新加坡人公积金户头存款到底有多少?—存款5万5千元,为什么只能提取400元!?

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

新加坡人在公积金户头里存款到底有多少?我们已经就这个问题向政府提出了无数次了!但是,至今政府始终拒绝回答!

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.

无论如何,在过去2个月里在强大民意压力下,政府被迫披露和承认了很多事实。终于让我们可以估算自己的公积金户头的存款。

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.

在上个星期二(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,公积金局高级执行人员Yee Ping Yi先生为我们提供了接近的数据。他披露,在年龄届满55岁的‘活跃’的会员在2013年的户头中位数结存是12万6千元。

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.

尽管如何,这笔12万6千元存款只是事实真相的一半。因为这笔存款包括了‘储蓄款提取作为房屋资产的累积’。事实是,当您阅读公积金年报附表一,您可以看到中位数结存是在10万元到15万元之间。同样的,这是‘这个数额包括从公积金户头里提取作为投资、教育、住宅产业、非住宅产业和公共住屋计划’。

However, this is only half the truth as this $126,000 includes “savings withdrawn for accumulation of housing assets”.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 Again, this “include amounts withdrawn under Investment, education, Residential Properties, Non-Residential Properties and Public Housing Schemes”.

但是,现实的情况是,我们在公积金户头里能够真正属于退休的现金部分是多少?

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.

那就是说,新加坡人民在公积金户头里的现金实际存款部分到底有多少?

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

政府在这个问题上拒绝披露有关的信息。但是,在过去2个月,他们最终承认了更多的信息。这些信息让我们可以从三角推算中获取更多的信息。

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.

接近75%的新加坡人的公积金户头存款实际上是未能达到775百元。

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

第一,政府已经披露,‘在2013年的公积金活跃户头会员中有50%已经达到最低存款的要求。但是,这个数据是包括了其中15%会员以本身的产业作为补助公积金最低存款的其中一半数额。’

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”.

昨天,我查阅到,在351万公积金会员里,其中185万个会员是属于‘活跃’的公积金会员。这个数字说明了什么?说明了53%的公积金会员是属于活跃的户头。因此,在这个53%的‘活跃’会员户头里的26.5%是全部公积金会员里有可能达到最低存款额的要求的。假设不包括其中15%的以自己的产业和现金作为达到最低存款的要求计算在内,那就是说,全部公积金会员户头里只有11.5%的会员能够达到最低存款的要求。更确切的说,88.5%的新加坡人的公积金存款户头是无法达到最低存款的要求的。

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!

在此,假设我们回过头去做如下的推算:

Thus if we work backwards:

  1. 在2013年,全体公积金会员的户头里只有11.5%的会员是有足够15万5千元最低存款。Only 11.5% of all CPF members have the CPF Minimum Sum of $155,000 fully in cash last year.
  2. 能够达到最低存款要求的另外15% 是以他们自己的产业作为补助达到最低存款的要求。这就是说, 这一部分人只有一半的存款达到公积金最低存款要求。咱们把这2组数据(11.5%+15%)加在一起,那就是说在全体公积金会员的户头里只有26.5%的会员有一半的存款可以达到最低存款的要求。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. 公积金最低存款的数额是7万7千5百元。这就是说,接近73.5% 或接近三分之二的新加坡人在公积金的户头存款是少于7万7千5百元的(见示图)。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

因此,我们现在可以知道,接近三分之二的新加坡人在公积金的户头里跟本就没有7万7千5百元的存款。

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

那么,那其他50%的新加坡情况又是如何?我们在公积金的户头里有多少存款?

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

新加坡人在公积金户头里的存有50%是没有6万元的存款额的。

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

在7月份早些时候,政府在国会披露,‘政府给予第一个6万元混合存款1%的附加利息。在这样安排下接近三分之二的公积金会员将在他们的特别户头、保健储蓄户和退休户头里赚取年利息5%。。超过一半的公积金会员在他们的普通户头里是赚取3.5%的年利息。’

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.”

根据公积金局的披露,‘计算出每年支付3.5%的利息是给公积金会员在普通户头里的首个2万元、每年支付5%的利息是给公积金特别与医药户头(SMA)和退休户头(RA)里的首个4万元(顶限为6万元)。’

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).”

因此,这就是说:

Thus what this means is:

  • 33%的新加坡人在公积金的特别与医药户头户头里存款是少过4万元的。33% of Singaporeans have less than $40,000 in our SMA.
  • 50%的新加坡人在公积金户头的普通户头里的存款是少过2万元的。50% of Singaporeans have less than $20,000 in our OA.
  • 因此,这也就是说,可能50%的新加坡人在公积金的户头里的存款是少过6万元。Thus this mean could be that 50% of Singaporeans have a total of less than $60,000 in our CPF.

在这样的基础上,我们的结论是否可以是如下:

So, what we can establish so far is:

  • 73.5%的新加坡人在自己的公积金户头里根本就是没有7万7千5百元的存款。5% of Singaporeans do not even have $77,500 in our CPF.
  • 50%的新加坡人在自己的公积金户头里根本就是没有6万的存款。50% of Singaporeans have less than $60,000 in our CPF.

所以,这个中等结存的余额是只有现金6万元?

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

公积金户头的中等存款余额是只有55千元。50%的新加坡人在公积金户头的现金存款余额是少过55千元。

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

我们有最后一个信息可能可以得到更加准确的估算。

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

公积金局高级执行人员Yee Ping Yi先生在同一个研讨会上也披露,这个中等结存是12万6千元。但是,这是从属于(1)活跃的公积金局会员和(2)包括提取购买住房款项。

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.

这样就是说,

So:

  • 公积金会员的活跃户头只有53%,非活跃户头是47%。There are only 53% of active CPF members and 47% of non-active members.
  • 在非活跃会员户头里30%结存是活跃户头,或者是中等结存是3万7千8百元。Non-active members have about 30% of the balance of active members, or a possible median balance of about $37,800 only.
  • 政府已经披露,‘那些在过去5年即将届满55岁的公积金会员当中,已经使用公积金储蓄去购买建屋发展局的住屋。平均数据是55%的公积金会员是从他们的普通户头提取存款偿还组屋的房贷。那些使用公积金去购买私人产业的公积金会员,他们必须每个月从户头里提取两次。这就是说,平均从公积金户头提取存款去偿还任何性质的产业(私人或政府组屋)将会是69%或更高。’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.
  • 同时,根据公积金局的披露,公积金会员中的95.1%是使用公积金存款去购买房产的。Also, according to the CPF Board, 95.1% of ‘active’ CPF members have used their CPF to buy property.
  • 公积金局也披露,新加坡人缴交36%的公积金率中的23%是划入普通户头、6%是划入储蓄户头和7%是划入保健储蓄户头。这就是说,公积金会员缴交的36%缴交率中的三分之二是划入普通户头。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.
  • 因此,公积金会员使用普通户头的存款68%支付住房贷款后,他们的中等数额是约为7万1千元。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.
  • 因此,所有公积金会员的户头现金结存应该是只有5万5千元。Thus in totality, the median CPF balance of all CPF members in cash only could be $55,000.

到此,我们是否已经获得了答案?中等数额的确实存款应该是5万5千元?

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

这个存款数额是不是意味着50%的新加坡人,或者是我们当中的一半的人在公积金的户头的存款是少过5万5千元。

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

这还没完。明显的,在2011年,公积金会员的平均存款数额是6万1千5百元。这个平均存款额一般上是高于中等数额。这就是说,在公积金中等净存款额数比重还要来得低。

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

如果是这样的推算。我们有事实的证据证明:公积金户头的中等数额的存款只有5万5千元。但是,新加坡人在自己的公积金户头里的存款根本就没有5万5千元的结存。

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!

为什么政府已经知道新加坡人是不可能达到最低存款要求的情况下,还要制定提高公积金的最低存款要求。

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

现在我们知道新加坡人平均在自己的户头里有多少钱?我们要求提出如下问题:

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

  1. 政府已经非常清楚知道新加坡人是无法达到最低存款的要求的,为什么还要不断提高最低存款的要求?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?
  2. 今天,公积金局要求会员的户头最低存款额上15万5千元,事实上,新加坡人在自己的公积金户头只有5万5千元村可,或者只有35%的会员能够达到这个存款额。政府非常清楚知道90%的公积金会员是无法达到这个最低存款的要求的,为什么政府还要不断的提高公积金最低存款额呢?这样的要求的结果是不是:我们的公积金将会套牢在公积金户头里,我们将无法从公积金户头里提取存款?为什么政府蓄意要设置这样的政策把我们的公积金户头里的存款套牢在公积金户头里?他们的目的是什么?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?
  3. 即便是政府已经知道90%的新加坡人的公积金户头是无法达到最低存款的要求和35%的新加坡人在他们的公积金户头存有最低存款额,为什么政府仍然拒绝把提高我们的薪金和公积金的利息与最低存款额结合在一起,以便让新加坡人的公积金户头可以达到最低存款额的要求?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?
  4. 最后,政府最终承认他们是控制的工程施工进度和为组屋制定了售价。那么,为什么他们还不断在提高组屋的售价?这造成了我们必须使用我们的公积金普通户头一半的储蓄偿还组屋的租赁款,进而造成我们没有足够的钱去过退休生活!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?

您是否已经看到在不同的层次所出现的错误?

Can you see how this is wrong on many levels?

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

实际上,政府完全知道大部分的新加坡人是不可能达到政府设置的公积金最低存款政策的要求,但是,他们还是不断的提高存款额度。尽管他们提出来许多空洞的保证将会协助新加坡人达到最低存款的要求,但是,现实是他们知道这是另一个不可能的事!因为他们设置这个政策的目的首先是建立在新加坡人不可能达到最低存款额的基础上。

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!

接下来,我们要问的问题是:首先是为什么要制定公积金的最低存款?

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

现在,让我们把从1977年开始更改我们的公积金平均净结存额和公积金从那个时候开始提高最低存款额做个比较。您可以将看到公积金的最低存款额的递增速度是快过公积金平均结存额!

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

假设是这样,政府在过去20年里已经知道,一般的新加坡人

,事实上是大部分新加坡人在公积金户头里根本就无法拥有足够的存款达到最低存款额。即便过去20的情况是这样,但是,在过去20年他们还是依然提高公积金的最低存款额。这就造成了我们新加坡人的公积金都被套牢在公积金户头里无法提取!

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.

为什么政府完全清楚新加坡人是无法达到公积金最低存款额的要求情况下和这样的结果是我们的公积金将被套牢在户头里还要不断的提高公积金的最低存款顶限?

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?

为什么?政府都到底是想干啥?为什么政府要强制让我们的公积金套牢在户头 里?

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

难怪政府始终不愿意告诉我们事实的真相

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

难怪,我在上个星期二(2014年7月22日)由‘政策研究所’主办的“公积金与退休需求”的论坛上提出了这个问题,政府拒绝回答我的问题。

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.

我提出的问题是:

I had asked:

  1. 那些能够达到最低存款额的公积金会员占全体公积金会员的人数比例是多少?What is the proportion of ‘all’ CPF members who can meet the CPF Minimum Sum in only cash?
  2. 中等公积金数额结存是多少?What is the median CPF balance?
  3. 中等数额的支付情况What is the median CPF payout?

政府在这个研讨会上根本就不回答这些问题。

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

今天我们必须依靠自己的计算和推算找出答案。

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

  1. 90%的新加坡人是无法达到公积金最低存款额的要求的。90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum.
  2. 中等数额的结存是只有5万5千元。The median CPF balance is only $55,000.
  3. 反回来计算,这就是意味着中等数额的支付额是425元。这就是说半数的新加坡人将可能每月得到的退休金是425元。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!

实际上,Tan Ern Ser副教授研讨会上阐明情况是极其恶劣。

Indeed, things are so bad that, Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser had illustrated at the IPS

虽然研讨会上认为有70%的年老新加坡人有公积金,但是,4%——7%的人认为他们有足够的公积金可以使用。他问道,年老的新加坡人(可能)有公积金,(他们是否)拥有足够的公积金储蓄被当成是‘收入的来源’?

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”?

政府说,公积最低存款额是通过电脑计算出来让新加坡人‘当年龄届满65岁时,在未来的10年里每月可以领取1200元。’

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″。

这是他们自己的估算,这将是‘一个中低收入家庭的话在日常生活的家庭开销’。无论如何,当半数的新加坡人每月只能从公积金户头里领取少过425元,和75%的新加坡人每月只能从公积金户头里领取少过600元的情况下,这意味着什么?这意味着:新加坡人从公积金户头里每月领取的现金是绝对低微的数额的。这是否意味着90%的新加坡人将不可能在一个中低收入家庭的生活费下退休?

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?

我们当中许多人将在退休后过着贫困的生活!所以,大多数的新加坡人在退休后还必须继续工作,他们当中有些人还要工作到逝世的那一天。

Most of us will retire in poverty! No wonder most Singaporeans have to keep working after retirement, and some even until they die!

新加坡人是否要接受这样折磨自己的建议吗?政府本身是否要这样累积的亏待人民?

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

我同时也问政府,假设政府提高新加坡人的薪金和公积金户头的利息,我们的公积金的存款是否会增长。

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.

政府同样拒绝回答我的问题。

The government also did not want to answer these questions.

因此:

So:

  1. 为什么政府不愿提供新加坡人在公积金户头里的具体的统计数字?很明显的,现在我们的知道这些具体的的统计数字是在政府手里,他们知道大多数的新加坡人是无法达到最低款的要求的。这是不是他们始终紧咬着这些统计数字不放的原因?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. 政府知道新加坡人的公积金户头的钱是无法增长的,因为新加坡人的薪金和公积金户头的利息一直停滞不动!为什么政府拒绝提高薪金和公积金户头的利息?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?

为什么政府要通过公积金最低存款额让我们的公积金套牢?同时,让我们的薪金和在公积金户头里的利息停滞不动,让我们更多的公积金存款套牢在公积金户头!

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?

您是否看到了政府在管理我们的公积金政策上出现了非常可怕的错误?这是极其可怕的错误是他们管理着我们的公积金。

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.

同胞们,您看到问题的实质了吗?

Singaporeans, do you see it?

第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会的另一个课题是:由于建屋发展局的组屋是新加坡人为什么不可以退休的原因。

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

这是我们站出来要求政府告诉我们事实真相的时候了!政府必须停止虚伪的告诉我们他们知道发生了什么事情,他们正在处理这些事情。

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.

真相清楚的说明,他们知道自己制定的政策是最终削减新加坡人民的能力和新加坡人民将成为牺牲者。问题是:他们为什么还要继续这么干?为什么政府在过去20多年一直在干这事?

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?

这是极其可怕的事情!这是我们的国家和政府里出现的极其可怕的事情!

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

在8月23日,我们将组织第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。在6月7日的第一场集会上,我们揭露了真相后,政府终于承认了他们是如何动用我们的公积金投资在GIC。在7月12日的第二场集会上,我们继续暴露了关于确实的数据真相证明新加坡人民在公积金的户头里的存款是不可能达到最低存款要求的。

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.

请参加和支持我们的第三场集会。这是要求政府告诉我们真相和制止政府把我们推开。我们承受的欺凌已经是足够的了!我们怎能让他们继续欺凌我们?我们是否要放弃自己的权利?在管理自己的公积金的问题上难道我们没有自己诉求的声音和说话的权利吗?

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?

你可以到如下的集会网站浏览

You can join the Facebook event page here.

同时,我的第一次法院诉讼案件定于2014年9月18 日早上10点在法院进行,这是一个全天的聆讯。

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@Chinese

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

 

 

Advertisements

64 comments

  1. Jim

    You write a lot on the CPF-HDB-GIC-TH and conclude with “RETURN OUR CPF”. Is that what you really want to achieve? Return the CPF.

    • The Oracle

      @Jim
      No Jim, he wants to overthrow the government and bring in a socialist utopia paid for with our national savings and then with higher taxes.

      • supporter

        @The Oracle,
        Your teeth toxic, Look, this is a snake in Singapore! He wants to bite you, they release venom ! Turn over his words so familiar ah, many times this equation is useful before. Usually they want to assassinate a man, first with this equation. but we support Roy , we want prime lee step down ! we want our cpf back !

    • say truth

      @Jim ,
      you shall allow Roy working to improve Singapore. He has the right to speak, he represents our 99% of the population. we want him to speak, you threat him ? no use. you accuse him that you accuse all Singaporeans . If he fell, we hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans stand up.
      your responsibility now, is to tell us the truth on cpf goes to Temasek’s pocket .

      • Alan

        Representing 99%? Dream on!
        He’s just uttering nonsense! Repeating his shit over and over again!
        Only the naive minority falls for his trick while the majorly of us will see how he actually flip and fall flat!

      • say truth

        to Alan,
        Yes, 99% of the people support him, even birds on the trees, also singing for him, he is our hero . We are going to launch a full signature campaign, we want Prime Minister Lee step down immediately, Please do not be angry,okay

      • Alan

        You are probably getting climax with this Flipper’s intoxication. Go on…enjoy it yah! However too much may be harmful for your brain!

        Beware! Withdrawal from it later is pretty bad. It will turn into nightmare for lots of your kind.

  2. waterpool

    CPF always been people’s money, you continue to detain, by no means a concern, is violated. there are ulterior motives.

  3. tan

    Roy basically wants a socialist government. This is typical of spoilt people who wants a share of the nations asset. After it is depleted , then what ?

    • The Oracle

      Exactly! A famous Margaret Thatcher quote:

      The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.

      • 红头巾

        to The Oracle & tan, 你们2个不要狡猾了,也不要乘机转移话题,
        总理家3代人都在英国留学过, 你们应该知道他们政府是怎样照顾他们的人民的。

        什么人可以享用英国的社会福利?

        譬如,首相卡梅伦从地皮昂贵的诺丁山区搬到唐宁街10号前,一位四个孩子的单身母亲就搬进了与他 家几百米之遥的一栋价值二百万英镑的豪宅。当然,是靠每周领取1755英镑的住房津贴才租得起的。这是为什么?原来,根据英国政府福利制度的具体规定限 制,比如只能在本区内找房子、如果有上学的孩子,住处不能离学校太远、孩子到了一定的年龄,不能挤在一间卧室里等等,孩子们每年还享有出外度假的权利。

        那么,什么人可以享用英国的福利?查一下英国的政府服务网络就知道,英国的社会福利申请很容易,只要你符合其中的规定,你就是社会福利的享用者。

        英国福利申请网:http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm
        以下信息来源于英国政府社会福利网

        您是否有资格享受福利?
        您可能有资格领取福利,如果你是下面其中的一项,政府就可以满足你的要求。然后,根据你的具体情况,政府提供社会福利与你。

        社会福利适用人群:

        *你是低收入人士(受雇或正在找工作)
        *你有受抚养子女
        *你生病或残疾
        *您是需要被人照顾的人
        *你是60岁或以上
        *您已失去亲人
        *你正在怀孕或最近生了一个孩子

        如何申请受益?
        申请的渠道很多,可直接在政府设立的社区办事处申请,也可以在网上申请。
        可申请的范围将按照申请人的工作年龄,是否为退休人员,家庭和家里儿童的具体情况,是否残疾人士及其是其照顾者,不同地区生活费用差异。

        福利分配大致分为四组:

        工作年限与实际年龄
        是否已退休或准备退休
        家庭和儿童福利
        残疾人士及照顾者

      • reply "The Oracle",

        reply “The Oracle”,
        you live in heaven while 99% are inside of hell, you are an handful of people stands only , your performance today is very insidious. you are looking for the wording and intention sinister.If around Prime Minister’s office in this kind of you, It is Singapore’s disaster.

        we know who r u now

    • Don

      Pretty much like Australia where people pay high taxes and share among to no or low income earners and other welfare. At the moment, it’s not sustainable as the country budgetary has run into deficit every year. Luckily, Australia has got a big land size and has a lot of natural resources otherwise it could be very bad like other European countries.

      • The Oracle

        I agree sustainability is a key consideration. I think more can be done for our low or no earners but it has to be sustainable.

      • say truth

        @Jim,
        Temasek belongs to people of Singapore ! return our CPF !
        don’t change subject !

      • Jim

        Don’t worry It won’t happens overnight. Read his post “https://thehearttruths.com/2012/09/25/singapore-in-2083-kow-tow-to-malaysia/”. It is year 2083

      • Jim

        Roy please listen to this good advice from one of your readers.
        “By my question to you is, why is someone passionate like you taking the advice and hanging out with the kind of activists you are doing so with now? You said in the above article that “years of controlling Singapore had now created Singaporeans who knew nothing about critical social and political thinking and could only degenerate themselves into loudmouths who had nothing useful to say but with anger spewing out in every direction”. This is exactly the kind of people you are working with now. How much of a difference do you think you will make, as long as you are seen to be hanging out with them?

        You should join a political party, or write articles for any online journal or alternative news site. Stop the confrontational style that has led you to publicize every detail of your court case, every gimmick that these others might have been egging you on to it. Be an intellectual, not just an activist. You will find a bigger audience that way.”

  4. The Oracle

    Roy does a great job of confusing the CPF of individuals with the money required for a household, and he also conveniently talks about the average balance of Singaporeans as opposed to the average balance of people reaching retirement, and he ignores ALL assets people have outside of CPF (5 times more than in CPF), etc. I am NOT saying we don’t have a problem but when Roy starts with fudged numbers the rest of his message is grossly undermined.

    • 红头巾

      to The Oracle,
      但是从你的字里行间, 你既不同情人民, 又否认CPF对淡马锡控股做出的贡献。

    • Jim

      We all know CPF need to be improved and I think PM will agree with you. Let’s wait for the his solution at ND rally…

      • Sheng

        ND rally ? last year he sang three songs, ruling for 10 years, did nothing.. fool people..very well..

    • The Oracle

      Here are the real numbers:
      http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/hhld_sector_balance_sheet.html
      You can just open the first link to see the data.

      CPF at $259billion in total, works out to be $220,000 per household or $63,500 for every man, woman and child in the country.
      The above includes Singaporeans and PRs, and CPF numbers are net of CPF withdrawals.

      When you allow for all the other assets Singapore households have (and minus their liabilities) the average Singapore household has $1,228,000 of assets. Note there are 1,174,500 households with an average of 3.47 people per household.

      The real question is not where the average Singaporean or Singaporean household has enough assets – we are rich overall. The real question is how far below the average should a household be before help kicks in, and how much help needs to be provided.

      Roy is not helping his own cause by trying to convince the majority of Singaporeans that they are poor or are being ripped off by the government. He instead should be concentrating on the wide income disparity in Singapore and what should be done to raise the bottom 10-20% out of poverty. Even though I have been very critical of Roy’s posts, I do believe more can be done for this part of our population.

      • Jim

        Exactly. Provide good suggestions, not bring down and create more confusions. Especially on “return the CPF”, we need good education on investment etc etc

      • Deaf Frog's Toothpick

        @ The Oracle,

        in a country like Singapore where the wealth disparity if very high, averages are not meaningful.

        like u like to say something to the effect of Lies, Statistics and Damn Lies, you do not seem to keep to the same standards for yourself.

        can you show how you arrive to the figure of $1,228,000?

        can you tell us how much is the total asset value of residential property for those living in private housing(17,7%) vs public housing(81.9%)?

      • The Oracle

        @DFT
        If averages are no good, please tell that to Roy! But fair enough, I’ll give better data below.

        First, since you asked, $1,228,000 (the net worth of the average household) is $1,443,073,600,000 (total household net worth) divided by 1,174,500 (total number of households). Household data is here:
        http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/housing.html
        (click on the “Households” link)

        This link is quite useful as it also gives working household income per person per income decile (tab 4.5). From this we can see it is the bottom 10% of working households that may need more help – their average income per person is $463 or just over $1,600 per household. If we were to set $1,600 as the minimum a household needs to get by (definitely not luxury level though), about 5% of working households need help (as roughly half this decile are above and below the $1,600 level).

        We also know there are 9.4% of households with no working household member (unemployed plus retirees). And we know 87% of these have some form of non-work income but I haven’t found the statistics to confirm how much. Even if we assume all these households need more help and combine it with the households with working income under $1,600, we arrive at a number approaching 15% of all Singapore households.

        These are the people, in my opinion, who may need more help. The number is nowhere near as big as Roy claims, but it is still a very significant number.

      • jasmine

        Hey Oreo, do you know what is meant by asset rich, cash poor? Most Singaporeans have HDB flat as their only asset. Sell it means that either they have to buy another overpriced flat or they bunk in with their relatives. But do you know that our HDB has been getting smaller and smaller? Last time a 4 roomer is 105m2. Now it is 90m2. Where got space to squeeze with people? My point is, those assets are only paper talk. As long as people do not have options to encash their only asset, all their worth are worth for nothing. Government just need to jack up the land cost to make HDB flats pricier to prop up the net worth you quoted. It is only cosmetic and make people like LSS feel good. The rest of us, cannot touch and means nothing. The practical thing is to look at the cash we have. So is $63,500 good for retirement when the CPF minimum sum is double of that?

      • jasmine

        And we are talking about averages here right? So does it makes sense that the average CPF holder has less money than what is required for retirement? If the average Singaporean retiree has to sell his only home to achieve the minimum sum for retirement, do these people have to live the rest of their lives under a highway bridge? Even the younger generation people find it difficult to buy a flat and considering that flats are getting smaller and more expensive, do you think they have space to accomodate their parents who can only retire by selling their only flat?

      • The Oracle

        Jasmine, you’re being disingenuous like Roy by trying to restrict the conversation to CPF cash only to support your arguments – as this is only one piece of the puzzle. And by the way, I have quoted “asset rich, cash poor” multiple times. I’ve also looked at the problem above from both an assets point of view and an income point of view to more correctly quantify the size of the problem.

        I am not denying there is a problem but I am disappointed you would still try to push Roy’s myopic numbers without looking at the real truths.

      • The Oracle

        @Jasmine
        On the topic of flat size though I will agree with you – new flats are too small.

      • Deaf Frog's Toothpick

        @DFT

        Thank you for the clarification.

        Yes, I don’t find the averages you quote meaningful, especially when we have great wealth disparity.

        your link does not explain how u get the total asset worth value and which year’s data it is from.

        also according to you average CPF balance is $220,000.

        for the sake of discussion, assuming that your numbers are correct, $1,228,000 – $220,000 = $1,008000

        thats the net asset worth of an “average” Singaporean according to your calculation is around 1million.

        if u go to an average HDB estate and shake hands with everyone, what are the chances of you shaking hands with someone who’s household has $1m nett of CPF?

        basically it’s the wealthy folks at the top pulling up the average, the reality on the ground is different, it’s paints a picture which is better than reality, it’s spreading the wealth of the 17+% private property around to cover up for the 80+% of the majority, so the value is not meaningful.

        can you show the average out value of the total net value of HDB only instead? i think it will be shocking how big the difference is vs 1.2m if u can work out the figure.

        if u can’t it’s a transparency issue.

      • Deaf Frog's Toothpick

        @ The Oracle

        i was lazy to verify just now, but i assume u were right for $1228000, after counter checking, the figure is correct.

        but my position is the same, the figure is not meaningful.

        lets note that

        total private housing asset worth is $415,949.9 million

        total public housing asset worth is $406,382.7 million

        meaning to say, the wealthy(17%+) owns more residential assets in absolute value that the ALL the HDB dwellers(80%+) combined.

        the weight-age of residential asset is a very significant 58.67% of the total asset value, surely, 17% of the ppl owning more value than 80% of the population reinforces that fact that the wealthy at the top is pulling up the average.

        the average u have given is not reflective of the reality on the ground.

      • Deaf Frog's Toothpick

        @ The Oracle

        and, there we have the real truth, i did not intend to look in to this initially but, but thanks to your half truths, i have no choice but to crunch the numbers and accidentally stumble upon the reality.

        i guess we can say it’s another case of your arguments backfiring, u opened the can of worms yourself.

        total private housing asset worth is $415,949.9 million, with 208700 households, their average residential asset worth is $1,993,051

        total public HDB housing asset worth is $406,382.7 million, with 961800 households, their average residential asset worth is $422,523

        for the majority 80%+ who live in HDB the average asset is only around $422k, a far cry from the $1.2million u quoted.

        so that is the breakdown, $1.2million is the average of $1.99million+ $422k, the numbers are consistent.

        but $1.2million number belongs to Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics category.

        $422k is the REAL average for HDB dwellers which represent the majority of Singaporeans, a 80% majority.

        $1.99m vs $422k, this is shocking, as shocking as i have previously suspected.

        how does the average HDB dweller find the $780K difference u CLAIM they have?

      • Deaf Frog's Toothpick

        just a quick clarification, $422K and $1.99million are residential asset averages.

        The Oracle’s $1.2million is a total asset average.

        by coincidence the the average of of $1.99m+$422K is also $1.2m, i was typing too fast and it slipped from my mind.

        still the facts do not change, how does the average HDB dweller find the $780K in the form of other other assets to bridge the gap to $1.2million? impossible.

      • jasmine

        Hey Oreo, I didn’t use Roy’s number. The $63,500 is from you. Your disdain towards Roy must have clouded your vision and crippled your judgement. I didn’t want to talk about your other figure as it is obviously fudged. DFT has already responded convincingly. If you have passed your O Levels Maths which I suspect you didn’t, you would be able to tell the mean from the median. Averages are for the primary school kids.

      • The Oracle

        @DFT

        You have clarified how averages can mask (in this case) a wide difference between the typical HDB household and the typical private household. However, in my last post that starts with “If averages are no good”, I pretty much conceded this point and then proceeded to provide income data that is broken out into deciles of the household population – you conveniently ignored most of this post.

        Still, it’s interesting to note the typical HDB household has a $400,000+ property asset, a circa $200,000 CPF asset, and some still-unknown share of the other assets. This is better than the numbers we thought just a couple of days ago but of course the data still has to be treated with caution – as again it is a mean average. But we also now know the distribution of households and HDB flat types and the ownership % from the last link I provided so we can make much more informed inferences than before.

      • The Oracle

        @Jasmine
        Tut, tut, what a rude little girl you are! If you can’t play nicely when the grown-ups are in the room then STFU!

  5. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    inadequacies of the CPF

    1. Assumes that the large majority of the population can save enough for retirement. From the way our healthcare and cost of living is going, this is a big assumption.

    2. Assumes that when 1. fails, the property market can be inflated to make up for the difference$.

    3. Assumes that home “ownership” and the subsequent monetisation of property is a good strategy for retirement, which is not necessarily true.

    for the low income, it’s all eggs in the same basket tied up in an illiquid and potential volatile asset(HDB). it’s almost like putting all retirement funds into property speculation.

    left to it’s own, property market goes in cycles, what happens when someone retires in a down-cycle? just curse his luck? the retiree obviously do not have the option to wait out the down-cycle. leaving retirees at the mercy of the property cycle is not a good outcome.

    in a ageing population like ours, large groups of low wage similar aged folks will try to monetise at around the same time, if that happens the property market goes into over-supply and falls. strategy self-defeats.

    if over-supply threatens, political pressure might force the government to intervene in the property market to create artificial demand via immigrant influx, quality control of immigrants might be compromised because government will be stuck in dilemma between quantity and quality.

    if the government intervenes in the property market to create artificial demand via immigrant influx, and the process is mismanaged, it will result in a double whammy of depressed wages for the mid-low wage workers and high property prices happening at the same time.

    4. inflexibility, forces ppl to accept low risk low return regardless of the person’s age and risk appetite.

    5. inflexibility, forces low-mid wage earners to accept investment(some say speculation) of the only property they have as a strategy for retirement.

    6. Inflation risk when returns either fails to beat inflation or when it does, gives mediocre returns after accounting for inflation.

    7. Illogical, minimum sum pegged to inflation(some say average hdb prices) but interest rate not pegged to inflation.

    8. Illogical, minimum sum pegged to ageing but HDB lease not pegged to ageing. when life expectancy in the 1970s was 68+/- the lease was sold at 99 years, now the life expectancy is around 82+/-, the lease STILL sold at 99years, not logical.

    9. CPF funds are subjected to policy risk with little options for the member. when the rules keep changing (some say evolve), there is an element of uncertainty for the retiree.

    10. Monetisation strategy requires high and ever rising rent+property prices, which is effectively borrowing from future generation (and immigrants), the low-mid wage earners loses out in this situation but wealthy becomes richer as they can afford to speculate in multiple properties as take in the profits in a soaring property market, monetisation strategy results in regressive wealth distribution and contributes to widening the wealth gap.

    i am not saying i am right, feel free to disagree.

    • Jim

      Your view on the inadequacies of CPF is important. We need sustainable solutions to improve them. But we don’t want to destroy them. We demand that the government to change them for the better but we must at the same time be reasonable. Worker Party tag line is “let us watch the government for you”, not vote out the PAP and let us be government. Maybe later they can but not NOW period.

  6. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    @Jim
    politics are about outcomes.

    competition improves outcomes.

    an employer with foresight will groom alternatives to his star employee, when the inevitable happens, one of the alternatives can take over. this employee will perform better due to the competition.

    a myopic employer will have irrational blind faith with his star employee, and will start to panic when this employee turns rogue then he’ll find that the only candidate left to take over is the lazer printer.

    the PAP government does not need such a big majority to govern, there is little difference 66% majority vs high 80%-90% in parliament.

    in fact a simple majority of 50+% – 66% range is enough for any party to govern, if a party is saying they need the power to change the constitution frequently or overrule the president at will in order to govern properly, then I think something is wrong with the system.

    • The Oracle

      I agree competition can be good but it needs to be constructive competition – not just “you say yes, I say no”.

      And to be clear, I am NOT asking people to vote for PAP. What I would ask people to do though is question the people who would stand in opposition – understand the values they stand for, how they will oppose, what ideas they have to better our country, etc. In other words, voters should make an informed decision. Ultimately, if PAP is voted out one day, we should make sure the people we vote in are capable and will do the job we want done.

      • jasmine

        Why can’t we question people who stand in PAP. Do they truly believe in serving the people? Why do we have people, the likes of Grace Foos and Lim Wee Kiats, whose only thought is about getting paid higher for their personal “sacrifices”, as if us lesser mortals do not make sacrificies or work as hard or as many hours as them. So, poorer people deserves no dignity? There have been numerous occasions where the parliament fail to meet quorum. What does it say about these people who neglect their duties as MPs? Do we need more of such people in parliament?

      • We Love PAP

        The Oracle said …
        “Ultimately, if PAP is voted out one day, we should make sure the people we vote in are capable and will do the job we want done.”

        I fully agree with Oracle.
        And given PAP’s standard over the last 10 years.
        We can vote Opposition with the fullest of confidence that Singaporeans will be better off.

      • We Suppork PAP

        The Oracle said:
        “And to be clear, I am NOT asking people to vote for PAP. What I would ask people to do though is question the people who would stand in opposition – understand the values they stand for, how they will oppose, what ideas they have to better our country, etc.”

        I say:
        “And to be clear, I am NOT asking people to vote for Opposition. What I would ask people to do though is question the PAP Ministers who run the government. – understand the values they stand for, how they will govern, what ideas they have to better our country, etc.”
        A better idea still:
        Vote in more Opposition MPs to keep an eye on how PAP government spend Singaporeans money.
        – $2,000 Brompton bikes
        – $300 million cost over run on the Youth Olympics

      • We Suppork PAP

        The Oracle said:
        “I agree competition can be good but it needs to be constructive competition – not just “you say yes, I say no”.

        I say:
        What part of representative government don’t you understand?
        The Workers’ Party Members of Parliament represent Singaporeans too.
        For example;
        They represent Singaporeans when we say NO to LHL’s Population White Paper.

  7. an reader

    Before you want to teach him a lesson , pls go online and check , claims the first class country how to treat people, about the house ,cpf, care for children, elderly, pensioners, jobless , income standards…… then write conclusions. Who relatively greedy, who is more ruthless

  8. Giving Feedback To PAP

    Q: How to tell PAP we want our CPF money back when we are 55 years old?
    A: Vote Opposition in GE 2016.

  9. Xmen

    @Oracle,

    “$1,228,000 (the net worth of the average household) is $1,443,073,600,000 (total household net worth) divided by 1,174,500 (total number of households).”

    Most Singaporeans know your conclusion is bogus based on personal experience.

    According to the Credit Suisse report from 2010, quoted below –

    “While Singapore’s mean wealth of US$255,488 is extremely high, its median wealth is approximately just one-ninth of that, at US$30,092 per adult. Median refers to the wealth for the “middle” of the adult population distribution here, while mean is the average.”

    So according to your data, while the “average” Singaporean household net worth is $1,228,000, the “median” household net worth is only $144,637 if we use the same average to median ratio in the Credit Suisse report. If a typical household size is 3.47, a typical individual net worth is only $41,682. Is that sufficient for retirement?

    For more information on the Credit Suisse report, see http://www.intmath.com/blog/singapore-wealth-mean-and-median/5227

    • Me

      Err …. That’s not credit Suisse report. That’s just another joker blog which even got numerous negative analysis feedback. Please use credible source before making analysis and conclusion.

      Btw, for conclusion 41k net worth, you also consider baby in the household for retirement? Hahaha ….

      • Me

        Xmen.
        Great. Btw, get the latest report 2013 please and have a look what’s the latest median number. Obviously, much more vs what you tried to highlight. Also please read the commentary we are not that bad that what perceived in this blog.

    • The Oracle

      @Xmen

      On the assets/wealth front, here is an article from February this year that also quotes a much more recent Credit Suisse report:
      http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/case-you-missed-it/story/income-wealth-inequality-more-trouble-society-20140214

      It stated that Singapore’s median wealth per adult (aged 20 and above) was US$90,466 (S$114,925) last year – three time more than the report you are quoting from 3 years earlier – and the mean average was US$281,764 ($357,950). The 2010 report is clearly wrong but the 2013 numbers are also too low…

      In fact I looked closer at the quoted numbers from the 2013 CS report and tried to reconcile them to our total household data: $357,950 x 77.3% * 3,844,800 = $1,063,838,200,000 – far short of our total household net wealth number of $1,443,073,600,000. Note: 77.3% is the percentage of our adult population over 20, and 3,844,800 is our resident population of Singaporeans and PRs that the household data is based on. The 2013 CS report, for whatever reason, appears to exclude about $380,000,000,000 of Singaporeans’ net worth from its calculations! I then looked at the source report – via the link you provided – and I saw CS may have made a big mistake! Our household wealth data is for Singaporeans and PRs only but CS took this number and divided by the total adult population in Singapore – around 4 million instead of 3 million! Either that, or they deliberately included the 1 million work pass holders, maids, etc. in the numbers – who have close to zero net worth in Singapore. So, the CS numbers are grossly understating Singaporean/PR net worth and the median/mean ratio may also be badly skewed by the inclusion of all the foreign workers.

      I’m not disagreeing with you that there is wealth disparity in Singapore, but we need better numbers before we can say the mean-median ratio is 9 or 3 or 2 or whatever it actually is.

      • I Love Oracle's Wife

        @ Oracle
        “I’m not disagreeing with you that there is wealth disparity in Singapore, but we need better numbers before we can say the mean-median ratio is 9 or 3 or 2 or whatever it actually is.”

        You should be a PAP Minister
        – Let’s commission another survey or COI into the matter.

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        We can argue till the cows come home. Until you have better data, you should refrain from claiming that Singaporeans are wealthy (“$1,228,000 is the net worth of the average household”.) That faulty “analysis” is not helping to solve or address the present CPF/retirement crisis.

        The CPF scheme has failed miserably as a retirement saving vehicle. You just need to take a look around other first world nations to realize how bad a deal Singaporeans have been getting. It is morally and ethically repulsive for a first world government to raid people’s retirement savings.

      • The Oracle

        @Xmen
        “$1,228,000 is the net worth of the average household”: this statement is true and you have not disproved it – but I have shown the numbers you presented to actually be wrong. It may not be a clear statement as it does not address the wide wealth and income inequality in Singapore – something I have not denied.

        Instead, please check out the following which I posted earlier:
        Household data is here: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/housing.html
        (click on the “Households” link)

        This link is quite useful as it also gives working household income per person per income decile (tab 4.5). From this we can see it is the bottom 10% of working households that may need more help – their average income per person is $463 or just over $1,600 per household. If we were to set $1,600 as the minimum a household needs to get by (definitely not luxury level though), about 5% of working households need help (as roughly half this decile are above and below the $1,600 level).

        We also know there are 9.4% of households with no working household member (unemployed plus retirees). And we know 87% of these have some form of non-work income but I haven’t found the statistics to confirm how much. Even if we assume all these households need more help and combine it with the households with working income under $1,600, we arrive at a number approaching 15% of all Singapore households.

        These are the people, in my opinion, who may need more help. The number is nowhere near as big as Roy claims, but it is still a very significant number.

      • Xmen

        What makes you think that $463 per month is sufficient for a person to get by in Singapore? I challenge you to live on $463 next month so you can understand the plight of the poor in Singapore. $463 will not cover water, electric, gas, phone, internet, food, transport, medical expenses. Note that CPF minimum sum sets a minimum of $1,200 per month.

      • Enjoying Oracle's Wife and Daughter

        I don’t know who you are mate.
        But I love your policy of inviting aliens into Singapore and your home.
        Your beds are very comfortable.
        Thank Yew.

  10. Ask

    Hi there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any problems with hackers?
    My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up
    losing a few months of hard work due to no back up.
    Do you have any methods to stop hackers?

  11. Pingback: [漫画]新加坡人是如何被哄和被套牢的 | The Heart Truths
  12. cheap coworking space san Francisco

    I usually do not comment, but after reading a few of the comments here
    新加坡人公积金户头存款到底有多少?—存款5万5千元,为什么只能提取400元!? | The
    Heart Truths. I do have a few questions for you if you
    do not mind. Could it be only me or do a few of the remarks appear like they are coming
    from brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if you are posting on other sites,
    I’d like to keep up with everything new you have to post.

    Could you list of the complete urls of all your public sites like
    your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s