The Real History of the CPF and the Singapore Economy

Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

How the PAP Government Manipulates the CPF Contribution Rates to Manipulate Demand

As explained, the CPF contribution rates “have varied depending on economic conditions and changes to contribution rates have been used as a macroeconomic stabilization instrument to limit inflation or to reduce wage cost.” “Changes in either the employers’ or the employees’ contribution rate can have significant effects on macroeconomic variables.

What are the effects of changing employees’ rates? This will “affect disposable income and consequently the level of aggregate demand. Lowering the employees’ rate whilst keeping wages constant, stimulates aggregate demand, while increasing the rate lowers aggregate demand.” Also, “In a sense raising, the employees’ rate will shift aggregate demand from the present to the future. Today’s disposable income falls, but increased CPF savings will translate to greater purchasing power (higher aggregate demand) for retired persons.

However, “Increased employee contribution rates (also) mean larger amounts are available for the pre-retirement CPF (housing purchases etc) discussed earlier. Thus changing the employees’ contribution rate will also affect the distribution of aggregate demand among different uses. For example, an increase in the rate may depress the demand for holidays and cars but increase the demand for housing and shares.

As such, by increasing employee’s’ contribution rate and by keeping it at a constant 20% whilst only changing the employers’ rate to response to the economy allows the PAP government to force Singaporeans to commit a larger share of their wages into housing (because “since I cannot take my CPF out anyway, I might as well use it to pay for housing loans”).

On the other hand, “Changes in the employers’ rate of contributions do not affect current disposable income or aggregate demand. (Although post retirement purchasing power will be affected, as will the amounts available under the preretirement withdrawal schemes.) The major way changes to the employers’ rate affect the economy is by changing unit labour costs, i.e., the cost per unit of labour divided by the output produced by the unit of labour. If productivity increases (more output per unit of labour), unit labour costs decreases, ceteris paribus. Alternatively, if unit labour costs are increasing, wages (plus other costs of labour to the employer) are growing faster than productivity. Obviously, raising the employers’ rate increases unit labour costs and vice-versa for reductions in the rate.

The CPF rate thus became an economic lever for wage flexibility and cost competitiveness in good and bad times. As the economy recovered from 1988 to 1994, restoration of employer’s contribution rate was made in stages of 2% in 1988 and 3% in 1989, followed by smaller quantum increases in subsequent years. Employees’ contribution rates were also reduced by 1% in 1988 and 1989. The long-term contribution rate of 40% was achieved in July 1991 and remained at this level till 1 January 1999 when the contribution rate was lowered to 30%. In April 2000, the CPF rate was restored by 2% to 32%. This was based on projected economic growth rate and wage pressures.

In any event, steady increases in the employees’ rate of contribution from 1955 (five percent) to 1984 (25 percent) probably played a role in restraining aggregate demand and consequently the inflation rate.

Indeed, “In both the 1985 and 1998 recessions, the Singapore government utilized a cut in the employer’s mandatory CPF contribution rate as a means of reducing wage costs and restoring competitiveness (from 25 to ten percent in 1986 and 20 to ten percent in 1999) (but) In the absence of other measures, and given the prevalence of the use of the CPF contributions for housing mortgage payments, the CPF cuts would have increased the mortgage default rate and possibly affected the stability of lending institutions.

Yet again, why is there a need for the government to force Singaporeans to pay 40% into the CPF when this not only over-extends our CPF beyond retirement purposes, but also artificially inflate housing prices, which in terms sap up more of our CPF, and result in Singaporeans not having enough inside our CPF savings to retire on? As such, the CPF-HDB loop becomes detrimental to not only Singaporeans for longevity purposes but also to the economy as it skews demand and impedes on the other growth potential that Singapore would otherwise have, if not in an over-concentration in housing.

The PAP Government Continues to Determine CPF Contribution Rates Based on Housing Needs

In the National Day Rally of 2003, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced … that the 40% long-term target contribution rate would be replaced by a flexible range of 30%-36%,” which he said would allow “ the large majority of Singaporeans (to) still be able to save enough for their retirement needs, healthcare expenses and housing” He had said that, “a worker earning a 50th percentile income, or $2,000, will be able to purchase a 5-room HDB flat“, if “we tighten the withdrawal rule at age 55“.

As can be seen then, in 2003 and today, the government continues to lock-in Singaporeans’ CPF with the HDB, in spite of the inherent problems that have arose with the use of this model. Such a lock-in mechanism is thus questionable for its wisdom. Is there a limit to how far the CPF-HDB mechanism can be manipulated? In a situation where wages have become far too depressed and HDB flat prices too high, how much more can the CPF be manipulated to undo the stagnation effects that this has on the economy. The question to ask is – is it wise to have a complete lock-down of the Singapore economy due to the frivolous reliance on the CPF-HDB mechanism?

Indeed, Professor Phang Sock-Yong had surmised:

The housing approach adopted in Singapore has undoubtedly increased the savings and homeownership rates, mobilize resources for the housing sector and contributed to increase in housing loans and the development of the primary mortgage market. However, the approach is not without its detractors. Singapore’s housing strategy is inherently policy driven and centrally controlled, with major decisions on savings rate, savings allocation, land use, housing production, and housing prices being largely determined by the government. It is, in other words, a neo-classical economist’s nightmare.

However, two decades and 35 years later, it may no longer be ‘respectable’ to continue to argue for the continuation of a system that has outlived certain aspects of its usefulness. While the CPF-HDB housing scheme had its merits in the past, the objectives that the scheme set out to achieve have been surpassed and the policy problem has become one of how to reduce its dominance with minimal upsets to asset values, household wealth and lenders’ balance sheets.”

But the manipulation of the CPF contribution rates also has broader side-effects to the Singapore economy as a whole: “The CPF contribution also means a lower take home pay and hence less expenditure on consumption. Thus, the CPF system has created a shift of demand (and hence resources) from the retailing sector to the construction sector. Therefore, compared with other economies of similar level of development, the CPF system would mean a less developed retailing sector in Singapore. This also helps to explain why the retail sector in Hong Kong is more developed than that of Singapore.

Indeed, personal consumption in Singapore has been declining.

2371a1bf8bd579fa5986ee9168f86a5a

So has purchasing power grown much slower.

5c70affd0c75f7b4d3ea7583aef10a80

Indeed, because of the PAP government’s control over our spending patterns, Singaporeans have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries, and which is lower than even Malaysia and on par with India.

20140427-135507.jpg

Finally, “The government, through the mandatory CPF contribution rates which have escalated,” have resulted in the “over-saving and over-investment in residential properties.

When seeing how Singaporeans actually pay the highest social security (CPF) contribution rate in the world, such an escalation needs to perhaps be called into question, especially when seen in light of the side-effects that it has caused to the lopsided economic growth.

Slide8

Government Reduced CPF Interest Rates but Increased Housing Prices

This CPF-HDB lock-in mechanism also means that “Raising the CPF interest rate would have had the boomerang effect of raising HDB costs, as noted by the then Minister for Communications and Labour, Mr Ong Teng Cheong“. Thus it was explained that “financing low-cost HDB flats in this fashion (via the CPF-HDB mechanism) had kept the cost of living and hence, inflation rate low, and had contributed to Singapore’s competitiveness, and to her rapid economic growth and urbanization.

Later on, “in response to public complaints that CPF interest rates were below bank rates and were also inadequate as a hedge against inflation“, the government suggested in 1982 to alter the CPF interest rates, by “pegging CPF interest rate to market rates“. The Minister for Labour and Communications then cautioned that CPF interest rates “could well be lower than what CPF is now paying” if market rates fall.

On the other hand, he also exhorted the advantages that since “a considerable amount of CPF money is borrowed by the HDB through the Government at 6% (the CPF interest rates then was 6.5%) to finance the construction of HDB and HUDC flats,… Those who buy HDB flats therefore benefit from lower CPF interest rates (from) the lower cost of CPF money used to finance the construction of HDB flats (which) will result in lower construction cost and hence lower selling prices of flats.

It should be noted that since that start of the CPF, the CPF interest rates have been gradually raised from 2.5% in 1955 to 6.5% in 1974. The high interest rates of 6.5% continued for the next 12 years until 1986.

Slide4

Thereafter from 1 March 1986,… the government decided to peg CPF interest rates to market rates. However, the government (also) warned that if CPF interest rates were tied to market rates, when the latter went up, HDB mortgages would have to pay more for their loans. This was because HDB would have to increase the concessionary loan interest rate, which was pegged at 0.1 percentage point above the CPF Ordinary Account interest rate. However, an interest rate floor of 2.5 per cent for the savings was still in place.

Thus the claims were made that if interest rates fall, HDB flat prices would become cheaper and in the event that interest rates increase, flats would become more expensive as well.

Now, the change in the CPF interest rates policy was made, with the assumption that Singaporeans would be able to earn higher interests (than 6.5%) to “hedge against inflation”.

However, as you can see in the chart below, after 1986, the CPF interest rates have only kept dropping and has never returned to the high of 6.5% – Singaporeans were earning lower and lower returns on our CPF.

CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rates from 1977 to 2007

Also, by right, according to the PAP government’s logic, flat prices would keep falling as well right?

However, as you can see below, not only did flat prices not decrease, prices even escalated beyond control!

Nominal House Price Indices and CPI cropped

In fact, housing mortgages from our CPF also spiralled out of control!

Housing for All The Challenges of Affordability, Accessibility and Sustainability Total Outstanding Government Mortgage Loans in Singapore

Annual CPF Withdrawals 1960 to 2013

And today, we can see how housing prices have so escalated that the accrued interest has as well – a Singaporean who buys a 3-room flat today and sells it 30 years later would need to pay off more than twice the flat value, key because of the $220,000 accrued interest which would have accumulated. If so, then the wisdom of paying for the accrued interest might become flawed, when housing prices have been artificially inflated to confiscate our CPF, with which we would need to replace with the “accrued interest” and thus a reduced purchasing power with lesser cash on hand, and lower consumption for daily use.

Slide26

Slide23

Thus far, “It is obvious that the (PAP government has intended for the) CPF scheme (to be) biased in favor of residential investment. Indeed, many Singaporean households emptied their CPF balances to finance HDB mortgages. At the same time, the government also encouraged Singaporean households to upgrade from a small unit to a larger unit.

Even as the “excessive investment in residential property was slightly inconsistent with the original objective of the CPF scheme which was purely to provide for old age living and disablement,” the PAP government continued in its wanton pursuit to use CPF to fuel the HDB market.

The PAP Government Changed the Policies Several Times to Give Singaporeans to Earn Lower CPF Interest Rates

Over the next few decades, the PAP government kept changing how the CPF interest rates are determined:

Social Insecurity in the New Millennium The Central Provident Fund in Singapore 1986 & 1999 Interest Rate Computation

The CPF interest rates are thus not based on the returns of investment of the CPF but became “administered by the government and “computed monthly and compounded and credited annually.

But as Asher had explained, “there is “no economic rationale” to pay a one-year fixed deposit rate on what is essentially a 35-year or more (the duration of one’s working life) savings plan”. He explained that “the CPF real rate of interest from 1987 to 1998 is zero, thanks to inflation. And this negative replacement rate defies the logic of accumulation.”

Indeed, in spite of what the PAP government had claimed that the change in interest rates were to hedge against inflation and potentially give better returns, after the first change in policy to the CPF interest rates in 1986, our CPF interest rates have never been able to see the high 6.5% interest earned prior to 1986. In fact, you can see that with each policy change on the interest rates, the CPF interest rates only became lower and lower.

And not only that, they have remained at a low of 2.5% since 1999, for the past 15 years now!

Slide2

The compounded annual real rate of return on CPF balances (nominal rate minus GDP deflator) averaged only 1.83% during the 1983–2000 period; and only 0.82% per annum for the 1998–2000 period, the period when the floating rate was introduced. During the 1983–2000 period, there were four years when the real rate was negative. The average return during the period was boosted by negative inflation rates, i.e. deflation in four years during the period. The above rates are quite low, and therefore they negate the potential disadvantage of mandatory saving in financing retirement.

The administered interest rate structure, and lack of transparency and accountability in the ultimate investments of CPF balances ($125.8 billion as of December 2006) have meant low real returns on these balances. Thus, from the 1987 to 2006 period the annual real rate of return credited to CPF members was 1.26%. As the returns are lower than their corresponding growth in GDP by about 8% and in real wages by around 4.5%, the replacement rate is likely to be low.

There are also two other factors which reduce the real value of CPF balances. First, Singapore increased the rate of its Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 5% to 7% in 2007. There is strong econometric evidence from international experiences that such an increase will raise the cost of living by the same percentage points as the increase in GST, i.e., 2%. This will act as a tax on CPF wealth. Second, in 2008, Singapore’s inflation rate is expected to be about 6%. To the extent interest credited to CPF members is less than the inflation rate, an erosion of the real value of CPF balances will arise. This will further accentuate the inadequacy of the CPF for financing retirement and health care. Singapore also has the highest negative real interest rate (3-month market rate minus official CPI inflation) of about 5.5% in Asia. This distorts household financial decisions.

And so today, Leong Sze Hian has shown that Singaporeans earn the lowest interest rates on our CPF retirement funds in the world.

Slide28

Most importantly, Asher and Nandy said that, “The centralized control of national savings by the government agencies and banks, however, is of considerable advantage to those controlling them,” which again explains the rising inequality in Singapore and the growing wealth among the richest, the PAP politicians among them.

But really, what is the true intent of altering the interest rates, if it has no relation whatsoever to how housing prices are determined, as the government had so claimed it would? Why did the CPF interest rates and housing prices go in two separate tangents, when they should supposedly follow the same (downward) path?

If so, now that we know that the government fixes the prices of the HDB flats and is able to manipulate the overall housing market, why has the government intentionally induce prices of flats upwards? Why does the government want to earn higher and higher profit through their real estate investment, while depressing wages and keeping the returns on our CPF low as well through their monopolisation of the economy, the housing market and the management of the CPF? And then, why does the government keep increasing the prices of flats, knowing that this will take up more and more of our CPF, and result in inadequate retirement funds, as we see today?

Most importantly, why did the government keep changing the policies, only to reduce the interest we can earn on our CPF further and further? What are the government’s real intentions? When today we earn only 2.5% (or an average of 3%) on our CPF while the government takes our CPF to earn more than 6%, is the real intention finally exposed?

An understanding of the history of the CPF-HDB lock-in mechanism and the movements of the CPF contribution and interest rates and HDB flat prices give us clear insight to the government’s motives.

Clearly, the change in policies for the CPF interest rates is for anything else, except to allow Singaporeans to earn more on our CPF.

Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Return Our CPF fire hands poster

Join the #ReturnOurCPF Facebook event page here.

Advertisements

34 comments

    • @tan

      tan,
      i guess, you are a woman’s, hmm, guess again, you are an old single woman, understand why are you so bitchy, you like stopping by, but always wrong door, your PAP’s door is not here, pls out ! never come back again ! here no welcome an old single woman like you , even no man in PAP wants you !

  1. I Am A New Citizen

    After reading Roy’s blog, I now realize my mistake.
    As a Singaporean citizen now, I fully understand the disadvantages of citizenship.
    I fully support all efforts to abolish CPF and NS.
    It’s definitely in my self interest to vote Opposition.

  2. Deaf Toad's Toothpick

    Does Ngerng really believe the rubbish he spouted? With all the accusations he made posts after posts, it would be hardpressed to believe that he won’t be sued over and over again.

    But it makes for good drama, I admit.

    • Monkey See, Monkey Do

      ” … its like saying the sky is blue because I am wearing a blue shirt.”

      Oh! You mean like;
      I once knew an old man who withdraw all his CPF money.
      Within 6 months he used up all his money on gambling (@ PAP’s 2 casinos) and women in Batam.
      And now he wants welfare from the PAP government.
      Because of this one instance (no proof that it happened)
      PAP government is fully justified to hold onto Singaporeans’ CPF money beyond 55 years under a set of ever “evolving” rules.

  3. Daryl

    It has always been the bane of Singaporeans that the govn is able to arbitrarily increase HDB prices year after year. It is not a free market as many professionals will attest to. How can it be when the govn owns the very flats we stay in and sets the prices based on factors that the govn control – like land costs, roads, carpark, recreation area costs etc !!!! Completely ridiculous !!! And the facts are that the monies in the CPF belong to the people and the govn should be responsible enough to manage the funds for the benefit of the people, not make use of them for their own enrichment !!! bull to the PAP !!! Crappy govn that we have !!!

  4. RYAN

    Lee Hsien Loong’s speech has brought a serious crisis for each CPF owner, not only govern long-term economic stagnation and corruption lead to social discontent over 10 years, also affect the government’s popularity. hope the people of Singapore unite forces, called on him to hand over power to step down as soon as possible.

  5. ThankURoy

    I am SURPRISED that @tan and @Deaf Toad’s Toothpick ‘read’ without realising that Roy is quoting from books and not come up with his own theory. Roy has made a GREAT EFFORT in bringing these information to the mass who may not be aware that experts have been warning the Govt. Whoever wants to SUE, should sue the source of the information, ie. the experts and authors of those books (including, the one who say ‘you will repent’).

    Blessings be with Singapore! (with people in the 60%)

    • The Oracle

      Roy quoted books but also put his usual anti-government its-easy-in-hindsight free-and-easy-with-the-numbers spin on everything.

      His numbers are rarely correct – for example: “By 1985, Singaporeans had to pay half our wages into the CPF!”. To be more precise at this time employees contributed 25% and employers contributed 25% so Roy concludes people are paying half their wages in CPF – but this is just wrong.

      The correct percentage in 1985, using an example of a $2,000 salary, is:
      Employee contribution: $500
      Employer contribution: $500
      Percent of total income to CPF = (employee + employer contribution)/(salary + employer contribution) = 1000/2500 = 40%
      Employee takes home 60% of total income or 75% of salary and at no time does he only receive 50%.

      It doesn’t matter that I’ve pointed this out before as Roy clearly doesn’t want facts to get in the way of a good story.

      • A PM Lee Fish Story

        I think PM Lee cares more for a discarded fishball stick than he does about disadvantaged Singaporeans.
        One brand new government agency because of a discarded fishball stick.

        Do you think PM Lee will form one new government agency because one Singaporean has been left behind?

      • ThankURoy

        Thank you @The Oracle, for highlighting the numbers, the way I thank Roy for his numbers.

        I think at the end of the day, the essence of the issue is ‘Are Singaporeans getting better?’
        Not just in terms of numbers stated in Statistics, but overall ‘FEEL’ as a Singaporean.

        @The Oracle cannot deny the fact that more SMCs being voted to the Opposition is an obvious sign that something is not right. Only about 30-over% votes given to an ex-PAP-related President is also a sign that more are getting unhappy with the incumbent. Social media is just a platform for more transparency.

        To add insult to Singaporeans, is the way that the incumbent solve problem, like forming a new agency, instead of looking at duplication of roles in the Ministries, over a ‘fishball stick’. It just goes to show how the incumbent too, does not want the facts (put up through the ‘voices’ in the social media) to get in the way of their ‘good show’.

      • The Oracle

        Definitely some truth in that – the world is changing and that it is much easier for citizens to criticize and harder to ignore them – and government needs to be more inclusive of all sectors of our society.

  6. anon

    Perhaps Roy could consider packing all the pages into a single file of a suitable format (eg .MHT, .PDF, .DOC .EPUB etc). It may be an easier read compared to 8 pages online all at one sitting

    Do take note of any copyright issues though.

  7. seesiwpeng

    @The Orcle…you lowly scum bastard dog is back after getting permission from your Line Leader?
    Who cares what you spew nonsense here, we allow you here to make u a scumbag bastardize idiot banana sucking dog eating from the crumbs of the table of all of us, as usual digging with fingers to satisfy of your lowly scum swine masters…
    honest to the bone, even unto you wearing a skirt is so insulting to women! asking you to screw a spider is so insulting to the creature…guess what, you are the lowest of evolution ever seen here on Earth!

    • The Oracle

      Hahahahaha! You can’t stand even the slightest criticism of Roy and this just proves you and your fellow members of Roy’s gang are not fit to run a country!

      • reply "The Oracle"

        The Oracle,
        in your country, Your happiness index ranked first outside,
        95% women never married , and you still enjoy the paper,
        don’t you think a severe deformity of Singapore, as a leader to be responsible,

        about you, The Oracle !
        you took huge pay daily , you talk a bunch of unrealistic here with a group of unemployed & unfortunately people, such person like you, if still alive today, better go as good as dead.

  8. The Oracle

    I apologise to all that m such a scum, please forgive me and I shall learn to jerk out well before coming to this Blog again.

    • The Oracle

      I apologize for being a PAP idiot-savant.
      My PAP parents dropped me on my head when I was an infant.
      They say it was an accident.

  9. 请他早点滚下台

    你们的总理不喜欢听到贪污这个字,那么, 用“贪心”两个字最适合他 。他170万年薪, 是全部4000户人家的生计总和,是美国总统的4倍。 可见他是那么的贪心, 用巨大地胃口来满足贪心, 排名全球贪心指数第一名。

    新加坡人民团结起来,推翻这个腐败贪心的领导人。请他早点滚下台 !

    Your Prime minister Lee don’t like to hear the ” corruption ” such word,
    therefor, use “greedy” word most suitable for him.
    His annual salary is 1.7 million USD, is the sum of all the 4000 people’s livelihood, is four times of the American president’s.
    Showing that he is so greedy, too greedy.
    with an huge appetite to satisfy the greedy, greedy index ranked first worldwide.
    Singaporeans unite to overthrow the corrupt greedy leaders.

  10. 他要挤干你的最后一滴血

    过了55岁继续扣押我们的公积金,因为李总理老婆的淡马锡控股某个交易亏本, 所以要拖死我们,那么某个交易赚钱,为什么不分给我们 ? 他老婆亏本要我们多赔10年, 他老婆赚钱分红没有我们,他要我们省吃俭用,租出房间来套现, TMD这一家子不是人 !

    做老公的李总理,要为老婆何晶每天从淡马锡控股拿巨额回报保密,什么天机不可泄密,一对缺德货色,不如他们早早死掉算了 , 他们活着对人民一点意义都没有, 反而整天控告人民, 搞到有工作的人, 被失去工作, 没工作的人,被晾在一边。好像一切不关他们的事。不做好事的总理,不为人民做事的总理, 他们是人民的公敌, 现在,人民要团结,把他赶下台。

  11. Pingback: What PAP Has Done to Your CPF and Doesn’t Want Singaporeans to Know (The Real History) | The Heart Truths
    • The Oracle

      Even that is way too high. The potential short-changed amount:

      1) Start with total funds in CPF today: $264,767,600,000
      Source: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/browse_by_theme/hhld_sector_balance_sheet.html

      2) Interest paid ranges from 2.5% to 5% with many getting 3.5% to 5% as Roy asserts more than half have circa $55,000 (less than the potential $60,000 that gets an extra 1%). All in all we can assume the average is 3.5% as paid on the special Singapore government bonds (those with smaller balances do better and those with bigger balances do a bit worse).

      3) What should CPF pay? Given GIC real rate of return over the past 20 years of 4.1% and inflation over the same 20 years of 1.9%, a case can be made for 6% return instead of 3.5%.

      4) Other assumptions: Average CPF member in the scheme for 20 years, annual wage growth of 6% notional. I put it all in a spreadsheet and:

      CPF Contributions CPF Actual CPF Ideal
      6.00% 3.50% 6.00%

      1995 5,250,000,000 $5,433,750,000 $5,565,000,000
      1996 5,565,000,000 $11,383,706,250 $11,797,800,000
      1997 5,898,900,000 $17,887,497,469 $18,758,502,000
      1998 6,252,834,000 $24,985,243,070 $26,512,016,160
      1999 6,628,004,040 $32,719,710,759 $35,128,421,412
      2000 7,025,684,282 $41,136,483,868 $44,683,352,036
      2001 7,447,225,339 $50,284,139,029 $55,258,412,018
      2002 7,894,058,860 $60,214,434,815 $66,941,619,130
      2003 8,367,702,391 $70,982,512,009 $79,827,880,813
      2004 8,869,764,535 $82,647,106,223 $94,019,504,068
      2005 9,401,950,407 $95,270,773,611 $109,626,741,744
      2006 9,966,067,431 $108,920,130,479 $126,768,377,726
      2007 10,564,031,477 $123,666,107,625 $145,572,353,755
      2008 11,197,873,366 $139,584,220,325 $166,176,440,748
      2009 11,869,745,768 $156,754,854,906 $188,728,957,707
      2010 12,581,930,514 $175,263,572,910 $213,389,541,514
      2011 13,336,846,345 $195,201,433,928 $240,329,971,130
      2012 14,137,057,125 $216,665,338,240 $269,735,049,950
      2013 14,985,280,553 $239,758,390,451 $301,803,550,333
      2014 15,884,397,386 $264,590,285,411 $336,749,224,582

      Difference: $72,158,939,171
      Per member short: $24,052.98
      Above based on average balance of: $88,196.76
      For Median balance of $55,000 as stated by Roy:
      Per member short: $14,999.57

      So, the average member as defined by Roy has about $15,000 less in their CPF account, subject to confirmation of my assumptions. You can’t count the money withdrawn over the years for housing loans unless you also count the profit members have made on those properties.

      $15,000 is still significant but nothing like the crazy numbers Roy claims.

      • reply The Oracle

        old man at trickery and sly wily like old fox, you are the black hand ruined your premier

  12. 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?《第一部分》 | The Heart Truths
  13. Pingback: How PAP Created Inequality in Singapore: Will Singapore Collapse? | The Heart Truths
  14. 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

  15. Pingback: This is How the PAP is Not Taking Care of Singaporeans | The Heart Truths
  16. Pingback: Thoughts on CPF and Update Thirteen of Defamation Funds | The Heart Truths

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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