The GIC Changed What it Says Again — CPF/HDB Makes Up Most of GIC

Yes, once again, the GIC changes information on their website again.

Just last month, on the GIC’s FAQ webpage, in response to the question, “What is GIC’s source of funds?“, the GIC had answered:

The Government’s financial assets, other than its deposits with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and its stake in Temasek Holdings, are mainly managed by the GIC. Sustained balance of payments surpluses and accumulated national savings are the fundamental sources of the Singapore’s Government’s funds.

FAQs (1)

But when I checked the GIC’s FAQ webpage again yesterday, the GIC has removed the link for the FAQ and replaced it with another one. Now, the answer to the question reads:

We manage most of the government’s financial assets, other than its deposits in Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and stake in Temasek. GIC is a fund manager, not an owner of the assets. It receives funds from the government for long-term management, without regard to the sources, e.g. proceeds from securities issued, government surpluses.

Screenshot (75)

The GIC deleted the following information:

Sustained balance of payments surpluses and accumulated national savings are the fundamental sources of the Singapore’s Government’s funds.

Why did the GIC delete this information?

More importantly, what are the “accumulated national savings” and why did the GIC deleted this from their website?

According to the paper, ‘Singapore’s Changing Structure and the Policy Implications for Financial Security, Employment, Living Arrangements and Health Care‘:

The CPF is a highly efficient savings mechanism for the Singaporean government.” Apparently, “The CPF contributes between 16.3 and 30.4% to the gross national savings rate.” But more importantly, “In absolute terms, total CPF members’ balances at S$57,649.2 million is higher than the gross national savings at S$52,178.3 million.

Also, it was stated in the book, ‘ASEAN and East Asian International Relations: Regional Delusion‘, that:

The high level of CPF contributions constituted an important part of Singapore’s macroeconomic policy, both facilitating the accumulation of extensive foreign reserves and influencing ‘the avenues of consumption and savings as well as to exert enormous social, political and economic control’.

Note how the CPF facilitates the “accumulation of extensive foreign reserves”.

Also, according to the paper, ‘The Singapore Model of Housing and the Welfare State‘:

At the inception of the CPF home ownership scheme in 1968, the Gross National Saving to GNP ratio was less than 20 percent and insufficient to fund the country’s investment needs (32 percent of GNP).

The book, ‘Singapore’s Housing Policies: 1960 – 2013‘, added that:

The CPF contributed to a significant leap in the savings rate, 44 percent of GNP by 1990 (see Table 1) – certainly one of the highest savings rates in the world, more than sufficient to meet the country’s investment needs.

Indeed, in the chart below, you can see that as the CPF balance increases, so does the gross national savings.

Screenshot (87)

Chart: Singapore’s Housing Policies: 1960 – 2013

Also, according to the book ‘Handbook on the Northeast and Southeast Asian Economies‘:

The high rate of national savings has made possible the high rate of capital investment within Singapore … (and) A notable feature of Singapore’s capital investments is the large proportion invested in residential housing.

Professor Mukul G Asher also explains how:

Because of the certain characteristics of Singapore’s economy, such as lack of common law or constitutional rights to own land, and existence of a monopoly state supplier of housing, the CPF system has dominated residential mortgage financing in Singapore.” He also highlighted how, “As at 31 march 2012, 1.38 million members had withdrawn net amount of $ 101.9 billion for public housing scheme; the corresponding values for Residential Property Scheme was 0.26 million and $ 50.4 billion respectively.

Today, the net amount withdrawn is $113.7 million and $55.1 million respectively.

Lastly, in the paper, ‘S​o​c​i​a​l​ ​D​e​v​e​l​o​p​m​e​n​t​,​ ​H​o​u​s​i​n​g​ ​a​n​d​ ​C​e​n​t​r​a​l​ ​P​r​o​v​i​d​e​n​t​ ​F​u​n​d​ ​i​n​ ​S​i​n​g​a​p​o​r​e‘, it is said that:

Home purchase incurs huge expenditures and thus requires a high saving ratio. In 1999, gross domestic savings comprised 50% of Singapore’s GDP. CPF savings undoubtedly form a major part of this savings rate. When these savings are translated into individual home ownership they store wealth for the future.

Today, there is $260 billion inside the CPF. $114 billion has been withdrawn to fund the HDB.

And finally, take a look at the following chart. In particular, take a look at the chart highlighted within the red box. You can see that the CPF funds the HDB via two routes.

Screenshot (86)

Chart: The Singapore Model of Housing and the Welfare State

By now, it is sufficiently clear that the CPF and HDB, which uses our CPF, make up a large portion of the government’s national savings.

It is thus an important piece of information and worrying that the GIC would delete such an important piece of information.

However, in its place, the GIC said that, “We manage most of the government’s financial assets”, which means that the GIC admits that the Singapore government manages most of our CPF and HDB (which uses a large part of the CPF) monies!

If so, the GIC is almost akin to the CPF, isn’t it?

It is thus wrong for the government to claim that, “What these investment arrangements (where the Government pools the proceeds from SSGS (which CPF is invested in) with its other assets, and invests long-term funds through the GIC) mean is that CPF members bear no investment risk at all in their CPF balances” and that, “A standalone (CPF) fund would have to be managed much more conservatively, to avoid the risk of failing to meet CPF obligations. It would not be aimed at accepting risks that enable good long-term returns, but at avoiding any short-term shortfalls. Consequently, the returns it would earn over time will be lower than what the GIC can achieve in its current role.”

This is clearly illogical as if the GIC “manage most of the government’s financial assets”, which are fundamentally the “Sustained balance of payments surpluses and accumulated national savings” and most of the national savings are our CPF, then the GIC is made up mostly of the CPF, isn’t it? And if so, regardless of whatever rhetoric the government tries to put up, whatever the GIC earns should belong to the CPF and to Singaporeans, shouldn’t it?

This whole revelation of our CPF, how it is being used and the unfolding thus becomes completely ridiculous when the GIC can still claim (and still dares to claim) that, “The government holds the GIC board accountable for portfolio performance, but does not interfere in the company’s investment decisions.”

Screenshot (85)

It is worse when the government also claims the same rhetoric, and says that, “The Government plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC”.

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

It is a complete mockery of Singaporeans for the GIC and the government to claim this when the government is the GIC:

Screenshot (50)

Screenshot (51)

And the GIC is in the government:

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

Does the government treat Singaporeans as fools?

And the GIC dares call the government a “client” when the GIC is both the agent and the client, and the government is both the client and the agent, by virtue of the heads of both these entities being the same people! Then, isn’t it a case of the same people deciding what needs to be done?

How can there be no interference when by virtue of they being the same people, there is already interference? If so, isn’t there a major of conflict of interest here? Will the government/GIC care more about the interest earned at the GIC, or will they care more about protecting Singaporeans and growing our CPF?

But more importantly, with the same people on both the government and the GIC, the GIC had even dared made the claim just two months ago that they do not know if they use our CPF to invest because it is “not made explicit” to them.

photo 2 (17)

They only changed their tune when their contrivance was discovered and the GIC and the government then admitted for the first time in June this year that the GIC does indeed use Singaporeans’ CPF to invest!

CPF How It Works cropped

This is not forgetting that then-Senior Minister and GIC Chairman Lee Kuan Yew had denied this information (that our CPF is invested in the GIC) in 2001.

Screenshot (45)

And then again, then-Minister Mentor and GIC Chairman Lee Kuan Yew once again denied this information in 2006.

Screenshot (49)

And how in 2007, when questioned in parliament by the Worker’s Party Low Thia Kiang, then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen had also denied this information.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister. Does the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest? If the answer is yes, then the next question —

Dr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is no.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Then no question.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Low asked whether the GIC money is derived from CPF money. The relationship is not so simple. Let me give an example. You put money in the bank, and you agree that you put it there and you get 2%. The bank publishes a report and says that of all its earnings, it earned 8%. You go to the bank and say you want 8%, it does not work. MOF has taken on our liabilities. What MOF does with its money is MOF’s consideration but the Government takes over the liabilities of CPF Board that promises a risk-free rate to members. That is how it works. As I have said, the market test is, if anybody else thinks he can take on that liability, please line up, but no one will take on that liability because they cannot deliver.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, further clarifications. I am not sure now whether the GIC does use money derived from CPF to invest given the latest answer by the Minister. If that is the case, then my next question is: does the Government shortchange Singaporeans by giving CPF members 3.5% of the interest rate while the GIC makes 9% and pockets the balance of 5.5%? And the third question leading to that is: is the motive of holding payment of CPF, the draw-down age, to enable GIC to have a readily available and cheap source of funds to invest?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, if it was that cheap, we would have a line of suitors waiting for that money. There is none.

Certainly, now that we know that the CPF forms a significant part of the GIC, the GIC can no longer make such a claim that it “takes over the liabilities of CPF Board”. Whether or not the GIC “takes over the liabilities” becomes inconsequential when it is clear that the GIC is majority CPF, and the returns that are not returned are a case of the government “pocket(ing) the balance”, as Mr Low Thia Kiang had clearly highlighted.

And even with the thorough questioning, Ng Eng Hen did not answer the question.

But back in 1983, The Straits Times had already reported on the truth:

  1. The CPF … provided a cheap source of finance for the government.

  2. The CPF savings provide a significant source of domestic funds available for government borrowing.

Newspaper Article - The dollars and sense of CPF

Newspaper Article - The dollars and sense of CPF (2)

And when I had asked the government, “how much has the Government earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns of the CPF and will the Government consider returning some of them to Singaporeans?”, this question went unanswered as well.

Finally, it is said that the “fund manager(s)” on the GIC are “paid a fee” to manage the assets and our CPF. If so, are the Prime Minister, deputy prime ministers, ministers of Trade and Industry and Education, and the Senior Advisor Lee Kuan Yew also paid a fee as well? At the 5.5% interest that Mr Low Thia Kiang had asked if the government had pocketed, it becomes clear that Singaporeans are being over-charged!

photo 1 (17)

Indeed, the government charges Singaporeans the highest fees for managing our CPF, and this chart does not yet include the returns not returned from the GIC.

Screenshot (27)_edited

Chart: International Retirement Income Systems – Challenges for the Future

“Shortchanged” is not even the right word for what Singaporeans are being put through! In other countries, this government would have been thrown out a long time ago, or be asked to resign.

This is our CPF retirement funds that we are talking about here! Where 90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum today and cannot retire, it is not only wrong that the government has not taken concrete steps to address this, but what is even more repulsive is how it continues to create a cock and bull story mislead Singaporeans!

My question to you is – what would you do, now that you know this? Will you take a stand and change things?

Most of you would know the story of how a stick on its own would break, but when together in a bundle would be united and strong. Will Singaporeans come together as a bundle of sticks and change things?


‘Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me’.

True courage consists in doing what is right, despite the jeers and sneers of our companions.

My friends, when will we find the courage within ourselves to do what is right for ourselves, our lives, and our children’s?

Time is running out.

One last chance.

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

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

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. The government cannot take Singaporeans’ CPF to use and tell us that they do not know what they are using it for. This is a derision to Singaporeans and daylight robbery!

On 23 August, we will see you at Hong Lim Park. Let’s come together, be united and speak for change, for the better for our lives, and our children’s.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

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

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

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


  1. The Oracle

    If he keeps quoting ridiculous statistics, Roy will only ever appeal to the paranoid fringe. One simple example of Roy’s wild statistics from the end of the above post: “90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum today and cannot retire”.

    However, more than 85% of Singapore households have over $1,600 income per month (source: Singapore government household data for 2013). In fact, the median household income in Singapore as at end 2013 is $7,570 per month – so the average Singapore household is not doing badly at all (ranks in the top 15 countries in the world).

    The real question is what do we do for the people at the bottom of the economic ladder and should there be more wealth redistribution in Singapore (something the government has started to tackle in the last couple of years and appears likely to continue doing).

    For a list of what assistance is available today check out:

    Click to access assistanceschemes.pdf

    Did you know a family of 4 (2 adults and 2 children) may receive up to $1,350 per month under the Public Assistance (PA) Scheme? And this is only one of the schemes.

    Another statistic: Government transfers (cash, rental discount, etc.) to households with no working person and living in a 1 or 2 room HDB unit was $10,812 in 2013 – up from $8,803 in 2012. Source: Table 8 of the household income and expenditure report for 2013.

    So more is being done but the question is whether it is enough? And always remember nothing is free – sustained higher transfers require sustained higher taxes. We’re seeing this already with much higher taxes on luxury cars and significantly higher property taxes on bigger properties – clearly aimed at bringing in more tax from the wealthy rather than the average Singaporean.

    I’d like to see constructive proposals from Roy – with sources of funding stated – and not just the usual “it’s all a conspiracy”, “the government is cheating you”, etc. I could be holding my breath a long time though.

    • Xmen


      You still have not answered my previous question – “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.”

      Are you paid by PAP to answer questions posted in this blog?

      • Sgcynic

        Rice and soy sauce.


        Slap the joker.

      • The Oracle

        I picked $1,600 per household per month as the poverty line – the point below which people need help. Actually, WIS now kicks in below $1,900 so that may be the government’s current definition of the poverty line. You can read more about WIS here:

        We can have a constructive discussion about where the poverty line is, how much should be done for people below that line, and how to pay for it. My main objection is with Roy’s approach to the whole subject which is to insinuate massive fraud by the government, and complain about everything, while offering no real solutions.

        And as I have answered before, I have no connection whatsoever to the PAP or any other party – I am just another citizen who cares about this country. I believe more can be done for the poor in Singapore as we are now rich enough to do more (but what we do must be sustainable), and I feel strongly enough to want to counter some of the false statements Roy makes.

      • Sgcynic

        Your statistics only mention income without considering expenditure. How much of the monthly CPF contribution goes towards paying off the housing loan. 100%, 95% or 90%? Even the PAP did not mention this and you claim Roy misleads with his claim that 90% cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum. Note also MOST of the current retires and would be retires did not earn the CURRENT median salary of $5-7k. In you lies elsewhere, please.

    • sintel

      but Roy wrote these are free, and you are stumbling block here is not free.
      we say PM is wrong, brought disaster, and your presence, brought the double disaster . Your words make us annoying, can see you could not behavior well , you are behind the PM give a bad idea out of people , you always say nothing for free, you shall give the same words to PM and yourself. Singaporean had given you too much, too much,Not only is give you money, as well as long-term humiliation. But you use the world’s worst treatment to return the people, you are one of the most bad person.
      如果我們說李總理有錯,給人們帶來災難,而你的存在,帶給人民雙重的災難。你的言語令人討厭, 你的行為也好不到哪裡去,你就是在總理後面出壞注意的人。

      你總在這裡說,沒有什麼是免費的,你這句話最好送給李總理, 還有送給你自己,新加坡人給你們太多太多,不光是給你們錢,還有長期的忍受。但是你用世界上最差待遇的來回報人民,你就是一個最壞人。

      • sintel

        The Oracle:
        for us, you are the most dangerous person,
        Roy’s statements all copy from the history of newspapers, government website , if you say the false statements he made. means the original single-handedly fraud is you.

      • The Oracle

        I quoted data sources and you can check them. Or you can just go on believing what you want to believe despite the evidence.

        Some people believe in UFOs, some believe Elvis still walks the Earth, some believe in Santa Claus, and some believe in Roy.

    • say truth

      @The Oracle,
      people believe in paper, do you understand ? if you erase it, but hard to erase the copy .

  2. jasmine

    A lie is a lie. I don’t understand how Mr Oreo can perceive a lie to be the hard truth. The truth is:

    1) The GIC is indirectly managing our CPF fund.
    2) The PAP Ministers are sitting in the board of directors and therefore directly responsible for GIC’s investment decisions.
    3) The PAP Ministers are earning double income by co-opting themselves into GIC when the GIC is supposed to be independent from the government.
    4) Singaporeans are taking all the risk that GIC is taking regardless of whatever CPF interest rate given.
    5) The responses by the PAP ministers are evasive and almost dishonest and completely unaccountable.

    We Singaporeans have to put a stop to these nonsense by voting out the PAP.

  3. Johnnie

    The current government is saving money as not to burden down our future generations.

    Ngerng’s agenda is clear. He wants to topple government and wants to get out the money (he wants to spend now). He doesn’t care about the future generation, because he is not going to have any descendants anyway.

    • maya

      Hi Johnnie,
      if Prime Minister Lee care people will not get people out of job,will not no welfare plan for children, for elderly, for homeless, even no way for life, we have given him 10 years to do experiments, he did nothing , just by asking money again and Again . His huge salary Is huge burden to the people. he never appreciated.

      only he step down now, our future has hope

  4. answer Johnnie,

    Your excuse for the sake of the future, but even if a person has had a bad moment, where there is the future ?`
    you smear Roy, you smear people , because you are in lee’s circle, so you smear for money, cheap conscience, but betray Singaporean’s root. It is better to tell us about your life. how big size you live, how delicious food you eat,how many children you have …… you have parents ? what job they did before ? and what about their entire life , since you are so satisfied,

  5. Oracle is a PAPib

    Stupid IB fugs coming here making things worse for their masters only. Flip & flop & flip & flop. Nothing to hide flip flop so much for fugs? Even blind man oso can see all these scams hahaha. Tks to the IBs for confirming all these. woohoo

  6. reply "The Oracle"

    in fact, the country belong to the people, how come ” The Oracle ” here like an owner ? father ?
    Unfortunately, he’s just a benefit-sharing at moment ! but we also contribute cpf to Temasek, no share, no fair, Is not it ?
    now, you want Roy constructive proposals ? you may pay his job . First you have to have the political vision and political acumen. Acceptance of people actively involved in politics, Focus on the well-being of the people of their motivation, the peace and development. Many people do quite achievements in politics, called the pillars of the country, or as a model for future generations. They are usually very skilled management services for the government, or in promoting the welfare and interests of all the citizens have a significant influence.

    PAP has failed.

  7. Chua

    There is a difference between using CPF to directly invest in GIC vs buying SGSS as part of the investment capital. Just as we earn paltry interest when u deposit $ in DBS/POSB, you generally earn better dividend investing in DBS shares though it is not capital protected. However, not everyone rushes to buy DBS shares just because it provides, in general, better returns than placing money in savings due to difference in risk and liquidity. In a similar breath, GIC is right in claiming as they did. Just clarifying for those who mistake one for another.

    One point I strongly concur with Roy is that the CPF has greatly contributed to the HDB property price increases. The original intention of using CPF as retirement fund became a self sustaining monster inflating HDB prices to level unseen. Most of the CPF became trapped in unmovable asset of HDB housing which is already the lowest denominator for housing in Singapore. As such, many cannot monetized it (as they would not have a ceiling over their head) as downgrade is not an option. The effective value also starts to depreciate as time goes by. With increasingly long mortgage period (therefore interest) and longer life expectancy, the housing need has sapped most of the CPF retirement funds for many Singaporeans. Though HDB claimed to be making loss year by year, much of the actual cost is land cost which ultimately land in another government coffer. The fundamental aim of providing affordable housing for the majority, in my view, has gradually been eroded. Looking at the increase in the mortgage period from 20 years to now the 30-35 years norm and using 30% of income as yardstick, the HDB price has clearly outstripped wage increase by a large margin. This basic need is clearly become less affordable even though the Sing dollar appreciated to mitigate other inflationary pressure. The challenge now is how to bring HDB prices to a more logical level without making existing house owners (majority of us) very unhappy that our asset value has dropped by tens to hundreds of thousands. This will have a domino effect to the private properties as the ‘premium’ over HDB may become unsustainable. With this, the reserve price of our land lease will also be affected. Once CPF becomes defunct, the property market will literally collapse which is good news for new buyers and bad news for existing home owners especially those looking to downgrade. No solution will not be simple and will not satisfy everyone.

    Another point worth considering is for CPF to be directly tied to GIC 10 years moving average returns (to smoothen year to year variation) minus one percent (to allow for crisis management) instead of using a long convoluted way of buying CPF SSGS then investing while GIC, though bearing risk, is getting returns indirectly. Clearly, a better management of the large amount of CPF returns should be looked into since much of it is illiquid (due to minimum sum) even after retirement.

    • Wong

      In the initial establishment of CPF’s the meaning of integrity of government to the people, taking good care of people, but not a few people take the matter to their fortunes !

  8. WP

    CPF cannot be directly compare to other pension scheme in other countries simply because CPF allow us to use it in housing, medical expenses and also using it to buy medical insurance. I think majority of other countries retirement scheme does not allow this. In addition, cpf has never meant to be a full retirement fund anyway as it only serve the purpose of basic needs. In reality, if one opt all his cpf in the SA accountant use cash for housing repayment, I think end of 30 years, it will be very substantial. Perhaps the most most important features is that this retirement scheme is not making use of the working people to pay for those that retire. We are paying for our own retirement.

  9. Horace

    Even when things go sour, remember that things will change again as they
    always have and always will. We also have great discounts in place
    to ensure that you get more when you shop with us.
    If you are new to EFT, try doing these phrases
    by simply tapping gently on top of your head (on your crown).

  10. Ivan Ho

    Morally speaking, Roy is standing tall on moral ground as he digs, and drags out the pieces which the Govt/MAS/GIC tried, and is still trying to hide as the voice of Singaporeans grow louder demanding for PAP govt to come clean; to be transparent and accountable in using CPF money – a cheap source of fund with a real return of a derisory 0.1% for OA which can only partially be withdrawn at age
    55 provided one has enough CPF savings to meet the increasing Minimum Sum and miserly 1.6% for RA, MS, SA based on conservative 2.4% inflation rate. Mind you, it was reported that GIC made an annualised nominal return of 12.4% over the
    last 5 yrs ending Mar 2014. You can calculate for yourself how much GIC pockets
    using our cheap trust fund!
    Wake up Singaporeans!
    WP thru’ MP LTK has raised question in Parliament but was pushed over by NEH who said GIC didn’t use our CPF as his lone voice was not audible enough for Opposition representation is weak! LKY also denied that GIC used our CPF till TS admitted finally that GIC did use CPF money after Roy’s call and persistent public pressure from HLP rally!
    Thanks for supporting Roy who is more moral than MIW for giving us the heart truths and yet he has to be hauled to court!
    We believe that justice and truths will prevail!
    This will be the final wake up call! VTO the next GE!

  11. The Oracle

    Over the past 20 years, GIC’s real rate of return was 4.1% per year. You “conveniently” picked the past 5 years as the number looked better (it leaves out the 2008-2009 credit crisis) but 20 years is the government mandated time horizon that GIC’s performance is measured against.

    Also, annual inflation over the past 20 years has averaged 1.9% rather than 2.4% (you can check for yourself on the Singstat website).

    And also, all those people Roy claims to speak for who have less than $60,000 cash in their CPF account also get 1% extra interest on all or most of their CPF money – so the long term real rate of return ranges from 1.6% in the OA to 3.1% in the SA and Medisave accounts – not 0.1%! And we get that margin every year – no big jumps up but no big drops either.

    Finally, it’s not like the government steals the surplus – 50% of any excess is returned to the government budget to help fund government spending, including items like the pioneer generation package, etc.

  12. Pingback: How Much Interest Must Singaporeans Earn On Our CPF To Be Able To Meet The CPF Minimum Sum? | The Heart Truths
  13. Pingback: 我们的公积金户头需要赚取多少的利率回报才能够达到政府定下公积金最低存款额的要求吗? | The Heart Truths
  14. Pingback: 公积金户头需要赚取多少的利率回报才能达到最低存款额的要求? | The Heart Truths
  15. Pingback: The Truth: GIC Manages Only Singaporeans’ CPF and You Should Earn 6% On Your CPF? | The Heart Truths
  16. Pingback: Did PAP Take Our CPF to Pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s Losses? | The Heart Truths
  17. teoenming

    Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Want Teo En Ming Dead

    Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong want Teo En Ming dead. Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong want Teo En Ming to die young. I am only 36 years old. I do not want to die young. I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!! I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!! I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!! I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!! I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!!

    In fact, I want to live forever!!!
    In fact, I want to live forever!!!
    In fact, I want to live forever!!!
    In fact, I want to live forever!!!
    In fact, I want to live forever!!!

    Teo En Ming has filed an official complaint against the Singapore Government at the United Nations Human Rights Council Branch and the International Criminal Court. Read the letter here:


    Teo En Ming’s Open Letter (Plea for Medical Help/Assistance) to World Leaders dated 27 August 2010. Read the letter here:

    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
    Singapore Citizen
    Republic of Singapore
    14 Jan 2015 Wednesday Singapore Time

  18. Pingback: 20150128 Individual citizen owns $60,000 in Temasek | likedatosocanmeh
  19. Pingback: The Truth about the CPF Advisory Panel’s Recommendations: PAP Never Wanted to Increase Our CPF at All | The Heart Truths
  20. Pingback: Singaporeans will pay a very high price for supporting Lee Kuan Yew’s dictatorship, mess created by PAP | likedatosocanmeh

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s