Singaporeans Have Only $55,000 in Our CPF, Can Only Take Out $400!

But how much do Singaporeans have exactly inside our CPF? This question has been asked to the government several times but they have still refused to answer.

However, over the past 2 months, the government has been forced to reveal and admit to many truths, which would finally allow us to have as close an estimate as possible.

The clearest answer came from Mr Yee Ping Yi, CEO of the CPF Board, last week. At the Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy, organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, Mr Yee revealed that the median cash balance of ‘active’ CPF members aged 55 in 2013 is $126,000.

However, this is only half the truth as this $126,000 includes “savings withdrawn for accumulation of housing assets”. In fact, when you look at Annex I of the CPF Annual Report, you can see that the median balance would be between $100,000 to $150,000. Again, this “include amounts withdrawn under Investment, education, Residential Properties, Non-Residential Properties and Public Housing Schemes”.

But realistically, we should only be looking at how much cash only we have inside our CPF, as we can only retire on the cash portion.

So, how much exactly do Singaporeans have inside our CPF, if we look only at the cash portion?

The government does not want to reveal this information, but over the past 2 months, they have finally admitted to more information, which allows us to triangulate this information better.

 Nearly 75% of Singaporeans Do Not Even Have $77,500 in Our CPF

First, the government had revealed that, “50% of active CPF members met the Minimum Sum in 2013“, but this is “including 15% who used their properties to support up to half of the CPF Minimum Sum”.

Yesterday, I found out that of the 3.51 million CPF members, there are 1.85 million ‘active’ CPF members. This means that there are 53% of ‘all’ CPF members are ‘active’ members. Thus this would mean that only 26.5% of ‘all’ CPF members are able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, and if you do not include the 15% who are able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum by using both property and cash, this would mean that only 11.5% of  ‘all’ CPF Members would be able to meet the CPF Minimum in cash only. This means that 88.5% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum!

Thus if we work backwards:

  1. Only 11.5% of all CPF members have the CPF Minimum Sum of $155,000 fully in cash last year.
  2. There were another 15% who met the CPF Minimum Sum by using their properties to support up to half of the CPF Minimum Sum, which would mean that they would have at least half of the CPF Minimum Sum inside their CPF. As such, there would be 26.5% (11.5% + 15%) of all CPF members who have at least half of the CPF Minimum Sum inside their CPF.
  3. Half of the CPF Minimum Sum is $77,500, which means that 73.5% , or nearly three-quarters of Singaporeans have less than $77,500 in our CPF.

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

So, now we know that nearly three-quarters of Singaporeans don’t even have $77,500 in our CPF.

Then, what about 50% of Singaporeans? How much do we have?

 50% of Singaporeans Do Not Have $60,000 in Our CPF

Earlier this month, it was revealed in parliament that, “the CPF pays an additional 1% interest on the first $60,000 of combined balances. As a result, about two-thirds of members earn 5% interest on all their balances in their Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts. Over half of all members earn 3.5% on all their Ordinary Account savings.”

According to the CPF Board, “This works out to be 3.5% per annum earned on the first $20,000 in a member’s OA, and 5% per annum earned on the first $40,000 (up to $60,000 if no OA savings) in a member’s SMA and Retirement Account (RA).”

Thus what this means is:

  • 33% of Singaporeans have less than $40,000 in our SMA.
  • 50% of Singaporeans have less than $20,000 in our OA.
  • Thus this mean could be that 50% of Singaporeans have a total of less than $60,000 in our CPF.

<chart>

So, what we can establish so far is:

  • 73.5% of Singaporeans do not even have $77,500 in our CPF.
  • 50% of Singaporeans have less than $60,000 in our CPF.

So, is the median CPF balance in only cash $60,000?

The Median CPF Balance is Only $55,000. 50% of Singaporeans Have Less Than $55,000 in Our CPF

We have one final piece of information that would enable us to have a more accurate estimate.

The CPF Board CEO has revealed that the median CPF balance is $126,000, but this pertains only to (1) active CPF members and (2) includes amounts withdrawn for housing.

So:

  • There are only 53% of active CPF members and 47% of non-active members.
  • Non-active members have about 30% of the balance of active members, or a possible median balance of about $37,800 only.
  • The government has revealed “Among members who turned 55 years old over the past five years and had used CPF monies to purchase HDB flats, an average of 55% of their OA savings had been withdrawn to finance their flats at age 55.” But this is only for those who purchase HDB flats. For those who use their CPF to buy private properties, they would have to withdraw twice as much, which means that the average withdrawn to finance any property could be as high as 68%, or more.
  • Also, according to the CPF Board, 95.1% of ‘active’ CPF members have used their CPF to buy property.
  • And according to the CPF Board, of the 36% of the CPF Singaporeans contribute into CPF, 23% go into the OA, 6% into the SA and 7% into the MA, which means that about two-thirds go into the OA. Thus for CPF members who have used their CPF to pay for their housing loans, the CPF median balance would be about $71,000, after withdrawing 68% of their OA savings to pay for their housing loans.
  • Thus in totality, the median CPF balance of all CPF members in cash only could be $55,000.

So, do we have the answer? Is the median CPF balance actually $55,000?

Does this mean that 50% of Singaporeans, or half of us, have less than $55,000 in our CPF?

Not only that, apparently in 2011, the average net balance of CPF members was only $61,500. The average is usually higher than the median. This mean that the median net CPF balance would be lower.

Average Net CPF balances, 1997 to 2001

As such, the evidence that we have does indeed point to the fact that the median CPF balance would be only $55,000. Half of Singaporeans do not even have $55,000 in our CPF!

Why Did the Government Increase The CPF Minimum Sum, Knowing that Singaporeans Will Not Be Able to Meet the CPF Minimum Sum!

Now that we know how much the average Singaporeans have inside our CPF, this begs many questions:

  1. Why did the government keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, knowing full well that Singaporeans will not at all be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum? Today, the CPF Minimum Sum is $155,000 and the average Singaporean has only $55,000 in our CPF, or only 35% of this CPF Minimum Sum. So, why did the government increase the CPF Minimum Sum, knowing full well that for 90% of Singaporeans, our CPF will be stuck inside the CPF and we will not be able to withdraw our CPF? Why did the government intentionally create a policy to trap our CPF money inside? For what?
  2. Why is it that even though the government knows that 90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum and that the average Singaporean only has 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum inside our CPF, the government refused to increase our wages and CPF interest rates in tandem with the CPF Minimum Sum, to allow us to meet this CPF Minimum Sum?
  3. Finally, the government has finally admitted that they control the construction programmes and sets the prices of HDB flats. Then why do they keep increasing the prices of the HDB flats to such an extent that we have to pay more than half of our CPF OA into paying housing loans, and not be able to save enough to retire?

Can you see how this is wrong on many levels?

Singaporeans Only Have 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum in Our CPF

In effect, the government created the CPF Minimum Sum policy and kept increasing it, with full knowledge that the majority of Singaporeans would never be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum. And in spite of their fanciful assurances that they will help Singaporeans meet the CPF Minimum Sum, in reality, they would know that this would be next to impossible, because their policy is created to not allow Singaporeans to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in the first place!

Then, what is the CPF Minimum Sum even created for in the first place?

Now, take a look at how the average net CPF balances has changed since 1997, and compare it with how the CPF Minimum Sum has increased since then. You can see that the CPF Minimum Sum has increased so much faster than the average net CPF balance!

CPF Minimum Sum Grows Faster Than the CPF Itself

If so, the government has known for the past 20 years that the average Singaporean, and in fact, the majority of Singaporeans simply would never have enough in our CPF to be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, even since 20 years ago. And yet for the past 20 years, they have kept increasing it, causing even more Singaporeans to have our CPF stuck inside the CPF and not be able to withdraw our CPF.

Why did the government keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, knowing full well that the majority of Singaporeans would not be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, and will have our CPF stuck inside?

Why? What is the government trying to do? Why did the government force our CPF to be stuck inside?

No Wonder the Government Did Not Want To Give Us The Answers To The Truth

No wonder last week when I had posed the question to the government at the IPS Forum last week, the government had refused to answer my questions.

I had asked:

  1. What is the proportion of ‘all’ CPF members who can meet the CPF Minimum Sum in only cash?
  2. What is the median CPF balance?
  3. What is the median CPF payout?

The government did not want to answer these questions at all.

Today, we had to calculate and triangulate by ourselves to know the answer:

  1. 90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum.
  2. The median CPF balance is only $55,000.
  3. Working backwards, this means that the median CPF payout would be only $425. This means that half of Singaporeans will be able to get less than $425 monthly payouts for our retirement!

Singaporeans Have Only $55,000 In Our CPF! 90% Cannot Even Meet The CPF Minimum Sum!

Indeed, things are so bad that, Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser had illustrated at the IPS Forum that even though up to 70% of older Singaporeans have CPF but only 4% to 7% though that their CPF has enough to use. He asked, older Singaporeans (might have) CPF, but (do they have) insufficient CPF savings to serve as (a) “source of income”?

The government said that the CPF Minimum Sum is computed to let Singaporeans “get a monthly payout of about $1,200 in 10 years’ time when (a person) reach(es) age 65″ and this is what they estimate would be what a “lower-middle income household would spend on daily living”. However, when the half of Singaporeans will get less than $425 and nearly 75% will get less than $600, this means that Singaporeans are getting drastically too little in payouts from the CPF! Does this mean that 90% of Singaporeans won’t even be able to retire on an income of a lower-middle income family? Most of us will retire in poverty! No wonder most Singaporeans have to keep working after retirement, and some even until they die!

Do Singaporeans has to be subjected to such torture? Does the government subjects themselves to the mistreatment that they heap onto its own citizens?

I also asked the government if they would increase the wages of Singaporeans and increase the CPF interest rates, so that our CPF will be able to grow.

The government also did not want to answer these questions.

So:

  1. Why did the government not want to give us the exact statistics of how much Singaporeans have inside our CPF? Now that we know that it is obvious that with the statistics that the government has at hand, they would know that the majority of Singaporeans would never be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, is that why they keep mum on the exact statistics?
  2. Why does the government refuse to increase wages and the CPF interest rates, knowing full well that Singaporeans’ CPF monies are not able to grow, because wages and the CPF interest rates have been kept stagnant?

Why did the government increase the CPF Minimum Sum to trap our CPF inside, and kept our wages and the CPF interest rates stagnant to continue trapping more of our CPF inside?

Do you see that something is terrible wrong with how the government is managing our CPF? Something is terribly, terribly wrong with how our CPF is being managed.

Singaporeans, do you see it?

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

It is time we take a stand and demand the truth from the government. The government has to stop pretending to us that they do not know what is going on, when it is clear that they would. It is also clear that they know the policies that they create will cut down on Singaporeans and victimise Singaporeans, then why does the government keep doing this? And why has the government been doing this for the past 20 years?

Something is terribly, terribly wrong in our country and with our government.

On 23 August, we will be organising the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, we revealed to you the truths that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further truths about the exact number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. It is time we demand the truth from the government and stop allowing the government from pushing us over. Enough is enough. How can they be allowed to bully us? Have we given so much of our rights away that we no longer have a voice and a say in how our own money is being handled?

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.

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese

How Much CPF Do Singaporeans Have?: Government Does Not Want Us To Know

Last week, I attended the Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy, organised by the Institute of Policy Studies. I had posed some questions to the Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin.

Earlier this month, in parliament, the Manpower Minister revealed that “50% of ‘active’ CPF members met the Minimum Sum in 2013″. However, this only refers to (1) ‘active’ members’ who were able to meet the Minimum Sum (2) “in cash plus property”.

However, this information is not useful as:

  • First, Singaporeans will not be able to retire on both the cash and the property. We will only be able to use the cash portion to retire on.
  • Second, we should not just look at ‘active’ members, as it is ‘all’ Singaporeans who would need to use our CPF to retire on.

The Manpower Minister did further admit to some information for the first time. He admitted that of the 50% of ‘active’ CPF members who were able to meet the Minimum Sum, this includes:

  • 15% who used their properties to support up to half of the CPF Minimum Sum
  • 23% of Singaporeans who turned 55 in 2013 were inactive CPF members, while the remaining 77% were active members or self-employed

This gave us slightly more clarity, but the information is still not complete. The government still did not want to reveal directly how many of (1) ‘all’ CPF members are able to the meet the Minimum Sum (2) in cash only.

85% Of Singaporeans Are Not Able To Meet The CPF Minimum Sum

However, with the information the government finally admits to earlier this month, we are able to come out with a more accurate estimate. According to Leong Sze Hian, he calculated the following:

  • Of the 77% who were active members or self-employed, assuming that 17% were self-employed, this would mean the 60% are ‘active’ members.
  • As the government had said that “50% of ‘active’ CPF members met the Minimum Sum”, this would mean that only 30% of all CPF members were able to meet the Minimum Sum.
  • And since this includes “15% who used their properties to support up to half of the CPF Minimum Sum”, this would mean that only 15% of all CPF members were able to meet the Minimum Sum in cash only.

Only 15% of All CPF Members Can Meet CPF Minimum Sum

As such, with this information, Leong Sze Hian was able to work out a more accurate estimate that 85% of Singaporeans were actually not able to meet the Minimum Sum. Why is this information important?

This is because the government said that the Minimum Sum is the amount needed to “get a monthly payout of about $1,200 in 10 years’ time when (a person) reach(es) age 65″. The government said that this is calculated based on how much a “lower-middle income household would spend on daily living”.

Thus if 85% of Singaporeans are unable to meet the Minimum Sum, this would mean that 85% of Singaporeans would not even be able to receive a monthly payout of $1,200, or not even be able to live the most basically, that is required for a lower-middle income household.

It is thus important for Singaporeans to know how many of  ‘all’ Singaporeans exactly are able to meet the Minimum Sum in cash only.

(Note: Leong Sze Hian had also highlighted that Singaporeans would now only be withdraw our cash balances from the CPF after we are able to meet both the CPF Minimum Sum and Medisave Minimum Sum. This means that Singaporeans would now need to have $198,500 inside the CPF before we are able to withdraw our own money. According to Leong Sze Hian, he estimated that less than 10% of Singaporeans would be able to reach this amount. It was also revealed at the forum yesterday that the median cash balance of active CPF members aged 55 is $126,000, when including our property. This means that since the majority of Singaporeans have drastically less than the $198,500 minimum amount required, the majority of us will have our CPF monies stuck inside the CPF!)

Questions To The Manpower Minister: How Many Singaporeans Are Able To Meet The CPF Minimum Sum In Cash And How Much Do We Have In The CPF?

As such, I had asked the Manpower Minister the following question:

The government has said that half of ‘active’ CPF mebers at age 55 are able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum with “cash and property”. We hear today (at the forum) that the median cash balance of active CPF members aged 55 is $126,000, before factoring in savings withdrawn for the accumulation of housing assets. The government has also said that CPF members have to use 55% of their CPF Ordinary Account on housing.

My question is the following.

  1. First, what is the proportion of (1) ‘all’ CPF members who are able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum (2) in cash only?
  2. Second, what is the median CPF balance for ‘all’ CPF members, taking into account only absolute cash in the CPF?
  3. And third, what is the median CPF payout for ‘all’ CPF members?

The Manpower Minister side-stepped these questions. These questions were not answered at all.

Questions to The Manpower Minister: Will The Government Consider Increasing Wages And The CPF Interest Rate?

I also asked the following question:

Minister, you have also pointed out that the parameters for the CPF’s accumulation is the frequency of work wages, contribution rates, rates of returns, withdrawals, Draw Down age and payout quantum.

Thus far, the government has increased the CPF contribution rates and asked Singaporeans to work longer to increase the Draw Down age.

However, at a time where wages and the CPF interest rates have grown much slower than the CPF Minimum Sum and where the National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wah had admitted that the government controls the construction program and the prices of HDB flats, will the government consider:

  1. Implementing a minimum wage and increase wages in tandem with the CPF Minimum Sum?
  2. Increase the CPF interest rates in tandem with the CPF Minimum Sum?
  3. Moderate housing prices

to ensure that Singaporeans will be able to truly accumulate wealth in our CPF?

The Manpower Minister side-stepped these questions. These questions were not answered at all.

The Today newspaper later reported that the government was looking into reviewing the CPF interest rates, but later clarified that, “This is wrong. The Government is reviewing ways to better buffer the CPF against inflation and CPF interest rates is one of the ways currently used to guard against inflation.”

I will leave you to decide if the questions posed are of importance, and whether the lack of answers from the government is acceptable.

Why Does The Government Not Want To Increase Our Wages And CPF Interest Rates?

The questions that I had asked were basic questions which the government should have ready answers for.

  • How many Singaporeans are able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in cash?
  • What is the median CPF balance for each Singaporean?
  • What is the median CPF payout?

These are questions that any responsible fund manager should have answers for. I am thus perplexed that the government does not have the information to this, or has rather chosen not to inform Singaporeans of this. It is our every right to know, as a Singaporean, and because the CPF is our money, as the government has claimed.

Also, in considering how to increase our CPF, there are many tools at the government’s disposal and the minister had detailed some of them at the forum. Yet, when asked why the government would only adopt some measures, but not others, it is unacceptable that the government would choose to ignore these questions. Singaporeans have every right to know why the government does not want to increase our wages and the CPF interest rates to increase our CPF, but would keep asking Singaporeans to work longer instead.

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

We have to keep up the pressure on the government. They have admitted to many truths since June this year about how they are actually using our CPF. But they are still holding back on crucial information about our CPF.

On 23 August, we will be organising the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, we revealed to you the truths that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further truths about the exact number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition as we reveal even more glaring facts about how our CPF is being used by the HDB and for housing, and find out why Singaporeans are not able to retire adequately, because of the HDB.

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.

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese

Did Temasek Holdings Use Singaporeans’ CPF To Invest?

Did Temasek Holdings use Singaporeans’ CPF to invest? You can read about this here.

Temasek Holdings Did Invest CPF

淡马锡控股有用新加坡人的公积金去进行投资吗?你可以在这里阅读关于这件事情

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

在目前政府处理我们的公积金政策情况下,我们不可能放弃斗争而要求政府对人民采取透明化和可信任的政策的。新加坡人有权知道事实的真相。假设今天我们无法退休是因为我们没有足够的公积金,那么,我们有权知道政府是如何动用我们的公积金的真相!

We cannot let up on our fight to demand to the government to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans on what exactly they are doing with our CPF. The facts need to be known to Singaporeans. If today we cannot retire because we do not have enough in our CPF, we need to know the facts about what the government has been doing with it.

我们将于2014年8月23日在芳林公园举行的第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。在2014年6月7日的第一场集会,我们的演讲者已经向您们揭露了政府终于最后承认他们是如何动用我们的公积金投资在GIC。在2014年7月12日,我们举行的第二场集会,我们的演讲者暴露了更多的信息有关许多新加坡人的公积金户头无法达到最低存款的要求的原因。

On 23 August, there will be the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, the speakers revealed to you the facts that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further information about the estimated number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

请出席的第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。我们将会进一步揭露更多有关我们的公积金被用在建屋发展局的住房建设令人惊奇的事实!以及为什么新加坡人无法安心的退休是由于建屋发展局造成的原因。

Join us at the third edition as we reveal even more glaring facts about how our CPF is being used by the HDB and for housing, and find out why Singaporeans are not able to retire adequately, because of the HDB.

您可以到FACEBOOK的网页报名参加

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese

一次性誊清:淡马锡控股到底有投资新加坡人的公积金吗?

Clarity, Once And For All: Temasek Holdings Did Invest Singaporeans’ CPF?

作者:梁实轩先生和鄞义林先生

By Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng Yi Ling

注:经作者同意,本网站转发Leong Sze Hian和鄞义林先生共同撰写的文章《Clarity, Once And For All: Temasek Holdings Did Invest Singaporeans’ CPF?》中文翻译。如本翻译文章与作者原文与文章原意或字眼有出入,均以英文版本为最后解释权。特此说明。

文章全文如下:

好了!这是一个极其宝贵的问题:淡马锡控股到底有投资新加坡人的公积金吗?

So, the golden question – did Temasek Holdings invest Singaporeans’ CPF?

今年6月份,新加坡政府最终承认:GIC有投资在新加坡人的公积金。这是有史以来第一次。见图表1。

In June this year, the government finally admitted for the very first time ever that the GIC does invest Singaporeans’ CPF.

CPF How It Works cropped

图表:1

但是。淡马锡控股态度是什么?

But what about Temasek Holdings?

在这篇文章里让我们一次性找出,假设淡马锡控股已经动用了我们的公积金去进行投资。

In this article, let’s find out once and for all if Temasek Holdings has ever taken our CPF to invest.

在星期二(2014年7月22日)由‘政策研究所’主办的“公积金与退休需求”论坛上(IPS Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy),鄞义林先生向副总理兼财政部长善达曼提出了下述问题:

On Tuesday, at the IPS Forum on CPF and Retirement AdequacyRoy Ngerng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister:

淡马锡控股说他们没有投资我们的公积金。我是否可以知道:假设在过去淡马锡控股是否投资在我们的公积金?因为GIC是在1981年才成立了。那就说,在1981年之前,(政府)是如何利用公积金进行投资的,或者,公积金是投资者在淡马锡控股?

Temasek Holdings has said that they do not invest our CPF, is it possible to know if in the past Temasek Holdings had invested our CPF? Because the GIC was only set up in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and otherwise was it invested in Temasek Holdings?

副总理兼财政部长善达曼答复如下:

The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister replied:

淡马锡控股在过去是否管理过公积金的资金?没有。淡马锡控股从来就没有管理过公积金的资金。淡马锡控股的起步资金是从政府的资产一次性注入的。我手上没有具体的数据——大约是相等于市值4亿新元的资产作为公司成立的起步资金。淡马锡控股从来没有从公积金哪儿获取任何资金进行投资。

Did Temasek manage the CPF funds in the past? No. It has never managed CPF funds. Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at time of inception. I don’t have the exact figure in my head – but about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies. It has never received CPF monies to invest.

我们在1992年修改有关公积金资金的法律前的早些时候,公积金是投资在新加坡政府特别债券(SSGS)。政府是利用它来进行基础建设工程——诸如道路基础建设、新加坡的经济基础建设和社会基础建设。这就正如(其他)政府债券(SGS),政府被允许从公积金局通过借贷投资金融基础建设的方式以增加盈利。这是旧的公积金管理制度。

What was the case in the early days, before we amended the constitution in 1992, is that CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure – such as road infrastructure, Singapore’s economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its budget, to finance infrastructural investments. That was the old system.

好的。政府所谓的‘经济基础建设和社会基础建设’投资是指那些方面?

Well, exactly what “economic infrastructure and social infrastructure” investments is the government referring to?

劳工与通讯部长在1982年的讲话为我们提供了答案:

And we do seem to have the answer. According to a speech given by the Minister for Labour and Communications in 1982:

公积金的存款是绝大多部分的新加坡储蓄。这些储蓄是被用来作为资本形式进行建设新工厂、安装新设备和机器、扩充基础建设,如道路、港口和通讯设施、建设住房等等。这些设施与新加坡的经济和政治稳定相结合在一起,进而吸引了早年巨额的投资。这样再进一步设立更多的商业、工厂和企业。

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.

情况假设就是这样。我们的公积金在过去就是被用来投资在包括工厂、港口和通讯设施、住房建设等等。那么,这些资产目前是归谁拥有?

So, there you have it. Our CPF was used to invest in, among others, factories, ports and telecommunications, the building of houses and so on. So, who currently owns this?

让我们进一步探索这些细节。

Let’s explore these in detail.

公积金是通过建屋发展局投资到淡马锡控股

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via HDB

根据《在千禧年里的社会不安全》(Social Insecurity in the New Millennium)一书的作者Linda Low and Aw Tar Choon所描述的:“公积金已经成为住房建设资金的实际资金者。建屋发展局是这个资金的最大使用者”。这本书继续解释,“在开始几年,在政府累计财政盈余之前,它们是向公积金局借贷建设资金以扩大发展的预算。建屋发展局就是其中一个主要是使用公积金资金者。”

According to the book, ‘Social Insecurity in the New Millennium’ by Linda Low and Aw Tar Choon, “the CPF became a de facto housing financier since the Housing and Development Board (HDB) was a heavy user of development funds”. It went on further to explain that, “In the initial years, before the government built up budgetary surpluses, it borrowed funds from the CPF for its development expenditure budget, one important user being the HDB.”

事实上,根据《新加坡的政策创新和适用与纽西兰的报告》也同时再一次肯定了“在1961——1964年期间国家发展计划和后来是直接受益于公积金,那就是住房建设。”那就是“公积金与建屋发展局的关系”,“在1960年代公积金是新加坡公共住房建设的资金资助者,建屋发展局是政府发展计划的最大借贷者。”

Indeed, according to the Innovation Policies in Singapore, and Applicability to New Zealand report, it also reaffirmed that, “The single largest item in the 1961-64 State Development Plan, and hence indirect beneficiary of CPF funds, was housing,” and that in this “CPF-HDB nexus”, “The CPF financed Singapore’s public housing program (where) In the 1960s and 1970s, the HDB was the largest borrower from the government’s development fund.”

作者 Linda Low and Aw Tar Choon也同时解释说,“公积金局扮演的另一个角色就是购房资金借贷的代理人,——当公积金会员使用自己的公积金储蓄购买建屋发展局的住房”。

Low and Aw also explained that, “The other way the CPF functions as a financing agent is when CPF members use their CPF savings to purchase HDB housing”.

为什么怎样成了问题呢?您可以看到“公积金——建屋发展局”关系一年里现金流程图表。这个现金流程图标一直是高额净利流入建屋发展局。这就是大多数的新加坡人流失的公积金并进入了建屋发展。见图表:2

And how does this become problematic? You can see that the net flow in one year in this “CPF-HDB” nexus is that there is still a higher net inflow into HDB, where Singaporeans would lose more of our CPF into the HDB.

Net CPF-HDB Flows 2008 2009

图表:2

Chart: Lessons from Singapore’s Central Provident Fund

让我们看看到底新加坡人从我们的公积金户头里提取了多少资金去购买住屋:见图表3

Take a look at how much has been withdrawn from our CPF for housing:

Annual CPF Withdrawals 1960 to 2013

图表:3

Chart: Housing and the CPF System

因此简单的说,非常清楚的新加坡人的公积金是投资在建屋发展局。现在这个问题为什么这么重要呢?

Thus in short, it is clear that Singaporeans’ CPF is invested in the HDB. Now, why is this important?

根据《Surbana》说,在2013年建屋发展局的建筑与发展部门注册成为HDB企业有限公司(简称‘HDBC Corp’)是为了把新加坡过去几十年有关城市重建规划的经验和专业知识输出到其他国家……一年后,由于‘HDBC Corp’具有潜能的前景而被淡马锡控股所收购。淡马锡控股是新加坡政府的投资工具。

According to Surbana, “In July 2003, HDB’s Building and Development Division was corporatised as HDB Corporation Pte Ltd (HDBCorp) in a bid to export Singapore’s decades of urbanisation expertise and experience to other countries… A year later, the potential of HDB Corp was evident in its acquisition by Temasek Holdings, the Singapore Government’s investment vehicle

“在2005年,‘HDBCorp’更名为Surbana Corporation Pte Ltd”同时,“在2011年4月份,新加坡最大的房地产发展商嘉德置地收购了Surbana Corporation Pte Ltd百分之40的股权,其余的股权由淡马锡控股所持有。”

In 2005, the company was rebranded as Surbana Corporation Pte Ltd.” Also, “In April 2011, CapitaLand, one of the largest real estate developers in Singapore, acquired a 40% stake in Surbana, with the rest held by Temasek Holdings.

“2年后,Surbana进行重组以及专门负责市区发展的支柱——Surbana置地并入了嘉德置地和中国。Surbana主营顾问业的务交由Surbana负责经营。”

Two years later, Surbana underwent a restructure and its township development arm, Surbana Land was integrated with CapitaLand China, leaving its consultancy as the core business for Surbana.”

今天,Surbana自称为“是新加坡一家淡马锡控股联号公司的跨国企业,”。嘉德置地是淡马锡控股最大的投资机构之一。

Today, Surbana calls itself “A Singapore MNC, Temasek-Linked company” and CapitaLand is one of the major investments of Temasek Holdings.

到了这里,读者们将会清楚的看到,新加坡人的公积金事实上就是投资在建屋发展局。建屋发展局实际上就是并入淡马锡控股成为支柱企业。这样一来,我们的问题是:到底公积金有投资在淡马锡控股吗?当建屋发展局被淡马锡控股和嘉德置地收购与并入后,新加坡人的公积金是归还的给新加坡人?还是为新加坡人赚取股份利润?见图表4

By now, it would be clear to any reader that Singaporeans’ CPF was indeed invested in the HDB, which corporatised an arm, that was then absorbed into Temasek Holdings. So, is the CPF invested in Temasek Holdings? And when the HDB was corporatised and acquired by Temasek Holdings and CapitaLand, was Singaporeans’ CPF returned to Singaporeans, or were the earnings shared with Singaporeans?

CPF used to finance HDB_edited

图表:4

实际上,麻烦在2009年出现了,商业时报刊载了一篇文章,题目是:《建屋发展局交易是否要在商业基础交易?》。文章说,“在HDB Corp售卖给淡马锡控股的交易中已经在商业圈子里产生了一些问题。为什么这种收购交易没有经过招投标进行?为什么有关收购金额没有公开透明化?为什么淡马锡控股是唯一的收购者?”

In fact, this is so troubling that in 2009, it was reported in The Business Times, in the article, ‘Shouldn’t HDB deal be on commercial basis?’, that, “The sale of HDB Corp to Temasek Holdings has already begged several questions in the business community. Why was there no tender and no transparency on the transaction price? And why Temasek?”

文章补充说,“即便是一家上市企业——是不需要获得授权委托披露收购价格的详情?——这是缺乏披露企业详情的上市公司,在精神上最低限度强调企业的管理。”

It added that, “While neither is a publicly listed company – so there is no mandatory requirement to disclose price details – the lack of disclosure runs counter, at least in spirit, to the growing emphasis on corporate governance.”

商业时报报道说,“就是这样左手转到右手的交易买卖形式生效了!——政府控制下的资产和控股公司进行重组”。梁实轩先生致给《商业时报》的信中说,“他对建屋发展局来信的解释说‘通过招投标形式出售HDB Corp公司将会导致干扰建屋发展局住户的服务而感到惊愕”!

The Business Times reported that “So in effect, it’s a left to right hand deal – a reshuffling of assets and holding companies by the government,” and Leong Sze Hian had “said in a letter to BT that he is ‘puzzled’ by HDB’s explanation that calling a tender for the sale could have disrupted services to HDB residents subsequently.”

最后,商业时报强调说,“或者,我们是否知道淡马锡控股收购HDB Corp公司是一项非常成功的交易。它似乎应该合理的提出了问题:难道通过招投标的形式收购HDB Corp公司不是可以获得更加合理的价格吗?”

Finally, The Business Times emphasised that, “Nor do we know just how good a deal HDB Corp got from Temasek. And it seems reasonable to ask: would not a more equitable price have been achieved if there was a tender?”

更重要的是:公积金局如何补偿给我们新加坡人的公积金呢?

And more importantly, how were Singaporeans compensated with our CPF?

公积金局通过POSB邮政储蓄银行投资在淡马锡控股

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via POSB

非常明显的。如此‘左手转让给右手’的交易形式并不是在2009年头一遭发生。根据《商业时报》的报道,“在1998年,邮政储蓄银行售卖给发展银行,是发展银行成为新加坡最大的银行。发展银行是淡马锡控股关联企业。2年后,发展银行将其拥有的发展置地的股权售卖给PIDEMCO 置地。PEDEMCO也是一家政联企业。它是大房地产企业嘉德置地的创立者。这又是一个没有任何合适企业获准参与交易的报道。”

Apparently, this lack of openness in the “left to right hand deal” was not the first time it happened in 2009. According to The Business Times, “In 1998, POSBank was sold to DBS Bank, another Temasek-linked company, making DBS the largest bank in Singapore. Two years on, DBS sold its stake in DBS Land to Pidemco Land, also a government-linked company, to create property giant CapitaLand. Again, no other suitors were reportedly allowed.”

今天,发展银行是淡马锡控股其中一个最大的投资。

Today, DBS is one of the major investments of the Temasek Holdings.

《在千禧年里的社会不安全》作者Linda Low and T. C. Aw在这本书里揭露,“通过公积金运作,住房是健康的、教育性和财富的”。在1973/74年,公积金资金是自由使用于投资的。由于‘公积金资金是自由使用于投资’的缘故,‘政府抓住这个时机,把公积金巨大的盈余额与政联企业私营化计划从国有企业开始。’

Perhaps what would be revealing is from the book, ‘Housing a Healthy, Educated and Wealthy Nation through the CPF’ by Linda Low and T. C. Aw, the CPF funds were liberalised for investment after 1973/74. And so, “Having liberalized CPF for investment, the government seized on the opportunity to link (and tap) the large pool of CPF balances with the privatization of its government-linked companies (GLCs), beginning with the statutory boards.

私营化的行动是把公共部门进行改革的一部分。在1985年之后政府开始按比例退出参与经济领域的活动,进而让私营企业成为经济增长的动力。自从1985年经济衰退,一个公积金资金循环使用以避免被排挤出去的顾虑影响整体的领域。因此,在1993年当许久哦电讯局被私营化是通过公共上述的形式。当时导致大量了公积金款额被提取’。

The privatization exercise was part of public sector reform, where the government began to scale back its activities in the economy after 1985, to make the private sector the engine of growth. Since the 1985 recession, a conscious recycling of CPF funds to avert possible “crowding-out” effects overall has been more distinct. Thus, in 1993, when Singapore Telecom was privatized through public flotation, there was a jump in CPF funds withdrawn.”

公积金通过新加坡电讯投资在淡马锡控股

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via Singtel

因此根据新加坡电讯披露:

Thus according to Singtel:

在1993年10月,新加坡电讯公司成为上市企业。在股票交易所(现改名为新加坡交易所或SGX)第一次进行交易。在1993年新加坡电讯公司推出上市的股票价格是新加坡币11分时,淡马锡控股持有其余的股权。新加坡公民获准通过公积金以折扣价价购买A股。这是新加坡政府作为人民与国家的共享财富和扩大成为新加坡人拥有的股票的基础的努力。

In October 1993, SingTel became a public company. Shares were traded for the first time on the Stock Exchange of Singapore (now known as the Singapore Exchange or SGX) on 1 November 1993. The IPO in 1993 represented 11 per cent of SingTel shares, with the rest held by Temasek Holdings… Singapore Citizens were able to purchase Group A shares (via using our CPF) at a discounted price as part of the Singapore Government’s effort to share the nation’s wealth and to enlarge the base of share-owning Singaporeans.

1996年,淡马锡控股献议二期款项(简称‘SingTel shares (ST-2)’)给新加坡人折扣价,进而是自己持有的股权减少了近82%。

In 1996, Temasek Holdings offered a second tranche of SingTel shares (ST-2) to Singaporeans at a discounted price, reducing its shareholding in SingTel to about 82 per cent.

国家图书馆进一步说,

The National Library Board further reported that:

在1993年,新加坡电讯公司宣布上市。政府通过国有企业淡马锡控股献议发行110亿股的一系列折扣价和忠诚股卖给新加坡人。这个发行是4.1倍。淡马锡控股再增加587万股已满足市场的需求。在发行后,政府通过淡马锡控股仍然持有新加坡电讯公司89%的股权。

In October 1993, SingTel announced its Initial Public Offering (IPO). The government, through state investment company Temasek Holdings, initially offered 1.1 billion shares for sale to Singaporeans, with a series of discounts and loyalty bonuses. This issue was subscribed by 4.1 times, and Temasek added another 587 million shares to help meet demand. After the float, the government still held around 89% of SingTel through Temasek.

在1993年11月1日新加坡电讯公司在新加坡交易所正式交易时,超过140万的新加坡人、外国和本地的事业单位持有新加坡电讯公司的股票。在那个时候,新加坡电讯公司拥有15.25个亿的股票和600个亿市场资金。新加坡电讯成为新加坡股票交易所最大的上市公司。接下来几年,新加坡电讯公司的部分股票会投放到公开市场,包括在1996年的804亿的股票。

On 1 November, SingTel debuted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore, with more than 1.4 million Singaporeans and foreign and local institutions acquiring shares in the company. With a share capital of 15.25 billion shares and a market capitalisation of S$60 billion at the time, SingTel became the largest company on the Exchange. Further tranches of SingTel shares were released for public sale in subsequent years, including 804 million shares in 1996.

根据公积金局2004年的常年报告,“在1993年,新加坡人的公积金会员可以购买折扣价的新加坡电讯公司的ST ‘A’股票和在1965年购买ST‘2’ 股票。新加坡电讯公司之后在2004年3月的审计报告出炉后宣布派发股息为每股6.4分。”

According to the CPF Board Annual Report in 2004, “Singaporean CPF members were able to buy discounted SingTel shares in 1993 (ST “A” shares) and 1996 (ST2 shares). SingTel declared a final dividend of 6.4 cents a share for its financial year ended 31 March 2004.”

公积金局同时也解释说,新加坡电讯公司已经在2004年9月1日和2006年9月1日执行减少资本金。在2004年减少资本金时,新加坡电讯公司已经取消每14股对换1股的配比,而以接近10股为整数。新加坡电讯以每股2.36元现金支付给予那些放弃购买者。在2006年的资本金削减,新加坡电讯公司已经取消了每20股对换1股的配比。新加坡电讯以每股2.74元现金支付给予那些 放弃购买者。所有支付的现金将会存入您的公积金普通户头里。新加坡电讯公司将会同时发出一封信告知有关2004年9月和2006年9月的资本金削减的信息。

The CPF Board also explained that, “SingTel had performed capital reduction on 1 September 2004 and 1 September 2006. In the 2004 capital reduction, SingTel had cancelled 1 in every 14 of its shares, with the resultant shareholding rounded-up to the nearest 10 shares, where applicable. SingTel had reimbursed you a cash distribution of S$2.36 for each cancelled share. In the 2006 capital reduction, SingTel had cancelled 1 in every 20 of its shares, with the resultant shareholding rounded-up to the nearest 10 shares, where applicable. SingTel had reimbursed you a cash distribution of $2.74 for each cancelled share. The cash distributions were credited into your CPF Ordinary Account and a letter was also sent to inform you of the capital reduction in September 2004 and September 2006 respectively.”

当时,新加坡人是以每股1.90元购买新加坡电讯公司的股票。在2004年偿付分发到的现金是每股2.36元和在2004年偿付分发到的现金是每股2.74元。

Where Singaporeans had bought Singtel shares with our CPF at $1.90, we were only reimbursed with cash distributions of $2.36 in 2004 and $2.74 in 2006.

(备注:新加坡电讯公司上市时的股价是3.61元。争论的焦点在于:这个预估价位是否设定的过高?因为它经过20年后才攀升超过3.61元的价位。{在2004年和2006年审计后}股票价格比1993年上市发行的价位还低?)

(Note: Was the initial public offering price of $3.61 for Singtel, arguably so overpriced that it took about 20 years for the price to go above $3.61 (after accounting for the capital reduction in 2004 and 2006), after the initial surge in the price in 1993?)

或许这个问题不可以这么简单的提出来。《在千禧年里的社会不安全》作者Linda Low and T. C. Aw解释说,公积金投资计划是‘在政府协助推动私营化计划下,例如新加坡电讯公司在1993年私营化的案例。巨额的资金从公积金被提取投资到新加坡电讯公司。’

Perhaps the issue cannot be more simply put when Linda Low explained that the CPF investment scheme “assist(ed) with the government privatization program, as, for example, in the case of Singapore Telecom, which was privatized in 1993. A huge sum withdrawn from the CPF was invested into Singapore Telecom.”

这中间是否有问题?在公积金资金赚取的利息是否归还给新加坡人民?今天新加坡电讯公司是淡马锡控股其中一个最主要投资。

Is something wrong here? Were the interest earned on our CPF returned to Singaporeans? Today, Singtel is one of the major investments of Temasek Holdings.

CPF used to invest in Singtel_edited

图表:5

公积金是通过新加坡巴士通联公司(SBS Transit)投资到淡马锡控股的

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via SBS Transit

这不止于此吧了!

And this is not yet all!

《在千禧年里的社会不安全》作者Linda Low and T. C. Aw在这本书叙述说,“在1978年,公积金会员被允许开始使用公积金储蓄进行投资时(仅限于)新加坡巴士通联公司的股票”。后来,“新加坡巴士通联公司改名为DelGro时,新加坡巴士通联公司的股票名称也随着更改为DelGro Corporation”

Low and Aw had also described how “On 26 April 1978, CPF members could start using their CPF savings for investment… (for) shares issued by Singapore Bus Service.” Later on, “Singapore Bus Service shares were renamed DelGro shares following the change in name of the bus company to DelGro Corporation. ”

在2003年,DelGro Corporation和康福集团合并又称为ComfortDelgro。这样一来,新加坡巴士通联公司就成为ComfortDelgrod 一部分。在那个时候,淡马锡控股在新加坡巴士通联公司持有的股权是超过50%。见图表7

In 2003, Delgro Corporation and Comfort Group merged to become ComfortDelgro, where SBS Transit became part of the group. At one time, “Temasek owns more than 50% of the shares in … SBS Transit.

CPF used to invest in Delgro_edited

图表:6

公积金是通过政联企业投资在淡马锡控股

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via Government-Linked Companies

但是,新加坡巴士通联公司不是唯一被淡马锡控股所收购的交通企业。

But SBS Transit wasn’t the only transport company to be acquired by the Temasek Holdings.

梁实轩先生写道:“章宜机场集团(新加坡)有限公司(简称‘CAG’)是在2009年6月16日成立。章宜机场企业随着在2009年7月1日注册成立”。樟宜机场也在随后转给了淡马锡控股。

Leong Sze Hian wrote that, “Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd (CAG) was formed on 16 June 2009 and the corporatisation of Changi Airport followed on 1 July 2009,” where the airport was then “transferred to Temasek”.

梁实轩先生同时问道:

Leong Sze Hian also asked:

在这样链接上,我们可以扩展到1990年注册成立和转让国家实体,如新加坡能源公司和港务集团的事件上和1993年一年里大幅增加交易组合的新加坡电信的上市。为淡马锡控股从它成立以来在单一年里取得年17%这个极其惊人的盈利。

In this connection, to what extent has the 1990′s corporatisation and transfer of state entities like SingPower and PSA, and the biggest single-year jn crease in its portfolio value with the listing of SingTel in 1993, contributed to its phenomenal 17 per cent annualised returns from Temasek’s inception?

在国家实体资产进行转让的过程中谁从中获利?假设国家实体资产是被变卖了,那么卖价是多少?新加坡人民是否从中受益?

Who benefits from the transaction when a state entity is corporatised? If an entity is sold, what is the price? How do Singaporeans benefit?

在售卖国家战略性资产(如章宜机场之类)的价格尚未知道前,看来似乎很少有机会在国会提出辩论和核准。

It may seem quite odd to debate and approve in Parliament the sale of a strategic state asset, like Chang Airport, when the price was still not known.

今天,新加坡机场终站大厦(SATS)和新加坡航空公司(SIA)是淡马锡控股其中的一个主要投资。

Today, SATS and Singapore Airlines are also one of the major investments of  Temasek Holdings.

我们在文章一开始时,我们同时已经的发现,我们的公积金是被投资在码头建设。今天,港务集团和海皇船务集团的大股东是淡马锡控股其中一个大的投资。

At the start of the article, we also found out that the CPF was invested in port infrastructure. Today, PSA and Neptune Orient Lines are also major investments of  Temasek Holdings.

公积金局也同时投资在建设工厂。今天,Mapletree也是淡马锡控股其中一个重大投资。

The CPF was also invested in the construction of factories. Today, Mapletree is also one of the major investments of Temasek Holdings.

还是同样的问题。我们的公积金被动用于投资,新加坡人民是否获得回报?那些被动用的公积金去投资并且获得的盈利是否归还给新加坡人民了吗?

Again, the question is, were Singaporeans reimbursed for the use of our CPF, and were the earnings on our CPF returned to Singaporeans?

CPF used to invest in GLCs_edited

图表:7

暴露:政府确实是动用了新加坡人民的公积金投资在淡马锡控股

Exposed: The Government Did Take Singaporeans’ CPF To Invest In The Temasek Holdings

好。到底淡马锡控股是否有投资我们的公积金吗?还是只有GIC?这个问题现在已经非常清晰。我们提供的只是一个有关我们的公积金是如何实际上投资与于淡马锡控股的横切面。但是,还有更多的事实吗?更加重要的是,那些被动用的公积金是否已经归还给新加坡人民?或者,在某种意义上,我们已经在淡马锡控股的投资上亏损了?

So, did Temasek Holdings invest our CPF, or only GIC? The issue is very clear now. What we have shown you is only a cross-section of how our CPF is actually invested in Temasek Holdings. But how many more? And most importantly, was our CPF monies returned back to Singaporeans? Or did we, in a sense, lose them to Temasek Holdings?

今天,淡马锡控股从1974年成立至今每年赚取了10%的利润。它们赚取的这些利润当中是否与公积金资金有关联?这些被动用的公积金资金尚未还回给新加坡人民?

Today, Temasek Holdings earns 16% in SGD terms since inception (1974). How much of their earnings is attributed to the CPF which has not been returned to Singaporeans?

我们是否还要如公积金是投资在GIC的事实一样,面对政府再一次给我们绕圈圈的解释?政府是不是又要狡辩?或者,在我们的压力下别无选择的再一次承认有关淡马锡控股投资在我们的公积金的事实。

Are we facing another roundabout explanation from the government again as to how even though the CPF is indeed invested in the GIC, the government would want to claim otherwise, until forced without a choice to submit to admission once again?

我们现在已经知道,政府是通过复杂的流程把我们的公积金投资在GIC的事实。这个流程是政府的公债和国家储备。

We now know that the CPF is indeed invested in the GIC, via a complicated routed process by the government, via government bonds and reserves.

对您而言,看来不像公积金也是投资在淡马锡控股,即通过相似的复杂的流程,那就是政联企业或者其他的形式去进行呢?就如副总理兼财政部长善达曼讲述了有关经济和基础建设的投资见图表7

Doesn’t it look quite similar to you that the CPF is also invested in Temasek Holdings, via a similarly complicated routed process, via the government-linked companies, and what the

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had described as economic and social infrastructural investments?

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

图表:8

在今年6月政府最终承认了很多问题的事实。我们最终知道了我们的公积金是投资在GIC,但是,淡马锡控股的投资活动是否我们的公积金资金有关系呢?——政府至今还是非常勉强要解释有关公积金投资在淡马锡控股的幕后运作情况!——那就是; 我们的公积金是如何投资在淡马锡控股?无论如何,通过我们的调查努力,我们是有能力找出有关的信息的!到时,政府是不是最终需要承认这个事实?还是政府继续采取不透明的政策?

Since June, the government has finally admitted to many issues and questions. We finally know our CPF is invested in the GIC. But Temasek Holdings? – the government is still reluctant to explain the full workings and mechanics behind how our CPF is invested in Temasek Holdings. However, by doing our own investigations, we are able to know the information for ourselves. So, will the government admit to this as well? Or will they continue to not be transparent?

第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会:为什么新加坡人无法退休?问题在建屋发展局!

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

在目前政府处理我们的公积金政策情况下,我们不可能放弃斗争而要求政府对人民采取透明化和可信任的政策的。新加坡人有权知道事实的真相。假设今天我们无法退休是因为我们没有足够的公积金,那么,我们有权知道政府是如何动用我们的公积金的真相!

We cannot let up on our fight to demand to the government to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans on what exactly they are doing with our CPF. The facts need to be known to Singaporeans. If today we cannot retire because we do not have enough in our CPF, we need to know the facts about what the government has been doing with it.

我们将于2014年8月23日在芳林公园举行的第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。在2014年6月7日的第一场集会,我们的演讲者已经向您们揭露了政府终于最后承认他们是如何动用我们的公积金投资在GIC。在2014年7月12日,我们举行的第二场集会,我们的演讲者暴露了更多的信息有关许多新加坡人的公积金户头无法达到最低存款的要求的原因。

On 23 August, there will be the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, the speakers revealed to you the facts that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further information about the estimated number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

请出席的第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。我们将会进一步揭露更多有关我们的公积金被用在建屋发展局的住房建设令人惊奇的事实!以及为什么新加坡人无法安心的退休是由于建屋发展局造成的原因。

Join us at the third edition as we reveal even more glaring facts about how our CPF is being used by the HDB and for housing, and find out why Singaporeans are not able to retire adequately, because of the HDB.

您可以到FACEBOOK的网页报名参加

You can join the Facebook event page here.

(备注:鄞义林先生的第一次民事诉讼听审将于2014年9月18日早上10点在法院进行全天的听审。)

(Note: Also, Roy Ngerng’s first court case hearing will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.)

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Clarity, Once And For All: Temasek Holdings Did Invest Singaporeans’ CPF?

By Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng Yi Ling

So, the golden question – did Temasek Holdings invest Singaporeans’ CPF?

In June this year, the government finally admitted for the very first time ever that the GIC does invest Singaporeans’ CPF.

CPF How It Works cropped

But what about Temasek Holdings?

In this article, let’s find out once and for all if Temasek Holdings has ever taken our CPF to invest.

On Tuesday, at the IPS Forum on CPF and Retirement AdequacyRoy Ngerng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister:

Temasek Holdings has said that they do not invest our CPF, is it possible to know if in the past Temasek Holdings had invested our CPF? Because the GIC was only set up in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and otherwise was it invested in Temasek Holdings?

The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister replied:

Did Temasek manage the CPF funds in the past? No. It has never managed CPF funds. Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at time of inception. I don’t have the exact figure in my head – but about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies. It has never received CPF monies to invest.

What was the case in the early days, before we amended the constitution in 1992, is that CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure – such as road infrastructure, Singapore’s economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its budget, to finance infrastructural investments. That was the old system.

Well, exactly what “economic infrastructure and social infrastructure” investments is the government referring to?

And we do seem to have the answer. According to a speech given by the Minister for Labour and Communications in 1982:

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.

So, there you have it. Our CPF was used to invest in, among others, factories, ports and telecommunications, the building of houses and so on. So, who currently owns this?

Let’s explore these in detail.

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via HDB

According to the book, ‘Social Insecurity in the New Millennium’ by Linda Low and Aw Tar Choon, “the CPF became a de facto housing financier since the Housing and Development Board (HDB) was a heavy user of development funds”. It went on further to explain that, “In the initial years, before the government built up budgetary surpluses, it borrowed funds from the CPF for its development expenditure budget, one important user being the HDB.”

Indeed, according to the Innovation Policies in Singapore, and Applicability to New Zealand report, it also reaffirmed that, “The single largest item in the 1961-64 State Development Plan, and hence indirect beneficiary of CPF funds, was housing,” and that in this “CPF-HDB nexus”, “The CPF financed Singapore’s public housing program (where) In the 1960s and 1970s, the HDB was the largest borrower from the government’s development fund.”

Low and Aw also explained that, “The other way the CPF functions as a financing agent is when CPF members use their CPF savings to purchase HDB housing”.

And how does this become problematic? You can see that the net flow in one year in this “CPF-HDB” nexus is that there is still a higher net inflow into HDB, where Singaporeans would lose more of our CPF into the HDB.

Net CPF-HDB Flows 2008 2009

Chart: Lessons from Singapore’s Central Provident Fund

Take a look at how much has been withdrawn from our CPF for housing:

Annual CPF Withdrawals 1960 to 2013

Chart: Housing and the CPF System

Thus in short, it is clear that Singaporeans’ CPF is invested in the HDB. Now, why is this important?

According to Surbana, “In July 2003, HDB’s Building and Development Division was corporatised as HDB Corporation Pte Ltd (HDBCorp) in a bid to export Singapore’s decades of urbanisation expertise and experience to other countries… A year later, the potential of HDB Corp was evident in its acquisition by Temasek Holdings, the Singapore Government’s investment vehicle and in 2005, the company was rebranded as Surbana Corporation Pte Ltd.” Also, “In April 2011, CapitaLand, one of the largest real estate developers in Singapore, acquired a 40% stake in Surbana, with the rest held by Temasek Holdings. Two years later, Surbana underwent a restructure and its township development arm, Surbana Land was integrated with CapitaLand China, leaving its consultancy as the core business for Surbana.”

Today, Surbana calls itself “A Singapore MNC, Temasek-Linked company” and CapitaLand is one of the major investments of Temasek Holdings.

By now, it would be clear to any reader that Singaporeans’ CPF was indeed invested in the HDB, which corporatised an arm, that was then absorbed into Temasek Holdings. So, is the CPF invested in Temasek Holdings? And when the HDB was corporatised and acquired by Temasek Holdings and CapitaLand, was Singaporeans’ CPF returned to Singaporeans, or were the earnings shared with Singaporeans?

CPF used to finance HDB_edited

In fact, this is so troubling that in 2009, it was reported in The Business Times, in the article, ‘Shouldn’t HDB deal be on commercial basis?’, that, “The sale of HDB Corp to Temasek Holdings has already begged several questions in the business community. Why was there no tender and no transparency on the transaction price? And why Temasek?” It added that, “While neither is a publicly listed company – so there is no mandatory requirement to disclose price details – the lack of disclosure runs counter, at least in spirit, to the growing emphasis on corporate governance.”

The Business Times reported that “So in effect, it’s a left to right hand deal – a reshuffling of assets and holding companies by the government,” and Leong Sze Hian had “said in a letter to BT that he is ‘puzzled’ by HDB’s explanation that calling a tender for the sale could have disrupted services to HDB residents subsequently.”

Finally, The Business Times emphasised that, “Nor do we know just how good a deal HDB Corp got from Temasek. And it seems reasonable to ask: would not a more equitable price have been achieved if there was a tender?”

And more importantly, how were Singaporeans compensated with our CPF?

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via POSB

Apparently, this lack of openness in the “left to right hand deal” was not the first time it happened in 2009. According to The Business Times, “In 1998, POSBank was sold to DBS Bank, another Temasek-linked company, making DBS the largest bank in Singapore. Two years on, DBS sold its stake in DBS Land to Pidemco Land, also a government-linked company, to create property giant CapitaLand. Again, no other suitors were reportedly allowed.”

Today, DBS is one of the major investments of the Temasek Holdings.

Perhaps what would be revealing is from the book, ‘Housing a Healthy, Educated and Wealthy Nation through the CPF’ by Linda Low and T. C. Aw, the CPF funds were liberalised for investment after 1973/74. And so, “Having liberalized CPF for investment, the government seized on the opportunity to link (and tap) the large pool of CPF balances with the privatization of its government-linked companies (GLCs), beginning with the statutory boards. The privatization exercise was part of public sector reform, where the government began to scale back its activities in the economy after 1985, to make the private sector the engine of growth. Since the 1985 recession, a conscious recycling of CPF funds to avert possible “crowding-out” effects overall has been more distinct. Thus, in 1993, when Singapore Telecom was privatized through public flotation, there was a jump in CPF funds withdrawn.”

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via Singtel

Thus according to Singtel:

In October 1993, SingTel became a public company. Shares were traded for the first time on the Stock Exchange of Singapore (now known as the Singapore Exchange or SGX) on 1 November 1993. The IPO in 1993 represented 11 per cent of SingTel shares, with the rest held by Temasek Holdings… Singapore Citizens were able to purchase Group A shares (via using our CPF) at a discounted price as part of the Singapore Government’s effort to share the nation’s wealth and to enlarge the base of share-owning Singaporeans.

In 1996, Temasek Holdings offered a second tranche of SingTel shares (ST-2) to Singaporeans at a discounted price, reducing its shareholding in SingTel to about 82 per cent.

The National Library Board further reported that:

In October 1993, SingTel announced its Initial Public Offering (IPO). The government, through state investment company Temasek Holdings, initially offered 1.1 billion shares for sale to Singaporeans, with a series of discounts and loyalty bonuses. This issue was subscribed by 4.1 times, and Temasek added another 587 million shares to help meet demand. After the float, the government still held around 89% of SingTel through Temasek.

On 1 November, SingTel debuted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore, with more than 1.4 million Singaporeans and foreign and local institutions acquiring shares in the company. With a share capital of 15.25 billion shares and a market capitalisation of S$60 billion at the time, SingTel became the largest company on the Exchange. Further tranches of SingTel shares were released for public sale in subsequent years, including 804 million shares in 1996.

According to the CPF Board Annual Report in 2004, “Singaporean CPF members were able to buy discounted SingTel shares in 1993 (ST “A” shares) and 1996 (ST2 shares). SingTel declared a final dividend of 6.4 cents a share for its financial year ended 31 March 2004.”

The CPF Board also explained that, “SingTel had performed capital reduction on 1 September 2004 and 1 September 2006. In the 2004 capital reduction, SingTel had cancelled 1 in every 14 of its shares, with the resultant shareholding rounded-up to the nearest 10 shares, where applicable. SingTel had reimbursed you a cash distribution of S$2.36 for each cancelled share. In the 2006 capital reduction, SingTel had cancelled 1 in every 20 of its shares, with the resultant shareholding rounded-up to the nearest 10 shares, where applicable. SingTel had reimbursed you a cash distribution of $2.74 for each cancelled share. The cash distributions were credited into your CPF Ordinary Account and a letter was also sent to inform you of the capital reduction in September 2004 and September 2006 respectively.”

Where Singaporeans had bought Singtel shares with our CPF at $1.90, we were only reimbursed with cash distributions of $2.36 in 2004 and $2.74 in 2006.

(Note: Was the initial public offering price of $3.61 for Singtel, arguably so overpriced that it took about 20 years for the price to to go above $3.61 (after accounting for the capital reduction in 2004 and 2006), after the initial surge in the price in 1993?)

Perhaps the issue cannot be more simply put when Linda Low explained that the CPF investment scheme “assist(ed) with the government privatization program, as, for example, in the case of Singapore Telecom, which was privatized in 1993. A huge sum withdrawn from the CPF was invested into Singapore Telecom.”

Is something wrong here? Were the interest earned on our CPF returned to Singaporeans? Today, Singtel is one of the major investments of Temasek Holdings.

CPF used to invest in Singtel_edited

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via SBS Transit

And this is not yet all! Low and Aw had also described how “On 26 April 1978, CPF members could start using their CPF savings for investment… (for) shares issued by Singapore Bus Service.” Later on, “Singapore Bus Service shares were renamed DelGro shares following the change in name of the bus company to DelGro Corporation.”

In 2003, Delgro Corporation and Comfort Group merged to become ComfortDelgro, where SBS Transit became part of the group. At one time, “Temasek owns more than 50% of the shares in … SBS Transit.

CPF used to invest in Delgro_edited

CPF is Invested in the Temasek Holdings, via Government-Linked Companies

But SBS Transit wasn’t the only transport company to be acquired by the Temasek Holdings.

Leong Sze Hian wrote that, “Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd (CAG) was formed on 16 June 2009 and the corporatisation of Changi Airport followed on 1 July 2009,” where the airport was then “transferred to Temasek”.

Leong Sze Hian also asked:

In this connection, to what extent has the 1990′s corporatisation and transfer of state entities like SingPower and PSA, and the biggest single-year jncrease in its portfolio value with the listing of SingTel in 1993, contributed to its phenomenal 17 per cent annualised returns from Temasek’s inception?

Who benefits from the transaction when a state entity is corporatised? If an entity is sold, what is the price? How do Singaporeans benefit?

It may seem quite odd to debate and approve in Parliament the sale of a strategic state asset, like Chang Airport, when the price was still not known.

Today, SATS and Singapore Airlines are also one of the major investments of  Temasek Holdings.

At the start of the article, we also found out that the CPF was invested in port infrastructure. Today, PSA and Neptune Orient Lines are also major investments of  Temasek Holdings.

The CPF was also invested in the construction of factories. Today, Mapletree is also one of the major investments of Temasek Holdings.

Again, the question is, were Singaporeans reimbursed for the use of our CPF, and were the earnings on our CPF returned to Singaporeans?

Exposed: The Government Did Take Singaporeans’ CPF To Invest In The Temasek Holdings

So, did Temasek Holdings invest our CPF, or only GIC? The issue is very clear now. What we have shown you is only a cross-section of how our CPF is actually invested in Temasek Holdings. But how many more? And most importantly, was our CPF monies returned back to Singaporeans? Or did we, in a sense, lose them to Temasek Holdings?

Today, Temasek Holdings earns 16% in SGD terms since inception (1974). How much of their earnings is attributed to the CPF which has not been returned to Singaporeans?

Are we facing another roundabout explanation from the government again as to how even though the CPF is indeed invested in the GIC, the government would want to claim otherwise, until forced without a choice to submit to admission once again?

We now know that the CPF is indeed invested in the GIC, via a complicated routed process by the government, via government bonds and reserves.

Doesn’t it look quite similar to you that the CPF is also invested in Temasek Holdings, via a similarly complicated routed process, via the government-linked companies, and what the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister had described as economic and social infrastructural investments?

CPF used to invest in GLCs_edited

Since June, the government has finally admitted to many issues and questions. We finally know our CPF is invested in the GIC. But Temasek Holdings? – the government is still reluctant to explain the full workings and mechanics behind how our CPF is invested in Temasek Holdings. However, by doing our own investigations, we are able to know the information for ourselves. So, will the government admit to this as well? Or will they continue to not be transparent?

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

We cannot let up on our fight to demand to the government to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans on what exactly they are doing with our CPF. The facts need to be known to Singaporeans. If today we cannot retire because we do not have enough in our CPF, we need to know the facts about what the government has been doing with it.

On 23 August, there will be the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, the speakers revealed to you the facts that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further information about the estimated number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition as we reveal even more glaring facts about how our CPF is being used by the HDB and for housing, and find out why Singaporeans are not able to retire adequately, because of the HDB.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

(Note: Also, Roy Ngerng’s first court case hearing will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.)

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese

Questions To DPM Tharman: How Much Has GIC Earned From Singaporeans’ CPF?

Yesterday, I attended the Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy, organised by the Institute of Policy Studies. At the closing dialogue with the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, I posed some questions. The full question and answer session was captured by the Channel NewsAsia:

The questions that I had posed: 

  1. Now that we know that the CPF is invested in the GIC, is it also possible to know what is the interest earned in SG terms since inception?
  2. Secondly, Temasek Holdings has said that they do not invest our CPF, is it possible to know if in the past Temasek Holdings had invested our CPF? Because the GIC was only set up in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and otherwise was it invested in Temasek Holdings?
  3. Thirdly, how much has the Government earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns of the CPF and will the Government consider returning some of them to Singaporeans?
  4. Finally, the GIC has said before June this year that they do not know if they invest our CPF because it is “not made explicit” to them – they said this on the GIC FAQ. But the Government made an about-turn in June this year and admitted that they do. So in the interest of public interest, is it possibly to know why the Government made an about-turn? It might also be intriguing because the Government is also on the board of the GIC, so it would be insightful to know why. Thank you.

(1) Temasek Has Never Managed CPF Funds?

The minister replied that the Temasek Holdings “has never managed CPF funds” and that it “started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at time of inception (1974)” with “about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies”.

But he also revealed that, “before we amended the constitution in 1992, is that CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure – such as road infrastructure, Singapore’s economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its budget, to finance infrastructural investments.”

What are these “economic infrastructural and social infrastructural investments”? Were they part of the $400 million dollars worth of assets in the set of companies which were transferred by the government to the Temasek Holdings?

 (2) GIC Does Not Need To Know If They Manage Our CPF?

On whether the GIC knows if it manages the CPF, the minister replied that, “GIC manages … CPF assets – but not as CPF assets. It is managing Government assets: managing all Government assets put together,… And the GIC (hence) pays no regard to what the source of funds is.”

He went on further to say that, “If the GIC was just managing CPF funds as a CPF fund manager, it would be managed quite differently. To provide a guaranteed interest rate of four to five per cent of the Special Account, or 2.5 to 3.5 per cent of the Ordinary Account, capital guaranteed and interest rate guaranteed, it would be a very different fund that it would be managing.”

Finally, he said that, “So the GIC manages a pool of Government assets, irrespective of sources of the funds. It is the Government that then takes the risk,” and that, “we’re not just triple-A-rated, but we’re able to provide CPF members with a very fair return on a guaranteed basis.”

I find this answer very worrying because as I have written before, if the government is also on the Board of Directors of the GIC (the prime minister is the chairperson), then there needs to be transparent accountability on how our CPF monies are actually being managed by the government and the GIC.

(3) GIC Takes On The Risk For CPF?

Later on at the forum, someone asked about the triple-A rating of the government. He pointed out that the government had said that the CPF is guaranteed “secure” returns because the government has a triple-A rating, and asked if the government can guarantee the rating because of how it’s managed Singapore’s finances. The minister then replied that the triple-A rating comes about because the government has additional assets, which comes from years of fiscal prudence. He said that when the government sells land, they don’t spend it. Surpluses from land sales and investment income add to the assets, which allows the government to come to its current financial position, and explains the strong credit rating.

Which leads us to this question – if our CPF is helping the government to accumulate the assets, then isn’t it because of Singaporeans’ CPF that Singapore is able to have a triple-A rating? If so, aren’t Singaporeans guaranteeing the returns on our CPF by ourselves? Then, shouldn’t we get all the returns earned on our CPF back, and not just the 2.5% to 4% we are given back now?

In fact, Ms Wong Su-Yen had presented at the forum how the Singapore government has over-invested our CPF retirement funds in very low-risk bonds – 72% goes into bonds, when the other countries would invest between 49% to 69% in higher risk investments, which has thus resulted in one of the least adequate retirement funds for Singaporeans in the world.

CPF Investment Allocation vs World

Thus seen in this light, does the government’s rhetoric that, “If the GIC was just managing CPF funds as a CPF fund manager, it would be managed quite differently” does not quite hold water when the evidence from the other countries show contrary.

At the end of the day, the government still has not answered as to why they made the about turn and finally admitted in June this year that they do invest our CPF in the GIC.

 (4) Singaporeans Are Still Not Able To Know What The GIC’s Returns Since Inception Is

As to GIC’s returns, the minister said that, “The GIC publishes five-year, 10-year, 20-year returns. You can look at the returns, and they are easily computed into Singapore dollars. Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singapore dollar terms, over the last 10 years it earned five per cent in Singapore dollar terms, over the last 20 years it earned five per cent in Singapore dollar terms.”

However, the minister still did not reveal the GIC’s returns in Singapore dollar terms since GIC’s inception (in 1981).

But what we do know is that Leong Sze Hian has found that “it was disclosed in 2006 that the returns for the 25 years prior to 2006, was 9.5 per cent”, and asked if the GIC’s returns since inception would be more than 6%.

Why is this important? If our CPF is invested in the GIC, then the interest earned on our CPF should be returned to us. The difference of 1 or 2 per cent is very significant, as that can translate into tens and hundreds of thousands of pension funds that can be returned to Singaporeans.

(5) Questions 1, 3 And 4 Were Not Answered

Finally, of the 4 questions that I had posed, the minister did not answer 3 of the questions – questions 1, 3 and 4. We still do not know how much the government had earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns that were earned from our CPF. And even though the minister answered question 2, his answer only throws up even more questions. Did the Temasek Holdings invest assets from companies which had used our CPF monies?

Since June, more and more truths are being revealed and admitted by the government. In June, the government finally admitted to the truth that they invest our CPF in the GIC. Today, the government reveals that the Temasek Holdings has never invested the CPF, but have used assets from companies, which could possibly have been invested with our CPF.

Yet, the government is still not willing to let us know what the GIC’s returns are since inception. If the GIC uses our CPF to invest, then Singaporeans have every right to know how it is performing and the government cannot hide this information from Singaporeans.

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

We have to keep up this fight, to demand for transparency and accountability from the government. The CPF is our money, so the government claims, and if so, it is the every right of Singaporeans to demand proper answers from the government.

On 23 August, we will be organising the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, we revealed to you the truths that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further truths about the exact number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition as we reveal even more glaring facts about how our CPF is being used by the HDB and for housing, and find out why Singaporeans are not able to retire adequately, because of the HDB.

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.

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese

关于我的案件于2014年7月17日审前会议进展汇报

FreeGreatPicture.com-29418-gesture

您好!
各位我的律师今天已经出席了法院的审前会议。这是一个简短的事务。整个过程不超过半小时。
Hello everyone, my lawyer attended my pre-trial conference today. It was a short affair. Was done in just less than half an hour.

事情经过是:法院给予我们如下的期限。
What happened was we were given the following timelines from the courts:

我们必须在8月1日呈递我们的抗辩书。总理将随着在8月22日回复我们的抗辩(假设他有回复的话。)
We were told to submit our Affidavit by 1 August. The prime minister will then submit his reply (if any) by 22 August.
抗辩书是以宣誓书或事实声明的形式递交,必须进行宣誓的。

An Affidavit is a written declaration or statement of facts, under oath.
我们也必须在9月4日前递交我们书写的呈堂证据(双方),我们将于9月11日做出回复。
We are to also file our written submissions (from both sides) of the evidence we have by 4 September and our subsequent replies to these on 11 September.

法院将于9月18日进行总结判决。这将是一个闭门全日的庭审。
The hearing for the summary judgment will be held on 18 September. It will be a full-day hearing which will be held closed-door in the Chambers.

我的律师将抗辩反对总结判决。我们希望能够获得一个有利于我们的结果,那就是我们可以在法庭进行辩护我的立场。请为我们、新加坡和真相公诸于世而祈祷。
My lawyer, M Ravi, will fight to resist the summary judgment. We hope for a favourable outcome where we would be able to go on trial to defend my position. Please pray for us, and for Singapore, for the truth to be known.

第二场法院审前会议将于在9月26日下午2.30分举行。
A second Pre-trial Conference will be held on 26 September at 2.30pm.

我再一次感谢那些今天无法进入法院(包括我本人在内)听审的老朋友们和新朋友们。我非常诚挚的感激您们每一个人密切关注着这个案件的进展和确保事情是对我完好的。
Thank you to friends, old and new, who had turned up to support today even though you couldn’t enter the Chambers. (I couldn’t too!) I very much appreciate you and everyone for keeping watch on this and making sure that things are fine on my side.

朋友们,我一切都很好。我对所有的事情都采取积极的态度。这是因为我知道,您们已经尽力为此说出什么是正确的!这是因为我知道,我们是紧密团结在一块儿!我们为正义而斗争!真相将会被揭露!
I am doing well and am taking things positively. There is strength in knowing that you’ve done your best to speak for what is right, and in knowing that we are standing in solidarity together in this. Our fight for justice and truth will prevail.

我会继续为我们的公积金而发言。我搜索了几个政府网站有关把我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股的信息。在今年5月份政府删除了所有这些有关的信息。但是,在今年6月份,政府突然间来个大转弯,最终承认了我们的公积金是投资在GIC和淡马锡控股的事实。
I will continue to speak up for our CPF. By May this year, the government deleted all evidence that I’ve traced of how our CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings from the government websites. But by June this year, the government suddenly did an about turn and finally admitted the truth – that our CPF is indeed invested in the GIC.

在今5月份,GIC还坚持说,不知道他们是在动用我们的公积金进行投资。但是,在今年6月份,他们也同样的进行了大转弯,承认了他们是动用了我们的公积金进行投资的事实。
By May this year, the GIC still told us that they do not know if they use our CPF to invest. But by June this year, they also did an about turn and admitted the truth – that they do use our CPF to invest.

当您发现GIC董事会是由总理、两位副总理和其他部长组成的,实际上就是政府。那么,你的问题是:为什么政府没有告诉我们的公积金是投资在GIC的事实真相和到今年5月份还继续告诉我们不知道GIC是动用了我们的公积金进行投资?
When you find out that the Board of Directors on the GIC are made up of the prime minister, deputy prime ministers and other ministers, or actually, the government, then you question – why was it the government never told us the truth that our CPF is invested in the GIC and still even told us that they don’t know about this all the way until May this year?

为什么他们要在今年6月承认这个事实?
Why did they suddenly admit to the truth in June this year?

在今年6月份,淡马锡控股也辩称他们并没有投资在我们的公积金。但是,这是否说明他们过去没有这么做呢?事实是,一本由前财政部官员撰写的书已经暴露了这个事实!——淡马锡控股是动用了我们的公积金。那么,他们是什么时候停止咱这么做的?政府或淡马锡控股是否会告诉我们事实真相?
In June this year, the Temasek Holdings also claimed that they do not invest using our CPF. But does this mean that they used to? Indeed, a book by an ex-director of the Ministry of Finance exposed the truth – Temasek Holdings did use our CPF. Then when did they stop? Will they or the government tell us the truth?

这个问题的事实已经越来越浑浊了。在过去的两个月,很多真相被揭露了。政府最终必须承认这些真相。长期以来,每当我们提出要求给予确实的答案时,他们从来就不愿意给予明确的回答!
The facts of the matter is that things are getting murkier and murkier. Over these past two months, many truths are finally revealed. The government is finally admitting to the truths. For a long time, we asked for answers and they never wanted to give them to us.

在今年6月份,终于我们知道了我们的公积金是投资在GIC。
Finally, in June this year, we now know our CPF is invested in the GIC.

在今年6月份,最终政府第一次揭露了同意我们估计约85%的新加坡人是无法达到公积金存款最低额的要求的。同时,55%的新加坡人必须动用我们的公积金普通户头购买政府组屋。
Finally, in July this year, the government revealed information for the first time which allows us to estimate that 85% of Singaporeans cannot even meet the CPF Minimum Sum in cash, and that we have to use 55% of our CPF Ordinary Account to pay for the HDB flats.

许文远也第一次揭露,政府控制建屋局建设施工进度和政府组屋的价格。从2008年到去年,每年土地的成本增加了18%,政府组屋的转售价每年长幅9.1%。但是, 我们的收入增长只有5.3%。
In Parliament, Khaw Boon Wan also revealed for the first time that the government controls the construction programme and they also control the prices of the HDB flats. From 2008 to last year, land costs grew by 18.2% every year and HDB resale flats grew by 9.1% every year, but our incomes grew by only 5.3%.

我想,您现在可以看到事情真相是那么的可怕。政府拿我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股,支付给我们在公积金户头的回报是那么的低。然后,迫使我们使用自己的公积金去购买公共住屋。我们却支付高利息还给政府。
I hope you can see what’s terribly wrong by now. The government takes our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings and pays us low returns then makes us buy public flats with our own CPF, and charge a higher interest on it.

既然他们给予我们在公积金户头的利息是低的,控制了组屋价格,又把组屋价格操高,接着,让使用自己的公积金购买组屋并支付高利息。假设我们失去了我们的公积金,那么,这里实际发生的情况是什么?
Since they give us low interests on our CPF, controls the prices of flats and make them high, then charge a higher interest to make us buy the flats with our CPF, if we are losing our CPF, then what is really going on here?

假设政府是事实上动用我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股,那么,到底他们动用了多少数额?他们在动用我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股后赚取了多少回报后有没有归还给我们?现在是政府必须归还这些投资回报的时候了!
If the government indeed uses our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings, then how much exactly did they take, how much did they earn from us which they did not return? It’s time they return us our money now!

今天85% 的新加坡人无法达到最低存款额的要求。新加坡人是世界上人民没有足够的退休金退休的国家之一。许多新加坡人是无法退休的。他们必须去当临时工和清洁工人之类的低微工作。
Today, 85% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum, Singaporeans have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world and many Singaporeans cannot retire, and have to work in odd-jobs and as menial labour, as cleaners etc.

今天新加坡是世界上生活费最昂贵的国家。然而,新加坡人也是发展中国家里赚取最低薪金的国家和世界上赚取最低的公积金回报利息的国家。
Singapore is the most expensive country in the world today. Yet Singaporeans earn one of the lowest wages among the developed countries and earn the lowest CPF interest rates in the world.

朋友们,一些事情是不对的!而且非常错误的!
Something is not quite right, my friends. Something is very, very wrong.

新加坡人民需要改变。现在已经不是我们只是感到愤怒而希望情况自己能够改变!除非我们争取实现改变,否则,情况是不会自己改变的!
Change needs to come to Singapore. It’s no longer enough for us to be angry and hope that things will change. Things will not change, unless we make change happen.

我的朋友们,假设我们是要生活在一个受到保护和照顾的公正和更加平等的社会,那么,这是我们必须做些事情的时候了。我们知道自己需要的是什么?——一个能够让年轻人和老年人可以生活在活跃和快乐的社会。一个能够让我们感觉到政府是在保护我们的社会。
My friends, if we want to live in a fairer and more equal society where we will be protected and taken care of, then it’s time we do something about it. We know what we want – a society where our young and old can flourish, and where we can live happy lives, knowing that we are protected by our government.

假设您已经晓得整个问题的症结所在,这是我们必须坚强起来的时候了。这是必须需要拿出勇气、自豪和站起来的时候。为了我们能够真正获得自由和受到保护、为了我们的权利和自由,我们必须站起来共同进行斗争的时刻。
If you realise now what the problem is, it’s time to be brave, it’s time to be strong. It’s take to have courage, take pride and stand up. For if we truly want to be free and protected, then for our rights and our freedom, it’s time we stand up and fight, together.

这是我们手挽手共同实现改变现状的时刻。我们通过改变现状实现我们要看到的改变。
It’s time for us to join hands and make things happen. To make change happen, by being the change we want to see.

谢谢大家。我将会继续战斗,我将会继续和大家一道战斗!为了我们自己、家庭和孩子们的有一个美好的未来,我会和你们在共同的道路上一起看到这个改变。
Thank you, my friends. I will continue to fight, and I will continue to fight with you, and you with me, in our own ways. Together, we will see this through, and see change come, for the better, for ourselves, our families and our children.

朋友们 ,团结起来,让我们共同努力实现改变。
Together, my friends. Let’s do it.

FreeGreatPicture.com-21619-gesture-class-material

Today, At The Pre-Trial Conference Of Lee Hsien Loong’s Case Against CPF Blogger Roy Ngerng

FreeGreatPicture.com-29418-gesture

Hello everyone, my lawyer attended my pre-trial conference today. It was a short affair. Was done in just less than half an hour.

What happened was we were given the following timelines from the courts:

We were told to submit our Affidavit by 1 August. The prime minister will then submit his reply (if any) by 22 August.

An Affidavit is a written declaration or statement of facts, under oath.

We are to also file our written submissions (from both sides) of the evidence we have by 4 September and our subsequent replies to these on 11 September.

The hearing for the summary judgment will be held on 18 September. It will be a full-day hearing which will be held closed-door in the Chambers.

My lawyer, M Ravi, will fight to resist the summary judgment. We hope for a favourable outcome where we would be able to go on trial to defend my position. Please pray for us, and for Singapore, for the truth to be known.

A second Pre-trial Conference will be held on 26 September at 2.30pm.

Thank you to friends, old and new, who had turned up to support today even though you couldn’t enter the Chambers. (I couldn’t too!) I very much appreciate you and everyone for keeping watch on this and making sure that things are fine on my side.

I am doing well and am taking things positively. There is strength in knowing that you’ve done your best to speak for what is right, and in knowing that we are standing in solidarity together in this. Our fight for justice and truth will prevail.

I will continue to speak up for our CPF. By May this year, the government deleted all evidence that I’ve traced of how our CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings from the government websites. But by June this year, the government suddenly did an about turn and finally admitted the truth – that our CPF is indeed invested in the GIC.

By May this year, the GIC still told us that they do not know if they use our CPF to invest. But by June this year, they also did an about turn and admitted the truth – that they do use our CPF to invest.

When you find out that the Board of Directors on the GIC are made up of the prime minister, deputy prime ministers and other ministers, or actually, the government, then you question – why was it the government never told us the truth that our CPF is invested in the GIC and still even told us that they don’t know about this all the way until May this year?

Why did they suddenly admit to the truth in June this year?

In June this year, the Temasek Holdings also claimed that they do not invest using our CPF. But does this mean that they used to? Indeed, a book by an ex-director of the Ministry of Finance exposed the truth – Temasek Holdings did use our CPF. Then when did they stop? Will they or the government tell us the truth?

The facts of the matter is that things are getting murkier and murkier. Over these past two months, many truths are finally revealed. The government is finally admitting to the truths. For a long time, we asked for answers and they never wanted to give them to us.

Finally, in June this year, we now know our CPF is invested in the GIC. Finally, in July this year, the government revealed information for the first time which allows us to estimate that 85% of Singaporeans cannot even meet the CPF Minimum Sum in cash, and that we have to use 55% of our CPF Ordinary Account to pay for the HDB flats.

In Parliament, Khaw Boon Wah also revealed for the first time that the government controls the construction programme and they also control the prices of the HDB flats. From 2008 to last year, land costs grew by 18.2% every year and HDB resale flats grew by 9.1% every year, but our incomes grew by only 5.3%.

I hope you can see what’s terribly wrong by now. The government takes our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings and pays us low returns then makes us buy public flats with our own CPF, and charge a higher interest on it. Since they give us low interests on our CPF, controls the prices of flats and make them high, then charge a higher interest to make us buy the flats with our CPF, if we are losing our CPF, then what is really going on here?

If the government indeed uses our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings, then how much exactly did they take, how much did they earn from us which they did not return? It’s time they return us our money now!

Today, 85% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum, Singaporeans have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world and many Singaporeans cannot retire, and have to work in odd-jobs and as menial labour, as cleaners etc.

Singapore is the most expensive country in the world today. Yet Singaporeans earn one of the lowest wages among the developed countries and earn the lowest CPF interest rates in the world.

Something is not quite right, my friends. Something is very, very wrong.

Change needs to come to Singapore. It’s no longer enough for us to be angry and hope that things will change. Things will not change, unless we make change happen.

My friends, if we want to live in a fairer and more equal society where we will be protected and taken care of, then it’s time we do something about it. We know what we want – a society where our young and old can flourish, and where we can live happy lives, knowing that we are protected by our government.

If you realise now what the problem is, it’s time to be brave, it’s time to be strong. It’s take to have courage, take pride and stand up. For if we truly want to be free and protected, then for our rights and our freedom, it’s time we stand up and fight, together.

It’s time for us to join hands and make things happen. To make change happen, by being the change we want to see.

Thank you, my friends. I will continue to fight, and I will continue to fight with you, and you with me, in our own ways. Together, we will see this through, and see change come, for the better, for ourselves, our families and our children.

Together, my friends. Let’s do it.

Originally posted on my Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider/posts/10152301183064141

FreeGreatPicture.com-21619-gesture-class-material

Lee Hsien Loong’s Affidavit (10 July 2014) For The CPF Case Against Roy Ngerng

Affidavit of Lee Hsien Loong

Update On CPF Case Defamation Suit Against Lee Hsien Loong

Hello everyone, just a quick update, my pre-trial conference will be held tomorrow, on 17 July, at 2.30pm at Chamber 4A at the Supreme Court (It was postponed from 4 July). It will be a closed-door session where the court will give both sides the timeline to submit our affidavit.

The pre-trial will be closed-door. I understand that some media and supporters might be coming down. It wouldn’t be possible to go into the chamber for this pre-trial though.

The prime minister has filed for a summary judgment, which means that he wants the court to pass the judgment without going through a court trial, and then go straight to asking the courts to award the damages. The court hearing will be held on 18 September at 10am. My lawyer, M Ravi, will fight the case for me and to resist the summary judgment.

Thank you everyone for the support and encouragement! Let’s continue to join hands to fight for transparency and accountability on our CPF!