Government Does Not Invest Our CPF in GIC?: Singaporeans, We Have Been Taken For Fools

On 30 May 2014 this year, the Ministry of Finance finally admitted for the first time ever that they take the CPF of Singaporeans to invest in the GIC. It was reported that, “The CPF Board invests CPF monies in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS)” which are “are transferred to GIC to be managed”. The MOF said, “The Government’s assets (which our CPF is part of) are therefore mainly managed by GIC.

CPF How It Works cropped

Lee Kuan Yew denied this truth in 2001.

Screenshot (45)

Lee Kuan Yew had also denied this truth in 2006.

Screenshot (49)

Then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen had also denied this truth in 2007.

lowtk-20070920

The Ministry of Finance, via a speech by then-Second Finance Minister Lim Hwee Hua, also denied the government’s involvement in the GIC in 2008:

Madam, let me explain how the Government relates to GIC and Temasek. GIC and Temasek operate independently of each other and of the Government. Their mandates are to maximise the overall returns of their investments within their respective risk tolerance limits.

GIC’s and Temasek’s performance are assessed and monitored on the basis of the overall returns of their respective portfolios. Up to now, they have done creditably, with GIC averaging an annual return of 9.5% in US dollar terms over a period of 25 years to March 2006, and Temasek’s Total Shareholder Return (by market cap) since 1974 has averaged over 18% annually in Singapore dollar terms. Both have achieved these good returns because they have professional management teams, drawn from all over the world, and without interference from the Government. They do their jobs with the single objective of maximising the long term returns on their portfolios, without any political agenda whatsoever.

That said, it does not mean that the Government has no responsibility to ensure that these institutions continue to be managed well. The Government ensures that both GIC and Temasek have competent Boards who oversee their performance and risk management frameworks. The Government regularly reviews reports from GIC and Temasek on their overall investment performance, portfolio risk profile and risk management. This is the right balance when exercising oversight. The danger of any higher level of oversight is that the Government could end up micromanaging. It would give others the mistaken notion that the Government influences the individual investment decisions of GIC and Temasek, and will raise even more concerns.

Mr Singh suggested that the Government have some level of coordination between the investments by GIC and Temasek so as to limit risks for Singapore as a whole. The Government does not coordinate GIC’s and Temasek’s investments, but does look at the risks in totality to ensure that firstly they are within the Government’s overall risk thresholds, and that secondly GIC and Temasek are likely to be able to provide Government with good long term returns on their overall portfolios. Madam, it is absolutely critical that GIC and Temasek remain strictly independent of each other in their strategies and execution, and that Government does not get involved in managing their investments.

The role of the Government in the investment process is clear. It is to ensure that the right structures, processes, systems and controls are in place to fulfil our objectives. We set our expectations and constraints for the investment agencies, but these agencies make their own independent commercial and operational decisions. Both GIC and Temasek are well regarded in global markets as savvy and reputable long-term investors; and their track records stand as testimony.

Both Mr Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim have suggested that our investment agencies work towards more transparency and accountability. We already have a clear accountability framework in place – and one which has worked well thus far. The Government – as shareholder, in Temasek’s case and as fund owner, in GIC’s case – holds the respective Boards of Directors accountable for delivering good overall financial returns. In turn, the Boards oversee the respective management teams, which are responsible for each company’s investment and operational decisions.

Ms Lim Hwee Hua had said, “It would give others the mistaken notion that the Government influences the individual investment decisions of GIC and Temasek, and will raise even more concerns.”

It is clear that this time has come. There are now “more concerns”.

So, in 2007, the Worker’s Party Mr Low Thia Kiang had asked, “Does the Government short-change Singaporeans by giving CPF members a 3.5 per cent interest rate while the GIC makes 9 per cent and pockets the balance of 5.5 per cent?”

He also asked, “Is the delay in the CPF draw-down age to enable the GIC to have a readily available cheap source of funds to invest?”

It was reported that, “Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen tried to explain that the link between GIC and CPF was “not so simple”. He also said, “If it was that cheap, we would have a line of suitors waiting for the money. There are none.”

A few days later, Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “Some people say…Government wants cheap money to go and make a profit. We do not have to make cheap money. This is not that kind of government.

However, in 1983, The Straits Times had reported that, “The CPF  … provided a cheap source of finance for the government. The CPF purchases government stocks, and the government loans the money cheaply to the HDB.”

Newspaper Article - The dollars and sense of CPF

Dr Richard Wong, Director of the Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research, also said that, “It was clear from the very outset that the CPF would make available to government a cheap source of credit for social and economic development.

He also quoted Professor Lim Chong Yah as saying in 1986 that, “[T]he large sums of money vested with the fund are in effect held `hostage’ to governmental decision-making: ipso facto, this would be acceptable if there is a guarantee that future governments would be as honourable and as capable as the present one, but can such a guarantee ever be forthcoming?”

He questioned the of the integrity of the management of the CPF, asking, “First, it is doubtful that the vast CPF machinery has resulted in a more efficient allocation of resources. Second, one can argue, at least in principle, that the Singapore CPF has probably resulted in a society where most people are more equal, except for the gap between the rulers and the ruled.”

Ex-Finance Minister Richard Hu had once said Singapore’s reserves belong to the people.

Ho Ching, CEO of Temasek Holdings, had also admitted that, “While the Minister for Finance (Incorporated) is our formal shareholder, we recognise that the ultimate shareholders of Temasek are the past, present and future generations of Singapore.”

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

Singapore Management University Practice Associate Professor of Finance Benedict Koh was thus reported to say that, “As GIC and Temasek manage the country’s reserves,… Singaporeans are their shareholders ultimately and hence are entitled to dividends.”

Indeed, Mr Low Thia Kiang had asked in 2008, “The government owns the GIC (Government Investment Corporation of Singapore) and Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd (“Temasek”). Government monies, derived from various sources including CPF monies, flow into the funds of these investment companies. The rates of return of the GIC have been about 9% per annum for the last 25 years, while Temasek has reaped 18% per annum for the past 33 years. The government has argued that it is not right to compare the investment returns with the CPF interest rate, as government investment companies take risks when they invest, whereas the government is guaranteeing people a risk-free return on CPF. But if the government investment companies have for decades reaped such high returns from monies derived from CPF funds, then is it fair that the CPF Board credits less than 5% back to the people?”

Then, Singaporeans, where is our money??

In fact, it is thus problematic that the government has made so many denials about taking our CPF to invest in the GIC for so many years now, when the government is on the GIC’s Board of Directors!

Screenshot (50)

Screenshot (51)

And the GIC is the government!

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

In fact, from 2010, one of the GIC’s Board of Directors was also a Board Member on the CPF Board in 2009! What is going on here?? (Today, he is on the Board of Directors at Singapore Exchange, OCBC Bank, Great Eastern Life, Singapore Labour Foundation and Economic Development Board Investment.)

GIC Board of Directors Quah Wee Ghee

CPF Board Member Quah Wee Ghee

Last week, the government claimed that income inequality has been reduced in Singapore.

However, as I had written earlier this year, the government has actually been reporting lower and lower Gini coefficients over a period of more than a decade (a measure of income inequality) in each subsequent income trend report. Is the government artificially pushing down income inequality, because they want to make things look better than it really is?

Gini Coefficient 2008 vs 2010 vs 2013

Can you see now, how the “Singapore CPF has probably resulted in a society where most people are more equal, except for the gap between the rulers and the ruled”?

When Professor Lim Chong Yah had cautioned in 1986 about how “future governments would (need to) be as honourable and as capable as the present one, but can such a guarantee ever be forthcoming?”, did he foretold the future today?

So many things we are not told. So many things they do not want to tell us. So many things we do not know the truth about.

Singaporeans, you have your answer now. This is your money that they are toying around with.

What would you do now?

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

On 23 August, there will be a third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event.

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 Part 2

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese

Advertisements

51 comments

  1. rambutan

    Can you hold this event at the Istana? I would like to hear from our “people’s” president, Tony Tan. He has been extremely quiet over the past two years. What has he contributed for Singaporeans?

    • Jim

      Roy what do you think of Pritam Singh’s remark on then SM remark on CPF, esp on one “incorrectly borders on conspiracy”?
      Extracted from Pritam Sing’s post.
      This article refers to comments made by then Senior Minister and Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) Lee Kuan Yew on the occasion of the GIC’s 20th anniversary in 2001, stating:

      “Seeking to correct a view that the GIC invests CPF savings overseas directly for a return higher than that which the Board pays its members, he said that the two pools of money were separate and unlikely to cross paths even in the future.”

      This quote is interesting because it gives the impression that CPF monies are handled as a stand-alone pool. The article does not deal with the question of the GIC’s use of CPF monies by stopping at the CPF Board’s purchase of Singapore government bonds from the Government, without stating clearly what the Government does when it is in receipt of the proceeds of the monies received from the purchase of those very bonds by the CPF Board.

      This probably explains the intentional(?) caveat – “there is no ‘direct’ link between GIC monies and CPF monies.”

      Unfortunately, this arguably inadequate explanation by a major newspaper is part of the reason why there is so much misinformation, myth and confusion about the CPF monies today. For that reason, we need to be more patient and forgiving of people who come to different conclusions about their understanding of CPF policy and how the government manages CPF monies, even if their explanations incorrectly borders on conspiracy.

      • Xmen

        IMHO, there was probably never a line drawn between CPF and other funds. That is, the funds had been commingled. As a result, no one really has a clue on the real performances of GIC and Temasek. The PAP government just treated it as one big pot of fund. Again, this is just my speculation.

      • THE SIXTEN

        @Jim
        Admittedly, your team have begun to open a large chasm with your national , your Prime Minister in the past 10 years, plan nothing, contribute nothing to his under developing class people , he just accumulated up to ten millions fortune, in other hand, it is crime.

  2. Ivan Ho

    How can CPF members know which to believe?
    1)Tharman said that “GIC manages …
    CPF assets – but not as CPF assets. It is managing Government assets: managing all
    Government assets put together…”
    2) LKY said that the two pools of money (GIC
    & CPF) were separate and unlikely to cross
    paths even in the future.

    Can the CPFB or the Government Inner Cabinet (or GIC) please give a clear account
    to the CPF shareholders?

  3. Raymond

    I dont see the contradictions between what the politicians have said previously vs now. The message has always been that there is no direct link between our CPF monies and the monies that Temasek/GIC invests. Definition of Direct meaning that CPFB takes the CPF monies and hands it over to Temasek/GIC. All i see is Roy cutting and pasting speeches that say similar things. Of course, the way each politician positions the message differently but there is no difference with the underlying message.Please point out where exactly did the politicians say GIC does not manage CPF monies.

    And there are serious flaws with the four statements that Roy made in his #Return our CPF slogan.
    1) 85% to 90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum sum of $155,000
    2) Singaporeans have to use 55% of our CPF Ordinary Account to pay for housing loans and cannot save enough to retire
    3) 74% of Singaporeans cannot even save half of the CPF Minimum Sum of $77,500. 50% of Singaporeans have less than $55,000 in our CPF
    4) The government takes our CPF to earn 6% but gives us back only 3%. The average Singaporean will lose $1.5 to $3million from the money the government takes away.

    Wow. So if all statements are true, that means that 50% have less than $55k in their CPF, another 24% have between $50k-$77k and the next 11-16% have between $77.5k-$155k in their CPF. And although their balances are so low as up to 90% of them cannot meet minimum sum, they are losing $1.5m to $3m with the difference in 3% interest rates. I didnt know having $155k in my cpf will allow me to earn $1.5m to $3m. Roy must be a fantastic investment manager. With the $100k that he managed to gather for his lawsuit, he will be able to turn it into $1-$2m soon.

    Fantastic

    • Deaf Toad's Toothpick

      @ Raymond: Anyone can write a blog. The entry level for writing blogs and plucking numbers out of thin air is 0. So it’s not surprising that Ngerng did it. But the surprising thing is that he managed to do it for 2 years now. I think he must have nothing better to do in his life.

      • Raymond

        He is just riding on the discontent of the people against the current government. I do agree that more can be done to help the less fortunate in the society given our budget surplus position. The question that i would like to pose is: Are our policies fundamentally wrong or it’s just a matter of finetuning to be more compassionate?

        Policy making is a complex business as it requires holistic consideration of the situation, a good appreciation of the stakeholders involved and of course, managing the trade-offs among the different stakeholders. It’s not an easy job. Roy makes it sound that it’s very easy i.e. return our CPF, peg returns of CPF directly to returns of GIC, disclose total reserves, return all reserves to the people. But have he considered the following:
        – What is the social safety net for people who use up all their CPF after withdrawal? Is it fair for people whom are financially prudent to pay higher taxes to fund such safety net?
        – If we peg returns of CPF directly to returns of GIC, what will happen if i reach 55 or retire in 2008 when the GFC hits i.e. i retire with a 20-30% lower balance even if it is going to recover one year later?
        – If we really want to return all reserves to the people, how should we split it? Our fair share? what’s the definition of fair? If i pay more taxes i get a bigger share? then the poor will still become poorer – because they dont contribute much CPF and taxes while the rich richer. If equally, then this will be ‘unfair’ to all middle class and rich. Also, this leaves Singapore very vulnerable now that we have zero reserves.

        These are just 3 points off my head and there are probably a lot more retorts for each of his suggestion. The point i’m trying to make is……it’s not an easy job. Of course he is willing to underwrite all those people that withdraw all their CPF and subsequently run out of money – that’s a different story altogether.

      • Xmen

        @Raymond,

        I have answered many questions you posted here previously. It looks like you are now taking over Oracle’s role. In any case, I will address one point your brought up here –

        “Is it fair for people whom are financially prudent to pay higher taxes to fund such safety net?”

        Believe it or now, well off people have been subsidizing worst off people everywhere. The wealthy pays higher taxes everywhere. Almost all public projects and services are subsidized. Utility rates are tiered to subsidize the poor. Healthcare is subsidized. Education is subsidized. Welfare is funded by the taxpayers. Public housing is generally subsidized. Singapore government subsidizes too except it pales in comparison to other developed countries. For example, there is no unemployment benefit in Singapore and public transport is designed to generate profit! The 4 pages of assistance programmes on the MSF website is very lacking when you compare to those available in other developed countries.

        So the answer to your question is a definite yes. It can be financially prudent to fund such safety net. It is a matter of public policies and priorities. While you ponder over this, ask yourself if it makes sense to spend an oversized budget on defense. In a way, the defense is taking funds from many worthy (“subsidy”) programmes.

    • THE SIXTEN

      @Raymond,
      So, where is your record? singaporean wants to see your statistics, Do you have a comprehensive, systematic’s reporting on the national economy ?

      10 years high paid you obtain, but no reporting database ,your Prime Minister have neglected his duty

  4. Likethatalsocan

    @RAYMOND! Hello Raymond, you wrote a heap lots of wordings and surely you are quite educated? You did try to ‘get off’ the main issue here, that is WHY THE NEED TO DELAY THE PAYOUT OF CPF FUND AT 55 (as originally stated) AND WHILE TRY AS YOU MAY, THE OTHER ‘SOURCE’ OF CONCERN IF ANY IS NOTHING BUT SMOKING GUN! The matter could be solved VERY VERY EASILY and liken NG ENG HENG had said, “if anybody else thinks he can take up the liability, let him line up…etc” WELL SAID, BUT EMPTY WORDS COME OUT ALOT FROM THESE IDIOT MINISTERS…for ONCE, STAND UP AND FIGHT LIKE A MAN, NOT BELOW THE BELT, THAT GOES THE SAME FOR YOU!
    RETURN ALL CPE MONIES COMES 55, LET US DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH OUR MONIES, THERE IS NO WELFARE BENEFITS IN SINGAPORE SO, CUT THE BULLSHIT THAT THEY OR YOU CARE!
    There is NO NEED to any fine tuning, firstly RETURN THE MONEY, let the choice be decided AND if you are still screwing with OUR MONIES, well then, YOU MUST SURELY PAY THE INTEREST let alone suka suka take and use…
    THE DEBATE IF ANY IS simple…THE ONUS LIES HERE DEEPEN AND YES, RAYMOND, THE BLIND IS YOU, THE ‘BLINDED’ ARE INTEND BY THIS REGIME…so, isn’t it that simple instead of such much heavy artillery of wordings and trying to be smart? BY THE WAY, M SHORT OF ONE YEAR MORE TO 55 AND SURELY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR ME!

    • Raymond

      Before you make a sweeping statement that there is no welfare benefits in singapore, it might be good for you to just do a quick google since you are just one year short of 55 i.e. smart enough to manage your own money, have the right to decide what is best for you.

      Under the MSF website, there is about 4 pages of assistance programmes. So if you are a needy, you could apply for this- ComCare Urgent Financial Assistance.
      http://app.msf.gov.sg/Assistance/CCCComCareFund
      And the money to help these needy dont appear just from thin air. Tax-payers fund this.

      And for those that claim that they could manage their monies better than the 2.5% to 5% that CPF pays, you should have been able to accumulate a retirement pool that dwarfs the size of your CPF (since CPF balance is very low – according to Roy 90% cannot meet the minimum sum). Then just wait for the CPF monies to be paid out as an annuity. If you wish to spend on big ticket items, use your retirement pool instead.

      • Likethatalsocan

        Dear Raymond, go eat shit! that is much i could say and think of you!
        HOW I SPEND MY MONIES AND IS MY MONIES IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR FATHER OR MOTHER BUSINESS FOR THAT MATTER, YOUR WHOLE COMING GENERATIONS’ BUSINESS, AND WHETHER I DO HAVE A POOL OF MY POOL ‘RESERVED’ UNDER THESE YEARS OF WORKING, IS NONE OF YOUR SHIT BUSINESS, PERIOD1
        I COULD ONLY CONCLUDE THAT WHILE YOU PEN IN ENGLISH, YOUR BRAIN IS NONE OF THE COMMON SENSE ENSHRINED SO HERE IS MY FINAL PUTT, SCREW U AND BIG TIME!

      • reply Raymond,

        Hi Raymond,
        when your assistance programs begin to start , this very fresh, anyway, shall let more people knows it, if it helpful, but i hope you help Roy first, he has no job, no income, no safety, if your PAP is decent party, help your own citizen from here.

    • Raymond

      @Likethatalsocan

      Seriously, like that also can. All you have in retort is vulgarity?

      How you spend your monies is none of my business. But if you are broke and start asking the government for hands-out and our tax monies are spent on helping you instead of building infrastructure, healthcare and stuff, then it becomes my business. But of course, i’m not sure whether you can see the logical reasoning. You will probably burst out in your vulgarities again.

  5. THE SIXTEN

    There are two teams above, one team holding astronomical salaries , the top first world class sharer , another team are the civilian population, the under developing area victim .

  6. du eveiller

    ROY HAVE DONE A GREAT FAVOR TO MANY SINGAPOREANS, AND IF HE IS ‘REPEATING’ OR ‘LAMENTING’ WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS FUND, LET IT BE, GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT AND LUXURY OF SPACE AND TIME…AFTER ALL, HE IS ‘SACRIFICED’!!
    Follow the development closely with your heart, your mind and your soul AND did you for the very first time NOTICED that the Regime is awakening and taking issues (of discussion) pertaining to this CPF fund? IF NOT FOR ROY, many lips are silent into fear, let alone the space and domain here of debate!
    CONSPIRACY THEORY IF ANY ASIDE, being a developed and EDUCATED NATION LIKE SINGAPORE, the system to which the fund is managed, used and diverted is surely room for questioning AND if this is an organisation, TRUST U AND ME, this GOVERNMENT will surely investigate and probe into the irregularities of ‘money transferring’ let alone warrant the continuity with no responsibility of accountancy… is this the First World Country of Singapore?
    Looking ahead, WHO sit at The Government, WHO sit at The Board of CPF? and WHO sit at GIC, and WHO has the final say to the managing of fund of all “Singapore” and SINGAPOREANS monies,… such is the marriage of YOUR system and no where in THE WORLD such fund are being managed, let alone manipulated!
    QUESTIONS may not find answers BUT are being questioned throw for scrutiny now…the show will surely go on and there after, what is next? ROY WILL BE REMEMBERED AS A SINGAPOREAN, A LAYMAN AND JUST AND INDIVIDUAL PERHAPS LIKE YOU AND ME, AND WHILE WE ARE BEHIND THE KEYBOARD GIVING AND AT TIMES THROWING PUNCHES OF OPINIONS, THE HARD KNOCKS ARE ON HIM AND HIS FAMILY, AND YES, A BRAVE MAN INDEED, I SALUTE HIM!
    We all have un answered questions about CPF and indeed many of us ARE COWARDS, face it, admit and take it like a man and IF ANYONE LIKE THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF CPF GOVERNANCE WHY NOT SUGGEST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE TO RESOLUTE AND RESOLVE THIS MATTER BY PUBLIC INQUIRY AND BEST IF THE LEAST, LET EVERY CITIZEN VOTE IN TANDEM TO THE DEMOCRACY OF EITHER TO HAVE THE MONIES LOCKED, OR RELEASE AS ORIGINAL COMMISSIONED OF THE CPF FUND COME 55, this way we shall keep our silence of WHO ARE THE DEVILS WITH INTEND, AND WHO ARE THE ANGEL OF THE POOR CONTEND!
    WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO THREAD, THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE SOULS ARE MASSACRE UNLESS COME THE MESSIAH!

  7. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in his interview with the straits-times team: “Finally you can say to me, so the chaps at the bottom will become anti-government. so do we change because of that? or we say, right, then we’ll lose that number of votes each time. so we got to win from the median upwards.” “that is electoral politics.”

    I believe that this ideology is deeply entrenched in the party, they are prepared to discard anyone from median(income) and below.

    i strongly disagree with this ideology.

    I think the government has been misled or mistaken in some of its measures and i had pointed out inadequacies with a view of remedying such inadequacies, but the government has not been able to convince me that they are able to address these inadequacies, therefore i think it is fair for me to attempt to procure change and improvement by voting for more opposition in the next election.

    • The Millionaires' Political Party

      Mr Lee Kuan Yew said “Finally you can say to me, so the chaps at the bottom will become anti-government. so do we change because of that? or we say, right, then we’ll lose that number of votes each time. so we got to win from the median upwards.” “that is electoral politics.”

      This is certainly not inclusive politics is it?
      Do you think it is true that PAP has more millionaires in their membership than any other political party?
      Do you think it’s true that PAP represents the interest of millionaires more than ordinary Singaporeans?
      If you are not a millionaire, isn’t it wiser to vote Opposition to represent you in parliament?

    • Wiki

      The government has never been misled. It is all along LKY’s vision of building elitism and cronyism empire for his familee. A bust already build for him before he go up the lorry. Plus the self-glorification by MSM that he is the founding father of modern Singapore.

  8. Deaf Toad's Toothpick

    @Raymond:

    If you ask me. It’s Ngerng’s secret ambition to build upon the wave of anti-government sentiments and build up a fan base for himself. As HHH has stated in her post, she wants people to donate $1 monthly to Ngerng (easy money) so he can be NMP.

    It’s definitely Ngerng’s ambition to try to get an MP position within the next Parliament so he can get the $16k/month cheap and easy.

    Use sensational headlines to win votes. Ha.

  9. Word of fairness

    I do not support Roy’s selfish ambition to be a NMP. He has no track record and started this blog for the sake of self-glorification. This isn’t correct. Having said that, this doesn’t mean that I am a supporter of PAP policies. PAP’s lost of votes for the last election was mainly due to their influx on foreigners policy. It was not the influx of foreigners per se that made them lose the votes, but the consequences of that policy- losses of job for locals, bottlenecks, inequality, immobility, eroding of national identity, overloading and breaking down of trains etc. It was not CPF issues that made them lose their votes. Infact CPF has been in existence for a long time, probably even before Roy was born. I hope more can be done for Singaporeans in protecting and retaining their jobs. Hiring Singaporeans first policy is insufficient. Under current manpower regulations, employers can terminate an employee without any reason by giving only a day’s notice. With an influx of foreigners and cheap labours, Singaporeans are vulnerable to lose their jobs. In Indonesia, they have a strict regulation to protect their local workforce from losing their jobs. Employers can only terminate their employees with valid reasons or they have to compensate a hefty amount to the workers.

    • Against PAP, support Roy.

      I don’t think Roy harbours an amibition to be an NMP. He is a victim under LHL’s pro-FT policy. There is also little evidence to suggest that he is going for glory. Most of his articles are about CPF and people’s livelihood and policies. Nothing much about himself or what he does on a day to day basis. If you are trying to attack him personally, please show cause, otherwise it is just hot air you are emitting.

      I agree with you that LHL’s pro-FT policy is destroying Singaporeans’ livelihood. No just at the blue collar level, but also at the white collar level where foreigners are given scholarship and subsidized education (read grant) to make them work here and provide businesses with cheap free flow of foreign undergraduates and graduates. Yes, the hire Singaporean first policy and the jobs bank is just a gimmick to fool people. We all know that employers will just place cosmetic advertisements and then complain they could not get locals in order to tap the cheap foreigners. Don’t blame them, even stat board like LTA is doing it.

      If you are so angry with the PAP government, then you have to support Roy. Only he has the ability to break PAP apart by spreading his words. Make no mistake, by attacking him, you are helping the PAP cause. Either you are for PAP or against PAP. If opposition supporters are disunited and can’t make up their mind like you, Singapore is gone. We have to unite. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy. Against PAP, support Roy.

      • Word of fairness

        Hahaha.. what rubbish are you gibbering? Why must I support this jungle-boy? If I support him, every now and then some tom dick and harry will pop up and ask me to support means I will support? I will support credible opposition.

      • Against PAP, support Roy.

        This jungle boy got balls to challenge the PM, where’s yours? You can only hide behind the keyboard like a champion complainer disguised as an opposition supporter.

    • Raymond

      I agree with you to the extent that a lot of the policies could be refined further e.g. tightening manpower regulations to protect singaporeans, putting part of our budget surplus or even dipping into our reserves to help subsidize medishield life premiums. And i think the government can be more transparent in sharing the rationales in making certain policy decisions.

      Back to my earlier point though, as good as the government’s intentions are, there are always pockets of stakeholders whom they are not able to satisfy. They should be more transparent in sharing the trade-offs but i believe it’s never straightforward in making any type of policy decisions.

      And seriously on Roy being a NMP/MP, if he cant even do his job at TTSH well (and make use of working time to pursue his personal agenda), what makes you think that he will be a good MP and protect his people’s interest?

      • Xmen

        @Raymond,

        “And seriously on Roy being a NMP/MP, if he cant even do his job at TTSH well (and make use of working time to pursue his personal agenda), what makes you think that he will be a good MP and protect his people’s interest?”

        Alright, do you think your good MP protected your interest when he/she voted for PWP? Do you think your MP is fulfilling his duty as a MP by attending the parliament session and contributing to the wellbeing of the nation? (I am referring to the MPs with multiple jobs/directorships or those who don’t even show up in the parliament.)

        Name me the handful of MPs who sincerely work for the people and are advocates for their constituent. Otherwise, be kind to Roy. At least he is advocating for a substantial group of people.

      • leesonghong

        raymond, u stupid fck or what…since when MPs speak up for the people? Even the Govt have openly declare that YOU ARE AN IDIOT, A DAFT AND THAT YOU DO MORE CRIMES THAN OTHER SINGAPOREANS! BLANTLY SPEAKING, YOU COULD ONLY BE A DOG FOR SO LONG, COME THE DAY, AWAKEN AND MAY YOU REGRET FOR THE REST OF THE SHIT LIFE THAT YOU HAVE AS A DOG, AS WELL COMING FROM THE WHOLE FAMILY WHORE DOGS, so, go barks and lick more …whatever at your dog’s eyes view…

  10. Jim

    If Roy remained unemployed, then there is no contribution of CPF. Should his supporters contribute CPF to him so that he can fight for return of CPF? Because if he got no CPF, how to fight for return of CPF.

    • reply to jim

      reply to jim,
      ” Because if he got no CPF, how to fight for return of CPF. ” ?
      ——–
      Your logic is that if there is no writing pen, will not be able to study ? Something to say back, you got him unemployed, he should return to him before his CPF, allow he survival.

      以你的邏輯是,如果没有写字的笔,就不能读书吗 ,
      话要说回来,你们搞到他失业,应该把他之前的公积金还给他 , 給他生活。

  11. cheepeng

    this roy’s blog BUT surely as you all can see, there are surely lots of PAPs DOGs licking and bucking here…what else can they do besides taunting ROY and his supporters, even with the fact that the main of CPF withdrawal age and again raising the minimum sum is the agenda of the govt to lock people’s monies…
    this is the singapore today with so many many dogs around and we await 2016 to put more human inside the cabinets, and as for the dogs, well well they can continue to bark, but i would advise them to pray hard for the karma of time that they perhaps could evolve to CHICKEN?

    • Raymond

      If all Roy’s supporters could do is to name-call without any slight attempt at trying to understand and debate the issues at hand, are you not behaving the same way that you claim the government is behaving?

      • only Roy know us

        We are looking spokesperson, Roy now in our behalf, He supported us, Empathy with us, He is our national hero, he can go to further more study, but we ask him stay back with us, we need someone to speak for us, My wife was moved to tears several times, forever wealthy people never know, only Roy know us .

      • cheepeng

        ROY IS MORE THAN A NATIONAL HERO, HE IS JUST A MAN, AN INDIVIDUAL AND SEEKING OUT TO SPEAK FACTS OF TRUTH! FOR THE COMMON OF SINGAPOREANS, THIS IS HIS BLOG, HIS SPACE AND DOMAIN, and yes, sure sure I will support him till the end of the road…ALL THE DOGS OF THE REGIME ARE BARKING HERE, don’t why they don’t bark at Hong Lim lei!! there is nothing to debate, if not for ROY, these dogs are licking their masters’ banana instead of their toes…hey DOGS if you so clever, identify yourself, STAND UP AND SPEAK, instead of being coward here…after all, democracy mah like you say, so if you are so free and debate shit here, like all idiot ministers sukasuka say something and change, YOU DOGS ARE NOT DIFFERENT, go bark somewhere and I PITY YOUR FATHER, MOTHER AND ALL GREAT GREAT GRANDS for your licking and barking personality to asking nothing more than a banana from your master to shaft them up!

      • ConcernedSingaporean

        They resort to naming calling because most of them felt treated unfairly. If pap no longer controls singapore, would you start calling singaporeans fools?

        That aside, i do believe Roy brings up strong points, although his style of conclusion is just as quick and as stupid as the pap ministers themselves. I believe that arguements should be presented slowly and not rushing to a swift conclusion.

        Raymond, do u not admit, after reading this article that roy poses strong questions that are left un-answered by our govt? How can someone be on the board of cpf and gic at the same time when the cpf funds are ultimately going into the gic funds for investments?

        I also believe that, if the money that has gone into cpf have been used for other purposes, we would not have to worry the minimum sum and the rate of return would be higher in certain safe investments. Unless the cpf rate of return is increased, i do believe my money is better invested elsewhere rather than cpf.

        But on the contrary, the percentage of cpf contribution isnt going to make a huge difference in my life, if i get to take my cpf money back. I dont understand why people want that money back so badly.

        Despite this, i wish they reverted back to the age 55 scheme. If i were to get my cpf at age 65, i would probably have 5 years left to spend it. Seeing my current unhealthy lifestyle, i would be surprised if i can even live past 60.

        Also im aware all pension funds are invested all around the world. But what assests are our cpf monies invested in? In uk, i believe the pension scheme are invested only in triple A rated compaines. GIC and MAS should not use this money to invest in risky postions. And our govt should live up to their word of returning our cpf money and not give people so much trouble reclaiming it.

  12. Ivan Ho

    Roy, thanks for standing up for the truths and represent the oppressed people vs the oppressive regime!
    What will it take to stop this evil regime for taking the easy option of passing their
    responsibility and in so doing burden the
    citizens for eg cashing out HDB flat for
    retirees to break the “peace of mind” during their silver years as revealed by Pirate
    Minister of the Singaporeans?
    What will it take to stop this evil regime to put
    our ordinary Singaporeans at risk of having
    inadequate retirement savings by giving poor
    nominal rate of return on CPF savings and
    keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum and
    Medisave Minimum Sum and pocket the
    excess returns which rightly belong to us
    thereby break the trust of citizens?
    Do the right thing! We can change our destiny! It’s in our hands!

  13. Pingback: 20140816 WP supporters should support CPF issue at Hong Lim Park | likedatosocanmeh
  14. Pingback: 行动党是如何操纵我们的公积金资金?为什么他们不让新加坡人民知道公积金的历史真相?《第二部分》 | The Heart Truths
  15. Pingback: The Truth: GIC Manages Only Singaporeans’ CPF and You Should Earn 6% On Your CPF? | The Heart Truths
  16. google

    That is a great tip especially to those new to the blogosphere.
    Brief but very accurate information… Many thanks for sharing this one.

    A must read post!

  17. Pingback: CPF Grand Slam: How PAP Turned Your CPF and Your Life Upside Down | The Heart Truths
  18. Pingback: Did PAP Take Our CPF to Pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s Losses? | The Heart Truths
  19. Pingback: This is What is Wrong in Singapore. Now, are You Willing to See It? | The Heart Truths
  20. Pingback: 这是新加坡的问题所在,您愿意正视它吗? | The Heart Truths
  21. top5ecigarettesreviewed.com

    Having read this I believed it was extremely informative.
    I appreciate you finding the time and effort to put this short article together.
    I once again find myself spending way too much time both reading and commenting.

    But so what, it was still worthwhile!

  22. 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 SGT

  23. Pingback: The Truth about the CPF Advisory Panel’s Recommendations: PAP Never Wanted to Increase Our CPF at All | The Heart Truths
  24. Pingback: 20150304 Only way to stop CPF scam – remove PAP from power | likedatosocanmeh
  25. Pingback: How the PAP Government Tried to Hide the Truth about the CPF | The Heart Truths
  26. Pingback: In support of Roy Ngerng – Agent of History

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