?

From 2008, land costs rose by 18.2%. Resale flat prices increased by 9.1%. But our incomes only increased by 5.3%.

If land is so cheap for the government, why is the PAP making Singaporeans pay so much to them for something which is so cheap for them?

Why do they want to earn so much from us, when we are not even able to save enough in our CPF?

Today, we know that after 99 years, the flats we buy will have no value.

In fact, after 60 years, the value will start going down.

Then why does the PAP want to make Singaporeans pay so much for flats which will become worthless?

In another 5 to 10 years, the flats in the old towns will start losing their value. Then what will happen to our CPF? Will we also start losing our CPF?

PAP Gives Singaporeans Lesser CPF Returns but Makes Flats More Expensive

From 1974 to 1986, Singaporeans were earning 6.5% on our CPF. In 1986, PAP said they will peg the CPF interest rates to market rates, so that they can give us better returns.

But from 1986, the CPF interest rates never got better. It kept doing down and down. It kept getting worse. Today, Singaporeans earn only 2.5% on our CPF Ordinary Account.

This is as little as the 2.5% that the British gave when they set up the CPF in 1955.

PAP said if the CPF interest rates drop, HDB flat prices will drop too.

But the interest rates kept dropping, but the flat prices kept going higher.

Why did the PAP make us earn lesser and lesser inside our CPF, but make us pay more and more into their HDB?

And today, how come Singaporeans cannot retire?

Because the PAP took our money, gave us little back and sit on it like they own our money. Then they get richer and richer and Singaporeans become poorer and poorer!

The PAP takes our CPF and give too little back.

Then make us pay too much for the HDB flats!

But who gets to earn? The PAP.

They are very smart. Since 1968, when the PAP could get their hands on our CPF, money got into their heads. It was very easy money, cheap money.

And they could use our CPF to drive prices up for the HDB flats. Then earn from the flats too.

Since 1968, the PAP has been earning from our CPF and HDB.

CPF and Singaporeans are Very Cheap for the PAP

Today, Singaporeans only have two major assets. We think have two major assets – CPF and HDB.

But these two are cash-cows for PAP.

You think the CPF is your retirement fund. You think HDB is your home.

The PAP doesn’t think that way. Your CPF is their money. Your HDB is their money too.

We have no asset. We have no homes. At the end of the 99-year lease, your HDB has no value. The land goes back to PAP. All the money that you had paid will go down the drain.

Meanwhile, the PAP still remains very rich.

This is why I say the CPF is more than that. The CPF is not your money. PAP never looked at it that way.

Your CPF is their money. Very easy, very cheap.

Where else can you get anything so easy and cheap? Does the PAP think Singapore is like Geylang? Does the PAP treat Singaporeans like Geylang?

Why do you think they keep telling you that 2.5% is safe and secure? If they give you a higher interest rate, how can GIC and Temasek Holdings earn for themselves?

If the PAP thinks 2.5% is so good, why don’t we let GIC and Temasek Holdings earn 2.5%? We can let our CPF earn 6% to 16% – what GIC and Temasek is earning now. Let us take on the risks for ourselves. We don’t need the PAP to pretend to take care of us. We can take care of ourselves!

The PAP wants Singaporeans to be self-reliant. Then we show them how self-reliant we can be.

The PAP wants Singaporeans to be self-reliant. Then let’s see how self-reliant the PAP can be! Without our CPF, will GIC and Temasek Holdings be so rich? Without Singaporeans, will the PAP still be so rich?

The PAP wants everything cheap. Cheaper, Better, Faster.

The PAP is so cheapskate. They make Singaporeans cheap. But will the PAP make themselves so cheap. Why do they pretend to be so high-class?

We are paying PAP for a service but we get so little in return. The PAP is supposed to serve us, but instead they make us pay them to serve them.

We are asking for a government to do its job. It’s very simple. Do their job and take care of Singaporeans. Then the PAP says, pay us millions and we will do the job. And so, we paid them millions. But is the job done?

They want Singaporeans to be Cheaper, Better, Faster.

But the PAP becomes More Expensive, Even Worse and Slower! Are we getting value for money? If the value of PAP is going down, we should pay them cheaper! If they don’t know how to be cheaper, then we will get someone else cheaper!

Singaporeans, we are cheaper than Geylang. But has the PAP ever made themselves cheap for us?

If they think they are too good for Singaporeans, then we are too good for them too. We can find a better government which will at least serve us with respect and make us feel good. We do not need a government which only knows how to make themselves feel good.

PAP Controls Singaporeans with Our CPF

For the past 50 years, PAP has taken your CPF to make money for themselves, and has tied it to every part of the Singapore economy, to HDB, to GIC, to Temasek and all the government-linked companies owned by them.

PAP has used our CPF to prop up their own system.

Without your CPF, PAP is nothing. Without your money, PAP is nothing.

And that is why they are so scared. All that the PAP has created for themselves, they could do it, because of your CPF. They can get rich because of your CPF, and your HDB.

Without your CPF, the PAP will have to listen to you. But when you do not have your CPF, you have to listen to the PAP.

That is why I say the CPF is more than that. It is not just about wanting your CPF money back, then everything will be OK, you can go back to doing your own thing and pretend nothing ever happened.

As long as the PAP can control your CPF, as long as they can use your CPF to fund HDB, as long as they can take your CPF to give to GIC and Temasek Holdings, you can dream about taking your CPF back because the PAP will need it to control you.

Because the PAP will need to earn your CPF from you.

As long as the system that the PAP has created to trap all the wealth in Singapore for themselves is still in place, you can forget about your rights. The PAP can control you.

Why Does the PAP Increase the CPF Minimum Sum to $161,000 when Most Singaporeans Cannot Meet It?

On the National Day Rally last week, Lee Hsien Loong said that the CPF Minimum Sum is “not too much”. So, he increased is to $161,000 next year.

Already, 90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum, then why did Lee Hsien Loong increase the CPF Minimum Sum again?

If 90% of Singaporeans do not even have enough cash to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, doesn’t it mean the CPF Minimum Sum is too much?

What kind of prime minister is this to tell 90% of Singaporeans that even though you cannot meet your CPF Minimum Sum, it is “not too much”?

In any other country, the citizens would have thrown the government out by now!

Why do you think PAP threatens you that if you want to renounce your citizenship, they will make it difficult for you to become Singaporean again? They threaten you so that you won’t dare to take your CPF out!

In any other country, the citizens would have chased their government out! Which country would treat its citizens with so little respect?

If the PAP knows that most Singaporeans do not even have enough inside our CPF to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, what has the PAP done to make sure our CPF can meet the CPF Minimum Sum? Has the PAP grown our wages? Has the PAP increase the CPF interest rates?

Why do they still think $1,000 is enough for Singaporeans to survive on? Why do they still give us only 2.5% on our CPF when they can earn 16% in their Temasek Holdings?

Does the PAP even care about Singaporeans or have they always cared about their own money?

Why Should We Let the Government Threaten Us with Our Homes and Jobs?

If the PAP wants to make money, then get out of government. Go set up their own business. Don’t turn Singapore into your company and make Singaporeans work for you.

We are Singaporeans. We have our rights. Remember that! We are the rightful owners of this country. If the PAP wants to steal our country to make money for themselves, then we will fight them back and kick them out!

But why do Singaporeans still keep quiet?

Are we scared? Or we don’t care?

Are we too scared to lose our jobs? Our homes?

But why should the government holds our jobs ransom? Why should we allow the government to own 60% of the economy so that they can use our jobs to threaten us?

Are they the government or are they a company?

Should the government be the main business player in the whole country?

No, they do not decide what Singapore should be and can be. We are Singaporeans. It is us who will decide.

It is us, Singaporeans, who will decide what Singapore should be!

PAP wants to use our “homes” to control us. Today, they make us too scared to lose the “homes” so we will not speak up, for fear of losing our “homes”.

But why should we let the government threaten us? Why should Singaporeans allow the government to hold us ransom?

It is the PAP who should be scared!

Without our CPF, the PAP would be nothing. Without Singaporeans, PAP would have no country to run.

PAP is Addicted to Our CPF to Use It to Control Singaporeans

A country is not made up of the government. A country is made of its people. And the quality of its people.

So, what will we do! And for those of you sitting at homes reading this or watching this video, what will you do?

This is not just about the CPF. The CPF is more than that.

It is about power and control.

We have let PAP be in government for far too long. Is 50 years too long for the PAP to be in government?

When you let a CEO run a company for 50 years and pay the CEO too much money, will the company still be around today?

Or will the company start failing? It is not a coincidence that our trains are starting to fail. This is just the start.

But are Singaporeans ready to admit that our country is starting to break down? Or would we choose to pretend, because we fear? Because we fear change? And getting our hands dirty?

PAP has been using our CPF as their own money for nearly 50 years now. This is cheap money for them. They could take it to build HDB, make you use your CPF to pay for HDB flats and earn profits.

This is your cheap money they are using. They make you cheap.

You give anyone this kind of money, it will also get into their heads.

Today, PAP is addicted to our CPF. Like gamblers and addicts, they keep wanting to have more.

PAP Takes Our CPF to Give GIC to Use But Pretends It Doesn’t

Singaporeans have been telling PAP to give us higher wages and higher CPF interest rates so that we can earn more on our CPF.

But have our wages increased? Have the CPF interest rates increased above 2.5%?

If they increase your wages and the CPF interest rates, they will have lesser to earn. Why would they?

Today, the poorest 30% Singaporeans cannot earn enough to use, and have to spend 105% to 151% of their incomes.

For the middle-income, two-thirds have only enough to buy what they need but not anything else.

PAP makes us use our CPF to pay for Medisave and MediShield but they earn profit from Medisave and MediShield.

PAP takes our CPF to give to GIC to use, but they did not want to let us know.

In 2001, Lee Kuan Yew denied that GIC uses our CPF.

In 2006, Lee Kuan Yew again denied that GIC uses our CPF.

When Low Thia Kiang asked Ng Eng Hen if GIC uses our CPF, Ng Eng Hen said no.

It is only in May this year that the PAP finally admits for the first time that they take our CPF to use in the GIC. Then why deny this for more than the past 10 years?

But the PAP has been taking our CPF to use since 1968!

Today, PAP says the government does not interfere in the GIC and the GIC also says the government does not interfere in their operations.

But when you look at the GIC Board of Directors, Lee Hsien Loong, Tharman, Teo Chee Hean, Lim Hng Kiang, Heng Swee Kiat, and ex-Transport Minister Raymond Lim are on the board. Lee Kuan Yew is the Senior Advisor.

If PAP does not interfere in GIC, then pigs can fly.

GIC Board of Directors

The PAP Will Never Change When They Control Everything

But back to the question, what will Singaporeans do?

We get angry at the PAP. We scold the PAP. And then we hope the PAP can change.

But how can a leopard change its spots?

The problem is the PAP. We know that. But yet, we hope that one day, PAP will suddenly have a change of heart, that suddenly they will want to take care of Singaporeans?

You are asking a PAP which owns 60% of the economy, which have earned from your CPF and HDB and are very comfortable with that, where Singapore is ranked by The Economist as 5th on the crony capitalism index, where cronies have been able to get rich precisely because of their connections with the PAP and will continue to work for the PAP to protect the system that helps them get rich.

And you hope that the PAP will have a change of heart?

If you control everything in Singapore, your interest is not in taking care of the people, and sharing what you have earned with them. Your interest is to keep earning all this money for yourselves to protect your power and money.

No matter how much Singaporeans beg the PAP, they will never change. You can see that for yourselves at the National Day Rally last week.

Did anything about the CPF change? Can we get higher interest rates on our CPF now?

And as if it is not enough to tear down the old National Library building, the government wants to tear down the Chinese and Japanese Gardens. And wants us to sell our “homes” back to them under the Lease Buyback Scheme.

Where is their heart?

Do they still have a heart for Singapore?

Will Singaporeans Start Taking Responsibility for Ourselves to Put Things Right?

But as humans, humans are selfish, humans are greedy. When you let anyone have too much power and too much money, this will get into their heads as well.

So, we should not fault the PAP too much. They are only being human. They are only being like us.

If we are just as selfish, can we blame them for being selfish? If we are just as ignorant, can we blame them for being ignorant?

If we have not given the PAP so much power, will they have access to so much power and let the power get into their heads?

If so, are Singaporeans not to be blamed as well for letting go of our own power, to let the PAP be able to control us?

At the end of the day, if Singaporeans are not partners in crime with the PAP, if we have not send the PAP into government elections after elections, we would not have been able to let them become addicted.

If the PAP is now addicted to our CPF, Singaporeans, it is us who caused it. We are the ones who gave them a one-way ticket to let them make use of our CPF to earn money for themselves for the past 50 years.

We are the ones we should blame. If we want to scold someone, it is us whom we should scold. If we want to complain, it is ourselves we should complain about.

Why did we allow ourselves to hope that the PAP can change for the better, even when we can see for our eyes that they won’t?

We do we allow ourselves to be so scared that we won’t dare to do anything different but keep voting the PAP in?

If our lives get worse, we have only ourselves to blame. Not the PAP. The PAP can only do what they can because we keep letting them.

We behave like the angry victim who curse and scold at the person who poured hot water on us, only to give them more buckets of hot water to throw on us.

But will we take responsibility for ourselves? Will we decide to start owning ourselves, and our rights? They make us cheap. Doesn’t matter. We know our worth. We know how good we are. Will we take responsibility for ourselves, fight for ourselves and give ourselves another chance to put things right?

Will we start taking responsibility for ourselves?

The PAP’s Agenda is To Make Money, But This Will Cost Singapore’s Future

Now, we know the system is broken. It is not just the CPF. Wages are too low – Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among the highest-income countries even though we are now the most expensive place to live in, in the world. Our purchasing power has been decreasing and we have lesser and lesser to use. By increasing the CPF contribution rates, the PAP makes our purchasing power go down further and because PAP makes it more expensive to hire Singaporeans, so employers do not want to increase wages. PAP increases rents which increases prices. They spend so little on maintaining the MRT that it keeps breaking down.

But behind it all, the PAP’s agenda is very clear. It is to make money. Pay low wages to earn high profits. Pay low health spending to earn high profits. Make rents high to pay for profits. Pay less for train maintenance to earn high profits.

Spend less, earn more and have lower quality. Is this how you want Singapore to go down the drain?

It is clear the PAP’s way of working will no longer work for Singapore. Local businesses are not able to grow. We cannot grow our own brands to compete in the world. Singaporeans have to keep being workers but cannot become entrepreneurs to help give Singapore a new lease of life.

When we say the PAP has run out of ideas, it is not because they have no new ideas. They do, but when you know their agenda is to make money, then you will see that they do have new ideas – the ERP, COE. But these new ideas are just not what is needed to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Is The Role of The Government to Take Care of Singaporeans?

But what is the role of a government? Have we ever thought about that? Is the role of a government to protect the people?

Is the role of the government to ensure that Singaporeans can afford healthcare, so that we do not have to choose to die instead of going to the hospital? And so that we have to wait for hours in the emergency because we do not have enough money to be upgraded to a higher class ward?

Is the role of the government to encourage Singaporeans to be educated and to open enough spaces in the universities for Singaporeans to do so, instead of telling Singaporeans not to pursue a degree? Is the role of the government to provide affordable education, instead of to keep increasing childcare and university tuition fees?

Is the role of the government to spend more money to maintain the MRT tracks, so that our MRT trains can travel faster and smoother, and not spend more money decorating new buses and inviting performers to perform while we wait during train delays?

Let Us Help the PAP to Go to Create a New Singapore

Now, we have to thank the PAP of the earlier generations for taking care of Singapore and bringing Singapore to where it is today. They had the heart for Singapore. We might not agree with everything that they do, but they were at least committed towards building Singapore to where it is today.

Maybe it was become times were hard then, so the PAP worked hard to help Singapore succeed. But the PAP today, many grew up with silver spoons in their mouths, too used to the comfort that they do not know hardship. They do not know how it is like to work on $1,000 every month, or even to be unemployed and living on very little savings. The PAP today cannot understand that.

The PAP today no longer knows what it means to take care of its citizens or what it means to be government. But we should not blame them. They have lost touch.

If so, let us help them. Let us help them leave government respectably, and let us put in place a government which will have the heart and the minds to listen to Singaporeans, to take care of us and to protect us – a government which will ensure that Singaporeans will not be left out from the healthcare system, where every child truly deserves an equal opportunity to education. And where we will be able to earn enough to live respectably in Singapore.

Let us do this for ourselves.

Let us create a new beginning.

Let us put the past behind, celebrate what the old PAP had done, thank them and be grateful to them.

But let us help the new PAP leave gracefully, so that they can start a new beginning somewhere else, and so that Singaporeans can start a new beginning as well.

What we want is a country where our people will be taken care of, where our people can grow old and be treated well after years of working so hard for the country.

What we want is a country where our people are kind to one another, where I will stop and help you because it is the decent to do.

Where work hours are not so long where we have enough time for ourselves, enough time for one another, our families, our children and our friends.

What we want is a place to live in, where we will be respected, happy, and fulfilled, not because we have so much money or are able to buy the next branded thing, but because our lives are good enough, that we can live our lives free, happy and with dignity.

Now, that is all we want. And that is Singaporeans ask for.

We Are Our Heroes, Let Us Be the Change We Want To See

But my friends, if we want to see this happen, we cannot sit and wait for someone else to stand up and do it for us.

We cannot hope that a hero will rise and save us. Your hero is the enemy of the PAP. And the PAP will go out at all costs to terminate your hero.

There is no hero. There are only heroes. And each of these heroes lie within us, within our strength.

All of us are capable of change.

Perhaps we do not know our power and our abilities because we are not able to see beyond ourselves yet. But it is time for us to see beyond our own wants. It is not just about CPF. It is not just about wanting our CPF back.

It is about knowing how the PAP takes our CPF to earn money for themselves, how they can use it to control the economy and our “homes” and how they can use our CPF to control our lives. It is about knowing how the PAP has used their system to make money for themselves, while letting the rest of Singaporeans earn low wages and low retirement funds, so that we will have to keep working to produce money for them.

Once you understand this, you understand that you cannot wait and hope that the PAP will change. Help them go out, and help yourselves, because that is the very least you can do for yourselves and your families.

The government is not the be all and the end all.

The government is only human. The government is just like us. And it is us.

Let us put in a government which has the heart and which will listen. Let us put in a government which will do things to improve the lives of the people. Let us give ourselves a chance.

We do not want to wait until it is too late, when things really start falling apart before we do something about it. Things can look very good today, but we know of many other places which have unravelled overnight. And if we truly care for our homes and our lives, then we will do what we need to, to protect our country and our homes.

Stop waiting. You are the hero you have been waiting for. You are the change you have always wanted. Be the change you want to see.

There are many good people with good ideas and solutions of what needs to be done in Singapore. Professor Lim Chong Yah warned the PAP to not use our CPF excessively. PAP did not listen. Many others have also warned the PAP in the 1990s and 2000s.

Associate Professor Hui Went Tat also criticised that the CPF changes announced by Lee Hsien Loong at the National Day Rally did not go far enough.

Many Singaporeans and patriots spoke up because we want to protect Singapore. But the PAP never changed its spots.

Let the Heroes among Ourselves Rise and Let Us Start Believing In a New Hope

It is time, my friends. It is time we look beyond our lives and ourselves and do this for our country. Singapore might never have fought a war since 1965. But we face in front of ourselves a battle for the future of our country.

We can no longer sit and wait, while we see our country unravel in front of our very own eyes and just hope that things will change.

Stop hoping. Start believing. Start taking action.

And let’s start doing something.

Let’s put our fears aside. Let’s put our heads together. Let’s work in unity. Let’s be united.

For if we want our country to succeed and for ourselves to have a future, then it is really up to us to believe that our country is important enough for us to fight for it.

Then it is up to us to believe that we are strong enough to fight for our country and our fellow men.

Heroes are not made by one or two. But the heroes of a nation are the brave men and women who decide to stop what is not right, and decide that for the greater good, we will emerge and we will regain our confidence, our belief and work to make it happen, to give ourselves that chance.

We have one chance. Now, are we going to take it?

Are we going to help ourselves?

Can we be the heroes that our country needs?

When the time comes, I hope that we would have thought through things enough, and no matter how many carrots we are given, we will no longer be that rabbit stuck in the cage, but we will be the Singaporean who will break out of the cage, to find our own carrots, to take responsibility for ourselves, to own our lives, to live our own lives, and to fight, to do what is right for ourselves, our country, our people, and our future.

The PAP of the past has done good, but they are no longer what Singapore needs. The time has come for a new dawn and a new beginning.

The PAP needs us to survive. They need our CPF. But we cannot let their addiction go on.

We need to let the PAP go, so that Singaporeans will have a chance. So that and Singapore will have a chance.

Let us help the PAP go, and let us help ourselves.

If Singapore is to remain our home, we have to give it a new lease of life.

Let us join hands and do this.

Let us give our country a new hope.

Let us give ourselves this one chance.

For ourselves, let’s do this.

Return Our CPF 3 Poster You Are the Heroes

Return Our CPF 3 The People's Protest

How Much Does the Government Thinks Is Enough for Singaporeans to Retire On? $600? $1,200? $1,500? $2,000? Or More?

I am very confused now. So how much does the government think is enough for Singaporeans to retire on?

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said last month that the government “wanted the (CPF) Minimum Sum to be able to meet the expenditure needs of a lower-middle income retiree couple.

He said that, “The current Minimum Sum for someone turning 55 from July 2014 is $155,000, after adjustment for inflation. This sum will provide about $1,200 per month, for life, through CPF LIFE. “

Again, he said that, “This is estimated to be what a lower-middle income retiree household requires to meet their basic daily needs.”

So, does the government think $1,200 is enough for retirement?

However, at the National Day Rally last Sunday, Lee Hsien Loong had asked the audience how much they would need to retire on.

20140817_204036

When he asked the audience to raise their hands, I thought there were more people who said they needed $3,000 to retire on.

But doesn’t matter, Lee Hsien Loong thought that more people said they needed $2,000.

Then, he went ahead to present his prepared slides using the $2,000 figure.

20140817_204208

So, does this mean the government thinks Singaporeans actually need $2,000 to have enough for retirement?

Lee Hsien Loong then further demonstrated how the CPF Minimum Sum and the Lease Buyback Scheme works.

For the CPF Minimum Sum, he said that a person could pledge his/her property to meet half of the CPF Minimum Sum of $77,500. If so, a person would only be able to withdraw $600 monthly.

20140817_204322

Associate Professor Hui Went Tat pointed out that if a person could only withdraw $600, this would mean that a person would “not hav(e) enough retirement savings“. Indeed, I had estimated that 73.5% of Singaporeans do not even have $77,500 inside our CPF in cash, which means that nearly three-quarters of Singaporeans would get less than $600.

Three-Quarters of Singaporeans Have Less Than $77,500 in Our CPF

Lee Hsien Loong then said that the Lease Buyback Scheme could give the person another $900, which as Prof Hui also pointed out, would give “a total of $1,500 a month which will be below current subsistence living level“.

20140817_204822

So then, does this mean the government thinks $1,500 is enough?

I am getting very, very confused here. How much exactly does the government think is enough for Singaporeans to retire on?

Why did Lee Hsien Loong talk about how $2,000 would be “enough” but went on to illustrate how a person would be able to get $1,500? What about the other $500?

According to Prof Hui, he said, “The $2,000 retirement income projected for Mr Tan, if paid out today, would therefore put him in this group of households with an income considered to be enough for basic or subsistence living… And with inflation, the real value of the $2,000 Mr Tan is due to get in 10 years’ time would be even more paltry.”

If so, even though the government had indicated that $1,200 is enough for a lower middle household, but it looks like according to Prof Hui’s calculations, this would not even be enough! A person would need at least $2,000. And after accounting for inflation, $2,000 in 10 years’ time would not even be enough!

The Press Secretary of the Minister for Manpower Ms Chong responded to Prof Hui by saying that, “The worked example of the hypothetical Tan family was not meant to show that $2,000 per month will definitely be sufficient for retirement.”

She added that, “$2,000 was the majority view of the audience, but for each individual, the actual figure would come down to a matter of personal needs.”

So, does this mean the government acknowledges that even $2,000 might not be enough for retirement?

I am certain that there were as many people who raised their hands at $3,000, if not more people, so I am not sure if her conclusion is reflective.

Also, was it not Lee Hsien Loong who had prepared his presentation based on the $2,000 figure? If so, would it not be that the government which thinks that $2,000 is enough?

So, what exactly does the government think is enough? $600? $1,200? $1,500? $2,000?  More than $2,000?

There are so many different figures that the government is using! Does the government even know how much Singaporeans need to retire on? Or does the government even care? Is this all just a mathematical exercise to them? It looks like it.

How Much Does the Government Thinks Singaporeans Need to Have to Retire

It is even more worrisome when Ms Chong said, “The fact that most eligible home owners have not taken up the Lease Buyback Scheme may well be a positive sign that most seniors do in fact have other support, and are adequately provided for in retirement.”

Which statistics did Ms Chong based this assumption on?

I had calculated that 73.5% of Singaporeans do not even have $77,500 inside our CPF, which means three-quarters of us would only be able to withdraw less than $600 every month, which as Ms Chong pointed out, is “much less than the $2,000 per month he would need.”

If so, the government would know that the majority of Singaporeans simply do not have enough inside our CPF for retirement at all!

Then, why this frivolous statement?

The PAP Government is Still Not Do Anything to Grow Singaporeans’ CPF Retirement Savings

Based on the above, then why is the government not helping Singaporeans to grow our CPF to ensure that all Singaporeans are able to withdraw at least $2,000 every month from our CPF?

  • First, why did the government claim $1,200 is enough when it was shown at the National Day Rally that $1,200 might not be enough and a person might instead actually need $2,000?
  • Second, the government claims that $2,000 is enough today, but when it is clear that $2,000 will not be enough in 10 years’ time, what are the government’s plans to resolve this? Do they even have any?
  • Third, the government sets a CPF Minimum Sum, to give a $1,200 payout. But when they know that the majority of Singaporeans cannot even withdraw $600, then what is the government doing to help Singaporeans grow our CPF? Do they even have any?

As Prof Hui mentioned, “priority should be changes to ensure that savings are sufficient for retirement. Attention has to be put on the savings accumulation stage, not just the withdrawal stage.”

Indeed, to do so, Leong Sze Hian and I had calculated that the government needs to implement a minimum wage of at least $1,500 and increase the CPF interest rates to 6% to grow Singaporeans’ CPF. And this can be easily done since our CPF is invested in the GIC which is earning an estimated 6%.

Slide14

Ms Chong also said, “CPF and home ownership work hand-in-hand to provide for Singaporeans in retirement. The Government helps citizens to own their homes, and pay for them using their retirement savings in the CPF, so that the home can be a nest egg for them to draw upon in old age.”

But I am very perplexed.

Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah has admitted that, “we control the (public housing) construction programme; secondly, we set the price (for the HDB flats),” Also, today, “Land now makes up about three-fifths of development cost on average, up from two-fifths in 2008.”

Also, Gerald Giam had questioned the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah, where it was revealed that, “Like all leasehold properties, HDB flats will revert to HDB, the landowner, upon expiry of their leases. HDB will in turn surrender the land to the State.”

If so, if the government fixes the prices of HDB flats and Singaporeans do not own the flat nor the land, why does the government sets such high prices for the flats, makes Singaporeans pay for the land we do not own and forces Singaporeans to use too much of our CPF to pay for the flat leases?

When Singaporeans are not able to retire because we have to use too much of our CPF to buy over-inflated flat leases, should it not be the responsibility of the government to set the prices of these flats at a more affordable level, instead of charge high prices now and then ask us sell back the lease later on (and make us feel insecure as to whether we would still have a home to live in when we grow older)?

If the government has enough money to buy back the leases, then are they not already charging too high prices for the flats and earning profit?

If the government chooses to fix the prices of flats at such an exorbitant level and wipe out a large chunk of our CPF, then is the government “helping” Singaporeans, or is the government extorting from Singaporeans?

In the same sentence, Ms Chong said that the flats are our “homes”, then suddenly the flats are also a “nest egg”.

Maybe it is time the PAP government stand up with some moral integrity and responsibility and decide once and for all – does it want to continue to make money off Singaporeans from our CPF and HDB, or is the government keen at all to help Singaporeans really own our homes and be able to retire?

And if the PAP is not interested in protecting Singaporeans, then maybe it is time Singaporeans recognise this, do the right thing to protect ourselves, and vote in a new government which will at least listen to Singaporeans and protect us.

Come down to the #ReturnOurCPF protest tomorrow at 4pm at Hong Lim Park. You can join the Facebook event page here.

Return Our CPF burning rose poster

Return Our CPF sun poster

Return Our CPF burning sun poster

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese

行动党是如何操纵我们的公积金资金?为什么他们不让新加坡人民知道公积金的历史真相?《第一部分》

What PAP Has Done to Your CPF and Doesn’t Want Singaporeans to Know (The Real History) (Part 1)

这篇文章是比我在昨天撰写的《公积金的真实历史》(the real history of the CPF)要短一些。请您阅读。当您读完这篇文章后,您就知道,除了您的退休金以外,行动党把我们的公积金当成万能的工具!您就会明白,为什么行动党现在已经无法把我们的公积金从新加坡的经济中脱身?那是因为我们的公积金已经锁紧在经济领域!

This is the much shorter version of the real history of the CPF which I had written yesterday. Please read this. When you finish reading this, you will know how PAP is treating your CPF for everything else, other than for your retirement, and how they have locked-in our CPF into the economy that it is now very difficult for them to pull back.

我是以最简洁和易懂的方式来撰写这篇文章的。我在这篇文章里附上了许多图表加以说明,这样将能够让读者的思路更加顺畅。请您花费一些时间把这篇文章阅读完。这样,您将会对我们的公积金有了深一层的了解后,您将会为保护自己的公积金做出正确的决定。

I have written this article in a way that makes it very quick and easy to read through. I have put in many graphics to make it faster to flow through. Please take a few minutes to go through this article. Knowing how your CPF works in the big picture will allow you to make the right decisions to protect your own lives. 

这篇文章将会为您提供一个完整的事实,让您知道行动党是如何动用我们的公积金的同时又不让我们知道他们动用我们的公积金的全过程。

This is a 2-part article. Please also read part 2 as it will complete the full picture for you on how PAP uses your CPF and does not want to let you know how they do it. 

*****

公积金制度是在1955年设立的。

The CPF was set up in 1955.

建屋发展局是在1960年成立的。在1964年之前,建屋发展局的‘原来目标是….建造住房出租的’。然而,在1964年行动党政府更改了这个目标变成了‘在1964年把建造好的住房卖给租户。’

The Housing Development Board was set up in 1960. Prior to 1964, the HDB’s “original objective … was to build flats for rental“. However, in 1964, the PAP government changed their objective to “selling flats to tenants in 1964“.

然而,新加坡人民并没有购买这些住房,因此,行动党就让公积金‘自由化’,并同时推行了‘居者有其屋计划’,让公积金会员可以利用公积金购买建屋发展局建造的住房。

However, Singaporeans were not buying the flats so PAP “liberalised” the CPF and created the Home Ownership Scheme to let CPF be used to buy flats.

政府也同时利用我们的公积金进行另一种用途,这是新加坡人民所不知道的事。从1968年开始,公积金被立法成为‘政府的资金来源的一个渠道’。当时,新加坡政府的财政收入并没有累计盈余,因此,政府向公积金局借贷‘来进行发展用途…..(直到)政府的财政已经累计了盈余’。

The government also used our CPF for another purpose which most Singaporeans do not know about. From 1968, CPF was legislated to become “a source of funds for the government“. Singapore hasn’t accumulated surpluses yet too, so the government borrowed Singaporeans’ CPF “for development expenditure … (until) it built up budgetary surplus.

当时动用公积金进行发展计划的最大使用者是就是建屋发展局,‘公积金的资金(事实上就是)借贷给建屋发展局去建造住房。’(见流程图)

As the main user of the development funds was the HDB, “CPF funds were (thus essentially) lent to the Housing Development Board so that it could build flats.”

Screenshot (86)

在1955年开始设立公积金制度时,新加坡人民只需缴交10%的公积金(雇员和雇主各分担5%)。

At the start in 1955, Singaporeans only needed to contribute 10% (5% employee and 5% employer) into the CPF.

可是,到了1968年,因为行动党政府要贯彻他们的‘居者有其屋’计划,他们调高了公积金缴交到13%。

However, in 1968, because PAP wanted “to support the(ir) national home ownership drive“, they increased the CPF contribution rates to 13%.

接下来,从1984年开始直到1986,他们就不断的调高公积金缴交率到50%。

And so they kept increasing it to do so until 50% in 1984, until 1986.

Slide3

Edward Ng先生说,‘这样高的储蓄率证明了是要把公积金变成比退休金计划更加大的意图’。事实上,行动党已经把公积金的资金的用途扩大给了建屋发展局了。

Edward Ng said that, “Such a high savings rate is evidence of the intent to make CPF more than a pension scheme for retirement.” Indeed, PAP extended the CPF to give HDB to use.

但是,为什么行动党政府要人民‘拥有自己的房子’?李光耀说了,‘要建立以各人人拥有自己的房子的社会。我….确信,假设每个家庭都要有自己的房子,这个社会将会更加稳定……我已经看过在资本主义国家的人民经常在最后是倾向投反对政府的票。所以我们决定住户必须成为屋主,否则,我们的社会将不会稳定。’

But why did the PAP wanted Singaporeans to “own homes”? Lee Kuan Yew had said, “I wanted a home-owning society. I … was convinced that if every family owned its home, the country would be more stable … I had seen how voters in capital cities always tended to vote against the government of the day and was determined that our householders should become homeowners, otherwise we would not have political stability.”

但是,向我们的公积金贷款建造政府组屋已经发展到失控了。早在1980年初期,行动党已经建造过剩的组屋了。在1980年制定的第五个五年建造计划的目标是建造8万5千个单位到10万个单位。然而,他们却大量的建造了18万9千个单位。接近预订计划的两倍。

But the borrowing of our CPF to build HDB got out of hand. During the early 1980s, PAP started to over-build. Under the Fifth Five-Year Building Programme, the target set in 1980 was to build 85,000 to 100,000 flats. However, a massive 189,000 flats were built, or nearly twice as much.

这样的‘随着1985年——1987年的经济萧条,这种朝向国家的经济和房地产崩溃“过热”的贡献’造成了‘房地产市场供应的过剩’。

This “contributed towards ‘over-heating’ of the economy and the property slump and recession which followed in 1985-87” as there was an “over-supply in the property market“.

李光耀后来承认,‘在1982年到1984年之间,我们建造了超过我们所需的两倍的组屋。这是我们犯上的最大错误。’

Lee Kuan Yew later admitted that, “We made one of our more grievous mistakes in 1982-84 by more than doubling the number of flats we had previously built.”

问题上:为什么行动党会过量的建造组屋?这是因为‘1984年是选举年,也是庆祝新加坡建国25周年的成就’。同时,行动党要新加坡人民在庆祝建国纪念的日子‘拥有自己的房子’。

But why did PAP over-build? This is because “1984 (was) an election year as well as a year for celebrating 25 years of achievement as an independent nation” and PAP wanted to get more Singaporeans to “own” their flats in time for their anniversary.

在1986年,一个研讨公积金的小组建议:‘当局应该控制追求的政策。否则将让越来越多的公积金吸引到(会员)的产业提升和购买更多的产业。在这样的情况下,将会给更加多的家庭产生压力,并将可能损害他们在除了产业价格的膨胀外的老年生活的所需的经济能力。’

In 1986, the CPF Study Group recommended “that the authorities refrain from pursuing policies that would induce individuals to siphon more and more of their savings from their CPF to continuously upgrade their properties and to purchase additional properties, at the expense of other more pressing family needs and to the possible detriment of their ability to finance a decent old-age livelihood, besides contributing to inflating property prices.

这是因为公积金在制造‘人为的需要’的产业——为了行动党要达到‘百分之百的人也有自己的产业的目标’。因此,‘利用公积金购买房子就摧毁了消费的方式了。….(和)为了要实现居者有其屋的政治目标,就提高了公积金的缴交率。这样一来,假设经济上真正出现了问题,在公积金的户头里有越来越多的资金也可以达到这个政治目的,’

This is because the CPF was creating an “artificial demand” for housing, as PAP wanted to achieve their “goal of 100 percent home ownership“. Thus “The use of CPF savings for the purchase of housing distorts consumption patterns … (and) The fulfilment of the political objective of home ownership by increasing CPF contribution rates so that more funds would be available for this purpose is, if true, economically inefficient.

他们说,‘既然(公积金制度的设立)主要(也是原来的)目的是要为老年人的未来储蓄,那么,公积金的缴交率就要设定包括达到这个目标的混合利率,也必须保持这个利率水平。’

They also said, “Since its main (and original) objective is to provide for savings for old age, the combined rate of contribution should be set at a level consistent with this objective, and it should be maintained at that level.

无论如何,行动党是走向‘相反’的方向和‘推动了提升计划政策(又一次)和允许公积金 资金用于这个目的。’

However, PAP went in the “opposite” direction and “promoted the upgrading policy (again) and allowed the user of CPF funds for this purpose.”

就这样,行动党也就没有停止他们这种使用公积金进行超越需求建造组屋的愿望。‘在1977年,亚洲金融危机时’,国家发展部长马宝山承认,‘建屋发展局超建的3万1千的组屋单位空置着’。这段时间是‘浪费了纳税人的钱’。

So, PAP did not stop its wanton desires to use our CPF to over-build flats and “when the Asian Financial Crisis hit in 1997,” National Development Mah Bow Tan admitted that, “HDB ended up with 31,000 unsold flats“, this time while “wast(ing) … taxpayers money”.

因此,在1960年到1980年中,行动党迫使新加坡人缴交更多的公积金。在1982年,当时的劳工兼通讯部长说了:‘公积金的缴交率在未来将可能会调高到50%’。在这50%的缴交率里,40% 将是属于购房子用途,其他的6%是由用于保健储蓄,剩余的是 作为退休和其他急用款。’

Thus from the 1960s to mid-1980s, the PAP kept making Singaporeans pay more into the CPF. In 1982, the then-Minister for Labour and Communications had said that “the CPF contribution rate is likely to increase to 50% in the future. Of this 50%, 40% will be for housing and other uses, 6% for Medisave and the remainder for old age and contingencies.

这就是说,行动党已经将计划让老百姓利用我们80%的公积金去购买他们的组屋。

Which means PAP had planned to make us use 80% of our CPF to buy their flats.

因此,‘国际专家提议,10%——15%的缴交率应该足于为35% ——40%作为替代率,再加上生存者的保险受益’。您认为,50% 的公积金缴交率(或者今天的37%)是否太高了。

However, “The international experience suggests that a contribution rate of 10 to 15 percent should be sufficient for providing a replacement rate of between 35 and 40 percent plus survivors insurance benefits,” thus is 50% (or the 37% today) too much?

行动党也就这样可以‘推动了……(他们的目的)居者有其屋以引导公积金出现的资金朝向(购买)房地产的方向。’

The PAP was thus able to “‘create’… (their intention of) homeownership was by directing savings in the Central Provident Fund (CPF) towards housing.

实质上,‘公积金已经成为房地产抵押市场的支柱。’

Essentially, “the CPF has (become) a substitute for the mortgage market.

但是,特别是在今天许多老年人无法退休的情况下,您认为,您的公积金的用途是使用在这方面吗? 行动党是否偿还从新加坡人的公积金户头动用去投资并赚取了的利润呢?

But is this what you think your CPF should be used for, especially since today many older Singaporeans cannot retire? Did PAP return what they took from Singaporeans and earned?

Central Provident Fund in Singapore CPF-HDB Circular Flow of Funds

很快的, 由于我们的公积金为建屋发展局提供了源源不断的资金,建屋发展局已经成为‘最大的房地产发展商和最大的房地产贷款抵押商…..在2000年,政府的房地产贷款额是6千零10亿万元。这个数额远远超过了私人房地产贷款额(私人房地产贷款额是3千8百60万亿元)’和在2003年占国民生产总值(GDP)的总比例是71%》….这是在亚洲国家当中最高的百分比。’

Very soon, on the supply of our CPF, HDB became “the largest housing developer (and) also the largest mortgage provider… government mortgage loans totalled 60.1 billion Singapore dollars (SGD) in the year 2000, which was much higher than the total housing loans of the private sector (SGD 38.6 billion)” and the “2003 ratio of outstanding housing loans to GDP (was) 71 percent, (which was) … the highest in Asia”.

‘直至2012年3月31日止,总共有1百38万名公积金会员从公积金户头里提取了1万零1百90亿万元作为购买公共住房用途。’

As at March 31 2012, 1.38 million members had withdrawn net amount of $ 101.9 billion for public housing scheme.

建屋发展局已经成为‘通过公积金局行政管理(成为)提供公共住房和房产抵押贷款市场的垄断者’

HDB became “a monopoly supplier of public housing and its mortgage provider, administered through the CPF“.

当时,这也同时是在1960年的土地征用法令,‘缺乏普通或者宪法权利的土地拥有者’下,允许行动党能够这么做’。——‘国家所拥有的土地从1940年的44% 增加到1985年的76%’

But it is also because of “the absence of common or constitutional right to land ownership” under the Land Acquisition Act 1966 that allowed PAP to do this – “land under state ownership increased from 44% in 1960 to 76% by 1985.

最初,‘建屋发展局可以为自己建造的组屋定出比市场还低的价格是因为当时的政府组屋是在国家自己的土地上建造的。这些土地是通过低于市价的情况下强制性的向私人土地征用过来的。’

Initially, “The HDB was able to price its units below market prices mainly because HDB flats are built on state owned land, much of which had been compulsorily acquired from private landowners at below market prices.

Goodman, Kwon and White 说,‘假设有一个对财产有极大兴趣的强大的地主阶级的存在,那么。住屋政策将不可能这么顺利的执行下去。’

Goodman, Kwon and White said that, “If there had been a strong landlord class with a vested interest in land, the housing policy could never have been carried through as easily as it was.”

无论如何,行动党通过建屋发展局和房地产公司淡马锡控股已经成为最大的房地产业主。我们可以看到事情已经朝哪个方向发展。

However, today, the PAP government, via HDB and the real estate companies owned by Temasek Holdings, is the largest real estate owners and we can see where things have headed.

为此,行动党在‘居者有其屋政策下’,制造了‘人为的高需求’。同时,‘放宽了建屋发展局和公积金局条例,让人们可以购买公共住房和私人住宅,这是他们制造出来的一个邪恶的联盟……这样一来,建屋发展局和一小撮私人房地产发展商就成了供应这个住宅房地产商市场的实际上的垄断联盟了。

Thus PAP created “higher artificial demand” with their “homeownership policy“. Also, “The relaxation of housing rules by both the HDB and CPF made public and private housing more substitutable, (which created an) unholy alliance … as the whole residential market becomes a de facto cartel with HDB and a handful of private developers on the supply side.

更加严重的是,‘作为国家最大的地主和推动土地买卖,他们的国家土地银行通过投标制度加剧了这个市场的局势恶化’——他们由此造成了屋价更加迅猛的上涨。同时‘额外的储蓄又诱导了新加坡住房市场对大型组屋的需求’,这就进一步把组屋价格向上推高。

Worse still, “The situation is aggravated by the state as the largest land owner and exercises land sales from its land bank on a tender system”, causing flat prices to rise even faster. Also, “the extra savings due to the CPF system had induced a demand for bigger flats in Singapore” also drove prices even further upwards.

这就意味着,假设新加坡人要‘集体移民…(这将会)引发漩涡式的风潮售卖他们的房地产。

This means that if Singaporeans are to “migrate en masse, … (this will) trigger downward spirals as more would sell their properties.

无论如何,新加坡的住房价格的梯级似的攀升是不合理的!正如不久前国家发展部长许文远所承认的,‘我们控了住房施工计划和为(政府组屋)制定了售价’。

However, the escalation of housing prices does not make sense as the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah had recently admitted that, “we control the (public housing) construction programme; secondly, we set the price (for the HDB flats),”

假设许文远说的是真实的,那么,行动党是否可以防止(政府组屋)的价格暴涨?或者,为什么行动党要政府价格梯级似的向上攀升?

If so, can PAP not prevent prices from exploding? Or, why does PAP want housing prices to escalate upwards?

Khaw Boon Wah Firstly, we control the construction programmes. Secondly, we set the price

‘在1977年Phang and Wong进行了调研显示,建屋发展局和公积金局为住房提供有效性贷款政策是冲击屋价的最主要因素。这些政策包括了在1981年扩大公积金储蓄使用于购买私人房地产,和在1993年放宽了允许建屋发展局组屋在转售市场的抵押贷款,以及在1994年引进了公积金补助购买转售市场的建屋发展局组屋的政策。’

A study by Phang and Wong (1997) shows that policies on the availability of HDB and CPF finance for housing had the most significant impacts on housing prices. These policies include extending the use of CPF savings for private housing in 1981, liberalizing the terms of HDB mortgage loans for resale flats in 1993, and the introduction of CPF grants for purchasing HDB resale flats in 1994.

正是如此,行动党已经有意识到制定政策把住房价格推高。他们通过操纵我们的公积金让新加坡人民使用更多的公积金去购买他们制造出来的政府组屋需求。现在您可以知道为什么他们要每个新加坡人都要拥有自己的住屋的原因了吗?这可能是一个真正因素,但是,真正的因素是金融因素。

As such, PAP has intentionally created policies to drive prices upwards. And they have done so by manipulating our CPF to get Singaporeans to use more CPF to soak up the HDB demand they created. Now, do you see why they needed every Singaporean to believe in owning their own homes? It might be political, but the real reason is financial.

事实上,我们可以追溯行动党是人如何通过制定政策来提高屋价的。

Indeed, we can track how PAP’s policies did increase housing prices.

Slide1

同时,在1980年,行动党开始制造政府组屋的价格上涨的方式是通过‘提高….价格是基于住房的屋型、地点、层楼、周围景观和其他令人羡慕的因素’,这样就促使新加坡人使用更多的公积金去购买政府组屋。

Also, in the 1980s, PAP started to make flats more expensive by “increas(ing) … prices based on housing type, location, floor level, view, and other aesthetic factors,” making Singaporeans use more of our CPF to pay more for the flats.

过去,政府组屋的售价是比市场还要低。但是,行动党就开始‘土地价格….最后售价….尽管真正的计算公式(成本)尚未披露’等将物价推高。今天,‘土地价格的平均发展成本是从2008年的25%上升到35%.’。

Previously, flats were built and sold cheaply below market rates but PAP started including “Land cost … in the final selling prices … though the true formula is not revealed,” which drove flat prices upwards as well. Today, “Land now makes up about three-fifths of development cost on average, up from two-fifths in 2008.”

Slide3

行动党让政府组屋的价格飞跃的上涨。‘在1981年到1988年之间,四房型组屋的价格平均每年上涨了2.5%。但是,在1988年和1992年期间,政府组屋的价格戏剧性的每年上涨了12%’。

PAP made flat prices grew so quickly that “between 1981 and 1988, four-room flat prices rose by an average of only 2.5% per year, but between 1988 and 1992, prices increased dramatically by an average of 12% every year!”

Slide5

今天情况更加恶劣。从2008年到2013年,‘与转手市场的9.1%转售价个相比,土地成本已经上升到每年平均混合利率的18.2%。平均家庭的收入的混合年利率只增加了5.3%。’

Things are even worse today, from 2008 to 2013, “land costs have grown at an average compound rate of 18.2 per cent a year, compared with 9.1 per cent for HDB resale prices” but “incomes (only) rose at a compound annual rate of 5.3 per cent for the average household“.

Slide6

Phang Sock-Yong教授说,‘1981年的放松政策和1993年放松政策建屋发展局和公积金局条例,允许转售市场的政府组屋使用公积金购买的政策造成了对屋价极大的冲击。这也为炒卖房地产泡沫以及后来的泡沫爆破提供了导因’。这是和1997年和2000年以及今天所发生的潜在威胁是一样。

Professor Phang Sock-Yong said that, “The 1981 liberalization as well as the 1993 liberalization of HDB and CPF regulations for HDB resale flat housing loans had significant impacts on housing prices, contributing to the development of speculative bubbles that subsequently burst.” The same happened in 1997, 2008 and threatens to happen again today.”

同时,‘新加坡人强制性的储蓄和住屋政策是在家庭消费和投资形式上一个极其本质性的冲击的。’无数的公积金和建屋发展局的限制和条例控制着储蓄者和消费者的决定权力。

Also, “Singapore’s mandatory savings and housing policies have very substantial impacts on household’s consumption and investment patterns. Savers’ and consumers’ rights in decision making are constrained by numerous CPF and HDB restrictions and regulations.”

好了。为什么行动党对1986 有关公积金研讨小组提出的不要过度扩大公积金的住房政策忠告采取忽视的态度?现在就是证据了!——因为他们可以从公积金和建屋发展局的(售屋)活动获利,这也是他们所要达到的目的。

So, why did PAP ignore the warning from the CPF Study Group in 1986 not to over-extend the CPF for housing? It is evident now – there is a lot of money for them to make from Singaporeans’ CPF and HDB, and they wanted it.

因为,‘公积金局开始控制了个别人的日益增加的经济财富’。林崇椰教授因此说,在研讨小组的报告里所说的‘他们的创业精神和进取心的感觉被阉割了。’

Because the “CPF started to withhold from individuals an increasingly large portion of their own financial wealth“, Professor Lim Chong-Yah thus said in the CPF Study Group’s report that this “emasculate their sense of economic initiative and enterprise”.

香港经济研究中心的Richard Wong博士说,‘这一系列的宽松措施已经和公积金强制性储蓄计划背道而驰了。’

Dr. Richard Wong, Director of the Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research, said that, “This sequence of liberalization measures contradicted the original aims of the CPF as a compulsory savings scheme.

林崇椰教授也同时说,‘这笔巨额的资金已经被政府所“劫持”为决策了:事实上,这是可以接受的,假设未来的政府可以保证和现在的政府一样是正直和能干,但是,这样的保证什么时候才到来呢?’

Professor Lim Chong Yah also said, “[T]he large sums of money vested with the fund are in effect held `hostage’ to governmental decision-making: ipso facto, this would be acceptable if there is a guarantee that future governments would be as honourable and as capable as the present one, but can such a guarantee ever be forthcoming?”

今天我们要问同样的问题。我们是否有一个‘正直和能干的政府’?

Today, the same question can be asked. Do we have a government that is “honourable and as capable”.

香港经济研究中心的Richard Wong博士总结的说,‘公积金制度已经可能导致一个大多数人更加平等的社会,除了统治者和被统治者之间的差距。但是,同时,它已经达到通过强制性每一个人40%的(公积金)储蓄获得2%的回报。’

Wong concluded “that the Singapore CPF has probably resulted in a society where most people are more equal, except for the gap between the rulers and the ruled. But this has been achieved by forcing everyone to earn a 2 percent real rate of return on some 40 percent of their savings.”

Phang Sock-Yong教授猜测说,‘新加坡的房屋策略是一个内在驱动的政策和集中控制主要决定于储蓄率、储蓄资金的分配、土地的使用、房屋建造和制定住房价格价格等等都是由政府决定的。在世界上的其他国家,这是一个新古典的经济噩梦。’

Phang also surmised that, “Singapore’s housing strategy is inherently policy driven and centrally controlled, with major decisions on savings rate, savings allocation, land use, housing production, and housing prices being largely determined by the government. It is, in other words, a neo-classical economist’s nightmare.

现在,因为公积金的缴交率已经从1955年的10%调高到1984年的50%。这是‘可控制的总需求量’。

Now, because the CPF contribution rates were increased from 10% in 1955 to 50% in 1984, this “restrain(ed) aggregate demand”.

因此,‘这个(调高)公积金缴交率(导致)…个人实际拿回家的薪金减少了,进而就造成了在消费方面也相对减少…..(和)公积金制度已经创造了一个改变需求(和今后的资源)从零售行业转向建筑行业。所以,与其他经济相同等级的发展,公积金制度在新加坡意味着在新加坡零售行业是很小的。这也可以理解为什么香港零售行业比新加坡发展的较好。’

Thus “The (increasing) CPF contribution (resulted in) … lower take home pay and hence less expenditure on consumption … (and) the CPF system has created a shift of demand (and hence resources) from the retailing sector to the construction sector. Therefore, compared with other economies of similar level of development, the CPF system would mean a less developed retailing sector in Singapore. This also helps to explain why the retail sector in Hong Kong is more developed than that of Singapore.

实际上,个人消费在新加坡是已经在下降了。

Indeed, personal consumption in Singapore has been declining.

2371a1bf8bd579fa5986ee9168f86a5a

因此,购买力的成长更加低落。

So has purchasing power grown much slower.

5c70affd0c75f7b4d3ea7583aef10a80

新加坡也是发达国家中购买力最低的国家,也比马来西亚的购买力水平更低,与印度不相上下。

Singaporeans also have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries, and which is lower than even Malaysia and on par with India.

20140427-135507.jpg

‘政府通过强制性的公积金缴交率已经上升,’这已经导致‘过度储蓄和过度投资在私人房地产’,但是, 在其他领域的投资却不足,进而造成了缺乏本地企业家精神。新加坡人在开始进行商业投资时,面对行动党的制造的各种高昂的开销,诸如调高租金成本和行动党直接参与经济领域的竞争。

The government, through the mandatory CPF contribution rates which have escalated,” have resulted in the “over-saving and over-investment in residential properties” but under-investment in other areas, and created a dearth of local entrepreneurship, as PAP made it more expensive for Singaporeans to start businesses via rising rental costs as well, and because of PAP’s direct competition in the economy.

今天,新加坡是世界上支付社会安全保障(公积金)缴交率最高的国家。

Today,  Singaporeans have to pay the highest social security (CPF) contribution rate in the world.

Slide27

在1986年,按照推测,‘在回应公众的投诉公积金的利率比银行来的低和无法抵消防止通货膨胀的措施’,‘政府决定把公积金的利率与市场的利率相同。’

In 1986, supposedly “in response to public complaints that CPF interest rates were below bank rates and were also inadequate as a hedge against inflation“, “the government decided to peg CPF interest rates to market rates.

当时的劳工兼通讯部长对于公积金支付给会员的利息问题忧心的说,‘可能现在支付给会员的利息是否过低’。假设市场的利息下跌将会明显的出现‘建筑成本的降低和组屋的售价也同时下降’。‘政府(也同时)警告说假设公积金的利率与市场挂钩,当后来利率又上升时,那么,组屋购房者将会支付更多房贷款’。

The Minister for Labour and Communications cautioned that CPF interest rates “could well be lower than what CPF is now paying” if market rates fall, and this can apparently “result in lower construction cost and hence lower selling prices of flats.” “The government (also) warned that if CPF interest rates were tied to market rates, when the latter went up, HDB mortgages would have to pay more for their loans.

在1986年之前,公积金 的缴交率从1955年的2.5%到1974年的6.5%。公积金的6.5%的缴交率一直延续了12年,即到1986年。这样的公积金缴交率,新加坡人民是可以在自己的公积金户头里赚到钱的。

Prior to 1986, the CPF interest rates kept increasing from 2.5% in 1955 to 6.5% in 1974 and remained at 6.5% for the next 12 years until 1986. Singaporeans were able to earn in our CPF.

Slide4

但是,自从1986年开始,公积金的利率与市场挂钩后,公积金的利率从当时的(6.5%)就一路下滑,也没上升过。事实上,从1986年开始,公积金的利率就一直停滞在2.5%到1999年。这是公积金第一次开始支付给会员2.5%利率后就一直停止在这个水平上。

But from 1986, when CPF interest rates were pegged to market rates, the CPF interest rates only continued falling and never picked up from where it left off. In fact, it went all the way down to 2.5% in 1999, to the rate when CPF first started and stayed at that level.

CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rates from 1977 to 2007

行动党曾经说过,公积金的利率下跌,住房价格也将随着下跌。但是,事实是:住房价格不但没有下跌,反而是飞涨和戏剧性的上升。

PAP said that since interest rates fell, housing prices would fall as well. However, not only did flat prices never fell, they shot up and escalated dramatically.

Nominal House Price Indices and CPI cropped

公积金原本可以用来抵押贷款购房的政策也被终止了。

The CPF that has to be withdrawn for housing mortgage also shot up.

Annual CPF Withdrawals 1960 to 2013

公积金的利率也就此成为了政府的‘行政’控制和‘月季度估算和年季度混合支付了’。

The CPF interest rates thus became “administered by the government and “computed monthly and compounded and credited annually.

为此,Mukul Asher先生说,‘这是“不符合经济原理的”每年支付固定利率给予实际上是35年或更长的时间的储蓄计划(亦即是一个人一生的工作时间)’。他也说,‘公积金实际的利率从1987年到1998年的零增长。那还得感激通货膨胀的原因。这是违反了累计逻辑原理的。’

However, Mukul Asher stated that, “there is “no economic rationale” to pay a one-year fixed deposit rate on what is essentially a 35-year or more (the duration of one’s working life) savings plan”. He also said that “the CPF real rate of interest from 1987 to 1998 is zero, thanks to inflation. And this negative replacement rate defies the logic of accumulation.”

在1999年,行动党又改变了公积金利率与市场挂钩的政策了!

In 1999, PAP changed the interest peg again.

Social Insecurity in the New Millennium The Central Provident Fund in Singapore 1986 & 1999 Interest Rate Computation

从那个时候开始,新加坡人的公积金普通户头只获得2.5%的利息,或是从1968年以来获得的最低的利息。

And from then on, Singaporeans were only receiving 2.5% interest on our CPF Ordinary Account, or the lowest since 1968.

Slide2

梁志轩先生已经指出了,‘新加坡人民的公积金户头里的退休金所赚取的利率是世界上最低的。’

Leong Sze Hian has shown that Singaporeans are thus made to earn the lowest interest rates on our CPF retirement funds in the world.

Slide28

Asher and Nandy说道,‘无论如何,由政府的代理人和银行以集中控制国家储蓄,是被视为对他们有相当的优势的方式。’

Asher and Nandy said that, “The centralized control of national savings by the government agencies and banks, however, is of considerable advantage to those controlling them,” which explains the rising inequality in Singapore and the growing wealth among the richest, the PAP politicians among them.

基本上,行动党已经计划好利用公积金(和建屋发展局)去控制新加坡人民如何消费与使用的生活方式。

Basically, PAP has planned to use CPF (and HDB) to control the lives of Singaporeans, how we spend, what we use etc.

今天,‘公积金的储蓄总额已经从仅有的9百万元开始’,到了2014年3月份上升至260,000,000,000元,以及附加 169,000,000,000元的购房款与 26,000,000,000元的投资款。

Today, “The CPF savings have grown from a mere $9 million at the beginning” to about $260,000 million as of March 2014; with an additional $169,000 committed to housing and $26,000 to investment.

我已经计算了中等结存位数是5万5千元,那就是说,超过50% 的新加坡人的公积金户头里根本就没有5万5千元这个数额。

I had calculated that the median CPF balance is $55,000, which means that half of Singaporeans do not even have $55,000 inside our CPF.

Singaporeans Have Only $55,000 In Our CPF! 90% Cannot Even Meet The CPF Minimum Sum!

新加坡人民为何无法在公积金户头里储蓄到这个数额?那是因为‘新加坡的工资结构上极其不合理的’。‘70%的公积金储蓄必须提取出来支付购房’,‘由于公积金里存有大量隐蔽性的税收,造成了公积金实际的回报率是低的。与此同时,因为受限制的竞争而造成的高的交易成本。 ’

The reason why Singaporeans cannot save inside our CPF is because “the wage structure in Singapore is highly unequal,“, “70 percent of contributions (have to be) withdrawn (for housing)“, “the real rate of return is low due to implicit tax on CPF wealth… (and there are) high transaction costs due to restricted competition.

在1997年,‘(行动党)引进了最低存款计划….以便照顾公积金会员开始退休生活时能够应付基本生活开支’。为此,在1987年,行动党说,这个最低存款额(MS)是3万元。

In 1987, “The Minimum Sum Scheme was introduced … to help CPF members set aside sufficient savings to support a basic standard of living during retirement,” so the PAP said. The Minimum Sum (MS) was set at $30,000 in 1987.

在1995年,‘要求公积金会员必须预留最低额存款额是4万元。(这将是每年增加5千元,直到2003年达到8万元为止。)…’

In 1995, “members were required to set aside a MS of $40,000 …  (which would be increased) by $5,000 a year until it reached $80,000 in 2003.

在2004年,他们又在上调公积金最低存款额‘随着通货膨胀每年是4千元…到了2013年,最低存款额上12万元。’

In 2004, this was raised again “by $4,000 a year, and adjusted for inflation… It will reach $120,000 (today’s dollars) by 2013.

我已经问过政府,实际上到底有多少新加坡人的公积金的现金户头可以达到最低存款额的要求?以及公积金中等结存是多少?尽管如此,人力部长陈川仁拒绝回答这个问题。

I had asked the government about how many Singaporeans are actually able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in only cash and what the CPF median balance is. However, the Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin refused to answer.

今天,90%的新加坡人是无法达到最低存款额的要求的。

Today, 90% of Singaporeans are unable to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Slide10

超过半数的新加坡人公积金户头里只有所要求的最低存款额的35%。

Half of Singaporeans have less than 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum inside our CPF.

Singaporeans Only Have 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum in Our CPF

73.5%的新加坡人的公积金户头是无法达到所要求的最低存款额的50%,即7万7千5百元的半数。

73.5% of Singaporeans do not even have half of the CPF Minimum Sum of $77,500.

Three-Quarters of Singaporeans Have Less Than $77,500 in Our CPF

即便是这样的情况,李显龙还宣布,到了2015年公积金最低存款额将增加到16万1千元。这简直是荒缪的!

Yet, Lee Hsien Loong still announced that the CPF Minimum Sum will increase to $161,000 next year (2015). This is preposterous.

尽管行动党知道,绝大多数新加坡人民的公积金户头里的储蓄是无法到最低存款额的要求的,但是, 为什么行动党还要不断的调高公积金最低存款额?

But why does PAP keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, even though they know that the majority of Singaporeans do not have enough at all inside our CPF to be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum?

事实上,为什么李显龙还要把公积金最低存款调高到16万1元?他是否告诉新加坡人民在公积金户头里的实际存款额是多少吗?他是否有任何的计划帮忙新加坡人民达到公积金户头的最低存款额要求?

In fact, why did Lee Hsien Loong still increase the CPF Minimum Sun to $161,000. Did he show how much Singaporeans actually have inside the CPF and any plans to help Singaporeans reach the CPF Minimum Sum at all?

CPF Minimum Sum Grows Faster Than the CPF Itself@Facebook

为什么行动党要扣住我们的公积金不放?

Why does PAP want to lock our CPF up?

行动党就是使用公积金最低存款额的手段扣住新加坡人民的公积金:

The PAP thus used the CPF Minimum Sum scheme to lock-up Singaporeans’ CPF:

一、1995年:公积金最低存款额每年调高5千元直到2003年;

1.1995: CPF Minimum Sum raised by $5,000 every year until 2003

二、1995年:要求预留现金4千元作为到了2003 年可以达到公积金最低存款总额的50%;

2.1995: Required to set aside cash (of $4,000) to meet CPF Minimum Sum until 50% is reached in 2003

三、2003年:要求公积金最低存款额每年调高附加4千元直到2013年;

3.2003: CPF Minimum Sum raised by an additional $4,000 every year until 2013

四、2009年:取消从公积金户头里提取50% 存款的条例;

4.2009: 50% withdrawal rule phased out

五、2013年:在达到公积金最低存款额的要求下,会员才允许从公积金户头提取5千元。

5.2013: Excess CPF monies can only be withdrawn upon meeting the CPF and Medisave Minimum Sums, and $5,000

行动党说,最低存款额的‘调整是依据每年的通货膨胀率’。尽管如此,实际的通货膨胀率只上升了2%,但是,公积金最低存款额每年却调高率了6%!为什么行动党要通过不断调高公积金最低存款额以便把我们的公积金套死在公积金户头里?

PAP said that the CPF Minimum Sum is “adjusted yearly for inflation“. However, the CPF Minimum Sum has been growing by more than 6% every year even though inflation has only grown by 2% annually! Why does PAP want to increase the CPF Minimum Sum by so much to trap our CPF inside?

Slide36

在1995年和2008年是调高公积金最低存款额最快的年头。

There were also two sharp rises in the CPF Minimum Sum in 1995 and 2008.

在1995 年主要归因于他们更改了每年调高5千元的公积金最低存款额。

The sharp rise in 1995 can be attributed to the policy change to raise the CPF Minimum Sum by $5,000 every year.

但是,2008年调高公积金最低存款额的决定是极其神秘的。市场流传说,这是因为淡马锡控股在2008年3月份到2008年11月份亏损了580亿万元和GIC在2008年的财政年度亏损了590亿万元。直到今年5月份,新加坡人民没有有足够的证据我们的公积金是投资在GIC淡马锡控股。

However, the 2008 rise is mysterious. Some people have speculated that this is due to the $58 billion loss that Temasek Holdings had made from the end of March 2008 to November 2008 and the $59 billion loss the GIC made in Financial Year 2008. Prior to May this year, Singaporeans did not have clear evidence that the CPF was invested in GIC and Temasek Holdings.

Slide43

行动党狡辩说,‘资金的转移并不能够掩盖投资的亏损’和‘问题的实质是:整个投资期间,使用国家储备的投资是亏损还是获利,是以是否需要动用过去的国家储备金。’您对他们这样的狡辩感觉如何?

PAP claimed that, “transfer of funds cannot be used to hide investment losses” and that “The issue of whether the investment of the reserves results in gains or losses over time is therefore distinct from the question of whether there is a draw on Past Reserves.” Does this make any sense to you?

不管他们狡辩啥,在2008年的GIC和淡马锡控股的总亏损额是1170亿元。假设,您再看看,公积金在2008年的结存是1510亿元。那么,公积金局本身的投资亏损值合计是77.5%

However, the total losses than the GIC and Temasek Holdings made in 2008 was a total of $117 billion. And if you look at this as a percentage of the CPF balance of $151 billion in 2008, their losses made up 77.5% of the value of the CPF itself!

行动党除了要扣住我们在自己公积金户头里的钱不放外,他们还企图阻止我们从公积金户头里提取我们的钱。

Other than trying to lock our money inside the CPF, PAP also tried to prevent us from being able to withdraw our own money.

Linda Low说,‘在1984年政府尝试调高公积金提取年龄从55岁调高到60岁。人民的反应非常冷淡。因为人们认为政府已经不遵守承诺了。’因此,‘一个避免让这个问题尖锐化和缓和下来的做法就是实施最低存款额计划。’

Linda Low said that, “In 1984 the government tried to increase the CPF withdrawal age from fifty-five to sixty. The attempt was very poorly received, as people viewed the government as having broken a promise.” So, “One way of getting around this problem has been to institute a scheme minimum sum, which softens the impact.

Slide94

接着,在1999年退休年龄就从55岁提高到63岁,刚好就在1995年和1999年实施调高公积金最低存款额之间。今天,‘法定的最低退休年龄仍然是62岁,但是,他们现在要求雇主重新雇佣那些适合聘用的员工的年龄到65岁’。同时,行动党也计划‘把重新雇佣的年龄从62岁提高到67岁。‘

The retirement age was then raised from 55 to 62 in 1999, right in between the two increments to the CPF Minimum Sum in 1995 and 2003. Today, “the statutory minimum retirement age is still 62, but employers are now required to offer re-employment to eligible employees who turn 62, up to the age of 65“. Also, PAP plans to “extend the re-employment age from 65 to 67.

Paul Yip已经说了,延长退休年龄:‘或许是一个更好的政策选择….这是意味着延迟和减少(公积金会员)从公积金户头提出现金,同时,将会有越来越多的公积金进入公积金户头。’

Paul Yip had said that extending the retirement age is “An alternative and perhaps better policy option … which would imply less, and delay of, CPF withdrawal as well as more and continuing CPF contribution by the affected labour.”

这将会是减少新加坡人从自己的公积金户头里提取款项和扣住公积金存款。——问题是:谁将会去使用这些扣住在公积金户头里的款项?

This will reduce withdrawals and lock-in more of Singaporeans’ CPF – but for what and who to use?

林崇椰教授已经提出了问题:假设我们可以‘保证(未来的)政府和现在的政府一样是正直和能干的’!我们可以相信行动党政府会把我们的利益挂在心坎里吗?

Professor Lim Chong Yah had asked if we can “guarantee that … governments would be as honourable and as capable” Can we trust PAP to have our interests at heart?

无论如何,正如Yasue Pai指出的,‘在缺乏透明度的情况下,政府投资公积金的结存和对公积金(资金管理)缺乏完整的战略目标所产生的问题是:这个(公积金)制度是不是一个有利于公积金会员的制度。’

However, as Yasue Pai puts it, “The lack of transparency in the way the government invests CPF balances and the lack of an overall strategic objective of the CPF puts into question whether the system is really in the best interest of members.

Yasue Pai也解释说,放松‘移民政策也可能减少了公积金提取的时间。’他也同时解释说,鼓励‘现在提高生育率(是)…减缓了问题(通过往后增加公积金缴交率)’可以同时减少提取款项。但是,他说,‘这是不应该鼓励依靠这种政策….因为这样以拥有一个孩子所涉及到成本和考虑的问题,远远超过政府提出税务奖励的决策。因此,鼓励政策的影响可能是小虽然努力沿着这条线应该鼓励。’

Yip also explained that relaxing the “immigration policy for foreign workers might also reduce the net CPF withdrawal at that time.” He also explained that encouraging “higher birth rate now (to) … mitigate the problem (by increasing CPF contributions later on)” can also help to reduce withdrawals but he said that, “it is not advisable to just rely on this policy… because the decision of having a child involves costs and considerations that will be far much greater than any possible tax incentives provided by the government. As a result, the impact of encouragement policy is likely to be small although effort along this line should be encouraged.

正如我们 可以看到的,在近年来,行动党的半心半意的尝试增加新加坡人的生育率也同样的基于这样的思想指导。

As can be seen, the PAP’s half-hearted attempts in recent years to increase the fertility rate of Singaporeans has also been guided by such thinking.

Singapore TFR

事实上。行动党是跟随YIP的方法并放松了移民政策的。事实是,假设您追溯新加坡的移民人口的增长,您可以看到为什么新加坡的房地产交易在1980年和1990年之间这么巧合的蓬勃。

Indeed, the PAP also followed Yip’s approach and relaxed the immigration policy. In fact, if you trace the growth of Singapore’s migrant population, you can see how it also coincided in the early 1980s and 1990s with the periods of housing boom.

在2004年突然间停止。在李显龙担任总理期间,有两个主要政策的实施是您可以追溯到:设立商业的(外国人)投资的入境证和全球投资计划下个人净资产的永久居民。这也是造成了戏剧性的屋价向上攀升的结果。

There was also a sudden spike in 2004, which can also be traced to two key policies introduced under the premiership of Lee Hsien Loong – the EntrePass scheme to set up business and the Global Investor Programme to become permanent residents for high-net worth individuals. This has also resulted in the dramatic escalation of housing prices.

Slide3

那个‘全面增加输入非熟练和半熟练工人(同时也已经)压低了新加坡人的工资。’

The “increases (in) the overall supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor (have also) depress(ed) the wages of Singaporeans.”

因此,从2001年到2011年(在公积金局的常年报告开始省略提供这个信息后)。那些每月赚取1千元的公积金会员不断的增加,甚至让人以为新加坡的财富越来越富裕。

Thus from 2001 to 2011 (before CPF started omitting this information from their annual reports), the number of CPF members who earned $1,000 kept increasing even though Singapore supposedly became more wealthy.

20121230-221903.jpg

从2004年开始,当最多移民的涌入的高潮时,也是新加坡人赚取少过1千元的比例上升的高峰期。新加坡人的工资被压低了。他们无法赚取到足够的薪金。

And from 2004 when the most recent spike in migrant inflow occurred, there was also a spike of the proportion of Singaporeans who were earning less than $1,000. The wages of Singaporeans were depressed and more and more Singaporeans cannot earn enough.

20121230-222017.jpg

即便是如此,李显龙还未都成本上涨、工资被压低和公积金的损耗做出道歉。他说,‘假设我可以再找到10个亿万富翁移民到新加坡并这里置业,我的基尼斯系数将会更加恶化。但是,我想,新加坡人的情况将会更好。因为,这些亿万富翁将会带来商业机会,开放门户和提供新的工作职位。我想,我们必须采取这样的态度去解决问题。’

Yet, Lee Hsien Loong remained unapologetic to the effects of rising cost, wage depression and CPF depletion. He had said, “In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off, because they will bring in business, bring in opportunities, open new doors and create new jobs, and I think that is the attitude with which we must approach this problem.

Slide107

今天新加坡是世界上超级巨富集中的国家。

Today, Singapore has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world.

Slide109

我们也是世界上第四大的超级巨富集中的国家。

We also have the 4th largest concentration of billionaires in the world.

Slide108

无论如何,新加坡也是发达国家里贫穷率最高的国家,即便是区域发展国家中,新加坡也是最高的。(您将在后面看到有关的说明。)

However, Singapore also have the highest poverty rate among the developed countries as well, and even higher than regional developing countries (as you will see later).

更主要的是,行动党热衷于引进工资低廉的外劳以支撑本地的经济。这可以不可以解释为,为什么过去几十年来新加坡人极其勉强回到工作场所的理由。

Importantly as well, in the PAP’s eagerness to import cheap labour to substitute the local economy, does this thus explain why it has become  more difficult over the years for Singaporeans who have been made redundant from work to gain re-entry back into employment?

Re-entry into employment

他们是否有解释为什么现在新加坡人要耗费这么长的时间去保证自己的新工作?

Does it also explain why it is taking a long time now for Singaporeans to secure a new job?

20140718_181734-1

同时,新加坡人是有能力累计自己的公积金储蓄。但是,这主要决定于我们是否有工作做。也就因此,这就成了一个问题:退休制度是依靠公积金,否则,新加坡人将不可能生存。这是行动党通过支付给新加坡人民的低薪金和制定了压低我们的薪金的政策,进而造成了新加坡人身上没有额外的现金过退休生活的结果。这种情况是极其严重的。

Also, whether Singaporeans are able to accumulate CPF depends on whether we are able to have a job. Thus it becomes problematic that the pension system in Singapore relies solely on the CPF and Singaporeans can otherwise not be able to save. This is worsened by how PAP pays Singaporeans such low wages and creates policies to depress our wages, such that Singaporeans do not have additional cash to save for retirement as well.

Screenshot (25)_edited

或许现在您能理解为什么行动党必须不惜一切代价去阻止新加坡人从公积金户头里提取款项,这是他们为了利用公积金支撑他们的制度。

Perhaps now you can understand why PAP has to go out at all costs to prevent the withdrawals of the CPF to sustain their parasitic system.

与此同时,您现在也会明白,为什么新加坡政府拒绝双重国籍和提出一条不归路——那就是:一旦您放弃了新加坡的公民权,您将不可以再回到新加坡。同时,‘永久居民必须放弃永久居民的身份并离开新加坡才可以把公积金提取出来。西马来西亚来的的新加坡永久居民必须表明不再有意回到新加坡工作或居住。’这是一个极其隐蔽性的恐吓!这样一来,您必须在:自己要不要了离开新加坡或者让自己的公积金被扣在公积金局做出决定。

and so you will understand why the PAP government refuses to allow dual citizenship and makes it a path of no return if a Singaporean chooses to renounce his/her citizenship. And also how a permanent resident (PR) “cannot withdraw the CPF monies unless he or she gives up PR status and leaves Singapore and West Malaysia permanently, with no intention of returning for further employment or residence” which is a veiled threat to prompt second thoughts about leaving, and thus allowing the CPF to be entrapped inside for their own uses.

行动党的‘政策,特别是集中在减少投资资本收入的税务包袱和减少的雇主强制性的缴交公积金(的政策)也特别在导致工资下调的因素。’

The PAP’s “policies, particularly centring on a reduced tax burden on capital income and reduced mandatory contributions by employers to the CPF, have (also) been partially responsible for the declining share of wages.

事实上,‘新加坡的(不惜一切代价最求增长率)的战略…是依靠包括了确保工资部分的收入是低于资本部分,约为42%的国家储蓄;以来引进大量的高与低技能的外劳和提供更多注重于商业关怀的社会服务设施的供应品。’

In fact, “Singapore’s (growth-at-all-costs) strategy … rests on policies that include keeping the wage share of income below capital’s share at around 42 per cent of national income; relying extensively on foreign workers at both low- and high-skill levels; and giving greater weight to commercial concerns over the provision of social amenities.

今天,尽管新加坡已经成为世界上生活费最高昂的国家,但是,新加坡人是发达国家中赚取最低工资的国家。

Today, Singaporeans earn the lowest wage share among the developed countries, even though Singapore has become the most expensive place to live in, in the world.

Slide8

This “growth strategy of creating an environment for the MNCs and the state enterprises to earn high profits has contributed to significant inequalities in the wage structure and income distribution.

为此,这是一个值得怀疑的问题。去年,行动党狡辩说,收入不平衡现象已经稳定下来了。上个星期,他们说,收入不平衡已经降低了。

Thus it is problematic that PAP claimed last year that income inequality has stabilised and last week that income inequality has actually been reduced.

Slide33

但是,我在今年早些时候撰写的一篇文章里说,‘行动党政府事实上是在每个报告书里已经把收入不平衡数据降下去了。它的目的是要制造一个假象:在新加坡收入不平衡差距不是实际上那么高。’

But in an article I had written earlier this year, the PAP government has actually been pushing down the income inequality statistics over each reported period, to create the perception that income inequality is not as high as it actually is in Singapore!

Gini Coefficient 2008 vs 2010 vs 2013

在另一方面,从1995年到2011年,新加坡10%分享最富裕收入的人已经从30% 上升至42%。

On the other hand, the income share among the richest 10% in Singapore has grown from 30% in 1995 to 42% in 2011.

Slide1

正如您看到的,那个最富裕收入的10%也是依据基尼斯系数(或者收入不均指数)而改变的。这就是说,随着收入不均的增加,这个富裕部分——带来的问题是:收入不均是通过人为不均衡的给自己支付高昂的薪金。(同样的,他们怎么可以让自己在报告里唱衰自己?)

And as can be seen, the change in income share among the richest 10% also follows the Gini coefficient (or the measure of income inequality), which means that as the income inequality increases, so does the income share of the rich – which brings to question, is income inequality thus artificially pushed higher by paying inequitable salaries at the top to themselves (similarly to how it can also be artificially deflated in the reports?)

Slide6

这种戏剧性增加富裕者的收入也同时与行动党决定在1994年为自己的部长调高薪金的根源有关。

The dramatic increase in the share of income among the richest also coincided with whence PAP decided to increase their own salaries in 1994 by pegging the salaries of the ministers to

‘平均24个人这的三分之二是在六个专业领域里’赚取百万薪金和也是世界上赚取薪金的最高薪金国家。

two-thirds of the average of the top 24 people in 6 professions”, to earn million-dollar salaries and the highest in the world.

Slide21

今天,新加坡的最富裕者是世界上赚取最高薪金的国家。

Today, the richest in Singapore earn one of the highest salaries in the world.

Slide100

他们也是世界上缴税最低的。

They also pay one of the lowest taxes in the world.

Slide101

无论如何,新加坡人是世界上高收入国家中人民赚取工资最低的国家。

However, Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among the highest-income countries.

Slide103

新加坡中、低阶层的人民比最富裕的人必须支付高昂的税收和缴交公积金缴还多。

Low and middle income Singaporeans also have to pay higher tax and CPF contribution rates than the richest.

Slide102

总理现在是属于新加坡最富裕的0.1%。行动党的政治领袖是属于最富裕的5%。

The Prime Minister now belongs to the richest 0.1% in Singapore while the PAP politicians belong to the richest 5%.

Slide105

在过去50年里富裕与贫穷之间的差距已经继续扩大。这是献给您的新加坡建国50周年。

And the rich-poor gap has only kept widening over the past 50 years. This is SG50 for you.

photo 2 (32)

Asher也据此估计,新加坡的贫穷率将是非常高的——大约在27%到35%之间。

Asher thus estimated the poverty rate in Singapore to be very high – at between 27% to 35%.

Singapore Poverty Rate Asher 2007

这是与Lien Cent中心的社会创新和新加坡管理大学社会科学系估计达到26%是相一致的。

This is in line with the estimates of up to 26% by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation and SMU School of Social Sciences, and my previous estimate of 26% (which could have gone upwards to 28%). In fact, Singapore now has the highest poverty rate among the developed countries and even among regional developing countries.

Slide112

尽管行动党政府藐视这个事实并拒绝为贫穷线制定出定义。他们错误的狡辩说,这样划出贫穷线的定义将会造成一个‘悬殊效应。’

In spite of this, the PAP government has refused to define a poverty line, erroneously claiming that this would caused a “cliff effect“.

Slide135

更加严重的是,Tilak Abeysing突出的指出,‘新加坡的30%的家庭所花费开销是比他们的收入还多。’他们‘去年花费开销是收入的105%到151%。最主要是花费的开销是在上涨的房屋开支方面。

Worse still, Professor Tilak Abeysing he had highlighted that “Singapore’s bottom 30 per cent of households spend more than they earn” where they would “spent 105 per cent to 151 per cent of their income last year and the main cause of rising expenditure was housing.”

Slide64

无论如何,行动党是非常热衷于‘争论’这个课题。当然他们是愿意论这个课题的。假设您知道行动党是如何提高价格和让您从公积金户头里支付更多的钱购买住房,您将会感到愤怒和痛击他们的。

However, this was fervently “disputed” by PAP. Of course they would. If you knew how PAP is jacking up prices and making you pay more from your CPF into their flats, you would become ballistic and wallop them.

但是,今天您终于知道事实的真相了。

But today, you finally know the truth.

情况并不只是对30%贫穷的新加坡人。根据海峡时报的一项对中等收入的新加坡人进行的调查报告指出,超过三分之二的新加坡人除了生活必需品之外,他们根本就没有足够的钱去购买任何的东西。

Things are not just bad for the poorest 30% in Singapore. A survey by The Straits Times showed that even for the middle-income in Singapore, more than two-thirds of Singaporeans do not even have enough to buy for anything else, other than the basic necessities that they need.

Slide56

实质上。行动党已经计算的非常仔细了。他们需要支付我们多少薪金?他们从公积金哪里取回多少?需要给您留下多少刚刚足够您支付生活基本开支,这包括了他们自己的那一部分——电话通讯费、车资和公用事业(如水电费等)。

Essentially, PAP has calculated very incisively how much they need to pay you in wages, how much they can take it back from your CPF, and how much you are left with to just have enough to pay for the basic necessities which they own as well – telecommunications, transport, public utilities etc.

Slide61

对于30%最穷的新加坡人来说——行动党制造了一个永久接受的施舍物阶级。他们制造的这个施舍物阶级非常恐惧失去他们的施舍物,这样一来被迫成为依靠保护行动党的基本力量。

For the poorest 30%, it is even worse off for them – the PAP created a perpetual handout class, to create a class which would be too scared to lose their “handouts” and can be forced to rely exclusively to protect the PAP’s base.

Slide65

但是,这样的扩大了收入不均已经造成了广泛的社会影响了。

But this widening income inequality has major social implications.

由于新加坡在发达国家里是最高的收入不均率的国家,犯罪率也是成为新加坡最高的,仅次于非洲国家。

Because Singapore has the highest income inequality among the developed countries, the prisoner rate has also become the highest in Singapore, after America.

Inequality vs Prisoners

因为高的收入不均率,新加坡同时也是发达国家中一个最低社会流动性的国家,——对于那‘精英分子’而言,他们是有能力保护他们的职位;对于低收入的新加坡人而言,要进一步升职是困难的。

Because of the high inequality, Singapore also has one of the lowest social mobility among the developed countries – the ‘elites’ are able to protect their positions and it is difficult for lower-income Singaporeans to move up the social ladder.

Inequality vs Social Mobility

由于新加坡是发达国家中是最高的收入不均率的国家,这也就是造就了新加坡在发达国家中自我提升的最高水平。在新加坡,人民都喜欢拿别人的条件来比较自己的条件,这就导致一个更加自我为中心和内向的人民。

Because Singapore has the highest income inequality among the developed countries, this has also resulted in the highest level of self enhancement in Singapore among the developed countries, where people are likely to view themselves as being better than another person, which has led to a more self-centred and inward populace.

Inequality vs Self-Enhancement

新加坡是仅次于葡萄牙之后,是最高阶的收入不平均和信任最低的国家。

And the highest levels of income inequality in Singapore has also resulted in the lowest levels of trust in Singapore, after Portugal.

The Equality Trust Income Equality vs Trust

由于失去了最低的信任,新加坡人已经成为世界上第二个最不可能去帮助一个陌生人。

And because of the low levels of trust, Singaporeans have become the second least likely people in the world to help a stranger.

photo 1 (31)

毫无疑问的,行动党的不计成本保增长的战略是依靠操纵公积金的缴交率去操纵公积金缴交率去减少工资和进一步的降低工资——就是通过竞争与外劳的低薪工人。这是造成灾难性的后果的。再加上政府的政联企业刺激提高成本的压力已经造成了一个无法支撑的收入不均局面。这将加剧摧毁新加坡的社会架构。

Thus without a doubt, PAP’s growth-at-all-costs strategy which relies on the manipulation of CPF contribution rates to reduce wages and a further wage depression via competition with lowly-paid foreign workers is a recipe for disaster. This, coupled with the government’s upward cost pressures fuelled by their own Government-Linked Companies has created an unsustainable income inequality, which is threatening to tear up the social fabric of Singapore.

无论如何,行动党政府至今仍然还沉迷于喜悦的这个情况中,继续把自己的头埋进沙堆里。他们不是去制定最低工资制度和降低收入不均的政策,而是热衷于操纵收入不均的指数。

However, the PAP government remains blissfully ignorant to this plight and continues to bury their head in the sand, to manipulate income inequality figures, instead of actually enacting policies such as minimum wages, to reduce the income inequality.

目前新加坡面对这样一个采取拒绝直面问题态度的政府,对新加坡长期而言是一个灾难。

Such a government with an attitude of denial towards the problems that Singapore currently faces is disasterous for the longevity of Singapore.

在第二部分,我将为您说明行动党政府是如何利用我们的公积金赚钱的?行动党政府是如何动用我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股股的?为什么行动党住房佛那个有了我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股赚取了投资利润后没有鬼新加坡人民。

Join the #ReturnOurCPF Facebook event page here.

Return Our CPF burning rose poster

Return Our CPF sun poster

Return Our CPF burning sun poster

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2

Are Singaporeans Guaranteeing the Returns and Funding the Losses of GIC and Temasek Holdings?

The Worker’s Party’s Gerald Giam had asked “DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam on 4 August 2014 in Parliament regarding the Government’s “net assets” and how the returns from the reserves managed by GIC make their way back to CPF members.

Are Singaporeans Guaranteeing the Returns on Our CPF by Ourselves?

Tharman had said, “The CPF Board invests CPF members’ savings in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), which are guaranteed by the Government,” and that, “GIC manages a major part of the Government’s funds, including those derived from long-term liabilities such as SSGS.

Tharman also said, “GIC has achieved good long-term returns to date. However, as investment markets are uncertain and volatile, GIC’s returns over shorter periods could be low or even negative. The Government is able to absorb these short-term market risks, because it has a strong balance sheet. It has a substantial buffer of net assets that enables it to meet the obligations on its liabilities, including its SSGS commitments.”

However, if the government’s “strong balance sheet” and “substantial buffer of net assets” also comes from Singaporeans’ CPF and HDB, then is it the government that is guaranteeing the returns on our CPF, or are Singaporeans actually guaranteeing the returns on the CPF by ourselves?

Then, are Singaporeans guaranteeing the returns on GIC as well?

If so, shouldn’t whatever returns earned by the GIC using our CPF be returned to Singaporeans?

Are Singaporeans Funding the Losses of GIC and Temasek Holdings

Gerald Giam asked Tharman, “specifically on the eight years in the past 20 years where GIC’s investment returns were below what the Government pays on SSGS, were these shortfalls funded from the Government’s net assets or from the GIC’s assets?”

Tharman replied: “And as for the eight years within the last 20 years, which was what I had stated in response to Mr Gerald Giam’s question at the previous Sitting – just to reiterate, that is eight years in the previous 20 years ending 2013 – that is when in fact the GIC’s returns on the total assets that it is managing fell below the SSGS rates. That by definition would have meant that net assets would have been lower than otherwise because the Government has fixed obligations on its liabilities, and because of the fluctuations in returns on its assets.”

However, did Tharman answer Gerald’s question and are the “shortfalls funded from the Government’s net assets or from the GIC’s assets”?

Earlier on, Tharman had also said, “GIC is managing Government assets. It is not GIC’s assets. GIC is a fund manager, so the assets are assets on the Government’s balance sheet, rather than on the GIC’s balance sheet.”

Thus if the GIC does not have any assets of its own, does it not mean that any shortfalls are funded by the government’s assets?

And since the government’s assets are also made up of our CPF and HDB value, does this not mean that Singaporeans are funding the losses of GIC from our CPF?

If so, when GIC and Temasek Holdings lost $117 billion in 2008 or 77% of the $151 billion value of our CPF at that time, did the government increase the CPF Minimum Sum to fund for their losses?

#ReturnOurCPF 3 Protest on This Saturday 23 August 2014 at Hong Lim Park

Come down to the #ReturnOurCPF protest this Saturday at 4pm at Hong Lim Park. You can join the Facebook event page here.

Return Our CPF burning rose poster

Return Our CPF sun poster

Return Our CPF burning sun poster

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese