GIC否认后又承认了!——GIC主要是靠公积金/建屋发展局资金支撑

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

好了。GIC又再一次更改它们的网站的信息了!

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

在7个月份,GIC在它们的网站的‘一般问题与答案’栏里回应了这个问题:

‘GIC的资金渠道来自是从哪儿?’

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

GIC已经有答案了。

GIC had answered:

GIC主要是管理政府的财政资产,其来源自金融管理局(MAS)的储蓄和它持有的淡马锡控股股票。持续的收支顺差和累计的国家储蓄是新加坡政府资金的基本来源。

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)

但是,当昨天我在重新到GIC网站浏览时,我看到的是GIC已经删除一般问题回答里的有关答案了,并以另一个答案取代了。它最新的答案是如下:

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:

除了存放在金融管理局和淡马锡控股的股票是属于资金管理经理外,我们管理政府大多数的金融资产。我们不是这些资产的主人。我们是从政府哪儿收到资金进行长期的管理,不论这些资金是从哪儿来。例如,政府发行的证券和政府的盈余资金。

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)

示图中文内容:

《一般问与答》见示图第5 条

GIC的网站删除的如下的信息:

The GIC deleted the following information:

持续的收支顺差和累计的国家储蓄是新加坡政府资金的基本来源。

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

为什么GIC的网站要删除这则信息?

Why did the GIC delete this information?

最重要的是:那句话是:什么是‘累计的国家储蓄’?以及为什么他们要把这句话从GIC网页上删除掉?

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

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

根据报章的报道,‘新加坡正在为金融体系的安全、雇佣、生活安排和医药保健改变结构和政策。’

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

公积金制度是新加坡政府储蓄的高效储蓄的机制。明显的,‘公积金在全国总储蓄率占了16.3%到30.4%’’。但是,最重要的是,‘在按绝对值计算,公积金会员存款总结存为57,649,200亿万元,这是比全国总储蓄存款还高,全国总储蓄存款为52,178,300亿万元’。

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.

11亿3千7百万元与5亿5千1百万元的分别。

$113.7 million and $55.1 million respectively

同时,一本书名叫:《亚洲和东亚关系:区域的迷惑》(英文书名为:《ASEAN and East Asian International Relations: Regional Delusion》)说道,

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

公积金的高缴交额构成了新加坡宏观经济政策的一个极其主要的组成部分。它促进了累计了可观的外汇储备和影响着‘消费和储蓄的途径,进而发挥了控制庞大的社会、政治和经济作用’。

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’.

请注意,公积金是如何促进了‘累计可观的外汇储备’

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

同时,根据报告:《新加坡的住房与社会福利的模式》

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

1968年,在公积金会员居者有其屋的计划下,国家总储蓄GNP的比例是少于20%和不足够资助国家所需的(32%GNP)投资。

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).

在《新加坡的住房政策:1960年—2013年》一书进一步补充说,

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

1994年在GNP的方面的增长中(见表格1),公积金贡献率44%当然,这是世界上唯一高储蓄率的。它已经远远超出来国家所需的投资资金。

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.

事实上在如下的示图,您 可以看到公积金结存的增长是国家出现的总额的一部分。(见红色框内的数据。)

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

Screenshot (87)

示图:1960年——2013年新加坡的房屋政策

Chart: Singapore’s Housing Policies: 1960 – 2013

同时,根据《东北亚和东南亚经济手册》的披露

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

‘国家高储蓄率已经可能成为在新加坡范围的高资本投资率。。。(和)值得注意的特色是新加坡的资本投资大部分是在居民住房’

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.

Mukul G Asher教授也解释说为什么:

Professor Mukul G Asher also explains how:

‘因为新加坡的一些经济特性,如在土地方面,新加坡缺乏普通法或宪法规定的权利拥有自己的土地,而现有的国家垄断提供住房政策下,公积金制度已经成为新加坡住房抵押贷款的主要支柱。’

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.”

他同时强调说,‘截至2012年3月31日,138万公积金会员已经从公积金局提取了净总额1019亿万元作为公共住房的计划。居民产业计划的对应值是0.26百万和50.4亿元’。

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.

今天净提款额是113.亿万元和55.1前万元对应值。

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

在最后,在《在新加坡的社会发展、住房和公积金》的报告中说,

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:

住房购屋占了巨大的开支而就因此需要高储蓄率。在1991年,总储蓄率占了GDP的50%。公积金在GDP是扮演着一个极其主要的储蓄率。当这些储蓄转为个别的购屋者所有权时,这就是他们未来的财富。

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.

今天在公积金户头里有2600亿元。1140亿元已经被提取出来购买建屋发展局的组屋。

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

最后,请看看以下的流程图。特别要注意在流程图里红色框内的流程,您可以看到的公积金为建屋发展局提高资金的两个流程。

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)

示图:新加坡的住房模式和福利国。

Chart: The Singapore Model of Housing and the Welfare State

到了这里,我们已经看到在公积金和建屋发展局两者之间,是谁在使用我们的公积金作为占据了政府的国家储蓄的部分额。

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.

这是一个极其主要的信息。我们担心GIC将会删除这个重要的信息。

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

尽管如此,GIC在自己的网站说,‘我们发展管理着政府大部分的资产’。这就是GIC承认了新加坡政府管理了我们的公积金和政府组屋(那就是动用了巨大部分的公积金)的资金

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!

假设是这样,GIC是否与公积金局相似?

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

因此政府争辩是错误的!政府说,

政府的狡辩说错误的。政府狡辩说,‘政府所安排的(政府集中发出SSGS新加坡政府证券)SSGS(就是公积金投资所投资的)是包括了其他的资产和通过GIC投资于长期的基金。这就是说,公积金会员的户头不需承担任何投资风险,和公积金的户头必须采取更加保守的管理方式,以避免银投资失败而造成对公积金的承诺。公积金不放在追求长期丰厚投资回报的目标,但是避开任何短期的不足。因此,公积金的投资回报率必然不会比GIC目前所扮演的投资角色赚取的投资回报率来得高。’

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.”

非常清楚这是不合逻辑的。假设GIC是‘管理政府的大所述资产’,那基本上就是‘持续的盈余支付和累计的国家储蓄’。而这个‘国家储蓄’就是我们的公积金。那么,GIC成长就是靠公积金?假设是这样,不论政府爱唱什么调子来掩饰,GIC所赚取的利润都必须是属于我们的公积金会员和新加坡人民的。是不是这个道理?

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?

公我们的积金的问题揭示了它是如何被动用和演变发展因而成为一个完全荒缪的事件。当GIC仍然可以狡辩(到目前为止还继续这样狡辩)的说,‘GIC董事部向政府承担投资组合的业绩表现责任,但是,政府并没有干预GIC的投资决策’。

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)

更加恶劣的是,政府也同时相同的狡辩说,‘在GIC的每个投资项目决策上政府并没有扮演任何角色。’

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

政府简直就是把新加坡人民当猴儿耍!正当政府进行狡辩时,事实上政府就是在GIC董事会里面。

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)

GIC就是政府。

And the GIC is in the government:

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

政府是不是把咱们老百姓当成笨蛋?

Does the government treat Singaporeans as fools?

与此同时,GIC竟敢称呼政府说他们的‘客户’时,当GIC就是代理人和顾客,政府也是顾客和代理人时,GIC还厚颜无耻的敢把政府视为他们的‘顾客’。事实上,这是同一套班子管着两个单位!这难道不是同一套班子的人在决定他们自己所需要的事情吗?

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?

同一套班子的人管着两个单位,这怎么能够说没有干预GIC的决策呢?事实上,这是不是早已经干预GIC的决策了?假设事实就是这样,这难道不是严重的利益冲突吗?政府/GIC是关心的是为GIC是否能够赚取更多的利润?还是他们更关心的是保护新加坡人民的利益和我们的公积金?

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?

但是,更加重要的是,当政府和GIC是在同一套班子管着两个单位的情况下。两个月前,GIC还厚颜无耻的狡辩说,他们并不知道GIC是动用了我们的公积金去投资,因为政府并没有清楚的告诉他们!

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)

政府改变狡辩的说词是因为他们的阴谋被揭穿了!政府和GIC在今年6月份才第一次承认:GIC事实上是动用了我们的公积金去投资。

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

我们不会忘记,在2001年,李光耀是担任政府的资政和GIC的主席时,他当时是否认GIC是动用了我们的公积金资金的这个信息的。

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)

接着,在2006李光耀的人资政和GIC的主席时又再一次否认这个信息。

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

Screenshot (49)

在2007年,当工人党国会议员刘程强在国会询问当时的人力部长黄永宏这个问题时,黄永宏也是否认这个信息。

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.

刘程强说,议长先生,我想要部长给予说明,GIC是否从公积金哪儿动用资金进行投资?假设这个问题的答案是肯定的,那么,下一个问题是:

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 —

黄永宏医生回答:答案是否定的。

Dr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is no.

刘程强先生说,那么,我就没有问题发问了。

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Then no question.

黄永宏医生问:刘程强先生问GIC的资金是否来自公积金的钱。这两者的关系并不是这么简单。让我给您一个简单的例子。你把钱存入银行。你同意存入银行的钱可以获得2%的利息。银行公布了他们的业绩报告说,这些投资所赚取的利润是8%。你到银行去向他们要8%。这是不可能发生的事。财政部承担了我们的风险。财政部要如何处理这笔公积金的钱那是财政部的自己考虑的事。但是,政府向公积金会员承担了全部的风险。这样的处理就是可行的。正如我所说的,这样的处理公积金的方式拿到资本市场上去,假设有任何人认为他们可以承担这个风险,那就请来排队吧!但是,并没有人愿意这么做,因为这样的承担风险的投资方式是不现实的。

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.

刘程强先生,议长先生,我要求部长进一步说明。我现在未能肯定,部长是否有最新的答案关于GIC是否有使用来自公积金的钱去进行投资吗?假设是有这样的情况,那我的另一个问题是:当政府取得9%的投资利润时,政府支付给公积金会员的利息只有3.5%,那么之间的差额5.5%去哪儿了?由此引申了我的第三个问题是:政府不付还到了领取年龄的公积金给公积金会员的动机是什么?是不是让GIC可以获得一个现成和低廉成本的资金去进行投资?

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?

黄永宏医生,议长先生,假设这是成本低廉的资金,将会有一条长龙的人排队等着这笔钱。事实上没有。

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

行了。现在我们知道公积金对GIC的投资近来源来是非常重要的组成部分。GIC不可以再狡辩说,他们‘是承担了公积金局的风险’。GIC是否‘承担了公积金局的风险’已经不是主要的问题了。因为,GIC的资金绝大多数是来自公积金。归还或不归还给公积金局已经成为政府‘结存盈余的问题了’。

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.

即便是刘程强先生提出了一连串的问题,黄永宏也没有回答这些问题。

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

但是,在1984年海峡时报已经告诉了事实真相:

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

  1. 公积金为政府提供了低成本的融资资金来源。The CPF … provided a cheap source of finance for the government.\公积金为政府在本地进行融资借贷资金提供了极其重要的资金渠道。

  2. The CPF savings provide a significant source of domestic funds available for government borrowing. 当我质问政府:‘政府在单一的公积金资金投资的确实超额回报是多少?政府是否考虑将这部分超额投资回报归还给新加坡人民?’这个问题也同样没获得任何的答案!

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.

最终他们说,‘资金管理经理的管理费’是支付给‘GIC’管理国家的资产和我们的公积金的。假设是事件情况这样,那么,新加坡总理、副总理、贸工部长、教育部长和高级顾问李光耀都领取这个‘费用’吗?而工人党秘书长刘程强先生所提出的5.5%的利息的问题是不是政府放口袋里!非常明显的:政府在管理新加坡人民的公积金所收取的管理费是超额收取了!

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)

事实上,新加坡人民支付了高昂的公积金管理费给政府,而这个图表并没有包括了说明GIC是否归还或尚未归还我们的公积金。

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

 

‘局部的改变’!这不是一个新加坡人民使用的正确字眼!在其他国家,这个政府早在很久前已经被人们抛弃,或者人民要求他们辞职下台了!

“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.

我们现在谈论的是我们的公积金!今天,当90%的新加坡人无法达到最低存款要求而过无法退休生活事。这不仅仅一个是政府没有采取坚定的措施去解决这个问题的错误而已!这是一个令人厌恶和误导新加坡人民的无稽之谈1

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!

我向大家提出的问题是:您现在已经知道这一切事实,您将为此做什么?您是否决定站出来为此而要求改变?

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

我们大家都知道有关一根筷子会容易被折断的故事吧。但是,当一扎筷子在捆绑一起时就如我们团结在一起而展示的强大力量。我们新加坡人是否会想要如一扎筷子捆绑在一起一样,我们一起展示要求改变的强大力量?

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?

现在:

Now:

‘棍子和石头会打断我们骨头,但是,文字不会伤害我。’

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

真正的勇气是在于做了正确的行动,而不在于我们的同伴的嘲笑和冷笑。

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

朋友们,我们啥时候才能找到我们勇气去为自己、我们的生活和孩子做出正确的行动。

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

时间正在消失中。

Time is running out.

这是最后的机会了。

One last chance.

第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会主题是:由于需要偿还建屋发展局的租赁组屋租赁金的原因新加坡人无法退休。

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

在2014年8月23日,我们将举行第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。

在2014年6月7日,我们举行了第一场集会。我们给您们揭露了事实,迫使政府最终必须承认他们已经动用了我们的公积金投资在GIC。

在2014年7月12日,我们举行了第二场集会。我们进一步暴露了新加坡人根本就无法达到政府要求公积金会员最低存款要求的确实的人数。

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.

请和我们站在一起并参与我们的第三场集会。政府不可以动用了我们新加坡的公积金后,告诉我们说他们知道自己拿我们的公积金去干啥!这是政府在嘲笑新加坡人民和光天化日下的抢劫!

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!

让我们于2014年8月23日在方林公园见面。为了我们未来有一个更好的生活和我们的孩子,让咱们走到一起来,团结在一起发出要求改变的共同声音

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.

您们可以到如下的网站浏览

You can join the Facebook event page here.

 

与此同时,我的诽谤案件将与2014年9月18日早上10点正在法院终审开庭审讯,这是一个全天的审讯。

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

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

 

Advertisements

25 comments

  1. The Oracle

    Some of the things Roy continues to write will make it next to impossible for him to wriggle out of a conviction – and are likely to increase the amount of compensation he will be ordered to pay as he keeps compounding the offence. For example, see below (straight out of his post above):
    “…what is even more repulsive is how it continues to create a cock and bull story mislead Singaporeans!”
    Definition of “Cock and bull story”: A hard-to-believe, made-up story; a story that is a lie.
    Definition of “mislead”: To lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit.
    And to be clear, the definition of deceit: The act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating.

    Bad grammar aside, Roy has yet again accused the government (and the PM as head of the government) of lying and fraud! While I would like to see more transparency and accountability, Roy doesn’t know where to draw the line.

    • jasmine

      @Oreo, please call a spade a spade:
      ST headline reported that LKY says GIC does not use CPF funds ⇐ LIE
      GIC uses CPF funds indirectly through SSGS ⇐ TRUTH
      The PAP government says it does not interfere in GIC’s investment decisions ⇐ LIE
      PAP Ministers sit in GIC board and directs GIC’s investment decisions ⇐ TRUTH

      lie2
      lʌɪ/
      noun
      noun: lie; plural noun: lies

      1.
      an intentionally false statement.
      “they hint rather than tell outright lies”
      synonyms: untruth, falsehood, fib, fabrication, deception, made-up story, trumped-up story, invention, piece of fiction, fiction, falsification, falsity, fairy story/tale, cock and bull story, barefaced lie;
      (little) white lie,
      half-truth, exaggeration, prevarication, departure from the truth;
      yarn, story, red herring, fable, myth, flight of fancy, figment of the imagination;
      pretence, pretext, sham;
      misinformation, disinformation, perjury, dissimulation, mendacity, gossip, propaganda;
      informaltall story, tall tale, whopper;
      informalporky, pork pie, porky pie;
      humorousterminological inexactitude;
      vulgar slang bullshit;
      vulgar slang bulldust

      • Stupid Oracle

        You are right! This Oracle is grasping at straws when he try to twist the definition of a lie. If I were in his position, I would rather keep quiet than tell the whole world that I am stupid.

      • Stupid Oracle

        This Oracle is totally f***ed!
        Hear the loud Oracle silence in consent to the truth that jasmine just wrote 🙂
        Hear its louder retaliation to insults by generating more insults 🙂

    • Xmen

      @Oracle,

      Why are you so concerned about Roy “compounding the offence”? You have been among the first to comment as soon as his new post appears. Has someone paid you to moderate the blog?

      You still haven’t replied to my last comment in a previous blog post –

      SM Lee: GIC does not use CPF funds.
      Tharman: Temasek Holdings has never managed CPF funds.

      Do you believe that they are both telling the truth? If so, what happens to the CPF funds?

      Be kind to Roy. Be wise to protect your CPF funds. Better late than sorry.

      • The Oracle

        SM Lee explained GIC does not get funds directly from CPF – that CPF money goes into safe government bonds – and CPF members are not exposed to the profit swings GIC experiences in the international markets. I’m all for more transparency and I’d like to see more from the government but I am not for Roy’s lies.

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        Why are you explaining away their lies? Are you aware that you are agreeing with PAP that both GIC and Temasek have nothing to do with CPF funds? Seriously, why would anyone hold a serious discussion with people like you who are insincere and have no integrity to begin with? If I am dealing with a business partner who plays fast and loose with the truth, he is no longer my partner. Aren’t you objecting to Roy on the same ground?

  2. 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 80% of Singapore households have over $2,400 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 (this ranks in the top 15 countries in the world).

    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.

    More is being done by the government but the real 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

      @Oracle,

      You previously claimed that a family of 3.47 can survive on $1,600, which is equivalent to $461 per person. Even at $2,400 per household, that is only $692 per person. Can you survive on $692 a month? $692 is supposed to pay for housing, food, transport, medical, electric, gas, water, tv, phone, internet, clothing, etc….

      Stop trying to mislead with statistics. Just explain why so many retirees cannot meet the minimum sum. How can they survive month-to-month?

      • thank you Xmen

        Whether it is analysis, or answer, he is a gentleman, I can see people on the authoritarian government of great endurance. we old people thank you , Xmen ! if we can see you one day, if we are healthy , we will make something to thank you , saying for people , all supporters . and Roy .

      • The Oracle

        @Xmen
        Roy claims 90% can’t retire based on a single measure (CPF cash) when CPF cash is only18% of household wealth. All my numbers are correct and you know it and, unlike Roy, I listened to your feedback and came back with a statistic based on a higher household income point. If you think $2,400 for a household is still not a high enough cut off point below which we should be doing more for people, tell me what is your number?

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        CPF minimum sum has provided a number – $1,200 per month. They don’t call it a average sum, but the MINIMUM sum. So I assume that is a good base number for poverty line. By that measure, what percentage of Singapore households are making over $4,164 (= $1,200 x 3.47)? The picture does not look good, right? Now you know why they don’t define a poverty line in Singapore. I concede that $4,164 is not backed up by research. But if they can come up with the minimum sum, they definitely can define the poverty line!

        You are not addressing critical CPF funding and sufficiency issues by bring up other statistics. Why do you think Singapore has a parental maintenance act if seniors have sufficient savings?

  3. Namee Lim

    GIC已经有答案了。
    GIC had answered

    China chinese?? what the F is “已经有答案了” to do with “had answered”

    Half-F job for half-F article from half-F blogger

  4. Jackfruit

    Roy’s article can be summarized in four words –“a load of shit”.

    Roy 的文章只有四个字来形容 : 一派胡言!

    • we thank Xmen and Roy

      but Your money is coming from where , you may explain , we give you time , one month, two months , its ok.
      ” if anybody any government official or any public servant has property which can not explain by salary, he is presumed to be corrupted.” ( from Lee Kuan Yew ‘s statements television interview 21Nov2009)

  5. @The Oracle & Jackfruit,

    The Oracle & Jackfruit,
    do you have any genuine report about Temasek’s original fund comes from ? is that from Prime minister Lee’s father or grandfather ? or any other ‘s grandfather ? do you have paper ? just put it on the table of your Courts
    so far, you have no paper, no evidence, no moral, no sincerity, That’s the impression you give people.

    • The Oracle

      The Singapore government has conservatively accumulated budget surpluses for many years (you can follow the link below to see the data going back to 1990) and, with the exception of just a couple of years, I understand Singapore has run surpluses since independence: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/singapore/government-budget

      The budget surpluses are primarily from taxes, not our CPF, and Temasek manages some of these funds.

      Where is Roy’s proof other than some vague statements or second and third hand sources? He is accusing the government of fraud and telling lies and for this needs to have real evidence.

      • Mrs. Tan

        for The Oracle,
        even you r busy with an eraser , you’re still a wolf.
        You eating the sheep for a living,

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        Can you explain how the accumulated budget surpluses of a small nation balloons into the world’s largest SWFs in Temasek and GIC? You can’t, can you?

      • The Oracle

        I can but you would still just argue with me so better I just let you stew in your ignorance.

  6. 李光耀讲话

    “我过去有一个很好的部长,同时一个很棒的建筑师,他最初是一个房屋发展计划理事会的理事长, 他建造了这些(很棒)的建筑, 之后我认命他为国家发展部门的部长,7到8年之后, 反贪局,贪污调查局开始调查他,因为他批准两块地转作其他用途,之后这个人向反贪局承认, 别人向他行贿,每块地一百万美金, 两百万美金是小数目,他去私企的话可以赚得更多, 但是调查开始之后,他请求来见我,我说不,如果你见我,我就成为证人, 调查完了我才能见你, 之后,他自杀了,并且留一张字条, 他说我是一个有尊严的东方绅士,他无法面对他的朋友, 无法面对他的亲人,因为他辜负了我们的信任 ”

    ——— 李光耀在2009年一次电视采访中讲话视频摘要 ( Lee Kuan Yew 客家人物 – 李光耀 ) . 同样的,一直用橡皮擦修改证据的几个部长, 以及现在的淡马锡控股的老板是不是也要自杀 , 因为辜负了人民的信任. 如果你们贪污犯错不自杀,那么李光耀一手制定的自杀政策是不是只针对过去而已,如果今天有错不自杀,那么过去犯错的人自杀不是白白送死,你们不会想远一点么, 有一天你们的孙子半路夭折, 是孙子的爷爷前世不积德, 上帝用孙子的命还前世的债,你们的孙子将有多痛, 取决于你们孙子的爷爷作恶有多深。你们不为新加坡人民想, 也要为你们自己的孙子想。都知道你们的孙子在哪里,希望孙子一路平安,

  7. 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 Aug 2010. Read the letter here:

    http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/mpich-discuss/2010-August/007811.html

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

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