It is Time for You to Inspire and be Our Heroes


A college student wrote this letter and handed it to me at the last rally that I spoke at during the election. I did not have time to post it up before cooling-off day.

Thank you for your kind words, as well as trust and confidence in me. I am grateful and honoured.

You and your friends are the future leaders of Singapore. I spoke up because I felt that as a member of our society, it is a responsibility and duty to do so, to not only help ourselves but the people around us.

I believe that we have to be honest and true to ourselves, and therefore I spoke up.

This election has taught me many things. As much as I have a vision and a belief for our country’s future, it might not be something the people in our country are ready for. It might not be the vision that our countrymen want now.

Of course, the unequal playing field played a part. But as individuals who are part of the system, how we can bring about a shared vision for our society is also a challenge that we have to look at, for the opposition as well as for Singaporeans.

I will be honest with you. Did I make mistakes? Yes, I did. As much as I told myself that I was not angry, perhaps I was. I spent 3 years frantically pushing out writings after writings, not realising that I myself had lost touch with the “middle-ground”.

In spite of the kind advice that was offered to me to reach out to a wider audience, I was stubborn and did not want to evolve in my writings.

But this is the beauty of hindsight, where only after the election did I realise where I could have done better.

You see, my awakening came about 3 years ago when I started researching on the Singapore system and my writings reflect the shock that I feel about the Singapore system. As such, my eagerness to convey my thoughts ran ahead of me.

Was it wrong? It wasn’t. But it meant that my writings got lost among the large populace. It meant I became like any ranter. It meant that for the “middle-ground”, I became destabilising.

From how things have panned out over the election, I have learnt that speaking up is a virtue we must hold on to. But how we listen, and adjust ourselves, so that we do not only listen to our own voices but that of others, so that all our voices are communicated across to one another, is an important learning I have made.

For if we were to criticise the PAP for not having listened to the people, what folly we have made if we ourselves were to do the very same as the people we criticise?

What then makes us better? It does not. And this is why the voters have spoken.

In our anger and shock, many of us blame the new citizens, the 70%, etc. But I have decided to look at myself instead. Everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps we would first need to reflect on ourselves before we put the finger on someone else.

Perhaps if we are to understand how it is we can improve, will we see to it another day will come.

I thank you for your letter. It is letters like yours and many others that lets me know that at least what I have done have helped and mattered to some of you.

It does not matter that I have lost, or even if I could have won. At the end of the day, I have tried and made a difference in the lives of some, as others have made theirs in mine.

It is now your time to shine, as well as that of you and your friends. I am only one person and what I do can only inspire a few. Imagine the might of you and the many who let their voices be heard, the many people whose lives the many of you will touch. And how many you will inspire.

This is not about the PAP or the opposition. This is about what matters as people and what we can do for one another.

Sometimes, people don’t realise they have a voice, or fear to use their voice. It is up to some of us to guide the rest. I am glad that my voice has opened up yours. Thank you for your letter.

But let us continue to open up more. Let you be the voice that others will learn from.

I wish the PAP well, as well as the opposition. It is a learning process for all of us. The PAP played their game well and we have to respect them. Those in the opposition stood for their beliefs and we have to respect them. Singaporeans voted with their reason and we have to respect that.

Yesterday, I inspired you. Today, you will inspire others. Tomorrow, more will inspire.

Your journey is just beginning. I look forward to the day when you are on stage as you speak and light up the crowd, and as I stand below and tear to your words.

There is no one hero. Because if only all of us would know, we are all heroes. If only all of us would realise.

Be your own hero. Be my voice, as I was yours.

Let us stand united, let us hope for a better future with the power of our voice.

I await the day where I stand among heroes, where all of us will inspire our own future.

I await the day when you will be my hero.

How the Opposition can Plan for the Next General Election 2019


An international media interviewed me to ask me for my thoughts on the Singapore General Election 2015. Here are my comments.

The election results are a combination of how the PAP has played a strategy based on fear-based ideology, coupled with a stronger opposition which ironically turned people in the opposite direction.

The stronger opposition allowed the opposition to pit themselves against the ruling party as a credible alternative. Instead, the PAP adopted the counter-strategy to question the track record of the opposition. An opposition without the possibility of forming government could not persuade voters of a track record.

The more thorough and well thought out policies from the opposition, as much as they were proposed to help Singaporeans, was also weakened by the PAP’s rhetoric of higher taxes, even as much as the opposition outlined that current revenue and taxes would be sufficient for their proposed proposals.

As such, the PAP’s main line of campaigning, on the use of fear, effectively turned voter sentiment against the opposition, more than create support for the PAP.

From this, one can observe that a need to read voter sentiment is a crucial skill that opposition politicians have to develop, so that their campaign strategies can be more effectively framed and aligned with the voters.

For one, a voter population which have been influenced by ideas of stability and certain conservative values mean that the opposition has to learn to develop their policies and communicate these ideas to the voters along such lines.

Ironically, as much as the criticism has been heaped on the PAP for not being in touch with the ground, and which the PAP therefore explained that they would learn to communicate their policies better, the same learning can be applied for the opposition.

The key question for the opposition is how they can become more in touch with the broad spectrum of a middle ground which values stability and how policies which benefit the voters can be better explained to them.

For the opposition, it also means coordinating their strategies so that their strategies do not come into contradictions with one another. As much as the opposition parties see themselves as diverse, to the voter population, they look at the opposition as one commonality, against the PAP.

As such, it would require the opposition to coordinate their strategies and somewhat formulate a strategy that would be able to effectively counter the PAP’s rhetoric against them.

Also, it can also be observed that voters expect a certain quality and strength among the opposition, which therefore also mean the opposition would be required to consolidate, in the face of voter expectations.

It would require the opposition to fine tune their selection of their candidates. Instead of contesting all seats for the sake of doing so, parties would need to carefully consider whether they have the best candidates to do so, and if not, to streamline their resources accordingly. For the unique scenario that Singapore’s elections are framed, it is not to provide voters with a choice to vote, but to rather provide voters with a perceived credible slate so that voters will want to vote.

If this means not contesting all the seats so that there are higher chances to put in credible candidates, then this might be a more viable strategy.

However, this also depends on the opposition and their willingness to coordinate such a strategy, when other considerations come into play, such as party visibility and longevity.

For the sake of Singapore and the sustainability of the democratic system in Singapore, the opposition will be required to read voter sentiment more astutely and to strategise accordingly to first be able to place more opposition politicians in parliament, before plans for expansion are considered.

Strategic and quality placement of candidates would be more well-suited for Singapore’s politics, rather than an exertion of quantitative expansion which might be counterproductive.

What Happened at Singapore’s General Election 2015?


In this article, I will write about my thoughts about the General Election 2015, as an observer, a person, and not as a politician.

Some of my observations are gathered from a read of other postings.

The election results are surprising. This is a conclusion that both sides, the PAP as well as the opposition, have acknowledged. Some people have pointed out that many PAP politicians have said that they were “humbled”. Indeed, the results of the election is a humbling experience, not just for the PAP but for the opposition as well.

What happened, is a common question that is being asked. Many of us among the opposition were saying how the results do not make sense.

It is clear that socioeconomically, many Singaporeans feel constrained by the high cost of living, and coupled with the depressed wages have caused many Singaporeans to feel stressed up and unhappy.

The general sentiment has been that the votes will swing away from the PAP to the opposition. In fact, I had believed that the votes would go down to a 50-50 split between the PAP and the opposition. This did not happen.

Several factors play a part, key among them how the PAP’s conservative rhetoric played out to great effect and also, how the opposition had framed the issues.

Of course, the typically-assumed factors which caused the swing would be on how the sympathy votes from Lee Kuan Yew’s death has aided the PAP, the SG50 feel-good celebrations as well as targeted policy tweaks such as the Pioneer Generation Package and slight enhancements to the CPF system for the elderly, and the unique upgrading elements such as building a swimming pool would have assisted the PAP. The promise of the construction of polyclinics also allowed certain segments of Singaporeans to perceive greater accessibility to healthcare and therefore gave the PAP more votes as well.

The question though for the opposition is, why in spite of policies that were well-intended to benefit Singaporeans, did not receive the support of Singaporeans?

Almost all the opposition parties have proposed minimum wage to increase the wages of low- and middle-income Singaporeans, and to increase health and education subsidies and also strong job protection as well as unemployment benefits to protect Singaporeans who have lost their jobs. But why did voters not bite?

This is where the PAP’s usual rhetoric played a crucial role. Where the opposition had tried to illustrate how these benefits could be conferred onto Singaporeans without the need to increase revenue or taxes from Singaporeans, this did not sink in with Singaporeans.

Instead, many were swayed by the PAP’s belief that there would be a need to increase taxes.

Many reasons explain why such a belief was pervasive. First, the PAP’s propaganda of higher spending equating to higher tax has taken root among many Singaporeans. Second, the complicated tax system makes it difficult for Singaporeans to understand, even as much as some economists perceive the CPF as a tax and Singaporeans pay as much as 8 times more indirect tax and CPF than personal income tax. The point here? Singaporeans already pay more than enough tax, and the money that we pay into the CPF and the taxes combined would be more than enough to finance any much-needed increase in expenditure to protect Singaporeans.

Third, and most crucial, the socioeconomic lives of Singaporeans, as much as this was what the opposition wanted to campaign to protect, is also key to the voters’ decision-making.

For a populace where the poverty rate has been estimated to have increased to as high as 30%, and where the lives of Singaporeans are squeezed, many are too frightful to choose an alternative scenario. Many are unwilling to accept increased expenditure, for fear of making their lives even harder.

Ironically, the very policies that the opposition wants to implement to protect Singaporeans are the very ones the voters rejected, due to a combination of a lack of understanding of what these policies entail and how these policies were not articulated in a manner which aligned with the vast majority of the voters.

Most importantly, voters did not understand how the policies would benefit them but were more clearly fearful of how costs would increase for them and affect them even more adversely.

The PAP’s monopoly on government and the opposition’s inability to be in government also caused Singaporeans to doubt that the opposition has thought through their policies clearly. This is in spite of how among the opposition are former civil servants and academics as well as economists who would have among them the expertise to do so.

What perhaps then is key is how the opposition has portrayed themselves and who they were trying to reach out to.

For many opposition parties, they might have appeared too intellectual. This could be where the PAP’s Manifesto wins with its motherhood statements. Voters do not need to know what policies you have in store for them. They only need to know how you can make them believe you care for them, regardless.

And this is a mistake that many among the opposition could have made. We tried our darnest to explain the policies, not realising that this only reached out to 20% of the population who firmly voted for the opposition yesterday.

But for the large majority, the policies were lost on them. Instead, they feared having to pay more.

Indeed, fear became a key theme on how Singaporeans voted. Just the day before the election, the PAP sprung the surprise of talking about terrorism and instability in Malaysia in their political broadcast, which would have a key effect in grounding many voters towards voting for the PAP.

The improved strength of the opposition, for the first time in Singapore after many decades also caused an irrational fear among voters of the possibility of losing this instability. As much as strength can be counted on as a measure of aptitude, such strength became a crippling factor for a population used to being fearmongered at.

It is not by chance that The Worker’s Party has therefore played so safe over the last few elections, because it had read the psyche of voters very carefully. With a well-defined strategy of positioning a liberal-leftist Manifesto to a smaller widely-read population and playing a more stable politics on the larger landscape, this was how The Worker’s Party has managed to sustain its influence in a carefully well-balanced strategy.

It could perhaps be seen by the voters that the eagerness that the other opposition parties had presented were too strong for their comfort, and therefore the voters back off. If you ask me, it’s a pity. Our fear caused us to let go of what would have been potentially beneficial for us.

This is where you have to congratulate the PAP on a well-oiled fear-based strategy and one that has caused Singaporeans to be so fearful of making ends meet that they would rather choose more of the same, than be willing to take risks.

Finally, certain figures among the opposition such as myself could have taken some Singaporeans by surprise and might have even caused discomfort. Figures like myself might come across controversial and place voters in a condurum. Eventually, I managed to convince some voters of my sincerity after my political broadcast was shown on cooling-off day, which resulted in me being the 5th most searched personality. But this came too little, too late, many voters whom by then had made up their minds who to vote for.

The presence of several controversial personalities could thus have added to the uncertainty among voters who were taken aback by the sudden strength of the opposition, and therefore caused some to repel away.

What could have been done better?

If anything, The Worker’s Party was the only party which read the ground right and managed to retain most of their existing seats. Emulating themselves as a stable party won them the middle ground supporters.

As much as a select pool of Singaporeans, the majority online, are ready for a more intellectual discourse on sociopolitics, the vast majority are not, or do not have the time to be engaged on these issues. As such, the opposition was lost on them.

The presence of many supporters at the rally nonetheless show the entrenchment of such supporters towards the opposition, but they did not unfortunately reflect the broader segment of Singaporeans.

If this is any indication, it means that the opposition parties would need to fundamentally relook their campaigning objectives and who they should try to reach out to.

How do they continue to rile up the shrinking liberal intellectual class, while broadening their scope to take into account the majority which wants to be assured of stability? How do they try to skillfully master this balance to be able to convince voters?

This requires much party discipline and focus, which The Worker’s Party has displayed, and which the Singapore Democratic Party had tried to emulate and have effectively done so to some extent, which got them to become the second-best performing opposition party, after The Worker’s Party but this was still not enough.

This is not to say that the PAP did an excellent job at marketing itself. If anything, the swing in votes towards the PAP did not result so much because of how the PAP has framed its campaigning, but more in terms of how fear has turned Singaporeans away from the opposition instead.

The key success in how PAP’s campaign worked therefore is how it was able to imbue fear into Singaporeans. But is this a sustainable long-term approach? I do not think so.

But what are the larger sociopolitical effects that could happen. With the PAP gaining a firmer foothold, would this result in them continuing with the further clamp down of their critics and alternative online news site? Will Singaporeans see a further marginalisation of their rights?

For a PAP which would be put paid to believe that Singaporeans would tolerate their current antics might mean that the PAP would believe that they could continue with their current mode of working.

I would personally hope that the PAP would use this renewed mandate to fundamentally shift its governing approach to one which becomes kinder and less punitive. But I do not know if a PAP used to a track record of doing otherwise for the past 50 years would be ready for this, especially with how it had conducted itself this election.

The only hope could lie in a change of prime minister, to put in place one who is more moderate and who would take a more centrist approach.

In the end, this election would have shown that Singaporeans are not ready for a more progressive sociopolitical landscape, and some politicians might need to evaluate if their current method of working is still relevant to Singaporeans and if they would change gears or withdraw from the scene.

My worry is that if there are no fundamental changes in policies over the next few years, we will see a much more divisive landscape develop as well as a more disempowered and weakened citizenry.

I ran for election because I hope that we could go into parliament to better the lives of Singaporeans.

At the end of the day, it does not matter who goes into parliament. But what matters is that the people in parliament would put their ear to the ground and would make policies that put Singaporeans at the heart of the matter.

This election is, in a way, a wake-up call to the opposition to better strategise themselves and ironically, where we have said that the PAP has lost touch with the ground, some among the opposition have also fallen folly to this mistake, and have not aligned ourselves to the wider majority.

Whether or not the opposition has another chance at the next election would depend on whether they have learnt from the ground-shaking election this time round.

But for Singaporeans as well, it would depend on whether we would have the courage to confront ourselves and not be swayed yet again by fear. I believe many Singaporeans would be kicking ourselves over the results but it is too late to cry over spilled milk.

What would be more important would be to look at how we can involve ourselves, so that at the next election, we would be able to bring about a government that would be more in line with our vision for our country.

Get to Know Everything about The Reform Party Ang Mo Kio GRC Team Here. Vote for Us.


Tomorrow is cooling-off day, where campaigning is not allowed during this election.

To continue to read more about The Reform Party team which is contesting in the Ang Mo Kio GRC, you can go to our campaign website at

You can also go to my Facebook page at Roy Ngerng Yi Ling to get more updates on our Ang Mo Kio GRC team.

Finally, I have compiled a series of articles on this blog, which summarises the key issues in Singapore.

You can look through the latest articles to learn more about what is happening in Singapore. It will give you a better idea of who to vote for.

Vote Opposition to protect your future. Vote Reform Party for Ang Mo Kio GRC.

Thank you!


How the PAP Tried to Hide What They are Doing With Your CPF

This is a very important article.

It shows you what the PAP has been doing with your CPF for the past 34 years and how the PAP has been trying to hide what it has been doing.

It is a short article with pictures. Please read.

In 2001, Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as saying, “GIC does not use CPF funds“.

He said: “I want to clarify that there is no direct link between the GIC and the CPF.”

Screenshot (45)

In 2006, Lee Kuan Yew said that, “there is no connection between GIC’s rate of return and the interest paid on CPF accounts“.


Screenshot (49)

In 2007, the Worker’s Party’s Low Thia Kiang asked in Parliament, “Does the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest?”

Then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said, “The answer is no.”

Low Thia Kiang Ng Eng Hen GIC CPF

In spite of the PAP’s denials, there were many rumours that the CPF is actually being taken by the PAP to invest in GIC and Temasek Holdings.

I wanted to look for evidence for myself to see if the GIC is really invested in the CPF, or not.

I trawled through the government websites to find out.

In 2012, I finally had the answer.

I found out that “CPF monies are invested in bonds.

CPF monies are invested in bonds.

These bonds are “invested in reserves“.

These bonds are invested in reserves.

Our reserves are managed by three agencies – the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Temasek Holdings (Temasek) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Who manages our reserves

I finally found out the truth – Singaporeans’ CPF is indeed invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings.

But I could not find one single website which had this information. I had to look through 4 different government websites before I was able to trace the information.

Why was the information not made available on one website?

In 2006, Lee Kuan Yew said that, “there is no connection between GIC’s rate of return and the interest paid on CPF accounts”.

He also said: “The GIC invests the Government’s reserves”.

And that: “The CPF invests members’ savings only in absolutely risk-free Singapore government bonds.”

But the truth is that Lee Kuan Yew knew that the government bonds are invested in the reserves, which are invested by the GIC. If so, why did he said that there is “no connection” between GIC and CPF?

In May last year, I was sued.

I was told to take down three articles where I had shown the evidence above of how the CPF is indeed being invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings.

After I was told to take down the articles, the information suddenly disappeared from the government websites.

The PAP changed and deleted the information on these websites.

There are 2 specific changes.

First, the PAP initially said: “All the proceeds from the Government’s borrowing must therefore be invested in reserves”.

However, they removed the phrase, “in reserves”. This prevented Singaporeans from knowing that the SSGS (and thereby the CPF) is actually invested in the reserves.

What’s more, the whole PDF document which contained this statement was taken down, edited to remove this phrase and then uploaded onto a separate link.



Second, the PAP initially said: “Our reserves are managed by three agencies – the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC), Temasek Holdings (Temasek) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

But they changed it to: “The Government’s assets are mainly managed by GIC Private Limited. The Government also places deposits with the MAS; in turn, MAS as a statutory board holds its own assets on its balance sheet. In addition, the Government is the sole equity shareholder of Temasek Holdings (Temasek). Temasek owns the assets on its balance sheet.

The PAP completely changed the information. It became impossible to know that our reserves (and our CPF) are managed by GIC, Temasek Holdings and the MAS.

Removed reserves managed by

At first, it was clear that the reserves (and our CPF) are managed by the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings.

However, the PAP changed and deleted the information, and thus prevented Singaporeans from knowing that the reserves (and the CPF) are actually being managed by the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings.

These two key changes that the PAP made thus effectively concealed the information that Singaporeans’ CPF monies are being invested in the three agencies, from Singaporeans themselves.

I was shocked to find out that the PAP had altered the information.

But even though the PAP tried to hide, they could not hide for too long.

After I was sued, the PAP finally admitted that they have been taking our CPF to invest in the GIC, for the first time in the past 15 to 20 years.

There was no where to run.

Singaporeans finally know the truth:

CPF How It Works cropped

However, Temasek Holdings continued to deny that it has taken Singaporeans’ CPF to invest.

(Interestingly, The Straits Times article has now been removed.)

Temasek doesn't invest or manage CPF savings

Temasek Holdings also has the audacity to say: “Temasek does not manage CPF savings (which are managed by the Board of the Central Provident Fund), Government surpluses, or Singapore’s Official Foreign Reserves (which are managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore).

Temasek does not manage CPF savings

But I found out that the Temasek Holdings did.

In a book written by Linda Low who used to work in the Ministry of Finance, she said: “since the late 1970s, CPF’s reserves as part of public sector surplus have been co-mingled with other investments either domestically by Temasek Holding Ltd or abroad by the GIC”.

Developmental States Relevancy, Redundancy Or Reconfiguration - Google Books

Last year, at the Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, I asked Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam: “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?

Mr Tharman said: “Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at the time of inception … about $400 million worth of assets in the form of a set of companies.

(The Channel NewsAsia article of the transcript of this exchange has also been removed.)

Screenshot (90)

However, in 1982, Ong Teng Cheong revealed that these companies were built using our CPF.

He said: “CPF 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.”

Screenshot (91)

Which means that “CPF savings” were used for the “capital formation” of these “companies” which were “transferred” to Temasek Holdings.

So Temasek Holdings did use our CPF:

Temasek Holdings Did Invest CPF

Also, it was revealed in the book, “Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia”, that, “Temasek Holdings has acknowledged that it can access the reserves” because “In April 2004, a constitutional amendment that 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 CPF

The reserves also come from government bonds, which come from Singaporeans’ CPF.

Which means Temasek Holdings still has access to Singaporeans’ CPF.

So, Temasek Holdings has been taking our CPF to invest as well. But they denied it.

Worse still, Temasek Holdings says: “As an exempt private company, Temasek is not required to disclose financial information.

FAQs - About Temasek - Temasek (2)

This is even though Temasek Holdings said that it “recognise(s) that the ultimate shareholders of Temasek are the past, present and future generations of Singapore.

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

If so, why does it not it disclose its financial information to Singaporeans?

Why does Temasek Holdings hide that it has taken Singaporeans’ CPF to use? Why does Temasek Holdings hide how it manages Singaporeans’ money from Singaporeans?

Yet, the PAP tried to make it look like it is not linked to the GIC.

The PAP claims that it “plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC.”

Government plays no role in GIC

The GIC also says that, “The Government … neither directs nor interferes in the company’s investment decisions.”

Government does not inteferes in GIC


However, this is the GIC’s board of directors.

GIC Board of Directors cropped

This (was) the government.

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

Parliament Raymond Lim

Yes, the GIC’s board of directors is also made up of the government, namely the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers.

Then, can it be possible that, “The Government … neither directs nor interferes in the company’s investment decisions”?

Also, can it be possible that, “The Government plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC.”?

But not only that, the GIC also kept changing its information after being found out.

Today, the GIC also said that, “It receives funds from the government … without regard to the sources, e.g. proceeds from securities issued, government surpluses.

GIC has no regard to sources of funds

But this is untrue. The GIC used to know.

The GIC used to say: “The Government’s financial assets … are mainly managed by the GIC.

It also said that there are two “fundamental sources of the Singapore Government’s funds” – “Sustained balance of payments surpluses and accumulated national savings”.

The “national savings” include Singaporeans’ CPF.

FAQs (1)

Yes, not only has the PAP been changing the information on the government websites, the GIC has also altered information on their websites.

So the GIC knows that it is using Singaporeans’ CPF.

Indeed, it was later found out that the GIC knows that it is using Singaporeans’ CPF. Then the GIC changed its information yet again.

In the past the GIC said: “GIC manages the Government’s reserves, but as to how the funds from CPF monies flow into reserves which could then be managed by either MAS, GIC or Temasek, this is not made explicit to us.

photo 2 (17)

However, by the end of June 2014, the GIC changed it to: “GIC, along with MAS, manages the proceeds from the Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) that are issued and guaranteed by the government which CPF board has invested in with the CPF monies. So while the CPF monies are not directly transferred to GIC for management, one of the sources of funds that goes into the Government’s assets managed by GIC is the proceeds from SSGS.


The GIC tried to change the information to look like it knows that it is using Singaporeans’ CPF, without actually knowing.

Do you buy this?

The fact of the matter is that the PAP knows that it has taken all of our CPF to invest in the GIC.

Then why does the PAP keep pretending that it does not know?

The PAP says: “GIC is a fund manager, not an owner of the assets. It merely receives funds from Government for long-term management, without regard to the sources of Government funds, e.g. SGS, SSGS, government surpluses. The Government’s mandate to GIC is to manage the assets in a single pool, on an unencumbered basis, with the aim of achieving good long-term returns. The Government does not specify to GIC the sources of the assets that are placed with it.

GIC is a fund manager, not an owner of the assets.

But the truth?

The was what the PAP said: “CPF monies are invested by the CPF Board (CPFB) in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS).

CPF monies are invested by the CPF Board

It then said: “However, as a major portion of these assets are of a long-term nature, such as those that provide backing for long-term Government liabilities like SSGS, such assets are transferred to GIC to be managed over a long investment horizon.

(After I wrote an article about this, the PAP changed this information yet again.)

as a major portion of these assets are of a long-term nature

This means that all our CPF is invested in the GIC.

Then why does the PAP still keep denying that all our CPF is invested in the GIC?

Moreever, if the GIC’s board of directors is also made up of the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers, can it be possible that the GIC can say that it does not know if it is using Singaporeans’ CPF to invest?

Also, how can the GIC not know if it is using Singaporeans’ CPF to invest when a previous member of the CPF Investment Committee was also president of GIC Asset Management?

GIC Board of Directors Quah Wee Ghee

Not only that, the current President who is supposed supposed to look after our reserves was once on the GIC’s board of directors. If so, isn’t there a conflict of interest?


In fact, President Ong Teng Cheong said: “When I came in in 1993, I asked for all this information about the reserves. It took them three years to give it to me.”

He also said: “they said it would take 56-man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets… we came to a compromise. The government would not need to give me the dollar-and-cents value, just give me a listing of all the properties that the government owns. It took them a few months to produce the list. But even when they gave me the list, it was not complete.”

President Ong Teng Cheong 56 man years

The PAP would not even tell the President what it was doing with Singaporeans’ CPF, when the President is supposed to look after our reserves, and our CPF.

Singaporeans, we have been treated as fools.

All these started in 1981. In 1981, the PAP set up the GIC and brought Rothschild in to advise on the GIC.

In 1982, the PAP changed its party constitution to remove the objective of “abolishing wealth inequalities” and replaced it with asking Singaporeans to be self-reliant.

From then on, the PAP started creating policies to lock up more and more of our CPF from the 1980s – CPF Minimum Sum, Medisave, MediShield, CPF interest rates were reduced from 1986, and HDB flat prices and university tuition fees were suddenly increased by several times from 1987.

GIC was also set up under mysterious circumstances. Lee Kuan Yew asked Goh Keng Swee to become the chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Goh Keng Swee then brought in officials from the Ministry of Defence to review the MAS. They produced “a critical report accusing the MAS of inefficiency and poor management of the country’s reserves“. Several people from MAS were kicked out or resigned. Goh Keng Swee then set up GIC. Several people who left MAS then suddenly joined the GIC.

Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee then got Rothschild in to advise on the GIC.

The PAP Old Guards were then kicked out of government by the late-1980s.

Income inequality started to worsen from the 1990s. The PAP increased its own salaries to millions of dollars in 1984 and the wages of Singaporeans became depressed since then, for the past 20 years now.

Today, we are finally seeing the effects. It all started in 1981. The PAP has been hurting Singaporeans for more than 30 years now.

It is still not too late to change things and turn things around.

It is time for change. It is time to protect your future and your children.

Vote for a new government that will finally implement policies to protect Singaporeans.

Before it is too late.

Which are the Stronger Political Parties which will Protect Singaporeans?

The PAP is unwilling to create policies to protect Singaporeans. But the Opposition will.

The Opposition parties are the stronger parties which will make policies to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Vote Opposition to form a coalition government which will listen to and speak up for Singaporeans and make policies for the betterment of Singapore.








(This article might not include all the Opposition Parties as I had limited time to edit in all the logos.)

We Have a Responsibility to Speak Up to Make Policies to Protect Singaporeans

A volunteer made the following posters based on the interviews that I have given to the media during this General Election 2015.

The Reform Party Ang Mo Kio GRC team is a team with a track record of speaking up and advocating for the rights of Singaporeans, and we hope to be able to continue to serve Singaporeans by going into parliament to debate on and make policies to protect Singaporeans.

Please vote for us. Vote Reform Party, so that we can bring about change in Singapore, for a brighter future.

You can also learn more about the Reform Party Ang Mo Kio GRC team at our campaign website at