What PAP Has Done to Your CPF and Doesn’t Want Singaporeans to Know (The Real History)

Pages: 1 2

In 1984, PAP introduced Medisave as “a national medical savings scheme, (where) … individuals (have to) aside part of their income into their Medisave Accounts to meet their future personal or immediate family’s hospitalization, day surgery and certain outpatient expenses.

Mr Toh Chin Chye criticised the Medisave. He said that, “No firm can afford to have two parallel medical welfare schemes.”

He also said that:

(Medisave) is a taxation, and it is a recessive tax for the simple reason that those who are at the lower income level, because their CPF contributions are lower, will have to pay the full amount, whereas those with higher incomes do not pay the full percentage of their income towards the CPF because there is a ceiling. It is recessive. I feel that all this is a very short-sighted myopic view.

Has the Minister for Health, who was in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, who was in cahoots with the Minister for Finance, taken the trouble to investigate how he is going to get the money to run his Ministry? The first responsibility of the Minister for Health is to ensure the availability of health care services. That is his first responsibility, that he must go round and nag at the Minister for Finance for the money. But he is taking on the job of the Minister for Finance. I totally disagree with the approach of Medisave.

Slide115

Mr Tan Soo Khoon had also said in parliament:

Sir, looking at the National Health Plan itself and the emphasis on financial considerations, I have the nasty feeling that the Ministry of Finance had quite a hand in it. What has happened to the Government’s social responsibility? I believe, Sir, that somewhere along the line we have to strike the proper balance between what is the Government’s social responsibility in so far as health care is concerned and the cost of providing it.

But this is my main criticism of the scheme, because it fails to realize that certain illnesses do occur through no fault of the individual no matter how much effort you put in to stay fit and to prevent illnesses. Sir, nobody knows when his kidneys or his heart will fail him. Nobody knows when cancer will strike. Medical treatment for chronic diseases is in many instances, in fact, in almost all instances, life-long and can be a heavy burden on the individual and his family. Medisave is therefore inadequate in meeting such needs. The consequences, Sir, can be far-reaching. If individuals cannot use their Medisave account to cover either wholly or partially such expenses, they may delay seeking hospitalization till their health deteriorates or, worse still, they might resort to self-medication.

Finally, people may find Medisave a wholly unattractive proposition because there might not be the incentive to put money into the Medisave account if they find that their savings cannot be used when it really matters.

Indeed, today, we know of Singaporeans who have had to choose to die instead of seek medical treatment.

Today, Medisave has collected $66 billion but in 2012, only $768 million was withdrawn for direct expenses, or only 1.3% of the total Medisave balance.

Slide4

And when you look at the $722 million withdrawn from Medisave in 2011, as compared to the total health expenditure of $13.1 billion in 2011, Medisave would account for only 5.5% of total health expendfiture!

Slide5

Now, if withdrawals from Medisave grew by just 7 times to $5.1 billion in 2011, this would help Singaporeans pay for 38.5% of total health expenditure using Medisave, and together with current health subsidies, cover for 70% of total health expenditure, or the average expenditure that governments in other developed countries would spend on health.

Slide6

The Real History of the CPF and the Singapore Economy

Increasing the Medisave withdrawals by 7 times would mean Singaporeans would still be only spending 9.1% of the total Medisave balance in 2011! There would still be more than 90% inside the balance for whatever uses PAP wants to take our Medisave to use for!

Slide7

Then why does PAP only let Singaporeans take out a miserable 1.3% from Medisave and have to spend more than 60% out of our own pockets for healthcare?

Leong Sze Hian also estimated that in 2013, Singaporeans would have paid about $8 billion into Medisave, and including for the interest earned on Medisave, this would add up to a total inflow of $10.8 billion into the Medisave. Leong also calculated that when you look at the total government expenditure of health of $7.1 billion, and even including for expenses for Medisave withdrawals ($1.56 billion), MediShield premiums ($817.6 million), Medifund payouts ($102 million) and the first-year costs for the Pioneer Generation Package ($260 million), this would only add up to $9.76 billion, or lesser than the $10.8 billion that Singaporeans would have paid into and earned in the Medisave!

This means that Singaporeans are paying more than enough to Medisave every year to cover for all of the government’s health expenses. If so, why are Singaporeans still paying tax and where have the health subsidies gone?

Slide8

Indeed, prior to the introduction of Medisave in 1984, the government would subsidise for 50% of total health expenditure. But two years after Medisave was introduced, PAP suddenly pushed down subsidies to 30% and made Singaporeans pay more by ourselves, from our Medisave.

Slide117

Thus today, at 30%, PAP spends the lowest health expenditure among the other developed countries and also one of the lowest in the world.

Slide119

In 1990, MediShield was introduced, which the government says is “to help members meet large Class B2/C hospitalisation bills, which could not be sufficiently covered by their Medisave balances.”

Dr Lee Siew-Choh had said in parliament:

It would appear that MediShield’s first responsibility is not to the insured person, but to MediShield itself, to ensure that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure… It operates just like private commercial insurance companies. It operates with the object of sure profit and no loss. Yet, it provides less benefits than private commercial hospital and surgical schemes.

But Government MediShield does not have to operate like a commercial business undertaking. Government has a responsibility to look after the aged and the sick. Therefore, it should ensure that MediShield is a truly low cost medical insurance for the aged, that it truly accepts full responsibility in the care and treatment of those stricken with serious illnesses.

In June this year, the Worker’s Party Gerald Giam revealed that “Between 2001 and 2013, based on CPF Board Annual Reports, MediShield collected $3.704 billion in premiums but paid out $2.190 billion in claims — a difference of $1.514 billion.” He said, “I leave it to Singaporeans to assess whether or not they consider $1.5 billion to be “a lot more” in premiums than pay-outs.”

What this means is that of the MediShield premiums collected since 2001, the government only paid out 59% and keeps the rest as profit.

Slide10

Gerald Giam had also detailed how the MediShield Fund has a capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of “165% at the end of 2012“. He said that this is 45% higher than the MAS’s requirements, which is only 120%. He pointed out that the government “has set a target CAR of 200% (for the MediShield Fund), which (would be) 80% higher than MAS requirements” and asked if this is necessary, since “At the end of 2013, the MediShield Fund had net assets of $613.3 million dollars, which is more than 1.8 times the total claims paid last year.”

When PAP wanted to defer the CPF withdrawal age from 55 to 60 in 1984, Mr Toh Chin Chye again quickly saw through the government’s poly and quickly derided them:

The reason for all this uneasiness on the problems of the aged is related to the CPF. The problems of the aged have been forgotten because you are touching people’s savings.

This problem of touching the CPF should be related to the use of the CPF, the management of the CPF and the contribution of CPF. I have repeated, time and again, that the CPF, having risen now to 50% of wages, is becoming a vexatious burden, not only to the employee but also to the employer.

The Minister for Finance is extremely concerned with the amount of money being locked into CPF, reducing the liquidity in commercial banks. I think that is a very genuine concern which, as the Minister for Finance, he ought to be very worried out. He should not allow his Minister for Health to dip into the CPF or to increase the CPF, because this is a social problem that is popping up. It must be thought out in breadth. We must have a vision which encompasses breadth. Do not have tunnel vision. I would like to know that we have got telescopic vision. But, Mr Speaker, I have never had the problem of tunnel vision, and that is, looking at a problem along just one line without bothering, or researching in depth, the impact on other areas.

Mr Speaker, I think fundamental principles are being breached. The fundamental principle is this. The CPF is really a fixed deposit or a loan to Government, which can be redeemed at a fixed date when the contributor is 55 years old. If I were to put this sum of money in a commercial bank and, on the due date I go to the bank to withdraw the money, the manager says, “I am sorry, Dr Toh, you will have to come next year”, there will be a run on the bank! It is as simple as this, that the CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it. This is fundamental. You were taken by surprise by Medisave. Then they say, “6% of your Special Account will be kept for Medisave and you cannot withdraw that, even if you were to die.”

According to The Straits Times, “Members applauded loudly at the end of Dr Toh’s 25-minute impassioned speech.

I regret never been able to speak to Mr Toh Chin Chye.

Today, the CPF has accumulated $260 billion from Singaporeans. But last year, Singaporeans were able to only use 5.9% of this.

Slide9

Finally, in 1989, the CPF Education Scheme for students to “help lower income families support themselves or their children through full-time studies in approved educational institutions in Singapore“.

But Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) said then:

Mr Chairman, Sir, once again tuition fees for university students have increased. This increase is not entirely due to the increase in costs but because over the last two years the increase in expenditure has been only about 20%… In 1987, the Minister for Education in announcing a hike in tuition fees in the House said that he would not like to see another major increase in tuition fees. But no sooner had he said this that in the course of a short two years, there is another increase in fees by 30% to 85%. This is in comparison to the fees in 1987. If it is compared with the figures in 1986, the increase rates are 117 to 454%, according to the figures given by Dr Aline Wong. Some students were hit twice by such fee-hikes.

Indeed, today, Singaporeans pay one of the highest university tuition fees in the world.

Slide6

The government would spend at least $354 million on scholarships for international students, the universities have at least $451 million in surplus last year, yet Singaporeans have to pay about $400 million out of our own pockets to pay for the fees.

Slide11

In the meantime, the government would give scholarships to 52% of international students but only 6% of Singaporean students.

Slide2

And not only in the universities, PAP has also accumulated surpluses in the other statutory boards, but Krause asked, A number of the large statutory boards are virtual monopolies in Singapore, and others are large enough relative to the market to influence prices. The fact that surpluses are accumulated implies that prices are above average cost… (So), Instead of aiming at maximizing profits like any other company, (Krause said that) the statutory boards could adopt pricing policies such that they break even, thereby lowering costs.

The Political Economy of a City-State Revisited Statutory Board Public Sector Surplus 1974-1996

As explained, “In the initial years, before the government built up budgetary surpluses, it borrowed funds from the CPF for its development expenditure budget.

However, “As surpluses grew, especially by the late 1970s, the CPF became redundant as a financing agent for the government in general, and the HDB in particular”.

Central Provident Fund in Singapore Surplus as Total Expenditure

In 1968, a legislation was passed for the CPF to be invested in government bonds or “Singapore government securities (SGS) or Advance Deposits (which) … in effect lends members’ savings to the Government, which (note) in turn, makes the actual investment decisions.”

The CPF Board alone accounts for more than 70 percent of the SGS outstanding and these are largely in the form of registered stocks not traded on the secondary market.

Central Provident Fund in Singapore CPF invested in SGS

Because of “The requirement that the CPF Board must invest only in government bonds, (this) has contributed substantially to the large internal debt of” 110.9% of GDP today.

Since 1983 CPF assets and official foreign reserves have been approximately equal,” thus it is clear that “a substantial portion (of CPF savings) has been used to acquire foreign reserves.

Banking, Finance & Monetary Policy in Singapore Reserves and CPF Assets 1974-1990

Ng shared an anecdotal experience that when “A bank officer, asked about the possibility of investments in SGS with CPF savings, expressed surprise. He did not see why anyone would consider investing in SGS given their low yields. He explained that the SGS market is illiquid and specific issues may have to be specially sourced. In his own words, “we get an enquiry from an individual about investing in SGS only once in a blue moon.”

Thus our CPF is invested in an instrument which no one would want to buy. So, why did PAP put our CPF there?

But where does the CPF go thereafter?

The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) (which) was incorporated on 22 May 1981, with an authorised capital of S$2 million.” Linda Low also revealed that the GIC was set up with “S$345 million in thirty-six companies“. If so, which companies were these and were they set up with the development funds funded by our CPF? Were they returned?

Over the past decade, PAP has refused to let Singaporeans know that the CPF is actually invested in the GIC.

However, back in 1986, the CPF Study Group led by Professor Lim Chong Yah had already revealed that, “Funds raised through the issuance of government bonds are joined with government reserves and the funds entrusted by other government bodies to MAS, and later the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, for management.

Linda Low also wrote that “since the late 1970s, CPF’s reserves as part of public sector surplus have been co-mingled with other investment either domestically by Temasek Holdings Ltd or abroad by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC).

However, the channelling of CPF into GIC is problematic because GIC’s “legal status is that of a private limited company – removing it from parliamentary or public scrutiny. This arrangement has not provided members with high enough real returns to capture the power of compound interest.” So, “While CPF members know their account balances, they do not know the basis or performance of investment decisions and there is no correspondence between investment returns and member returns.

And because “By statutory provision, GIC does not have to reveal their financial performance and activities, … CPF members are not provided information on the ultimate investments of their balances.

Asher and Singh also explained that, “To the extent GIC earns higher returns on CPF balances than credited to members, there is an implicit tax on CPF wealth which is both recurrent, highly regressive, and often quite large, … as low- income members are likely to have most of their non- housing wealth in the form of the CPF balances.

Slide12

Asher admonished the PAP government’s practice by saying that, “Singapore’s method of investing the balances meant for retirement financing is contrary to best international practices concerning pension fund management, and have the potential to generate high political risk. Such concentration of savings in the hands of non-transparent, non-accountable agencies also distorts the savings investment process and could lead to inefficiencies in the structure of asset returns.

Linda Low also explained that, “Co-mingled CPF and Monetary Authority of Singapore funds invested by the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore can neither be good investment nor management strategy as returns and performance cannot be effectively tracked and institutional and agency investment policy objectives dictated de facto by government…. On the other side of the balance, the centralised system suffers from low rates of returns not so much due to poor investments as implicit taxation of returns, with as much as a 3 per cent differential as alluded. Mandatory investments means social security funds are held hostage to budgetary needs and politically determined investment decisions.

In June this year, Temasek Holdings also denied that they manage our CPF monies.

Temasek doesn't invest or manage CPF savings

But as explained, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had said that, “about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies” and as shown, these companies were funded by Singaporeans’ CPF monies and which were later transferred to Temasek Holdings when privatised, which in effect means that Temasek Holdings did manage CPF funds!

Temasek Holdings Did Invest CPF

In 1982, Minister for Labour and Communications had explained that, “CPF savings form a large portion of Singapore’s savings. These savings are used for capital formation which means the construction of new factories, installation of new plant and equipment, expansion of infrastructure such as roads,’ ports and telecommunications, the building of houses and so on. These facilities coupled with Singapore’s economic and political stability have in turn attracted large amounts of investments each year. These again go into the setting up of more businesses, factories and enterprises.

Lixia Loh added that “Temasek was set up in 1974 with surpluses from the Ministry of Finance, (and) was set up to take over state-owned enterprises and develop (these) key industries.”

When “Singapore began privatizing its state corporations by late 1980s, … Temasek Holdings Ltd, the investment arm of Singapore’s government now has share ownership in most partially divested companies termed as Government-Linked Companies or GLCs, such as SingTel, DBS, Singapore Technologies, etc.

Thus it is sufficiently clear that Temasek took Singaporeans’ CPF to use. Is the CPF returned?

In 1987, Mr Toh Chin Chye criticised PAP’s privatisation programme:

Listing Government companies on the Stock Exchange is not privatization. Privatization means washing its hands off business and ceasing to compete with the private sector. Listing a Government company on the Stock Exchange is certainly a clever idea of raising funds from the public to finance the operations of Government companies which otherwise would be in receipt either of subsidies or loans from the Government. But that is not privatization as most people believe it to be.

The Government already plays a regulatory role in the operations of the Stock Exchange. But should it also lend itself to fears that with so many Government counters listed, it would also play in the market? This is not a rhetoric question. In 1984, there was the affair between Keppel, a Government company, and Jardine Fleming. The Government on that occasion bailed out Keppel and applied its clout on Jardine Fleming. Unlike private companies, Government companies have access to authorities, either direct access or through the old boy network when other private companies do not… The Government has intervened in the market through releasing CPF funds for purchases of trustee stocks which include, of course, Government companies’ stocks… Partial listing of Government companies on the Stock Exchange is not privatization. I would rather have them sold off altogether or keep them as private companies.

Did PAP apply the same pressure again on Singaporeans’ POSB to ask POSB to bail out DBS in 1998?

Phang explained that Singapore’s “economy (is) dominated by multinational enterprises and State-controlled firms (which) have traditionally enjoyed significant control over resources (for example about 85 percent of Singapore’s land area is owned by the State and there is no constitutional or common law right to land ownership) and significant monopoly power.

It might thus not be a coincidence that Singapore is thus ranked 5th on The Economist’s crony capitalism index, where it is the 5th easiest place in the world “where politically connected businessmen are most likely to prosper”.

Slide73

And it is perhaps not accidental that this has resulted in Singapore becoming the most expensive place to live in, in the world, through the PAP government’s unilateral driving up of the prices and the depression of wages.

18209223

Importantly, Temasek Holdings might want to deny that they do not take our CPF to invest. However, “In April 2004, a constitutional amendment … allowed the government to transfer reserves to key statutory boards and companies, and the transfer of reserves among them with the approval of the president, was introduced. Temasek Holdings has (also) acknowledged that it can access the reserves.” If so, it is quite certainly clear that the Temasek Holdings can take our CPF to use (as our CPF is put into the reserves).

Meanwhile, Ho Ching, the CEO of Temasek Holdings and the Singapore current prime minister’s wife and the previous prime minister’s daughter-in-law, said, “While the Minister for Finance (Incorporated) is our formal shareholder, we recognise that the ultimate shareholders of Temasek are the past, present and future generations of Singapore.

Former Finance Minister Richard Hu had also once said that the reserves are owned by Singaporeans.

Temasek Holdings ultimate shareholders past, present and future generations of Singapore

Indeed, the book ‘Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia’ had illustrated how the citizens of Singapore are the rightful and ultimate shareholders of Temasek Holdings, as Ho Ching herself has admitted.

'Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia Government and Temasek Holdings

If so, why has Temasek become a “exempt private company” and the GIC a “private limited company” which are not required to furnish full reports on what it is doing with Singaporeans’ monies to us? Why did the PAP government convert GIC and Temasek Holdings into private limited entities, where Singaporeans are prevented to know how they are taking our CPF monies to use?

FAQs - About Temasek - Temasek (2)

FAQs (2)

Now that we have established that the GIC and Temasek Holdings have indeed taken our CPF for their investments and not return what should rightfully belong to us, when we look back at how the GIC and Temasek Holdings have lost $117 billion in 2008, or 77.5% of the value of our CPF balance in 2008, then is the sudden spike in the CPF Minimum Sum in 2008 related? Were Singaporeans made to foot their losses?

Slide13

The returns earned by GIC and Temasek Holdings which are not returned is a lot of money.

As I had written, a Singaporean aged 25 who starts work today at $1,000 and works for the next 30 years until 55 will lose nearly $300,000, including for what he/she has to pay for land costs for his/her flat (of which the land he/she doesn’t own, nor the flat).

Slide4

For a Singaporean who starts work at the median income of about $3,000, he/she will lose almost $750,000.

Slide5

Leong Sze Hian has calculated how a Singaporean aged 21 who starts work today at $1,500 and works until 65 will lose more than $1.5 million.

Slide6

And for a Singaporean who starts at $3,000, he/she will lose more than $3 million.

Slide7

Professor Christopher Balding has calculated that a Singaporean who earns the average wage from 198o to 2011 would have lost more than $260,000.

Slide8

And if we are to take the example of how if the CPF is invested in the Temasek Holdings and the returns not fully returned, a Singaporean would have lost nearly $4 million!

Slide9

Thus depending on how you look at it, the average Singaporean would lose between $700,000 to $3 million to the Singapore government, or as much as more than 50% of what we should rightfully earn!

Slide10

And if you look at this from the resident workforce of 2.1 million people, Singaporeans might possibly be losing as much as $7 trillion in total!

Slide11

Today, GIC and Temasek Holdings are the 8th and 10th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

Slide40

However, Singaporeans have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.

Slide52

Slide53

Slide54

Which is why it is highly problematic that for more than a decade now, the PAP government had refused to admit that they take our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings.

In fact, it is only on 30 May this year that the PAP government finally admitted to the truth that “The Government’s assets (which our CPF is part of) are therefore mainly managed by GIC.

CPF How It Works cropped

But this is after numerous denials.

Lee Kuan Yew denied the truth in 2001 (thanks to the Worker’s Party’s Pritam Singh who dug this up).

Screenshot (45)

Lee Kuan Yew denied this again in 2006.

Screenshot (49)

Then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen also denied this in 2007. The Worker’s Party’s Low Thia Kiang had asked, “Does the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest?” Ng Eng Hen said, “The answer is no.”

lowtk-20070920

In fact, in 2008, then-Second Finance Minister also claimed that the “Government does not get involved in managing (GIC’s and Temasek’s) investments” and that “these agencies make their own independent commercial and operational decisions”, because it will otherwise “raise even more concerns”.

However, there is indeed even more concern today now that it is known that the PAP government would undoubtedly be involved in managing the GIC, but has continuously denied their involvement!

For the PAP Government is on the Board of Directors of the GIC, with the Singapore Prime Minister as the Chairman no less, and the two Deputy Prime Ministers, two other ministers and an ex-minister. Lee Kuan Yew is the Senior Advisor.

Screenshot (50)

GIC Raymond Lim

Screenshot (51)

And yet, the GIC Board of Directors are also in the government!

Screenshot (69)

 Screenshot (71)

 Screenshot (74)

 Parliament Raymond Lim

It is thus ridiculous that the GIC claims that, “The government holds the GIC board accountable for portfolio performance, but does not interfere in the company’s investment decisions.

Screenshot (85)

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

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

Slide48

In fact, I had written two articles in 2012 and 2013 which traced specifically on the government’s websites how our CPF is indeed taken by the government to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings. However, the PAP government deleted the evidence from their websites later on.

Thus it is no longer possible for Singaporeans to know that our CPF, via the government bonds, are invested in the reserves.

Slide1

And it is also not possible for us to know that the reserves (and our CPF) are managed by the MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings.

Removed reserves managed by

Indeed, “It was clear from the very outset that the CPF would make available to government a cheap source of credit for social and economic development.

However, “Noting that some had hit out at the Government for using their CPF funds as ‘cheap money’ for its investments, (Lee Hsien Loong) said: ‘Some people say…Government wants cheap money to go and make a profit. We do not have to make cheap money. This is not that kind of government.’

Also, when Low Thia Kiang asked, “is the motive of holding payment of CPF, the draw-down age, to enable GIC to have a readily available and cheap source of funds to invest?”, Ng Eng Hen had replied, “if it was that cheap, we would have a line of suitors waiting for that money. There is none.”

But in 1983, it was already reported in The Straits Times that, “The CPF  … provided a cheap source of finance for the government. The CPF purchases government stocks, and the government loans the money cheaply to the HDB.”

Newspaper Article - The dollars and sense of CPF

Finally, there is still the elephant in the room.

Gerald Giam had questioned the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah who “confirmed that the value of the flats will be zero at the end of their 99-year lease” and that the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) “is not a scheme intended solely to replace old flats reaching the end of their lease”.

On Sunday, Lee Hsien Loong played the financial advisor and illustrated how much Singaporeans could earn if the last 35 years of lease of the flat is sold back to HDB under the Lease Buyback Scheme.

However, Professor Joseph Cherian had shown that a HDB flat starts losing its value after Year-66 and will eventually have zero value at the 99th year, which means that if the flat only has 33 years of lease left, the flat would start declining in value.

Screenshot (29)_edited

This means that if a person has less than 33 years on their lease, the Lease Buyback Scheme would be redundant, and not only will he/she be “cash-poor”, he/she will be “asset-poor” as well.

Then where will he/she be able to get additional funds to retire on?

Indeed, Koh Seng Kee had forewarned in 1999 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.”

So you see, the PAP stumbled onto a huge goldmine – our CPF, and since then, because they got their hands on our easy money, they couldn’t stop using it. They became compulsive gamblers who started using our CPF for all sorts of things, first cutting it up for housing, then healthcare and later on education.

And because they needed to feed their addiction, they could not let Singaporeans take our CPF out. If we did, they would have lesser to use and like drug addicts, they couldn’t wean off our CPF and thus started making it more difficult for Singaporeans to withdraw our money with the CPF Minimum Sum, then increasing it and later on delaying withdrawals, and reducing the interest paid to our CPF, thereby locking our CPF inside for their own use.

And when they could do all that and that was still not enough, power got into their heads – the amount of money that they could play with from our CPF is huge! So they used it to control how much we earn, how much we could spend and because they also owned some of the largest companies in Singapore, they manipulated the market, squeezed local businesses out and created inequalities.

Finally, still not satisfied with their thirst of power and wealth, they opened the floodgates to immigrants, to rich businessmen who could help them get richer and thereby further depress the wages of Singaporeans with cheap imported labour.

It has been happening for at least 30 years now, my friends. They took our cheap money to use and they have gone out of control, holding on to it fanatically as if it is their money. And this is why today, Singaporeans can simply never save enough to retire. It was never the PAP’s plan to let that happen. You will work to your death to produce for them the ready credit.

Thus it is clear that “the interlocking effects of the CPF in the Singapore economy has detrimental effects.”

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN

Linda 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.”

Basically, PAP wants to control the lives of Singaporeans, and they have been able to do so via using the CPF and HDB to manipulate the wages, demand and spending of Singaporeans.

Linda Low reaffirmed that, “The CPF is slave to so many schemes, it cannot serve all its masters simultaneously.” 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.”

Linda Low 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.”

Linda 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, “political will and commitment are as imperative in its remaking.”

Finally, Asher ventured:

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.

The short story of it all is – the PAP has styled their survival along leeching on Singaporeans’ CPF and our sustained modern-day slave-labour to generate wealth for their livelihoods (not ours). In all honesty, Singaporeans matter only as much as the lives of the PAP are sustained.

Perhaps now we might understand why there were no significant changes made to the CPF at the National Day Rally last night – the PAP government has come to the end of their tweaking. They have over-stretched themselves with our CPF and are willing to strike a balance on the use of our CPF to as far the extend as they are doing now, in order for them to still be able to tap on our cheap source of funds for their easy access. To them, they have perfected this feedback loop for their purposes. Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work for Singaporeans or that it is our money. They have legalised the usage.

It is clear that the PAP is unwilling to let go of the “cash cow” that has brought their salaries to sky high limits. The question that must topmost on the PAP’s mind is – but how can they remake (the CPF) while ensuring that their salaries can still be maintained, and the network of crony capitalism that has helped protect their political legitimacy to stay afloat be similarly maintained via the high salaries? For implicit in the idea of remaking is that delinking the CPF from its multiple uses today 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 of their favour.

As such, the steadfast pursuit of growth-at-all-costs and the continued siphoning off of Singaporeans’ CPF into the government’s 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. This will do harm to their political longevity and thus they would rather compromise on Singaporeans’ longevity.

If indeed this is how the PAP wants to protect their hegemony, at the expense of Singaporeans and against our will, perhaps PAP being the government 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 denial of bad governance and release ourselves from the lock-in that the PAP has tied Singaporeans into?

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

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

Return Our CPF burning sun poster

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

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. It is clear that PAP has taken Singaporeans’ CPF and manipulate it for their own uses. Singaporeans still hope that PAP will create new policies to allow us to save enough to retire. It is not going to happen – not with the PAP. You can see very clearly from this article that if the PAP actually wants to take care of Singaporeans, they will have to first undo the system gridlock that they have created, and they have created this system precisely to enrich themselves and their cronies, so why would they undo?

And unless you can help them make the money that they want, you are as good as nothing to them. And so, if Singaporeans continue to hope that PAP will suddenly have an epiphany to help Singaporeans, unfortunately, Singaporeans will have to dream on. If the PAP today will take care of Singaporeans, pigs can fly.

If the National Day Rally 2014 can be used as a gauge, it is evident that PAP has come to the end of the link of their tweaking. To give more to Singaporeans would mean less money for them, and this is a no can do. To take more from Singaporeans would mean angering more Singaporeans and they do not think it is politically viable for them to do so now, as much as they would want to.

So on 23 August, come down to Hong Lim Park. 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

Related articles:

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese

Advertisements

56 comments

  1. 他要挤干新加坡人民的最后一滴血

    Let‘s look at Lee Kuan Yew and his son Lee Hsien Loong ‘s greedy: greedy, insatiable. Not only this father & son greed for wealth , but also the greed for power and position, greed for the national property , summarized their “greedy” word, “wealth and seawater are very similar, they drink more will be more thirsty.”, The more and more insatiable greed.

    They excessive greed is destroying Singapore. Once they stop being greedy, Their identity become an vicious Mr.Sue. Their excessive greed has embarked on the road of the lawless, can be seen from their rope in over their behavior.

    1. Excessive greed for power and position, tend to make their own mind to be benumb . just like Shakespeare’s writing characters Lady Macbeth , into the abyss of self-destruction.

    2. Excessive greed for money, some people put “human alive for wealth, birds for food” is also applied to the career prospects. in this worldly possessions greedy for money, and ultimately they can not be stopped .

    In fact, in the limited of human life, consumable wealth is limited, Prime Minister’s wealth’s accumulation had reached a peak of the maximum , while just a game of numbers . much his wealth to the extent of his’s ability can not control, It is destroying the value of other existences。

    This time he sued the young guy’s action, as evidenced by the above demonstration. Their greed caused an heavy burden today towards Singapore nationals.

    Calls for a new, birth from an ordinary family’s new Prime Minister, leading Singapore, to achieve the last 50 years’s dream and aspirations for the people of Singapore.

    我们来看一看李光耀与李显龙父子的贪心:贪得无厌,永不知足。不仅父子俩对财富的贪得无厌,而且对权力地位的贪婪成性, 对国家财物的贪图成性,把这些“贪”概括一句话,“财富和海水非常类似,越喝喉咙就会越干燥。”, 越贪越不知足。

    他们贪心过度正在毁灭新加坡。一旦他们贪心受了阻止,他们的身份立刻变成恶性Mr.Sue 控告先生。他们过度的贪心已经走上违法的道路, 从他们表面拉拢的行为可见一斑。

    1.对权力地位的过度贪心, 往往使他们自己权令智昏,就像莎翁笔下的麦克白夫人一样,走入自我毁灭的深渊。

    2.对钱财的过度贪欲, 有些人把“人为财死,鸟为食亡”也应用于事业的前途中, 对钱财这种身外之物贪得无厌,最终到无法停止的地步。

    其实,在人的有限生命里,可消费的财富是有限的,一个人的财富累积达到只是的数字游戏的时候。财富多到一个人的能力无法驾驭的程度,它就剩下摧毁他人生存的价值了。

    这一次他们对年轻人的控告行动, 就证明了以上论证。
    他们的贪造成了今日新加坡国民的沉重负担。
    呼吁一个新的, 出生普通人家的新总理,将带领新加坡人,实现新加坡人民50年来梦寐以求的愿望 。

  2. David

    Thank you. Your article is rock solid! I didn’t know the situation in Singapore is so bad. But after reading your comprehensive article, I realize it is time for me to come back Singapore to perform my national duty to vote out the PAP during the next election. I cannot let my fellow citizens and comrades suffer in silence under the oppressive regime. They have to treat fellow citizens with dignity by letting them have well paying jobs and sufficient retirement fund. Even the cleaners here in Australia are treated with respect and dignity with dignified salary. Who the hel does the princeling think he is to dictate that we have so much unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants and professionals flooding the island?

    • Jim

      Things are not just bad for the poorest 30% in Singapore. A survey by The Straits Times showed 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.
      CHECK WITH THE SURVEY – AMONG ITEMS MENTIONED THAT THEY HAVE NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY – CAR. – SINCE WHEN A CAR IS BASIC NECESSITY?

      SINGAPORE HAS A HIGHER POVERTY LEVEL THAN INDONESIA? HOW MANY SINGAPORE MAIDS IN INDONESIA, ROY

      • The Oracle

        You hit the nail on the head there Jim – Roy is always exaggerating and he is very selective with the truth. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem and that we can’t do more but Roy ignores anything positive the government is doing as he has his own agenda.

        For example, government transfers to probably our neediest citizens (retirees in 1 and 2 room HDB flats) increased to $11,300 in 2013 from $9,300 in 2012. At the same time, the median household income in Singapore rose to $7870 per month – but Roy would still have us believe 65% of Singaporeans are poor. We’re all poor compared to Bill Gates if Roy wants a new statistic – 100% of Singaporeans are poor in that case! The actual data is here:
        http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/household_income_and_expenditure/pp-s20.pdf

        He also ignores facts such as taxes on the rich have increased indirectly through the recently introduced higher property taxes on bigger properties and the much higher taxes on luxury cars.

        Nobody can accuse Roy of letting facts get in the way of a good story.

      • simon

        @JIM While you are at it, why not compare Singapore with Sierra Leone or Somali? Like what Oralce said, nobody can accuse you of letting facts get in the way of a good story.

      • reply Jim & The Oracle,

        1)
        if your PAP said you are in the First world life, so you don’t compare the third World Indonesia, you must compare with the other first world.

        2)
        The Oracle, everytime you like to give a figure to describe a future Singapore, that fact, we are talking about our life today, not for the future , it is a dream
        your made the figure is based on your life, PAP’s life
        not the reality for your ordinary family,
        last time , you assumed , basic salary 3000 SGD per working class ?
        it is great liar , 3000 SGD maybe will be my next and next generations, not for our 40 years old people .

        3000 SGD, is many Singaporeans dream , but it never happened !

        that why people hate PAP !

      • The Oracle

        $3,250 is the actual median monthly salary in Singapore today – meaning 50% earn more than this and 50% earn less. I am not making it up and I’ve given the up-to-date source of that data. Likewise, $7,870 is the median household income in Singapore as a typical household in Singapore has slightly more than 2 working people and some non-work income.

        I deal in facts and I also recognise more can and should be done for the most vulnerable in our society – but Roy distorts facts to suit his purposes.

  3. 他要挤干新加坡人民的最后一滴血

    公务员队伍, 也不是一个工程队伍, 根本没有赚钱的来源嘛, 他们的巨额收入从哪里来 ? 动不动就是他们几个人你拿10万,我拿15万,他拿8万,他们 私分了我们公积金的红利, 并且要永远分下去,这就是到期不还我们公积金的原因。

    小偷不会承认钱是偷来的,一样的方程式,他们说他们几个是精英。这样即使动作上是贪污犯也不用去坐牢。

    Civil service, is not a project team, not profit maker , then, where is their huge income from ? Several them at every turn that they want the huge demand, such as you take 100,000, I take 150 000, he take 80,000,They embezzle fund from our CPF’s dividend , plan to get the dividends forever, That was the reason the overdue our CPF

    The thief will not admit the money is stolen, the same equation, they say they a few are the elite . Thus, even if the action is corruption group , still no guilty, no jail, no no being whipped whip.

  4. THE SIXTEN

    Identify these original documents with a great significance, join each CPF owner together sign the signature, ask for recovery of the Singapore government & Prime Minister Lee to pay compensation through the international court, due to each critical time in the past, Singapore Courts did not show the justice, thus this type appeal to international judicial assistance is by very special .

    One is called for a comprehensive sanctions by the United Nations, frozen their wealth ( included their children’s ) in the United States.

  5. THE SIXTEN

    in my view that it is cheating, CPF as all rights of Singaporeans has been plundered by LKY and LHL that father and son, people criticized the government of Singapore for many mistakes, it is the policy enforced by his family, and it reflect their lack of ethics and honesty, now has his own appear contradictory with the original paper

      • reply Jim

        but Indonesia’s leader did not show off they are the first World class, and your PAP did.
        Indonesia’s leader did not have huge income like Prime Minister , the same they both are the government servant, but Singapore prime lee is too greedy , income ranking No. top peak in the World, Lee considered that Singapore is his factory ?

        Indonesia’s leader never be father and son by turn to occupy the power and the wealth for totally 50 years .
        so, if prime minister still do not change his demand for greedy , his job is finished soon,

        shit ! shit,shit,
        shame, shame, shame !

  6. 这个独裁者死掉才是对人类的最大贡献.

    近日新加坡某门户网站刊登了一篇题为《Singapore””””s Lee says he wants a quick death》(李光耀说他想速死)的新闻报道。报道引来众多网友吐槽,相关回复多达1000余条,考虑到新加坡的人口,这个回复率已经很高了。事情的起因是九十高龄的新加坡前总理李光耀推出了一本新书,书中提到自己期待速死,并且继续为他的移民、生育、选举政策辩护。不过,大部分新加坡网民并不认同这些存在争议的观点。

    在众多评论中,支持率最高一则来自网友Uncle Sim(沈大叔)。他的评论相当简短,却有435人支持,33人反对。他用英文写到,所有新加坡老人和李光耀一样,都因高龄和病痛而痛不欲生,但其中许多人还在为了每个月$800而洗厕所。这条回复支持率高的原因是新加坡常把洗厕所和收盘子的工作交给老人,虽然政府认为这是一种“福利政策”,但一直以来都存在着比较大的争议。这则评论引来36条回复,大多表示同意。

    在所有评论中,回复率最高的一则来自网友Kumar。他的评论更加简短,却引来了56条回复。他说“Pls remember lky didn””””t build the nation. the people did”(请记住建设国家的人不是李光耀而是人民)。Kumar的评论有219人支持,超过半数的网友对李光耀推行的政策表示失望。
    他們說,这个独裁者,只有死掉才是对人类的最大贡献.
    http://3g.kdnet.net/?boardid=1&id=9819285&t=topic-show

  7. an evil cannibalistic society

    Singaporean workers are being exploited. Singapore is the only first world country without any forms of social security, without establish any protection of trade union for workers.

    Our public housing system is came from farmers.

    After PAP government took all our land, the sold to the highest bidder. It jacks up property prices crazily , increase the burden for generations, such that our fertility rate & the marriage rate both the lowest in the whole world. Our property prices are one of the highest in the world now.

    Lee Kuan Yew’s greed knows no bounds. Despite of all these social ills, he has continued till this day further pushing up our property prices and reducing our birthrate.

    why Lee Kuan Yew succeeded in Singapore not because he is smart but more because Singaporeans, the majority of whom are Chinese, are abused & tolerate his greedy.

    There is nothing whatsoever good about a wealthy state that won’t even provide national health care or Social Security for its people. And as the commenter points out, the state housing was created in a very sleazy way, by stealing the land of the rivals of Lee’s party. In addition, the lands of subsistence farmers were also confiscated.

    Singapore every day to work. It’s based on exploitation of the poor.

    Presently the housing prices are so insanely high that most Singaporeans cannot even afford a home. This results in children living at home far into their 20’s and 30’s and not marrying and starting families. Because housing and the cost of living is so expensive, most of the young have decided that it makes no sense at all to have kids.

    This is Lee Kuan Yew had created — an evil cannibalistic society — Singapore

  8. Chua

    Nice analysis on housing and CPF. Great that you pinpointing fallacies of implemented policies instead of criticising individuals. Much as i like to believe there is no malicious intent on the policy makers and government, the impact of their decisions has indeed led many Singaporeans to a tough livelihood. There are bitter pills to swallow. I hope improving CPF returns, extending retirement age and lowering housing cost (by reducing land cost within their control) could be implemented.
    It is ironically good that they set a high minimum sum as then they would have policies and targets to ensure more people can reach them as part of their kpi. The amount in current cost of living is reasonable. The problem is the combination of low wage, low cpf return vs inflation and high housing cost makes current target a challenge.
    Keep going at commenting on policies instead of personal attacks. 🙂

      • reply to Jim

        Jim 女士,你的PAP为什么不可以攻击,如果他变成了一群吸血鬼。
        这种贪心的王八蛋总理, 如果发生在亚洲的泰国,中国, 早就被推翻下台了,哪里给你们父子50年时间, 如果发生在罗马尼亚,伊拉克,早就被枪毙啦,如果不是明枪, 也是被你们逼得暗枪登场,为民除害的勇士大有人在。

        如果发生西方国家,早就父子俩人加上总理的老婆早就被管入牢房啦。人民向参观动物园一样, 会去看望他们三位老人家。

        你的 “waiting for a lawsuit. Resort to attack on PAP government. ?”

        PAP已经引起民愤极大, 声讨声一浪盖过一浪, 在这样的情况下,你的 lawsuit 的结果正朝着协助他们走向以上3条路线的任何一方靠近。

  9. Alan

    Never see a bunch of goondu who practically shallow every piece of dung that Prata shit out from his ass and still take it like gold!

    Just use your brain a bit! If the Pap don’t want you to know, do you think the self proclaim CPF expert can just google it out and keep repeating in front of you?

    My goodness, just how gullible group of idiots you are!

  10. Aaron Singaporean

    I am grateful for all that has transpired. Now all we need to do is to stand in solidarity – uniformed, civil and families – all CPF accounts to be reimbursed with shared profits derived from land hoarding and new policies in place to ensure flexible access to these monies without further mundane fear excuses of people recklessly throwing their savings away on women from neighbouring countries – not every family has men like yours.

  11. looley

    @Jim, you mean the PAP OR ‘THE GOVERNMENT’? OR LHL, and/or PAP & LHL…for PAP did not sue Roy neither ‘The Government’ and PAP is NOT the Government…guess your education need no further exploration let alone the usage of language grammar …
    Whatever is written here is the luxury of Roy and the very fact that you are allowed to scorn, spew and comment stupid as it might such, Roy is already in practice of Democracy more than any other in Singapore…so, go on to rant, YES indeed it is you who is ranting and perhaps you really have nothing better to do and PERHAPS you do not have an account in CPF let alone any money at all…and to…
    @Alan, you are really free to leave this space, your right of comment if any is at the kind giving of Roy, if you are not that happy, get out and perhaps YOU CAN COPY, PASTE AND SEND IT TO LHL? after all, whatever said here, THE REAL HERO OF SPEECH IN ANY GIVEN ANGLE IS ROY, THE BRAVE, THE GUTSY AND YES, GUNGHO and who ARE YOU, scum dogs i guess, OR WE to comment let alone he is gonna “pay the price” right? TO CALL ALL YOU GUYS COWARD IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT and while Roy may be giving information herein that YOU ALL feel is load of bulls and shits, well well, GUESS YOU MUST HAVE ALL BEEN EATING SHIT for a long period of your living life day in and day out, SINGAPORE, for everyday guess what, these SHITS are slapped at your face!

  12. Singaporean

    the fake history.. goverment take 100% of money from people.. what bullcrap.. please donate more money to Roy so that he does not need to work.. and write fictional stories.. oh yea!

  13. seesiwpeng

    wow, as expected BUT in reality, i did not know that scum dogs bastardize are here to bark, let alone to suck bananas of their masters…of lest i forget, including digging as well, AND is getting very interesting that the Line Leader is resorting to letting go these lowly creatures besides their dogs, now their pussy cats just trying to meowing around with no substance…ROY, DO NOT WORRY, WE STAND BY YOU AND FOR YOU AND YES, WE SHALL DONATE OUR TIME, RESOURCE AND MONEY, so what if we are asked each to donate just a $1 and for all you know, we shall each donate $10 each…AND YES, WE WANT ROY TO CONTINUE WRITING THESE INFORMATION AND RESEARCH, at least Roy have a good meal…a proper family with dignity and pride, FOR ALL YOU SCUMBAG DOGS OUT THERE LICKING YOUR MASTERS’ and pussy cats meowing to be laid openly by these dogs and also trying to be licked, guess what you are at best eating the crumbs from what is thrown to you by the leaders and as for the pussy cats, yea yea…open babe to be digged…fool no one, your fore generation, and generations to come ain’t nothing but prostitutes….

    • Alan

      Seesiwpeng

      Wow! Haven’t seen someone as pro as u in licking Prata butt n sing praise like he give birth to u!

      This is a very example of your commitment to Roy! Keep it up!

      Sexy Spider is going to need more!

  14. LeeXianleong

    When the dictator’s stench filled the air, people even don’t know Singapore have joined the support team, This greedy bastard Prime Minister, when it occurs in Asia, Thailand, China, has long been overthrown step down, never 50 years given to test , if occurred in Romania, Iraq, they have to be shot .If occurred in western countries the Premier’s wife and his father together 3 of them send into the jail for the rest of life.
    Bully Singaporeaas is rebelling against God !

  15. 地球上最坏的华人是李光耀和李显龙父子,

    如果罵PAP,不如罵李光耀和李显龙父子。他們兩個就是PAP

    地球上最坏的华人是李光耀和李显龙父子,
    他們父子自己拿天价财富, 反過來要人民省吃儉用,50年後建議人民把家裡一個房間租給外人,他們有很多方法不停地拿來折磨人民, 使得新加坡人終身逃不出苦海。

    李光耀和李显龙父子將被世界最壞父子排行榜收藏為第一世界裡面的最壞父子, 最會虐待人民的黑名單。
    如果有一天, 他们或他们的孙子死于意外, 实现了全世界一切主张正义力量的为民除害的愿望, 绝不允许再继续伤害祖祖辈辈都极为善良的新加坡人 !

  16. Pingback: The Story of What PAP Really Did to Our CPF in 15 Slides | The Heart Truths
    • The Oracle

      No it’s not true. You will get it back via an income for the rest of your life plus the PAP government you obviously hate just announced a partial withdrawal will be allowed in future. Don’t believe everything Roy tells you!

      • to The Oracle

        are you the Spokesman for the country ? why you claim you are not PAP, then PAP handed over the national issues to you ?

      • Why do you want to withdraw your $80k in 1 go?

        The $80k in your OA will be returned to you over the years so that you have some money every year. Can you tell us why you want to withdraw all at 1 go? We want to know because if you spend it all then other Singaporean will have to support you through our taxes.

        If your HDB has been paid in full you can sell your HDB and move in with your children. Look at how much you can sell your HDB for and how much you paid for your HDB.

  17. reply "The Oracle"

    Mr. The Oracle,
    your life depends on our money , why you don’t borrow from bank ? use ” taking care ” name, stolen our welfare . you owed us too much , now we want CPF back fully, no half, no 20%, no more trap again , we don’t want to join your any plan , your plan your PAP take it, but we don’t accept it .no compulsory occupy, you offend our rights by game goes you single side . in other words, it is finance murder !

  18. Pingback: 15张幻灯片:行动党是如何操纵我们的公积金简要说明! | The Heart Truths
  19. Pingback: Exposing the Myths in the PAP’s Education Changes: Wages Still Don’t Grow | The Heart Truths
  20. 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?《第二部分》 | The Heart Truths
  21. Pingback: [Comic] How Singapooreans are Tricked and Trapped | The Heart Truths
  22. Pingback: [漫画]新加坡人是如何被哄和被套牢的 | The Heart Truths
  23. Pingback: This is What is Wrong in Singapore. Now, are You Willing to See It? | The Heart Truths
  24. Pingback: 这是新加坡的问题所在,您愿意正视它吗? | The Heart Truths
  25. 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

  26. Pingback: Singaporeans, I Cannot be Your Member of Parliament in Government | The Heart Truths
  27. Pingback: My Receipts for the Funds Used for the Defamation Suit, Now will the PAP be Transparent about the CPF? | The Heart Truths
  28. Pingback: The Truth about the CPF Advisory Panel’s Recommendations: PAP Never Wanted to Increase Our CPF at All | The Heart Truths
  29. Pingback: PAP Continues to Use State-Controlled Media to Paint Me Black Again | The Heart Truths
  30. Pingback: Lee Kuan Yew on CPF | Singapore Politics: Blog
  31. I still don't see whats wrong with CPF

    It seems that:
    money go CPF, CPF build house, young people buy house at higher price, CPF earn money and give as interest to old poeple, young people money go CPF again.
    This seems logical to me and guaranteed the returns from CPF.

    If people has no money in old age, Singaporeans will have to support them. The CPF minimum sum ensures that the money will not be all spent in 1 go so the old will have some money. The minimum sum is determined by the rising live span of Singaporeans and the world’s economic outlook. If a person can not meet their minimum sum, do you think it is a good idea for that person to withdraw all their CPF in 1 go? What are they going to do with their CPF withdrawn in 1 go? Are they going to brave the risk of investing the money at their age of 60+? If they are going to spend it slowly and equally over the years then its the same way CPF is doing so there is no problem here.

    Housing prices are rising but there are 3 types of flats: BTO flats and resale flats and private flats. BTO flats are much lower price then resale and private. Housing price keep rising just like everything else in the world. A BTO flat used to cost $8000, does anyone think its realistic for anyone to sell a flat for $8000 now? Part of the money earned from BTO flats also goes back into CPF fund so that the government can pay the CPF interest rates. In another words, it is using the money from young people when they buy a BTO to give to the poor and this cycle keeps going. If BTO price doesn’t rise, we will not receive interest rates in our CPF.

  32. Pingback: [Update Nine 220316] Funds Raised for Payment for Defamation Suit | 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