The Real History of the CPF and the Singapore Economy

Return Our CPF sun poster

Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Where Do We Go From Here? Reform or Deform?

On this last page, I will highlight the what the authors of several books papers say about key challenges that our CPF faces and the possible solutions, and also end off with my own thoughts. 

The PAP Government was Given Ample Warning in 1986 and 1999 but Refused to Change Course

Now, it is not that the PAP government has not been given adequate advice on the management of the CPF. They were, as the CPF Study Group had done so in 1986. But the PAP government chose to turn a blind eye to it. It might be clear now why they choose to do so. The addiction to Singaporeans’ CPF is akin to a gambler without any self-control and in spite of all sorts of help to get him/her out of addiction, only led him/her to further sink him/herself into the addiction. One wonders if at the rate the PAP government is so uncontrollable that whether Singapore would go the route of a gambler finally having lost everything and Singaporeans’ CPF, before the PAP government would awaken to its follies.

By then, will it be too late for Singaporeans?

In fact, 1986 was not the only time the warning came. In 1999, The Straits Times also carried an article, filled with the foreboding of the CPF.

Linda Low had said, “The CPF is slave to so many schemes, it cannot serve all its masters simultaneously.” She also “cited the Government’s decision to allow money in the Special Account to be used to finance mortgages earlier this year as her “greatest disappointment”, (as) implicit in that decision, she notes, was that housing, not retirement, took priority.”

As to how the CPF has become too deeply intertwined with the HDB, Koh Seng Kee also forewarned that, “As most properties are sold with 99-year leases, Singaporeans are investing their lifetime savings in depreciating assets” and “Unless and until the Government signals that it is prepared to renew property leases, Singaporeans’ savings will not last beyond two generations.”

B.C. Ghosh perhaps succinctly put that, “The CPF, to me, kind of lost direction during our great growth days,” he says and like many others, “call for the CPF to go back to basics and restore old age as its key focus.”

The PAP Has Sunk Too Deep

Indeed, Linda Low asked the very pertinent question, “Should the CPF be ultimately delinked in whole or in part from the fiscal system? … What are the implications of the government’s commandeering of the CPF as a “cash cow”, and government revenue from implicit taxation on the political legitimacy of the People’s Action Party regime?”

She also asked, “As the CPF-fiscal link has fulfilled the deficit financing needed in the 1960s and early 1970s, especially in development spending as for public housing, is it timely for the government to either reduce the element of implicit taxation if not an outright delink?”

Low explained that the CPF in its current uses “is perceived to serve the state, not its members especially when deficit turned into chronic government budget surplus since the late 1970s.” However, the PAP would not want to let go of this as “Perpetuating the CPF-fiscal link or implicit taxation enables the People’s Action Party regime to commandeer both financial resources to finesse the political economy of its developmental state as well as dictate CPF members’ choices in consumption, saving and investment.”

However, she also expressed that, “What worked for the CPF in the initial phases of Singapore’s economic growth and political economy development may not have been as effective with a mature economy and ageing population. The multiple nature and unfortunate coincidence of both economic cyclical and structural crises … have shaken CPF.”

Low thus ventured to say that, “The CPF has worked successfully and brilliantly, but is in need of some makeover in the new millennium with greater social insecurity.” But she also stated that, “p;olitical will and commitment are as imperative in its remaking.”

Perhaps thus when we talk about how the PAP “has run out of ideas”, it is this old modality of working that they are hanging on to, unwilling to let go of the “cash cow” that has brought their salaries to sky high limits. How to reinvent is the question, but the question that must topmost on their minds is – but how to we reinvent while ensuring that our salaries can still be maintained, and the network of crony capitalism that has helped our political legitimacy to stay afloat has to be similarly maintained via the high salaries? For implicit in the idea of reinvention is that delinking would also put an end to the crony capitalism as the PAP knows it and has created as such, and would mean that the economic growth that they has so fiercely pursued would finally have to be shared with Singaporeans. But how can this possibly work for them, when this would directly contravene with the political structure that they have developed, based on the inequitable distribution of wealth to those in their favour.

As such, the steadfast pursuit of growth-at-all-costs and the continued siphoning off of Singaporeans’ CPF into their coffers only goes to affirm one thing – the PAP is more dogmatic about maintaining their political dominance and would rather lock the citizens into their system of control, rather than to kickstart the economy towards a new momentum, for shared growth.

If indeed this is how the PAP wants to protect their hegemony, at the expense of Singaporeans and against our will, perhaps the time of the PAP has run its course and it might only be possible for Singapore to move forward, if Singaporeans delink the PAP from the government, and allow our country to have a new lease of life. Then, the question would be – are Singaporeans ready to emerge from our denials and release ourselves from the lock-in that the PAP has tied Singaporeans into.

Do you have too much to lose, or will you have more to lose if you do not do something about it now?

The CPF System has Become Corrupted

Asher surmised the current problems facing the CPF, that “The CPF scheme has come to occupy a pre-dominant position in the pension arrangements of Singapore. The recent parametric reforms of the CPF scheme … do not however address the main limitations of the current arrangements. These limitations include inadequate balances at retirement, leading the low replacement rate; lack of inflation and longevity protection, lack of survivors’ benefits, lack of transparency and accountability, particularly in investment management; inadequate weight fo fidiciary responsbility as compared to socio-economic engineering objectives; and virtual absence of tax-financed redistributive tier. The limited nature of health insurance, and the issue of long-term care of the aged also pose major challenges to the policymakers.

In comparison, “Most social security systems tend to be somewhat progressive, paying a higher rate of return on payroll tax contributions, the lower a person’s income.  By contrast, the Singapore system is slightly regressive in three ways. First, people get back exactly what they put in, plus any buildup. Second, although the practice of not taxing social security contributions (at least the employee’s share) is common throughout the world, this practice also favors those in higher tax brackets. Finally, the investment options discussed in the text favor high-income earners.

Yasue Pai added on, by saying that, “Furthermore, highly unequal wage structure, high rate of pre-retirement withdrawals, low returns credited to members, and high transactions costs of investments all contribute to the low balances and low replacement rates of CPF (CPF average annual compound growth rate). In the case of Singapore’s one-tier system, low replacement rate may become more of a serious problem than anticipated if social attitudes of the younger generations change given there is no pillar to rely on for subsistence income.

If There is No Political Will, there is No Way

Asher explained that “The existing Central Provident Fund (CPF) system is based on direct-contributions, which implies that individuals and households implicitly bear macroeconomic, longevity and inflation risks. It was intended to alleviate absolute poverty and does little to combat relative poverty”. He also proposed that “A willingness on the part of the government to make substantive inroads against relative poverty could be signalled by initiating a non-contributory, budget-financed but means-tested basic social pension to work alongside the CPF system.

He went on to explain how this can be easily done as “Estimates by fiscal economists suggest that such an arrangement is unlikely to be a heavy burden on the fiscal budget: assuming benefit levels at 20 per cent of the annual median wage income with universal coverage, the cost is expected to be less than 2 per cent of GDP. Fiscal surpluses averaging 6.2 per cent of GDP over 2000–13 suggest there is ample fiscal space available for such an initiative.

Thus the PAP government can very well afford to spend more on social protection for Singaporeans, to boost our retirement savings. In fact, “The share of wages and of private consumption in GDP, at around 40 percent in 2000, however, remains low. This suggests that Singapore has the resources to meet the challenges of financing old age.” Also, “The fact that Singapore has persistent and large budgetary surpluses suggests that Singapore has the resources to meet the challenges of financing old age.

However, Asher added that “whether the political system enables a greater proportion of the elderly … to express their preferences for meeting these challenges … will depend on the extent to which the current mono-centric power structure evolves to accommodate greater political and social contestability.

Indeed, he makes clear that “Singapore has the fiscal, institutional, and organizational capacity to make rapid progress towards more adequate, efficient, and equitable multi ‐ tier system.” “But this will require fundamental changes in the political and social philosophy.

However, he doubted the possibility of such changes as “The government has both the financial and administrative capacity to do this but has instead placed disproportionate importance on achieving high economic growth while not taking sufficient account of the negative implications on social protection.” He critiqued that government’s growth-at-all-costs model and explained that “The constraints on promoting fairness and sustainability are not financial nor are they due to a lack of institutional or organizational capacity. They instead arise because of the disproportionate importance given to achieving high economic growth while not taking sufficient account of its negative implications on social protection.” As such, “Social safety-net pensions are either non-existent or have very low coverage: five per cent of retirees in Hong Kong (but) less than one per cent in Singapore.

Indeed, the Singapore government spends the least on social protection among the developed countries.


As to the reforms needed for the CPF, Asher said that, “The key decisions in promoting fairness and sustainability in the pension system will therefore be political and will require reducing the nearly exclusive reliance on mandatory savings in the CPF, increasing the very limited scope of social assistance and pension programs, reducing the reliance on implicit taxes on CPF wealth.

Importantly, the CPF system also needs to “shift away from administered interest rates, and improving member choices in investments merits consideration.” where “An initial step would be to eliminate the implicit tax on CPF balances. In the short term, this can be accomplished by crediting the weighted average of returns of government investment companies, which are actually making decisions on the deployment of the CPF funds.

The First Step to Reforming the CPF Requires the Unlocking of the CPF from Its Chains

From a macro perspective, Phang Sock-Yong explained how the interlocking effects of the CPF in the Singapore economy has (already) detrimental effects:

Low and Aw suggested (before the 1998 recession) that the CPF as a macroeconomic stabilization tool has probably reached its limits as ‘it would be too disruptive economically and politically to change the rules with so many people committed to large housing mortgages and repayments. This lock-in effect of many CPF schemes must also be noted as they effectively reduce the degree of flexibility the next time CPF adjustments are considered in any macroeconomic stabilization exercise’.

Singapore’s housing strategy has been criticized for over-allocation of resources to housing, resulting in crowding out of consumption, as well as human capital and corporate investments. Despite widespread homeownership and rapid increase in housing wealth, Phang (2004) found no evidence that house price increases have produced wealth or collateral enhancement effects on aggregate consumption. Instead, due to the mandatory nature of the CPF as well as households’ inability to withdraw housing equity to finance consumption, households in Singapore face strong liquidity constraints. In addition to the welfare loss from consumption denied, Bhaskaran (2003) is of the view that the low percentage of disposable income spent has hurt the development of the retail sector in Singapore.

The CPF has also been blamed for a weak domestic corporate sector (since potential entrepreneurs are unable to access their savings for start-ups), and the crowding out of domestic private sector investments. The corporate sector in Singapore is dominated by MNCs and government-linked companies — a recent study by Bhaskaran (2003) confirms that indigenous firms earn lower returns than foreign-owned firms within Singapore, and lower returns as compared to listed companies in Hong Kong, Japan Korea, Taiwan the US. Krugman (1994) and Young (1992, 1995), for example, have questioned the basis and sustainability of Singapore’s economic growth in a series of studies as far back as the early 1990s. Pointing to the low contribution of total factor productivity (TFP) growth, Krugman referred to the Singapore miracle as having been based on ‘perspiration rather than inspiration’ – ‘All of Singapore’s growth can be explained by increases in measured inputs. There is no sign of increased efficiency.’

However, Linda Low and Tar Choon Aw explained how the PAP government got themselves stuck in a rut by ignoring the numerous warnings by economists and academics since way back in 1986 on the pitfalls of the over-indulgence in “cheap” CPF monies to over-engage HDB construction:

In any case, it would be too disruptive economically and politically to change the rules with so many people committed to large housing mortgages and repayments. This lock-in effect of many CPF schemes must also be noted as they effectively reduce the degree of flexibility the next time CPF adjustments are considered in any macroeconomic stabilization exercise. In any case, private individuals cannot be expected to use their CPF savings directly in productive investment, except in portfolio investments through the purchase of approves shares in the stock market.

Another difficult issue is the impact of CPF utilization on future inflation which may require macroeconomic adjustment later. Housing purchases and the encouragement to upgrade have created some artificial demand and led to speculation in real estate. With rising asset inflation, Singaporeans may speculate even more, engendering a vicious cycle.

Inflation in the future could also come from postponed consumption, that is, inflation occurring in the future period when baby boomers reach the withdrawal age by the next century. While the save-consume cycle is wholly reflective of the traditional life cycle or the permanent income hypothesis, it may actually be ameliorated by the continuous managed investment approach.

This would explain why the PAP government would be more eager to delay the withdrawal age for our CPF, so as to stem the expected inflation today from the baby boomers, and also why they would demand the baby boomers to pay higher MediShield premiums to mop up what they consider as excess inflation.

Asher went on to also point out the flaw in the current management of the CPF-HDB interlock and how it is necessary to reform the CPF along international best practices:

But there is a perception that this arrangement has contributed to public housing prices being less flexible to market forces, and may have indeed enabled over-investment in housing. The political need to maintain high (and rising) property and land values in turn are acting as a severe constraint on restructuring of the CPF scheme.

In Singapore’s mono-centric power structure, the need for provident and pension fund trustees who are simultaneously independent and competent has posed severe challenges. Absence of any provident and pension regulatory agency has made it difficult to take a system-wide perspective from the viewpoints of fiduciary responsibility to the members and international benchmarking in governance.

Nevertheless, it is important to examine several reforms designed to enable provident (and pension) fund members to more fully benefit from international investment diversification. This is undertaken with a view to advance informed public debate on these issues, and in the firm belief that views of current decision-makers should not act as a bar to a discussion of reform options.

Singapore policymakers face a stark choice. Either they can continue to use the CPF for socio-political control and engineering, or they can bring its objectives and governance in line with international best practices, to improve the return accruing to members, and to make a greater proportion of CPF contributions available for retirement needs. The choice is politically difficult, but it is unavoidable given the objective realities.

Low and Tar also explained why the PAP government decided to shift their focus towards investing the CPF:

To the save-consume cycle, we add investment, making it save-invest-consume and drawing the distinction between the possibility of members consuming certain services like housing, health and education even before one retires. Thus, the lifelong provision of these services makes the artificial line between the working and non-working parts of life more porous and even non-existent; they would no longer have to be compartmentalized as now under a life cycle model. There would thus be a widening and diffusion of consumption throughout a worker’s lifetime rather than a retirement binge.

If this thesis on lifelong investment holds, consumption would be better spread out. The impact on inflation while still possible, would also be correspondingly amortized out and thus be lower than all consumption bunching at around the same time. How these changes affect macroeconomic stabilization and microeconomic behaviour would be interesting topics for future research.

Low and Tar hoped that such an approach via investing the CPF would bear fruit but as Professor Lim Chong Yah had rightly pointed out, ” this would be acceptable if there is a guarantee that future governments would be as honourable and as capable as the present one, but can such a guarantee ever be forthcoming?”

Finally, the solutions for the CPF are simple – to go back to the basics by delinking the uses that CPF have currently been mired in, as Asher explained:

If de-linking the CPF scheme from housing finance is considered too risky, then the CPF scheme could be formally divided into three components: housing, health care, and retirement.

Second, the investment policies and performance … should be completely transparent, and de-linked from government investment companies. The investments should be mark-to-market and publicly available.

Third, all investment returns must be made known and fully credited to the account of the members.

But are Singaporeans Barking Up the Wrong Tree?

However, as it is, it is evident today that the over-intervention by the government and their several attempts to patchwork the problems are only causing these problems surrounding our CPF (and its related uses) to become further entrenched.

The PAP government cannot go on denying the need for a large-scale reform, when it is clear that its working model which could perhaps be necessary in the 1960s and 1970s is no longer capable of taking Singapore into the next stretch, but might in fact collapse Singapore on ourselves, with how the economy has interlocked itself.

Otherwise, it might be obvious to conclude that the current PAP administrators have sincerely run out of ideas of how to manoeuvre the Singapore economy, and have really pushed themselves into a corner. Understandably, a wide-spread reform might not sit well with both Singaporeans and the PAP government itself, used to championing its own model of success, which have in a way blind-sided themselves. But not taking the immediate steps towards reform would lead to more disasterous effects down the road in the near future, as the Singapore economy threatens to break at its seams, on an unsustainable high cost-driven model fuelled on exaggerated housing prices and wage depression which have aggravated the debt situation in Singapore and would no doubt put Singapore on the path of social breakdown, unless swift reforms are taken boldly.

But it is unlikely a PAP government too comfortable in its seat for over the past 50 years would have the courage and clarity to take the necessary steps required. And if so, the Singapore society might endanger itself into oblivion, unless it is able to pick itself up when the implosion occurs in the near future. Bold reforms to delink the interlocks and the over-intervention by the government in the economy and allow the economy to function once again on fresh air, to kickstart itself, will give our country a chance, without which our nation will need to prepare itself for impending adversity, which would test our peoples’ resilience and strength, and only if we pull through.

It is perhaps ironic that in the PAP government’s earnest appeal that Singapore is a small country which cannot afford to make a wrong move that it has closed itself to the realisation that if Singapore is indeed required to be nimble, that it has to start with a light-weight economy which is not so bogged down by the PAP government’s impinging that the economy is no longer able to move. But perhaps where a self-made elite pays themselves such extravagant salaries that the protection of one’s own wealth becomes impediment and a nationalistic homeownership programme which has enslaved Singaporeans to their motherland that self-denial thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – the very fear that the PAP government might put upon Singaporeans to believe might indeed result, and that the very result of the PAP’s compulsive policies.

Might Singapore go the way of Rome? It all depends on whether the populace is willing to be awakened and enlightened, if not.

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

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

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. The government cannot take Singaporeans’ CPF to use and tell us that they do not know what they are using it for. This is a derision to Singaporeans and daylight robbery!

On 23 August, we will see you at Hong Lim Park. Let’s come together, be united and speak for change, for the better for our lives, and our children’s.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Also, my first court case will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.

Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Related articles:

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese


    • @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

      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:

    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 to seesiwpeng Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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