The Real History of the CPF and the Singapore Economy

Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Singaporeans Do Not Have Enough inside Our CPF because of Low Wages, Low Interest Rates and Too Much Spending on Housing

Today, “The CPF savings have grown from a mere $9 million at the beginning” to about $260,000 million as of March 2014; with an additional $169,000 committed to housing and $26,000 to investment.

In 2010, however, the average balance per member was Singapore $57,000 which was approximately equivalent to the per capita income. (Today, this is only $72,000.) This will not finance the 2 decades of retirement expected as the population ages in the next 20 years.

There are several reasons why the average balance in the CPF is low. First, the wage structure in Singapore is highly unequal, and this is reflected in the contributions made by the CPF members. Thus, in 1999, 51.4% of the contributors had monthly wages less than S$2,000, while only 6.3% had wages higher than S$6,000. (By 2011, 55.9% of contributors had monthly wages of less than $3,000 (or the median wage). 2013 figures are not available as the PAP government has removed them from public records.) Second, a high rate of pre-retirement withdrawals tied to the centrality of the real-estate sector reduces the amount available for retirement. Third, average balances are low as the real rate of return is low due to implicit tax on CPF wealth. Finally, high transaction costs due to restricted competition and the limited size of the unit trusts market have also contributed to low balances.

While the gross contribution to the CPF have been impressive, existence of a large number of pre-retirement withdrawals, particularly for housing, has meant that net contributions has been rather low. Thus, during the 1987-99 period, about 70 percent of contributions were withdrawn during the year (for housing). Such high level of withdrawals for non-retirement purposes, particularly for housing, has adversely affected accumulation of balances. This also helps to explain as to why in spite of high contribution rates and rapid economic growth, the retirement balances are inadequate.

The typical household in Singapore has the bulk of its wealth invested in housing. Despite the high savings rate, over-investment in housing and over exposure to the risk of a decline in housing price affecting the retirement (and healthcare) financing of an aging population has become issues of policy concern, especially since the bursting of the real estate bubble in 1997. Lim (2001) projects that 60 to 70 percent of the 50-55 years age group will not have sufficient funds in their account to meet the government stipulated minimum sum needed for retirement of S$80,000 in 2003.

Again, the imbalanced diversion of the CPF into housing is also because of the PAP government’s pursuit of their homeownership programme, which has caused housing prices to escalate, in part due to the PAP government’s monopoly and direct manipulation of prices upwards, and trapping the CPF inside where no other big-budget items could be used for except for housing, and thus the over-commitment in housing mortgage.

The CPF Minimum Sum was Increased Several Times to Trap More of Singaporeans’ CPF Inside

Yet, on top of the insufficient funds inside the CPF for Singaporeans to be able to retire on, the government also imposes the CPF Minimum Sum, an amount which Singaporeans have to maintain inside our CPF to be able to withdraw any excess monies otherwise. According to the PAP government, “The Minimum Sum Scheme was introduced in January 1987 to help CPF members set aside sufficient savings to support a basic standard of living during retirement. When the scheme was first started, members were required to set aside a sum of $30,000 in their Retirement Account when they turned 55 years old.

On 1 July 1995, (the CPF Minimum Sum) was (then) revised and members were required to set aside a MS of $40,000 …  (which would be increased) by $5,000 a year until it reached $80,000 in 2003.” According to then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 2003, “This will fund a monthly payment of only $252 from age 62 to 80,” computed from the $40,000 cash component of the Minimum Sum (as the other half of the $40,000 “can be in a property pledge“).

However, he said that as the monthly payment is low, “We will, therefore, increase the Minimum Sum (yet again) to $120,000 in today’s dollars. As before, half of this can be in a property pledge. The other $60,000 in cash will yield a monthly payment of $378. This is still not much, but more adequate than $252 presently … The CPF Minimum Sum will be raised by $4,000 a year, and adjusted for inflation, starting 1 July 2004. It will reach $120,000 (today’s dollars) by 2013.

He also said that:

I know that the changes to the CPF withdrawal rule will upset many plans. Older Singaporeans are looking forward to a tidy sum of money at 55, to do what they have yearned for a long time. Some will use it to pay off outstanding mortgages, or their debts. Others will use it to go on a holiday, or to invest in business ventures.

Therefore, we will not make any changes to the withdrawal rule for the next five years. We will not upset the plans of those who are over 50 today.”

But what about elderly Singaporeans today, just a few years on? Our CPF is now stuck inside, and for what?

Goh Chok Tong also said:

We will start to phase out the 50 percent withdrawal rule only from 1 January 2009, and then do so over a further period of five years. From 1 January 2009, members turning 55 can only withdraw 40 percent of their Ordinary and Special Accounts, and then the remaining balances, if any, after they have met the CPF Minimum Sum and the Medisave Minimum Sum requirements. This percentage of withdrawal will go down by 10 percentage points each year. In other words, 30 percent in 2010, 20 percent in 2011 and so on.

Come 1 January 2013, CPF members who reach 55 can withdraw the balances in their Ordinary and Special Accounts only after setting aside the CPF Minimum Sum and the Medisave Minimum Sum.

Today, the CPF Minimum Sum is $155,000 and as I have calculated, nearly 90% of Singaporeans will not be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum because we would not have enough inside our CPF. As can be seen from this article thus far, this is because most of our retirement funds have been channelled towards paying for ever-increasing HDB flat prices, which has sapped up our CPF savings.

Slide10

Also, I had calculated that the median CPF balance is only $55,000, which means that half 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!

Which means that half of Singaporeans only have 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum inside our CPF!

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

In fact, 73.5% of Singaporeans would have less than half of the CPF Minimum Sum of $77,500!

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

Which then begs the question – why did the government keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum since the mid-1990s, when they know that the majority of Singaporeans simply wouldn’t have enough inside our CPF to be able to save enough to meet the CPF Minimum Sum at all?

CPF Minimum Sum Grows Faster Than the CPF Itself@Facebook

In effect, since the mid-1990s has been locking up Singaporeans’ CPF monies but why is the government doing this?

Not only that, this lock-up came in phases:

  1. 1995: CPF Minimum Sum raised by $5,000 every year until 2003
  2. 1995: Required to set aside cash (of $4,000) to meet CPF Minimum Sum until 50% is reached in 2003
  3. 2003: CPF Minimum Sum raised by an additional $4,000 every year until 2013
  4. 2009: 50% withdrawal rule phased out
  5. 2013: Excess CPF monies can only be withdrawn upon meeting the CPF and Medisave Minimum Sums, and $5,000

There are yet further discrepancies with the PAP government’s explanations of why the CPF Minimum Sum had to be increased.

According to the PAP government, the CPF Minimum Sum is “adjusted yearly for inflation“. However, when you compare how much the CPF Minimum Sum has grown, it has grown by an average of more than 6%, but inflation has only grown by 2%!

Slide37

Also, you can see that the increase in the CPF Minimum Sum resulted in a sudden sharp rise in the CPF Minimum Sum in 1995, but interestingly, there was another sudden increase in 2008 which cannot be attributed to any policy changes with the CPF Minimum Sum.

Slide34

Some people have linked this to the $58 billion loss that Temasek Holdings had made from the end of March 2008 to November 2008 and the $59 billion loss the GIC made in Financial Year 2008, and since it was speculated then (the evidence wasn’t available yet) that the GIC and Temasek Holdings invest our CPF, the CPF Minimum Sum must have been increased to make up for these losses. The government has however claimed that, “transfer of funds cannot be used to hide investment losses” and the convoluted reasoning that “The issue of whether the investment of the reserves results in gains or losses over time is therefore distinct from the question of whether there is a draw on Past Reserves.”

Slide43

Now, 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 indeed the PAP government took our CPF to freely give to the GIC and Temasek Holdings to use, this has major implications. And if indeed the CPF Minimum Sum was spiked up due to this, then there is a major issue of trust and accountability that we would need to hold the PAP government to.

Increasing the CPF Minimum Sum to Delay CPF Withdrawal

According to Linda Low, “In 1984 the government tried to increase the CPF withdrawal age from fifty-five to sixty. The attempt was very poorly received, as people viewed the government as having broken a promise.” So, “One way of getting around this problem has been to institute a scheme minimum sum, which softens the impact.” Slowly, “The government is beginning to get people to accept the idea that the withdrawal age might have to be increased. When it will be politically expedient to increase it is another issue.

Slide94

The retirement age was then raised from 55 to 62 in 1999, right in between the two increments to the CPF Minimum Sum in 1995 and 2003. Today, “the statutory minimum retirement age is still 62, but employers are now required to offer re-employment to eligible employees who turn 62, up to the age of 65“. Also, “The Government is finalising plans to extend the re-employment age from 65 to 67, with details coming up later this year.

So, you can see that there are different benchmarks that the government is using to increase delay the retirement of Singaporeans and the withdrawal of the CPF. Again the question – why does the government wants to lock up our CPF?

To delay the withdrawal of the CPF, Paul Yip had said that, “An alternative and perhaps better policy option is to extend the retirement age of Singapore labour which would imply less, and delay of, CPF withdrawal as well as more and continuing CPF contribution by the affected labour.”

Yip also believed “that economic considerations will sooner or later induce or force the Singapore government to extend the retirement age to, say 62 or 65. The important thing is that the appropriate policy body should respect, and be more ready to change, with such kind of economic pressure.

Yip’s recommendation is economically sound, but when viewed in light of how the government continues to raise the CPF Minimum Sum, in spite of how Singaporeans are unable to save enough inside the CPF, then the question isn’t so much about whether the government has the political will to increase retirement age, but whether the government has the intention of helping Singaporeans save enough to retire at all.

Evidently, the government has no lack of political will to delay retirement – the fact that the CPF Minimum Sum is now used in place of retirement, to ensnare our CPF funds inside the CPF, before it is allowed to be withdrawn at age 65, is already a clear sign of that.

But where the only way to actually grow the CPF is to increase wages and the CPF interest rates and the government has stridently refused to do so, then where does the government’s allegiance lie? It is clear it is not with Singaporeans.

The PAP Government’s Reliance on Foreign Workers is Aimed at Stumping the Tide of CPF Withdrawals

Indeed, Yip had also explained that another way that the PAP government could reduce CPF withdrawals could be to relax the “immigration policy for foreign workers (as this) might also reduce the net CPF withdrawal at that time.” The government can also encourage “higher birth rate now (to) also mitigate the problem (by increasing CPF contributions later on).” However, Yip believed that “it is not advisable to just rely on this policy… because the decision of having a child involves costs and considerations that will be far much greater than any possible tax incentives provided by the government. As a result, the impact of encouragement policy is likely to be small although effort along this line should be encouraged.

As can be seen, the PAP government’s half-hearted attempts in recent years to increase the fertility rate of Singaporeans has also been guided by such thinking.

Singapore TFR

Thus “Since the mid-1990s,… the wages of low-income Singaporeans were tied to the wages of those countries with a huge labor surplus such as China and India. Consequently, the income gap has been widening in Singapore” and has resulted in a depression of wages at the lower rungs. “If, for example, the foreign labor supply is set at a high level, that increases the overall supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor which may depress the wages of Singaporeans in that particular labor market.

In fact, if you trace the growth of Singapore’s migrant population, you can see how it also coincided in the early 1980s and 1990s with the periods of housing boom.

And when Lee Hsien Loong became prime minister, two key policies were introduced under his premiership where individuals with high-net worth were invited under the EntrePass scheme to set up business or the Global Investor Programme to become permanent residents. As can be seen above, this resulted in a dramatic escalation in housing prices, which also resulted in Singapore becoming the most expensive place to live in, in the world.

Slide3

But was the housing boom (and bust) due to the sudden influx of foreigners under this scheme, or was the policy decision to invite the foreigners in, to drive up the market? Either way, the result was that property prices were driven up and because private and public housing prices were pretty much linked, this resulted in Singaporeans having to pay more for the HDB flats, and lost even more from our CPF. Perhaps it was the naivety or greed on the part of the PAP government, but their addiction to quick money and the pursuit of high-net worth individuals had the consequent effect of depleting Singaporeans’ CPF retirement funds even quicker.

Looks like we are seeing a trend here, where first the PAP government got addicted to cheap money via the CPF and when that wasn’t enough, fast money via importation became the chosen route.

And how does the sudden influx of migrant workers depress wages in Singapore? From 2001 to 2011 (before CPF started omitting this information from their annual reports), the number of CPF members who earned $1,000 kept increasing even as Singapore supposedly became more wealthy.

20121230-221903.jpg

And from 2004 when the spike in migrant inflow occurred, there was also a spike of the proportion of Singaporeans who were earning less than $1,000.

20121230-222017.jpg

Yet, Lee Hsien Loong remained unapologetic to the effects of rising cost and CPF depletion. He had said, “In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off, because they will bring in business, bring in opportunities, open new doors and create new jobs, and I think that is the attitude with which we must approach this problem.” I think it is perhaps sad and worrisome that the prime minister of Singapore does not realise the social implications of his short-term policies.

Slide107

Thanks (or no thanks) to policies under Lee Hsien Loong’s premiership, Singapore has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world today.

Slide109

We also have the 4th largest concentration of billionaires in the world.

Slide108

However, Singapore also have the highest poverty rate among the developed countries as well, and even higher than regional developing countries (as you will see later).

Asher also pointed out that on the lower-paid foreign workers, “Singapore has been able to sustain its economic growth by relying on foreign workers, so their retirement income needs merit discussion. In 1980, the government introduced a levy on unskilled and semi-skilled foreign workers; it does not apply to foreign skilled professionals.” Now, “The total foreign worker levies collected were S$2.5 billion for the Financial Year 2011 and S$1.9 billion for the Financial Year 2010,” or an estimate of possibly more than $3 billion today. Asher explained that, “It is also a reasonable assumption that much of the economic burden of the levy is on the workers themselves as they have little market power; they therefore contribute significantly to fiscal revenues in Singapore. Foreign workers are not, however, members of the CPF, they are not eligible for social and community benefits, and they do not receive the healthcare subsidies and health benefits that residents do.” Thus to the extend that foreign workers are not returned the levies they have had to pay, means immorally taking away the benefits that should be rightfully accorded to them.

Indeed, how are these levies channelled back to Singapore as a whole? Has this been accounted for by the PAP government, if at all?

Importantly as well, in the PAP government’s eagerness to import cheap labour to substitute the local economy, does this thus explain why it has become  more difficult over the years for Singaporeans who have been made redundant from work to gain re-entry back into employment?

Re-entry into employment

Does it also explain why it is taking a long time now for Singaporeans to secure a new job?

20140718_181734-1

Indeed, one important aspect of the CPF is that its relevance is only as great as the employment situation of the country. However, “when full employment is no longer the basic assumption underpinning the CPF model”, and more and more Singaporeans are becoming unemployed in the long term (due to cheap labour substitution and unfair employment practices), and it has become increasingly difficult for Singaporeans to regain employment, the CPF system thus becomes problematic as a standalone pension fund.

Indeed, as compared to the other countries, Singapore’s pension system relies solely on the CPF and this is starting to prove inadequate.

Screenshot (25)_edited

The question on many people’s minds is, “in the PAP government’s incessant and compulsive want to replace the working population with cheap substitution and high-net worth individuals at the top, have Singaporeans indeed been relegated to being second-class citizens in an elite-comes-first “meritocracy”?

And if you can also understand how the PAP government has to go out at all costs to prevent the withdrawals of the CPF to sustain their parasitic system, you will understand why the PAP government refuses to allow dual citizenship and makes it a path of no return if a Singaporean chooses to renounce his/her citizenship. And how a permanent resident (PR) “cannot withdraw the CPF monies unless he or she gives up PR status and leaves Singapore and West Malaysia permanently, with no intention of returning for further employment or residence” so that this threat would prompt second thoughts about leaving, and thus allowing the CPF to be entrapped inside.

The PAP Government’s Policies Have Depressed Wages and Increased Inequality

Wages have also been depressed via another mechanism by the PAP government – “The share of wages in GDP has declined from 47 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2006, while the share of capital has increased corresponding. Public policies, particularly centring on a reduced tax burden on capital income and reduced mandatory contributions by employers to the CPF, have been partially responsible for the declining share of wages.

Thus “Singapore’s (growth-at-all-costs) strategy has also come under scrutiny (as) The strategy rests on policies that include keeping the wage share of income below capital’s share at around 42 per cent of national income; relying extensively on foreign workers at both low- and high-skill levels; and giving greater weight to commercial concerns over the provision of social amenities.

And when you compare Singapore with the other developed countries, Singaporeans shockingly earn the lowest wage share, in spite of how Singapore has become the most expensive place to live in, in the world.

Slide8

Indeed, this “growth strategy of creating an environment for the MNCs and the state enterprises to earn high profits has contributed to significant inequalities in the wage structure and income distribution. Singapore had an overall Gini coefficient of 0.43 in 1974, and 0.48 in 1999”, as has been repeatedly stressed in this article.

Today, income inequality is even higher.

However, in spite of this, the government had claimed last year that income inequality has stabilised and last week that income inequality has actually been reduced.

Slide33

But in an article I had written earlier this year, the PAP government has actually been pushing down the income inequality statistics over each reported period, to create the perception that income inequality is not as high as it actually is in Singapore!

Gini Coefficient 2008 vs 2010 vs 2013

And on the other hand, the income share among the richest 10% in Singapore has grown from 30% in 1995 to 42% in 2011.

Slide1

And as can be seen, the change in income share among the richest 10% also follows the Gini coefficient (or the measure of income inequality), which means that as the income inequality increases, so does the income share of the rich – which brings to question, is income inequality thus artificially pushed higher by paying inequitable salaries at the top (similarly to how it can also be artificially deflated in the reports?)

Slide6

Also, the dramatic increase in the share of income among the richest had actually coincided with whence the PAP government decided to increase their own salaries in 1994 by pegging the salaries of the ministers to “two-thirds of the average of the top 24 people in 6 professions”, to earn million-dollar salaries and the highest in the world.

Slide21

Is the income inequality that is occurring now in Singapore a coincidence or has it been in the planning for the last 20 years at least?

Indeed, today, the richest in Singapore earn one of the highest salaries in the world.

Slide100

They also pay one of the lowest taxes in the world.

Slide101

Meanwhile, Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among the highest-income countries.

Slide103

Low and middle income Singaporeans also have to pay higher tax and CPF contribution rates than the richest.

Slide102

The Prime Minister now belongs to the richest 0.1% in Singapore while the PAP politicians belong to the richest 5%.

Slide105

Indeed, the rich-poor gap has only kept widening since Singapore’s independence.

photo 2 (32)

Asher had also estimated that the poverty rate is very high – at between 27% to 35%.

Singapore Poverty Rate Asher 2007

This is in line with the estimates of up to 26% by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation and SMU School of Social Sciences, and my previous estimate of 26% (which could have gone upwards to 28%). In fact, Singapore now has the highest poverty rate among the developed countries and even among regional developing countries.

Slide112

In spite of this, the PAP government has refused to define a poverty line, erroneously claiming that this would caused a “cliff effect“.

 Slide135

Worse still, Professor Tilak Abeysinghe had highlighted that “Singapore’s bottom 30 per cent of households spend more than they earn” where they would “spent 105 per cent to 151 per cent of their income last year and the main cause of rising expenditure was housing.”

Slide64

Abeysinghe explained that, “despite the substantial growth of the economy, the lower income quantile has seen a drop in their real lifetime income. As for housing affordability, our index shows that past episodes of house despite the substantial growth of the economy, the lower income quantile has seen a drop in their real lifetime income. As for housing affordability, our index shows that past episodes of house.” He also affirmed how there is the “presence of a negative and significant ‘price effect’ of house-price escalations on consumption expenditures, leading to a fall in the average propensity to consume”.

He also warned that, “it is important that property prices do not escalate to erode housing affordability” and that “Although it is difficult to avoid property price cycles, policies could be devised to reduce the amplitude of these cycles. In this regard, it is worth questioning why one should let the private housing market—that accounts only for about 20 per cent of the housing stock—dominate the price trends of the entire housing market and erode housing affordability.”

However, once again, the warning sounded on the over-escalation of property prices was fervently “disputed” by the PAP government. But of course, when you are sitting on a massive cash cow and your salaries depend on growing this cash cow to grow the GDP, denial would be the order of the day.

Things are not just bad for the poorest 30% in Singapore. A survey by The Straits Times had shown that even for the middle-income in Singapore, more than two-thirds of Singaporeans do not even have enough to buy for anything else, other than the basic necessities that they need.

Slide56

But this widening income inequality has major social implications.

Because Singapore has the highest income inequality among the developed countries, the prisoner rate has also become the highest in Singapore, after America.

Inequality vs Prisoners

Because of the high inequality, Singapore also has one of the lowest social mobility among the developed countries – the ‘elites’ are able to protect their positions and it is difficult for lower-income Singaporeans to move up the social ladder.

Inequality vs Social Mobility

Because Singapore has the highest income inequality among the developed countries. this has also resulted in the highest level of self enhancement in Singapore among the developed countries, where people are likely to view themselves as being better than another person.

Inequality vs Self-Enhancement

And the highest levels of income inequality in Singapore has also resulted in the lowest levels of trust in Singapore, after Portugal.

Income Inequality vs Trust

And because of the low levels of trust, Singaporeans have become the second least likely people in the world to help a stranger.

photo 1 (31)

Singapore’s lopsided growth, fuelled by the pursuit of cheap and fast money clearly clearly caused major social undesirables, which can compromise on the livelihoods and social compact among Singaporeans, and the people who reside here. The recent strikes, riots and protests are only symptomatic of the deeper underlying tensions that are simmering beneath the surface. It is thus dangerous that the PAP government’s tendency has to be to deny the existence of such social blips which threaten to become full-fledged menaces if not dealt with adequately. Unfortunately, it seems like the PAP government’s approach of dealing with the situation is to further suppress what they deem as non-compliant troublemakers, as can be seen from their management of the Little India riots.

Thus without a doubt, the PAP government’s growth-at-all-costs strategy which relies on the manipulation of CPF contribution rates to reduces wages and a further wage depression via competition with lowly-paid foreign workers is a recipe for disaster. This, coupled with the government’s upward cost pressures fuelled by their own Government-Linked Companies has created an unsustainable income inequality, which is threatening to tear up the social fabric of Singapore.

However, the PAP government remains blissfully ignorant to this plight and continues to bury their head in the sand, to manipulate income inequality figures, instead of actually enacting policies such as minimum wages, to reduce the income inequality.

Slide9

Such a government with an attitude of denial towards the problems that Singapore currently faces is disasterous for the longevity of Singapore.

Until now, we are still none the wiser as to how the PAP government has calculated the CPF Minimum Sum and CPF payouts. There is no transparency whatsoever on this calculation.

However, what we are able to clearly ascertain is that the growth of the CPF Minimum Sum has gone overboard, when its said intention of ensuring that Singaporeans are able to save enough cannot be met at all – 90% of Singaporeans cannot meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Indeed, when I had questioned about how many Singaporeans are actually able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in only cash and what the CPF median balance is, the Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin had refused to shed light on this.

When an estimated 90% of Singaporeans are not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum and the median balance would only be $55,000, it would of course be politically a disaster if the PAP government admits to the truth now – then why even set a CPF Minimum Sum that the majority of Singaporeans can only smell and not even touch?

Truth be told, should Singaporeans sit down and allow the government to run us over with such an apparent lack of transparency? If Singaporeans are not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, how exactly does the government want us to be able to, without actually increasing wages or the CPF interest rates? And if not, why do they want to lock up our CPF?

What are the PAP government’s real intentions?

Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Return Our CPF charcoal poster 3

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