Lee Hsien Loong at the National Day Rally 2014: Are the CPF Announcements Good Enough?

Lee Hsien Loong spoke at the National Day Rally today about the CPF.

In his speech, Lee Hsien Loong claimed that the CPF Minimum Sum is “not too much”.


However, as I have calculated, the median CPF payout inside Singaporeans’ CPF is only about $55,000. This means that 50% of Singaporeans would have less than $55,000 inside our CPF.

Singaporeans Have Only $55,000 In Our CPF! 90% Cannot Even Meet The CPF Minimum Sum!

However, the CPF Minimum Sum this year is $155,000. Thus the average Singaporean would only have 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum! Thus the CPF Minimum Sum is actually “too much”! Or actually, we are earning “too little” on our CPF to be able to save!

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

Yet, Lee Hsien Loong also announced that the CPF Minimum Sum will be increased to $161,000 next year. Singaporeans will have even more difficulty meeting the CPF Minimum Sum now.

In fact, I have calculated that 73.5% of Singaporeans do not even have half of the CPF Minimum Sum of $77,500 inside our CPF.

Three-Quarters of Singaporeans Have Less Than $77,500 in Our CPF

Thus it is disappointing that Lee Hsien Loong did introduce any changes that would allow all Singaporeans to actually row our CPF.

Lee Hsien Loong also announced that the Lease Buyback Scheme will be extended to 4-room flats, so that this will allow an individual to receive an additional $900 every month (if he/she sells his/her the last 35 years of his/her $300,000 flat), on top of the CPF Minimum Sum payout.


If Singaporeans Do Not Have to Pay for Land Costs, Singaporeans Would Be Able to Save $250,000

However, Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah had recently admitted that, “we control the (public housing) construction programme; secondly, we set the price (for the HDB flats).

Also, “Land … makes up about three-fifths of development cost (of HDB flats) on average.”


And with Gerald Giam’s questioning, Singaporeans are now able to know that, “the value of the flats will be zero at the end of their 99-year lease” and “Like all leasehold properties, HDB flats will revert to HDB, the landowner, upon expiry of their leases. HDB will in turn surrender the land to the State.”

If so, if the government sets the price of HDB flats and Singaporeans are only leasing the flats, without owning the land, does it make sense for Singaporeans to pay for the cost of the land?

Also, because Singaporeans have to pay for the cost of the land, for a $300,000 4-room flat, we are actually paying $180,000 into land costs. If we are able to save this $180,000 to put aside in the CPF to earn interest, this would allow us to save enough to be able to retire.

Why does the government insist on going through a convoluted means of (1) charging us high flat prices which includes 60% of land costs which we don’t own, (2) make us not be able to save enough inside our CPF, (3) then make us sell back our lease and get back only a little back?


In fact, there was something else Lee Hsien Loong had conveniently not mentioned.

Because Singaporeans only lease the flats, by the 66th year of the lease (with only 33 years left), the value of the flat would start going down and will be zero at Year-99.

Screenshot (29)_edited

Lee Hsien Loong’s illustration of the Lease Buyback Scheme assumes that an individual sells off the last 35 years of the lease. But what if the person has only less than 33 years of lease to sell back? Then the person would have lesser and lesser to sell back!

If so, the Lease Buyback Scheme would become redundant for Singaporeans.

Also, the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) “is not a scheme intended solely to replace old flats reaching the end of their lease”, according to Gerald Giam. If so, if an individual’s flat reduces in value after Year-66, and the flat cannot be sold under SERS, Singaporeans are sitting on an asset with losing value, and might not be able to unlock any value meaningfully.

How would Lee Hsien Loong address this issue?

Lee Hsien Loong Still Did Not Announce Policies to Actually Grow Singaporeans’ CPF

Leong Sze Hian and I have also calculated that in order for Singaporeans to be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in 30 years’ time, the following policies need to be implemented:

  • Implement a minimum wage of at least $1,500 (currently more than 110,000 residents work full-time for less than $1,000, about 400,000 work full and part-time for less than $1,200 and about 600,000 work full-time and part-time for less than $1,500)
  • Increase the CPF interest rates to 6%
  • Reduce the rate of increase of the CPF Minimum Sum to inflation level
  • Remove land costs from HDB flat prices


However, none of these were announced.

So, effectively, with whatever Lee Hsien Loong had announced at the National Day Rally 2014, Singaporeans will still not be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Today, 90% of Singaporeans are not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum fully in cash. This will still remain the same.


Lee Hsien Loong’s announcements at the National Day Rally 2014 has been disappointing.

Singaporeans Would Be Able to Retire with At Least $900,000 if the Government Returns Us the Interest Earned on our CPF

Finally, Lee Hsien Loong still did not address how the government takes our CPF to invest in the GIC and how the returns are not returned. Today, Singaporeans earn an average of 3% on our CPF and the GIC earns about 6%, or two times what we earn. This means 3% is not returned to Singaporeans.

I have calculated that for the average Singaporean aged 25 who starts work today at the median wage of about $3,000, if he/she works for the next 30 years and retire at 55, the returns that are not returned would amount to nearly $750,000!


Leong Sze Hian has calculated if the individual starts work at 21 and works until 65, he/she would lose more than $3 million!


Thus if the government were to return the interest earned on our CPF, Singaporeans wouldn’t even need the Lease Buyback Scheme! All Singaporeans would be able to retire, with at least $900,000 ($750,000 + $155,000)!

So, why did Lee Hsien Loong not touch on this issue at all?

Is There a Conflict of Interest When the Government Takes Our CPF to Invest in the GIC and Does Not Return Our Interest Back?

Thus it becomes problematic when we find out that the government is actually on the Board of Directors of the GIC, with the prime minister as the Chairman no less, and the two deputy prime ministers, two other ministers and an ex-minister. Lee Kuan Yew is the Senior Advisor.

Screenshot (50)

GIC Raymond Lim

Screenshot (51)

It is also problematic that the GIC Board of Directors is the government.

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

Parliament Raymond Lim

As such, it is unbelievable when the GIC claims that, “The government holds the GIC board accountable for portfolio performance, but does not interfere in the company’s investment decisions.

Screenshot (85)

And the government would similarly claim that, “The Government plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC, MAS and Temasek. At the GIC and MAS, whose boards include Ministers, these investment decisions are entirely the responsibility of their respective management teams.

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

Yet, how is this possible that the government does not interfere in the GIC when the people heading the government and the GIC are the same people?

If so, this calls into serious question how our CPF is actually being managed when the government takes our CPF to invest in the GIC, which they control as well.

And if Singaporeans are not able to save enough to retire, does this arrangement become highly questionable? Is there an outright conflict of interest?

Also, when the government would rather encourage Singaporeans to sell the leases of their homes, instead of actually returning the interest earned on our CPF, via the GIC, back to us, isn’t the government’s intentions with wanting to use our CPF highly problematic?

And when seen in light of how the government keeps increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, knowing full well that the majority of Singaporeans simply do not have enough inside our CPF to be able to meet it at all, then you really have to ask – why does the government want to lock up our CPF? For what purpose?

CPF Minimum Sum Grows Faster Than the CPF Itself@Facebook

Thus Lee Hsien Loong’s announcements are still inadequate, and as inadequate as our CPF retirement funds are and fall short of what is needed to actually help Singaporeans save enough to be retire, in spite of the government’s claims otherwise of wanting to do so.

Also, there is still no transparency and accountability as to how the government takes our CPF monies to use in the GIC!

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

It is time Singaporeans stop taking this sitting down. The solutions are there, and in the government doesn’t have the integrity to act on these solutions, then it is time we show them we mean business.

On 9 August, there will be a National Day Protest, and on 23 August, there will be the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, it was revealed to you many facts 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 facts about the estimated number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition as we reveal even more glaring facts about how our CPF is being used by the HDB and for housing, and find out why Singaporeans are not able to retire adequately, because of the HDB. We cannot let up on this fight for answers and for transparency. Our lives are being held in a sense, at hostage, by the government’s lack of transparency and accountability. We must continue to fight for answers, in order to allow our lives to be protected.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Also, Roy Ngerng’s first court hearing 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


  1. Very sad

    Low CPF investment return is a very important point.
    Some CPF members only want their minimum sum back at 55. They don’t know that even an average level of pension investment return (6 to 7%) can give them two times or even three times their minimum sum.

    • The Oracle

      While we could argue over some of the numbers and conclusions Roy has drawn, I’m going to keep it positive today as I’m pleased to see Roy clearly state his suggestions/solutions for CPF – this is much better than before and I congratulate him for doing so.

      My feedback on Roy’s 4 points:
      1) Implement a minimum wage of at least $1,500: This seems about right to me as the median wage in Singapore is currently $3,250. We should perhaps even peg the minimum wage to 50% of the median wage. Perhaps start at 40% of median ($1,300), then move up in steps to 50% ($1,625) with minimum wage increasing each year thereafter as the median increases. A stepped approach over 3 to 5 years will give our industries time to adjust as the alternative may be a lot of out-of-work people in the short term.
      2) Increase the CPF interest rates to 6%: I think we will keep discussing this one back and forth for a while given some members with lower balances already get 5% (which is more than 3% over our long-term inflation rate of 1.9%). I think a good case can be made though for an increase of up to 1% across the board based on historic performance – so keep pushing on this front.
      3) Reduce the rate of increase of the CPF Minimum Sum to inflation level: I think the PM said this next increase is the last above-inflation hike to bring the minimum sum to where it should be and future increases should be small/inflation linked.
      4) Remove land costs from HDB flat prices: This last ask is not 100% doable – how do you then price HDB units in more popular/central areas? These should be more expensive otherwise everybody would only want the best locations. A better solution perhaps would be for the grants available to first-time buyers to be increased to say the land cost for a 3 room HDB unit in a non-prime area. People then only pay for the land value over this amount and the market stays balanced.

      • sophia

        Land cost removable is doable under current BTO practise where people ballot for the flats. It is the fairest way to allocate resource. Also, require flat owners under this new scheme where land cost is excluded to sell the flat back to HDB. Those who already bought the overpriced flat would still be able to sell theirs in the open market and not be affected by the new scheme.

      • The Oracle

        Most people do not like balloting and I predict you would see massive over-subscription for popular areas and failed balloting exercises for the least popular (even with differential pricing you see some of this already). Also, the benefit of what I’ve proposed is that people can more easily get on the housing ladder while still participating in increases in land values over time. We also don’t then create a further tier in our housing market.

      • sophia

        What do you mean by “easily” get on the housing ladder? I always thought that the purpose of buying a house is to start a family, didn’t know it has degenerated into a snake and ladder game. Who cares about the land value when the HDB flat is the only property that most people will own in their lifetime? Are you speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Singaporeans who cannot afford to own a second property or are you representing the elites who grew their fortune by making the property market their playground at the expense of the masses.

      • sophia

        Your proposal of peanut housing grant is the same tried-and-failed method that PAP has been adopting all these years. The grant is actually a discount from the marked up price, not much different from what retailers do during the GSS. Majority of the people are stuck at the bottom of this snake and ladder game that the PAP has been playing. Occasionally throwing some “subsidies” to placate the daft citizens and trick them into a false sense of relieve and eternal gratitude which would convert to votes. It is paramount to remove the land cost which constitutes 65% of HDB price unless the government can provide “grant” of equal value.

      • The Oracle

        I doubt your “solution” of balloting and a much more restricted ownership (that is a big step closer to just renting and guarantees keeping the majority poorer than they are today) is a solution that the majority would like. Stick to your ideological party line if you want but no reasonable government – PAP or otherwise – is likely to pursue this path as it would cause more problems than it would solve.

        By the way, land is not 65% of the cost of a typical HDB unit – check tender prices versus selling prices. The difference is nearer 40% and from that you still need to take all the other overheads such as project financing (3 to 4 years of costs before sale of the units), architects, project management, admin and selling expenses – then you get to the land cost per unit.

        And SO WHAT if the grant is a discount from the price that accounts for the land/location cost – land that otherwise could have been sold to private developers for condos or yet another shopping mall (please not!). My proposal achieves the same result you advocate without the complexities and problems – it is a question of setting grants high enough to be fair to first time buyers.

      • Xmen

        CPF return should track its investment return over long term..

        HDB pricing is affected by many factors. If you limit the use the CPF to retirement, it will generally lower HDB prices and make HDB flats more affordable. This can be done by a combination of lowering CPF contribution (to set money aside for HDB flat) and increasing CPF return. Or if you look at the big picture, you want to stop the government from taking money away from the people to help them pay for housing and retirement.

      • sophia

        @The Oracle, you say removal of land cost and restricting the sale of flat to HDB would make the majority poorer???? Are you telling us that paying $200,000 extra so that I can sell the flat in the open market would make me richer? I hope you know what you are writing is absolute nonsense. Sorry, you can go peddle your medicine elsewhere.

  2. appeal his resignation

    we didn’t see his speech, we had been disgusted him, we are going to never stop & appeal his resignation . we fed up him,

  3. meiling

    It is very clear that Lee HL has run out of ideas to help the people. Oh, perhaps like his predecessor, he is thinking that it is his right to demand people’s support through coersion and fear.

      • sogoodwannnnnnnn

        The reason your government cares about bringing more foreigners in is because they have no idea how to make an economy better, so they just profit from us poor fuckers who fly over. You Singaporeans aren’t the only ones inconvenienced living here and have no idea how exploited foreigners really are because you’re too used to seeing it every day to notice it

  4. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    while the PM’s message of each person being responsible and self-sufficient for his/her retirement is logically correct, in order to be self-sufficient, the wages on the job market have to be realistic, we cannot expect a low wage worker to earn $1k/mth and somehow magically be able to meet the minimum sum at the end of his/her working life.

  5. leste vie la vie

    this is predicted! the intend is not there, any short of understanding his speech is he telling YOU GO FLY KITE! DO YOU REALLY WANT HIM AS YOUR MINISTER, LET ALONE YOUR PRIME MINISTER? SINGAPOREANS NOW YOU HAVE HEARD THE MAN, YOU ALL CALL THE SHOT!

  6. landragon123

    Do not pay attention to what a SICK man say as it is nonsense from him. So not worry whether you have enough or not. By the Insurance People it is never enough for there will tells you, you need 30% of your total income as saving to retire in comfort.

    Bullshit, for I take Public Transport and eats my own cooked food, therefore $5 a day is enough whereas those who like to show off, there is never enough. It is how you take care of yourself for NO LKY, GCT or LHL can help. Help yourself for not one and I mean NO ONE will care even it is your own Children.

    What the PAP telling you is to made sure they have you CPF money to invest so that Mrs. Lee is employ.

  7. jasmine

    The Lee government and its cronies have invested heavily in the property market. From SPH, SMRT, F&N to CapitalLand, Maple, TH. To sustain their greed, the PAP government now tie in your HDB flat as a means for retirement through the lease buyback scheme. By doing this, they can use it as an excuse for them to maintain high property prices so that the “pioneers” can have sufficient money to retire by cashing out their only home.

    Dear people, do you see how warped minded they have become? Whereof since time immemorial do people have to sell their homes to retire? Do you think the PAP government is a good government? Do people living in other first world countries, after having worked their entire lives, have to sell their homes to make good their retirement? Where do you think the “pioneers” were stay? Bunk in with their children in a smaller HDB flat or the old folks home at JB?

  8. Athletic Greens Reviews

    Although you could switch to organic (a really suggested choice),
    the option could be pricey and may possibly not be easy for
    all create, depending on in which you reside and what is accessible in your
    neighborhood. There are a few factors you want to consider
    when purchasing a superfood drink powder. Not much
    research has been done to prove that this is the case

  9. Pingback: Daily SG: 18 Aug 2014 | The Singapore Daily
  10. Don

    All you want is to return all the CPF monies into your own pocket PERIOD. So what’s next? When you see so much money what would you do? Spend it all buying toto, gambling for more money, enjoy good food or put in the bank to enjoy 0.1% interest. In the worst case, what happens if you spend all of them before you die? Do you expect the govt to feed you for the rest of your life? Did you pay higher income tax contributing to the society for social welfare and benefits?
    Some people look at the grass greener on the other side. Did you know those elderly depends on the country govt welfare system can’t even afford to pay their utility bills as they have not enough money in their retirement fund?

  11. looley

    WELCOME DON, AS EXPECTED YOU ARE THE NEW DOG! i have observe your operasi modei and very interesting…since WHEN the government really care a hood about the ‘welfare’? AND DO YOU REALLY MEAN THAT BY PAYING LOTS OF TAXES, SURELY GET TO HAVE “RETIREMENT BENEFIT” DO YOU EAT AND SWEAR BY YOUR WORDS? I STAND IN REALLY TO DEBATE U…nicely, and by the way, which TEAM u belong to? I might know your Line Leader very well in the organisation…

    • Don

      I do not belong to whatsoever team but I can see different side of story from another world as I ever lived in many countries. Do yourself a favour? Leave the country and get back all your CPF monies.

      • Xmen

        I am very interested to know where Singapore ranks among the developed countries. Why should people leave the country to get back their OWN money? They just need to put in a government that operates like works like the other first world countries.

  12. sophia

    The modulus operandi of PAP dogs are the same. When they fail to convince you, they throw insults at you. And when that didn’t work, they will try to confuse you with a few bogeymen and strawmen. They will take twist the intention of the writer to an obviously wrong position, then attack that. Examples include accusing people of spending their retirement money on gambling or prostitutes to justify withholding your CPF, or telling you to migrate. The same old tactics which is the hallmark of LKY politics.

    • Don

      Yes, Singaporean are good citizen they do not anyhow spend money on anything and able to spend and invest wisely. So how many of us can 100% do that? Everyone can sumpah to do that, say only right. Let say the govt trust you and give all the monies back to you and one day your investment failed then what? Do you have any contingency plans?
      So can anyone tell me what should you do with the lumpsum money?

      • Give Up

        Don’t expect too much, Don. Roy and co cannot agreed no matter what you or Oracle or Chris try to reason.

      • Don

        It’s not trying to reason but to think far ahead not just “RETURN OUR CPF!” period that’s all.

      • sophia

        My understanding from the various articles Roy had written is that his objective is to:
        A) get CPF board to give a higher interest rate over and above the inflation rate and scrap the minimum sum requirement
        B) return us our CPF if the government is not interested in helping us hit the minimum sum for retirement.

        I agree with you that not everyone is capable of managing their own finances. But if you insist to interpret his intention into one of solely to get back our CPF, then obviously you are misreading him pruposely to discredit his views.

        The best scenario is obviously A). But if the GIC and TH, even with Warren Buffet beating long-term investment “gain” cannot offer us a better interest like what Australia, Malaysia, Switzerland are offering, then something must be wrong with the management, the auditing or the government.

        In order to uncover any mismanagement in our CPF, the next best thing to do is to vote out the PAP. Because the PAP is obviously not interested in helping the people. As what many has already pointed out, a case in point is the lease buyback scheme. It doesn’t matter how many Oracles or Chrises there are in this forum to confuse and conflate unrelated issues together, like Batam and CPF, at the end of the day, the readers here are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

  13. looley

    Hello Don, do you mean that you lived in many cities before….not countries…please noun your English properly lei…preseee hor…
    by e way, whether or not I OR WE choose to live,stay or LEAVE this land is none the business of yours…you mean you are SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ANY MINISTER, AND/OR MINSTER(s) for that matter, THAT ONCE WE LEAVE THIS COUNTRY, YOU SHALL RETURN ALL OUR MONIES, YOU SURE OR NOT…so, please pray define the meaning of ‘leave’ ok….
    regardless of how we spend OUR VERY OWN MONIES, is none the business of the government, JUST IMAGINE, IF YOU PUT MONEY IN THE BANK AND THAT IS BANK IS NOT RETURNING YOU ANY MONIES, SAVE A FEW PENNIES, BECAUSE THEY ARE SCARED YOU SHALL SPEND ALL THE MONEY ON PROSTITUTION (LOOKS LIKE YOU WILL), SO THEY KEEP IT…IS THIS HOW IT WORKS DUDE…hahaha ….hello young man, your Line Leader never teach to keep your mouth shut issit…to handle and old heck like me…you are surely not the front line type…but then again, is nice to HAVE SOME IDIOTS LIKE YOU AROUND HERE….to suck bananas….

    • Don

      People who talk like that does sound like not properly educated. If you want argue, please do it properly and be polite. Thanks very much.

  14. looley

    Don, i like u lei…not only u idiot hor, you also very funny lei…but surely a scum, a dog and lowly fed dog that eats the crumb from your Line Leader tables, you are just numbers…so do not expect me to take u serious hor…now no Team so anyhow send you here to suck bananas and why should we respect you,or I FOR THAT MATTER, if you do not like, GET THE FCK OUT! if not run a blog, i will sure sure visit and bombard you heavily with nice POWDERFUL ENGLISH mah…by e way hor, you never reply me about GIVING ME BACK ALL CPFs when I ‘leave’ Singapore lei…if you not sure hor, go ask your Team Leader or Line Leader then return me answer ok…AND YES, clean your mouth first arr…also your fingers after you stick all bananas in your mouth and also with your finger to dig….m waiting!!!!

  15. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    inadequacies of the CPF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    9. CPF funds are subjected to policy risk with little options for the member. when the rules keep changing (some say evolve), there is an element of uncertainty for the retiree, how do we expect ppl to plan for retirement when the system itself introduces uncertainty?

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


    i think it is better to pay our low-mid income earners properly and not use so much of their income for housing, this, together with better CPF interest rates will go a long way to ensure that they will be able to retire when the time comes.

    there is only so much wealth redistribution a government can do, letting wages stagnate at the lower end and keep doing redistribution is not a solution, soon(some say it’s already happening) it will be tempting for all forms of stealth taxes to keep increasing to fund the redistribution effort, which means we become less competitive as a nation, because eventually taxes work their way into our cost structure.

    I think the government has been misled or mistaken in some of its measures and i would like to point out inadequacies in the policies with a view of remedying of such inadequacies.

    if the government is unable to address these inadequacies, i think it is fair for me to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of the policies by voting in more opposition in the next election to help the government.

    • 55 to 65 Eat Grass

      Agreed. How to be gainfully employed beyond 55 to reach 65 is the most important for those middle age . We are worried that once we reached 40, we will be replaced with cheaper, leaner and faster foreigners as had happened to many of our friends.

    • Xmen

      I’ll add one comment. The budget of an individual is allocated among housing, medical, utilities, taxes, transport, education, entertainment, food, retirement, etc. It now appears that housing and medical are taking a bigger share today while retirement is becoming awfully inadequate. The budget allocation is heavily influenced by government policies so it is time to revisit existing policies.

      Further, the government is taking a substantial sum from individuals via budget surpluses and CPF returns. You can see this in ever increasing Reserves. Singapore must have the highest per capita reserves in the world by a wide margin. This is not being conservative, this is conservative gone haywire. The next government MUST address the excess Reserves, it can relief a lot of pressure form the citizens. It will make the country a better place to live and help to achieve the Swiss standard!

  16. get the greedy prime minister away now !

    very good , real constructive approach, the first, get the greedy prime minister away now !

  17. Abolish CPF

    This PAP government is a very bloated government.
    Too many government agencies … PM Lee announced yet another new government agency to handle fishball sticks litter that does not come under the umbrella of LTA, NP or NEA.
    Does anybody know how many Ministers are there in this PAP government to oversee Singapore … one of the smallest country in the world at 720 sq km?
    I’m not including our FIVE PAP mayors here.

    Just abolish CPF and National Service.
    Simplify our lives and reduce the costs of governing Singapore.

    • Abolish CPF

      But, but, but ….. what if all our Singaporean men spend all their CPF money on Batam women?
      The CPF money is our money.
      How we spend it is none of PAP’s business.
      Same as PAP.
      PAP tells Singaporeans how PAP created Temasek and GIC spend the Singapore’s Reserves is none of our business.

  18. Jim

    Roy, you stated in your post:
    However, the total losses than the GIC and Temasek Holdings made in 2008 was a total of $117 billion. And if you look at this as a percentage of the CPF balance of $151 billion in 2008, their losses made up 77.5% of the value of the CPF itself!

    If for example, you claimed that CPF should have 6 to 7 % because what GIC or TH earned 6 or 10 %. But if in 2008, GIC and TH suffered a loss of 117 billion, then our CPF should also be 22.5%. But we still earn min 2.5%.

    • Xmen


      A bank has 4 deposit clients A, B, C and D. One year, the bank gambled and lost an amount equal to client A’s deposit. Now you are telling client A that he now has zero balance because the bank just lost all of his money. If you don’t know what you are talking, stay away from this blog. You have no clue what Roy is saying here.

      • Give Up

        If it is just the bank then ABCD are only entitle to bank interest not the bank profit right. Which you agreed that Roy is talking nonsense Xmen

      • Xmen

        @Give Up,

        You and Jim should go back to school. I can’t help if you fail your maths classes. PAP really likes people like you who can’t think. LOL.

  19. 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:


    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 )

Connecting to %s