政府没有动用我们的公积金投资在GIC?——同胞们,政府把新加坡人民当傻子耍!

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

在今年5月30日,财政部终于有史以来第一次承认,政府拿了新加坡人的公积金投资在GIC。据报道,‘公积金局把新加坡人的公积金的资金投资在新加坡政府国债(SSGS)’那就是‘从公积金局转款到GIC,并有GIC负责管理。’财政部说,‘政府的资产(其中一部分是公积金)大部分是由GIC负责管理。’

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.

GIC Invests CPF in Chinese

 

CPF How It Works cropped

李光耀在2001年否认GIC动用公积金基金投资的事实。

Lee Kuan Yew denied this truth in 2001.

Screenshot (45)

在2006年,李光耀也继续否认政府动用公积金投资在GIC的事实

Lee Kuan Yew had also denied this truth in 2006.

Screenshot (49)

在2007年,当时担任人力部长的黄永宏也否认GIC动用公积金进行投资的事实

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

lowtk-20070920

在2008年,当时的财政副部长陈惠华也否认政府涉及到GIC的投资时说:

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:

女士们,让我解释有关政府与GIC和淡马锡控股之间的关系。GIC和淡马锡控股与政府之间都是独立运作。他们授权在承担风险的情况下尽可能取得整体最大的投资回报。

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和淡马锡控股的证券投资组合投资回报是在评估和监管下进行运作的。到目前为止,它们的业绩表现是令人满意的。直到2006年3月份为止,在过去的25年里,GIC的美元投资回报平均是9.5%;淡马锡控股在1974年成立至今,它所持有的股权投资回报(以市场资本数据为准)新加坡元的整体回报率是18%。由于这两家企业有一个专业的管理团队的领导,它们都赚取了丰厚的投资回报。这个专业团队是从世界各地吸收进来,以及它们不受政府的干预下进行操作的。他们的工作唯一的目标就是:不在各种政治因素的干扰下,让证券投资组合最大限度赚取长期的投资回报。

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.

她也说,当然,这并不是等于政府没有责任确保这些企业的体系继续保持良好的管理。政府确保GIC和淡马锡控股这两家企业拥有能干的董事会成员。这些成员能够监督他们的业绩表现和控制风险的框架。政府经常审核GIC和淡马锡控股提交的整体投资表现的报告、证券投资组合风险预测评估和风险管理。这是对采取监督的正确平衡做法。监督的最高级别的危险是政府最终把自己卷入微观管理里面。这将会让人们产生错误的看法,以为政府在影响GIC和淡马锡控股对个别投资项目的决策,进而将会引起更大的关注。

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.

Singh先生建议,为了新加坡的全局着想,政府必须在GIC和淡马锡控股与政府之间设立一些层次的协调机制。政府并不是要协调GIC和淡马锡控股的投资决策,而是着重关注整体的风险。这样,首先就可以确保这两家公司的运作是在政府设定的整体贡献控制范围内。其次,GIC和淡马锡控股就可能为政府提供长期良好的证券投资组合回报。女士们,这是对政府的一种绝对的批评。这是要说:GIC和淡马锡控股在营运的策略和执行业务时绝对的各自独立,政府没涉及他们的投资活动。

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.

政府在这两家公司所扮演的角色是非常清楚的。那就是:确保正确的架构、营运进程和管理制度都是紧紧围绕着实现我们的目标。我们为这两家管理资金的代理公司设定了期望目标和约束条件。但是, 这两两家公司独立的为自己的商业营运和活动作出决策。GIC和淡马锡控股在国际资本市场上已经赢得了属于精明和声誉良好的长期投资伙伴的评价。他们的投资表现记录是经得起考验的。

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.

Singh先生和林瑞莲小姐也同时建议,我们的管理资金投资的代理公司要朝向一个更加透明和问责的方向发展。因为,我们已经有了一个清晰的框架——一个到目前为止已经能够执行的很好的框架。在淡马锡控股,政府是股东和资金主人。在GIC,政府控制了GIC董事会。GIC对资金投资的优良回报做出了应负的承诺责任。因此。董事会监督着管理团队负责每家公司的投资活动和营运决策。

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.

林惠华小姐说,‘这样将会让人错误以为,政府在影响GIC和淡马锡控股的个别投资决策和将会引起更加关注。’

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.”

现在,这样的时刻已经到来。他们目前‘更加关注了’。

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

在2007年,工人党议员刘程强先生已经问过:政府在支付给新加坡人的公积金会员的利息3.5%是否是少付了?因为,GIC赚取的利润是9%。其余的5.5%在哪儿?

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?”

刘程强先生同时也问道,‘延迟公积金会员提取款额是不是为了让GIC能够获得低廉利息和现成的资金去进行投资。’

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?”

依据当时的报道,“人力部长黄永宏尝试解释说,GIC和公积金局之间的关系并不是‘这么简单’。他同时说‘假设(公积金)的(融资成本)是这样低廉,我们将会有一批人排队等着这批钱,但是,却没有人来排队。’”

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.”

过了几天,新加坡总理李显龙说,‘有些人说,政府要用低廉的利息的钱去赚取利润。我们不需要利用低廉利息的钱去赚取利润。我们不是这样的政府。’

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.

尽管如此,在1983年,据海峡时报报道,‘公积金是为政府提供一个低廉成本的资金资源。公积金购买了政府的债券和以低廉的利息借贷给建屋发展局。’

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

香港经济研究中心的理查德.黄博士也说,‘从一开始就非常清楚,公积金将为政府提供一个低廉资金资源的发展(国家)的社会和经济。’

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.

他也引述了林崇椰教授在1986年的话说,‘这笔巨额的款项授权政府作为有效的抵押物的决策:根据上述本身这是可以接受的。假设未来的政府将保证现政府所做的承诺。但是,未来的政府是否能做这样承诺保证?’

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?”

他对公积金的管理提出了质疑。他问道,‘第一,这是令人怀疑的是,巨额的公积金在资源有效的配置下已经产生了效益。第二,一个可以争论的问题是,在原则上,新加坡的公积金已经在新加坡的社会产生了效益。除了统治者和被统治者之间的差距外,新加坡的社会越来越多人是平等的,’

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.”

前财政部长胡适道曾经说过,新加坡的国家储备是属于人民的。

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

淡马锡控股的首席执行员何晶也承认,‘显然财政部是我们正式的股东,我们知道新加坡政府在过去、现在还未来是淡马锡控股的主要控股股东。’

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

新加坡管理大学金融系实习副教授Benedict Koh在他的报告中说,‘由于GIC 和淡马锡控股是管理着国家的储备金,新加坡人民就是(它们)的主要控股股东。因此,(新加坡人民)是理所当然的享有分红的权利。’

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.”

事实上,在2008年,刘程强先生已经问过:‘政府拥有GIC企业(全名:新加坡政府投资公司)和淡马锡控股有限公司(简称‘淡马锡’)。政府的钱是从不同的渠道(包括公积金的钱)投入这些投资公司的。过去25年,GIC的投资回报率每年是9%。在过去33年,淡马锡的投资回报率是每年18%。政府一直在狡辩不能够拿这些公司的回报率和公积金的利率相比。因为政府的投资公司自己承担在投资过程中的风险。政府却向人民承担了公积金回报的所有的风险。’ 但是,假设政府投资公司在过去数十年却取得高利润投资回报的资金是来源自公积金的,所以,公积金局付给公积金会员少过5%的利率是公平的。

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?”

同胞们,我们要问:我们的钱在哪儿?

Then, Singaporeans, where is our money??

事实上,这就是问题了。政府过去数十年来到目前都不断的否认有关动用我们的公积金投资在GIC的事实。但是,事实上,政府的内阁就是GIC董事会的董事。

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)

GIC董事会董事:

 

新加坡共和国政府内阁成员

And the GIC is the government!

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

 

事实上在2010年,GIC的董事会的一位董事,他同时也是2009年公积金局的董事。这个人现在去了哪儿!(这个人现在是在新加坡证券交易所(SIE)的董事、华侨银行大东方人寿保险公司的董事、新加坡劳工基金的董事会经济发展局投资署的董事。)

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

公积金局董事会成员:

 

上个星期,政府狡辩说,新加坡人的收入的不平等的差距已经在缩小。

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

无论如何,我在今年年初已经说了,在过去十年,政府事实上已经不断的在降低后来收入走向的基尼系数(一个说明收入不平等的指导系数)。政府是不是为了让人看到比实际情况更好,而把人民的收入系数降低?

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

您现在看看。‘除了统治者和被统治者之间的分别外,新加坡的公积金制度将很可能导致新加坡的社会是一个大多数人平等’是咋回事?

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”?

在1986年,林崇椰教授已经顾虑到有关‘未来的政府将(必须)和现在政府一样是一个正直和能干。但是,我们能够确保未来的政府同样能干嘛吗?’林崇椰教授是否对未来做出了预言?

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?

很多事情我们是不知道的。很多事情政府是不让我们知道的。很多事情我们是不知道真相的。

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.

同胞们,您现在已经有答案了!这是您的钱!他们把这些当成玩具在玩弄!

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

同胞们,现在您要如何?

What would you do now?

第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

我们将于2014年8月23日举行第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。

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

请和我们站在共同的立场参加第三场集会。政府不可以拿了新加坡人民的公积金去投资后,告诉新加坡人民他们不知道是在动用我们的公积金,这是一个羞辱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!

让我们大家于8月23日在芳林公园见面。为了我们未来的美好生活、为了我们的孩子们,让我们走到一块,团结起来发出要求改变的共同的声音!

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.

请您到如下的网页了解有关2014年8月23日举行的《归还我们的公积金》集会的详情。

You can join the Facebook event page here.

 

同时, 我的诽谤案件将于2014年9月18日遭受10点整在法院进行全天的庭审。

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 chinese

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2

Advertisements

29 comments

  1. jasmine

    I am not saying that the PAP government is corrupt, but is obvious that the PAP government has been dishonest to the people. I think I belong to the moderate silent majority who believes that the government must be transparent and honest. If it is not honest with the people, telling us the GIC did not use our CPF when it did, then Singaporeans must not keep quiet. As citizens and stakeholder of this country, we have every right to know what the government is doing with our hard earned money. Remember that the CPF is our money. If the government has been doing things detrimental to our survival, like jacking up the property prices and making it hard to earn an honest living through massive importation of cheap foreign labour, we have every right to demand accountability by voting it out of the parliament. People should not keep quiet and hope that the opposition parties can slowly take over. There is not much time, five years is a long wait.

    • The Oracle

      You are one of the most prolific and fervent of Roy’s gang who almost never fails to resort to insults and vulgarities when someone writes something that doesn’t agree with you. “Moderate silent majority” – that is definitely NOT you!

      That said, I also agree the government should be transparent and honest. However, Roy’s “proof” re CPF/GIC is a deliberate misreading of the facts. In both LKY articles Roy posts above, LKY explained there is no direct link between GIC returns and CPF returns and why (CPF funds invested in special Government bonds with guaranteed return, Government funds then invested in GIC, GIC then invests in the markets for riskier non-guaranteed return). LKY at no time said CPF funds did not end up invested in GIC – in fact it was a given.

      It has been known for many years that GIC invests money that ultimately comes from our CPF (I’m in the finance industry and knew this at least 15 years ago). Despite the government clarifying this fact recently for the Roys of this world, Roy is still trying to insist there was massive misrepresentation in the past. In reality and at most, there was simplification of the facts to explain government workings to the layman.

      Let’s call a spade a spade – Roy has political ambitions and his platform is anti-PAP. He desperately wants to find dirt he can make stick but he hasn’t got the proof – so he hopes that by repeating the same wild accusations again and again people will eventually believe him based on the old adage that there’s no fire without smoke. In Roy’s case though there’s no smoke – just hot air.

      • Keep it Simple

        Vote Opposition to tell PAP you want your CPF money back. Very straightforward.
        Vote PAP if you want to let PAP keep your money for you under a set of “ever evolving” rules. Rules that keeps changing all the time.

      • Cannot ask Questions Meh?

        “… Roy has political ambitions and his platform is anti-PAP.”
        The Oracle.

        Really?
        – Roy has no political affiliations with any political party.
        – so how can you lie and say Roy has “political ambitions”?

        Roy is just asking questions.
        – Since when was asking questions called anti-PAP?

        Former President Ong Teng Cheong was also asking questions about our reserves
        – was he also anti-PAP?
        – if PAP government did not brush away his questions with “56 man years to give you an answer”
        – if PAP government had just answered Ong Teng Cheong’s questions?
        – Roy would have nothing to say today.

      • jasmine

        Excuse me, since when did I insulted anyone? I have never once say LHL or LKY is corrupted. The mainstream media reported a headline that says “GIC does not use CPF funds: SM Lee”. This is obviously being dishonest. There is no running away from this fact no matter how hard you try to twist. Remember the PAP is in full control of the media, if there is a mistake, LKY who read the papers every morning would have asked for immediate correction. But no, this is how they want to present it to the people.

      • The Oracle

        Re Roy’s political ambitions – he applied to be a NMP and blogged about it within the past few weeks. The proof is right here in his blogs so don’t pretend Roy does not have political ambitions.

        @Jasmine
        This is the most polite you have been to me ever – because I made a point about your behavior. The proof is in your previous posts.

        As for your point, anybody can read the articles as posted by Roy above and see what LKY actually said – he made clear GIC does not have direct access to CPF money, how the CPF buys government bonds, etc. The headline (not LKY’s words) was over-simplified by a reporter and from that Roy arrives at one of his typically tenuous conclusions.

      • Cannot ask Questions Meh?

        Since when does the post of a “Nominated Member of Parliament” become “political ambitions” ??!!
        – The position was created by PAP to get “diverse” opinions into parliament.
        – and if you argue that being an NMP is “political”
        – then I would say the post of NMP is pro-PAP.

        NMP selection is by an 8 person committee
        – 7 of these persons are from PAP
        – the 8th person is Low Thia Khiang
        http://www.parliament.gov.sg/special-select-committee-nominations-appointment-nmps

        Nobody becomes a Nominated Member of Parliament without the support of the 7 members of PAP that sits on the selection committee.

      • meiling

        @ Oracle, Not sure why you keep rambling about Roy. Who is more political ambitious, the PM or Roy? NMP is a useless post, if ambitious would directly join PAP as backdoor MP, who would take up a useless post?

      • guone

        The Oracle,
        we people follow the fact, but you kept to say LKY explained, LKY is a liar, you follow a liar or follow the fact ? he is not your God ! his time is over !

  2. Does anyone know why?

    在研究李光耀的过程, 我们发现, 李光耀很怕与 马哈迪·莫哈末 交锋。 有谁知道为什么呢 ?

    in the process of study on Lee Kuan Yew ,we found that Lee Kuan Yew, He just afraid to confront a person, very afraid a confrontation with one person . that person is Mahathir bin Mohamad .

    We found that Mahathir bin Mohamad ever had a speech that indirectly rescued Lee Kuan Yew ‘s opponent, caused Lee Kuan Yew ‘s killing action is interrupted

    Does anyone know why?

  3. surajmenn

    @The Oracle…I KNOW WHO YOU ARE…indeed at the how you are told to operate, to be front line and the way you are position…you can hide BUT you cannot run,trust me, i know more that you do!
    Now you said with claimed that the government “should be honest and transparent” and Roy’s contend is with intend to mislead, to politicize and what’s not…well, YOU ARE RIGHT, he did not get all the fact correct, he repeated, lamented and furious he is, BUT the crux of point is mis representation took place, interests pay out questionable and the delay in allowing age 55 to take out their rightful CPF!
    When Roy’s and the campaign to open the Pandora of boxes, suddenly CPF topics went to full scale discussion, presentation even to the extend of “refinement” as even unto the Govt suggested that they are looking into the loopholes…strange isn’t it?
    Your mention of LKY does not hold water here…this issue and matter at hand is CPF! and you claimed to be working in the financial industry…O YEA?! I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND VERY WELL INDEED…YES, CALL A SPADE A SPADE, and with respect to you and your great ability to dissect information with facts, with many a time you ask for a debate as opposed debates asked by Roy and his team being turned down, HOW ABOUT A MEET UP WITH YOU ONE TO ONE and if you do have a panel of ‘experts’ in this field of opinions and or facts for presentation to suggest what Roy had be spewing nonsense, trust me, during this meet all shall be accepted with legitimate and professional of conduct sound presentation … nothing less and if you do not take up the challenge, well well, you do know where you are belonging and yes, I may kindly give you a call if you like…I KNOW YOUR MOVE, YOU STAND AND YOUR POSITION AS INSTRUCTED AND I CAN SEE YOU!
    In your very word, Roy have only hot air not even smoke, so why the worry on your end and tell your Line Leader, no matter how much you appear here the very first place in this blog, surely something hold water to warrant your immediate attention…AND ‘internal affair’ within goes round in circle…you are exposed!

    • Cannot ask Questions Meh?

      Stay cool bro.
      Only the votes matter at the end.
      Remember. 60% of your friends and family voted PAP.
      Focus on converting them into Opposition voters.
      Hit the PIGS where it hurts in GE 2016.

  4. Les Miserables

    after all, we study about CPF, first must study about Lee Kuan Yew.

    1) a trap ? for example … for Lee Kuan Yew.’s family huge income accumulative…..half centure pass, owner still can not touch ….

    2) a welfare ? where ? for exmaple …half centure pass, still can not touch …. jobless no way out …..people welfare theirself,

    everyone say something example, okay, on behalf of poor class people,

  5. THE SIXTEN

    不管开始的动机是什么, 至少, CPF现在已经证明是一个为李光耀家族累计资本的管道。

    前途 ?省吃俭用活到55岁的人还不能拿回来全部的公积金,还胡扯蛋什么前途 ?

    好处 ? 到目前为止,都有一个人获得它的好处, 不要再愚弄国人了。

    Whatever the motivation in the beginning, at least, NOW, all proved that CPF is a conduit for accumulated capital for Lee’s family.

    future ?
    people frugally till 55 years,still not get CPF, the future is also nonsense

    Benefits?
    So far, there is one person got its benefits, don’t fool the people.

    People referred to here do not include those who get government salaries

  6. grandfather has been a liar as always

    研究李光耀电视讲话 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3782SStorCI ) , 再次发现他是一个非常会说谎的高手,这一次他用华语说:“如果要钱,就不要参政,你一旦被人家收买,就等于出卖自己的命运, 你的政治命运就完了, 你的前功尽弃。”
    —–
    好吧,我们从下面这份世界领袖的薪水报告,来鉴定谁表里不一,谁给自己制定了世界上最大的天价年薪 .

    ” 新加坡总理李显龙仍将是全球薪水最高的领导人,高达170万美元。澳大利亚总理吉拉德的年薪约为48万澳元(49.82万美元),美国总统奥巴马的年薪约40万美元。”
    ——
    谁欺骗了新加坡人 ?当然是老爷爷李光耀啦 ! 那么新加坡人民为不开心呢, 因为新加坡爷爷一直在讲骗话.

    Study on Lee Kuan Yew televised speech, and again found that he is a Lying master, This time, He said in Mandarin: “If want money, do not participate in politics, once you bought by others, it means betraying their own destiny, your political fate on the end, you come to naught.”
    ——
    Well, we look at the report below that world political leaders salaries comparison, To identify who is duplicity, Who gave himself draw up the world’s largest astronomical salary.

    ” Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong remain the world’s highest-paid leaders, up to $ 1.7 million. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s salary of about 480,000 Australian dollars ($ 498,200), the United States President Barack Obama’s annual salary of about $ 400,000. ”
    ——-
    who deceived Singaporeans ? Of course, it is grandfather — Lee Kuan Yew.

    So why Singaporeans not happy, it is because Singaporeans grandfather has been a liar as always .

  7. who is Lee Kuan Yew.

    以此类推,李光耀关于淡马锡控股和CPF无关的声明也是老爷爷讲骗话生涯的其中一个部分。
    And so on, Lee Kuan Yew’s statement on Temasek has unrelated with CPF, it is the one part of telling lie career of grandfather .

  8. Xmen

    @Oracle,

    I am getting tired of PAP trolls like you and Chris. Stop pretending not to be one of them.

    You mentioned that there is no direct link between GIC returns and CPF returns because “CPF funds invested in special Government bonds with guaranteed return, Government funds then invested in GIC, GIC then invests in the markets for riskier non-guaranteed return.” Doesn’t it look like an elaborate MONEY LAUNDERING scheme to you? The goal is to hide the money trail! What other governments do this kind of trickery to avoid transparency and accountability? The accounting is no better than Enron/Madoff and we all know what happened to Enron/Madoff.

    You need to stop explaining away LKY’s deception. At one point in time or another, LKY or PAP claimed, or still claims, that Temasek and GIC had not use CPF funds. The deception is unravelling fast and furious. They can no longer hold fire with paper.

  9. Political Appointments - Oracle @ 15 Aug @ 8.27pm

    “Re Roy’s political ambitions – he applied to be a NMP and blogged about it within the past few weeks. The proof is right here in his blogs so don’t pretend Roy does not have political ambitions.”
    The Oracle

    Is this an example of a political appointment?
    President of the Table Tennis Association of Singapore.

    Current incumbent: Lee Bee Wah (PAP MP)
    Previous President: Choo Wee Khiang (PAP MP)
    Incoming President (speculation): Ellen Wee (PAP MP)

    • Xmen

      @Oracle,

      You look more and more silly if you are claiming that NMPs have political ambitions. So tell us which of the following newly selected NMPs have political ambitions.

      (1) Ms Chia Yong Yong
      (2) Mr Thomas Chua Kee Seng
      (3) Mr Karthikeyan s/o R. Krishnamurthy
      (4) Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin
      (5) Mr Mohd Ismail bin Hussein
      (6) Ms Rita Soh Siow Lan
      (7) Dr Benedict Tan Chi’-Loong
      (8) Assoc Prof Randolph Tan Gee Kwang
      (9) Prof Tan Tai Yong

      Oops. Got caught with you pants down.

      • THE SIXTEN

        推动新加坡进步需要一批来自各界层代表的,有政治抱负的年轻人,有抱负不是罪,疑这个“抱负”的人, 是小儿科的病人。

        但是官委议员和全职议员以及房子外面的Roy, 都不是唯一的为人民代言的渠道,不同的是,在房里里面代言是有钱拿回家的。

        我们感谢总理, 如果他敞开大门,邀请Roy的参与,有什么大不了的呢 ? 化干戈为玉帛。这将赢得全体新加坡人的掌声

        毕竟Roy已经深受民众的喜爱。

  10. Scott

    The author’s blog clearly reflects the characteristics of this era of civilian power. He was full of enthusiasm, restore history, elaborated in a blog, showing a sharp opposition to authoritarian stance, critical pitted against autocracy, exposing cruel tyrant fickle cause unreasonable phenomenon of society. filled with the fight for freedom and equality in the spirit of the times. To this end, he became the spokesman for the civilian population, even a “mere mouthpiece Zeitgeist.” . To greet civilized society will eventually entered, has produced a milestone influence.

  11. Orchid roots

    Singapore needs some representatives from all sectors to promote its progress. They may be some young people with political aspirations , infusion of new fresh blood . ambition is not sin, that person was paediatrics’s patient if he questioned the “ambition ” .

    But, NMPs or full time MP or outside the house Roy, Are not the only channel for benefiting the people. The difference is, the person who speech inside the house ( Parliament ) can take money home.

    In accordance with the aspirations of the people, we hope to see the Prime Minister come up with the general demeanor.

    If Prime Minister opened the door with great wisdom, invited Roy to participate, What’s the big deal of it? After all the question both party at last send a sincerely invitation as an olive-branch.

    This will win the applause of all Singaporeans, After all, Roy has been well received by the people’s favorite.

    Join opponent work together and discuss state affairs, is also the practice of the United States President Lincoln and Obama

    Whether young or veteran, all needs to be motivated to be positive.

  12. surajmenn

    TO ALL!!! ORACLE have been exposed…DO NOT REPLY VIA HIM OR BE IN ‘CONTACT’ with him at all…
    Let him rant, repeat, say what he wants in this blog, it carries no weight and ain’t not a man serious enough to warrant any attention.
    The more anyone of you out there engage him, the more he stands on ‘the advantage side’, this is their operation mode.
    His Line Leader knew his days are but over and a few new guys are design and assign to take over post…soon you shall see and find out.
    At the meantime, Roy and supporter of the cause, viva la vie and YES, continue the crusade for the journey is long and brave men but a few…THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM IS TEDIOUS AND THE PATH JOURNEY IS LONG, BUT THE TASTE OF IT IS SWEET…IN EVERYTHING THERE IS A PRICE TO PAY FOR, THE VICTORY AWAIT THE BRAVE HEARTS…!
    I STAND IN SALUTE FOR THE MEN WHO FREE THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THOSE WHOSE MONIES ARE BEEN FORCED TO TIE DOWN BY THIS REGIME….

  13. 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

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