What PAP Has Done to Your CPF and Doesn’t Want Singaporeans to Know (The Real History) (Part 1)

这篇文章是比我在昨天撰写的《公积金的真实历史》(the real history of the CPF)要短一些。请您阅读。当您读完这篇文章后,您就知道,除了您的退休金以外,行动党把我们的公积金当成万能的工具!您就会明白,为什么行动党现在已经无法把我们的公积金从新加坡的经济中脱身?那是因为我们的公积金已经锁紧在经济领域!

This is the much shorter version of the real history of the CPF which I had written yesterday. Please read this. When you finish reading this, you will know how PAP is treating your CPF for everything else, other than for your retirement, and how they have locked-in our CPF into the economy that it is now very difficult for them to pull back.


I have written this article in a way that makes it very quick and easy to read through. I have put in many graphics to make it faster to flow through. Please take a few minutes to go through this article. Knowing how your CPF works in the big picture will allow you to make the right decisions to protect your own lives. 


This is a 2-part article. Please also read part 2 as it will complete the full picture for you on how PAP uses your CPF and does not want to let you know how they do it. 



The CPF was set up in 1955.


The Housing Development Board was set up in 1960. Prior to 1964, the HDB’s “original objective … was to build flats for rental“. However, in 1964, the PAP government changed their objective to “selling flats to tenants in 1964“.


However, Singaporeans were not buying the flats so PAP “liberalised” the CPF and created the Home Ownership Scheme to let CPF be used to buy flats.


The government also used our CPF for another purpose which most Singaporeans do not know about. From 1968, CPF was legislated to become “a source of funds for the government“. Singapore hasn’t accumulated surpluses yet too, so the government borrowed Singaporeans’ CPF “for development expenditure … (until) it built up budgetary surplus.


As the main user of the development funds was the HDB, “CPF funds were (thus essentially) lent to the Housing Development Board so that it could build flats.”

Screenshot (86)


At the start in 1955, Singaporeans only needed to contribute 10% (5% employee and 5% employer) into the CPF.


However, in 1968, because PAP wanted “to support the(ir) national home ownership drive“, they increased the CPF contribution rates to 13%.


And so they kept increasing it to do so until 50% in 1984, until 1986.


Edward Ng先生说,‘这样高的储蓄率证明了是要把公积金变成比退休金计划更加大的意图’。事实上,行动党已经把公积金的资金的用途扩大给了建屋发展局了。

Edward Ng said that, “Such a high savings rate is evidence of the intent to make CPF more than a pension scheme for retirement.” Indeed, PAP extended the CPF to give HDB to use.


But why did the PAP wanted Singaporeans to “own homes”? Lee Kuan Yew had said, “I wanted a home-owning society. I … was convinced that if every family owned its home, the country would be more stable … I had seen how voters in capital cities always tended to vote against the government of the day and was determined that our householders should become homeowners, otherwise we would not have political stability.”


But the borrowing of our CPF to build HDB got out of hand. During the early 1980s, PAP started to over-build. Under the Fifth Five-Year Building Programme, the target set in 1980 was to build 85,000 to 100,000 flats. However, a massive 189,000 flats were built, or nearly twice as much.


This “contributed towards ‘over-heating’ of the economy and the property slump and recession which followed in 1985-87” as there was an “over-supply in the property market“.


Lee Kuan Yew later admitted that, “We made one of our more grievous mistakes in 1982-84 by more than doubling the number of flats we had previously built.”


But why did PAP over-build? This is because “1984 (was) an election year as well as a year for celebrating 25 years of achievement as an independent nation” and PAP wanted to get more Singaporeans to “own” their flats in time for their anniversary.


In 1986, the CPF Study Group recommended “that the authorities refrain from pursuing policies that would induce individuals to siphon more and more of their savings from their CPF to continuously upgrade their properties and to purchase additional properties, at the expense of other more pressing family needs and to the possible detriment of their ability to finance a decent old-age livelihood, besides contributing to inflating property prices.


This is because the CPF was creating an “artificial demand” for housing, as PAP wanted to achieve their “goal of 100 percent home ownership“. Thus “The use of CPF savings for the purchase of housing distorts consumption patterns … (and) The fulfilment of the political objective of home ownership by increasing CPF contribution rates so that more funds would be available for this purpose is, if true, economically inefficient.


They also said, “Since its main (and original) objective is to provide for savings for old age, the combined rate of contribution should be set at a level consistent with this objective, and it should be maintained at that level.

无论如何,行动党是走向‘相反’的方向和‘推动了提升计划政策(又一次)和允许公积金 资金用于这个目的。’

However, PAP went in the “opposite” direction and “promoted the upgrading policy (again) and allowed the user of CPF funds for this purpose.”


So, PAP did not stop its wanton desires to use our CPF to over-build flats and “when the Asian Financial Crisis hit in 1997,” National Development Mah Bow Tan admitted that, “HDB ended up with 31,000 unsold flats“, this time while “wast(ing) … taxpayers money”.

因此,在1960年到1980年中,行动党迫使新加坡人缴交更多的公积金。在1982年,当时的劳工兼通讯部长说了:‘公积金的缴交率在未来将可能会调高到50%’。在这50%的缴交率里,40% 将是属于购房子用途,其他的6%是由用于保健储蓄,剩余的是 作为退休和其他急用款。’

Thus from the 1960s to mid-1980s, the PAP kept making Singaporeans pay more into the CPF. In 1982, the then-Minister for Labour and Communications had said that “the CPF contribution rate is likely to increase to 50% in the future. Of this 50%, 40% will be for housing and other uses, 6% for Medisave and the remainder for old age and contingencies.


Which means PAP had planned to make us use 80% of our CPF to buy their flats.

因此,‘国际专家提议,10%——15%的缴交率应该足于为35% ——40%作为替代率,再加上生存者的保险受益’。您认为,50% 的公积金缴交率(或者今天的37%)是否太高了。

However, “The international experience suggests that a contribution rate of 10 to 15 percent should be sufficient for providing a replacement rate of between 35 and 40 percent plus survivors insurance benefits,” thus is 50% (or the 37% today) too much?


The PAP was thus able to “‘create’… (their intention of) homeownership was by directing savings in the Central Provident Fund (CPF) towards housing.


Essentially, “the CPF has (become) a substitute for the mortgage market.

但是,特别是在今天许多老年人无法退休的情况下,您认为,您的公积金的用途是使用在这方面吗? 行动党是否偿还从新加坡人的公积金户头动用去投资并赚取了的利润呢?

But is this what you think your CPF should be used for, especially since today many older Singaporeans cannot retire? Did PAP return what they took from Singaporeans and earned?

Central Provident Fund in Singapore CPF-HDB Circular Flow of Funds

很快的, 由于我们的公积金为建屋发展局提供了源源不断的资金,建屋发展局已经成为‘最大的房地产发展商和最大的房地产贷款抵押商…..在2000年,政府的房地产贷款额是6千零10亿万元。这个数额远远超过了私人房地产贷款额(私人房地产贷款额是3千8百60万亿元)’和在2003年占国民生产总值(GDP)的总比例是71%》….这是在亚洲国家当中最高的百分比。’

Very soon, on the supply of our CPF, HDB became “the largest housing developer (and) also the largest mortgage provider… government mortgage loans totalled 60.1 billion Singapore dollars (SGD) in the year 2000, which was much higher than the total housing loans of the private sector (SGD 38.6 billion)” and the “2003 ratio of outstanding housing loans to GDP (was) 71 percent, (which was) … the highest in Asia”.


As at March 31 2012, 1.38 million members had withdrawn net amount of $ 101.9 billion for public housing scheme.


HDB became “a monopoly supplier of public housing and its mortgage provider, administered through the CPF“.

当时,这也同时是在1960年的土地征用法令,‘缺乏普通或者宪法权利的土地拥有者’下,允许行动党能够这么做’。——‘国家所拥有的土地从1940年的44% 增加到1985年的76%’

But it is also because of “the absence of common or constitutional right to land ownership” under the Land Acquisition Act 1966 that allowed PAP to do this – “land under state ownership increased from 44% in 1960 to 76% by 1985.


Initially, “The HDB was able to price its units below market prices mainly because HDB flats are built on state owned land, much of which had been compulsorily acquired from private landowners at below market prices.

Goodman, Kwon and White 说,‘假设有一个对财产有极大兴趣的强大的地主阶级的存在,那么。住屋政策将不可能这么顺利的执行下去。’

Goodman, Kwon and White said that, “If there had been a strong landlord class with a vested interest in land, the housing policy could never have been carried through as easily as it was.”


However, today, the PAP government, via HDB and the real estate companies owned by Temasek Holdings, is the largest real estate owners and we can see where things have headed.


Thus PAP created “higher artificial demand” with their “homeownership policy“. Also, “The relaxation of housing rules by both the HDB and CPF made public and private housing more substitutable, (which created an) unholy alliance … as the whole residential market becomes a de facto cartel with HDB and a handful of private developers on the supply side.


Worse still, “The situation is aggravated by the state as the largest land owner and exercises land sales from its land bank on a tender system”, causing flat prices to rise even faster. Also, “the extra savings due to the CPF system had induced a demand for bigger flats in Singapore” also drove prices even further upwards.


This means that if Singaporeans are to “migrate en masse, … (this will) trigger downward spirals as more would sell their properties.


However, the escalation of housing prices does not make sense as the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wah had recently admitted that, “we control the (public housing) construction programme; secondly, we set the price (for the HDB flats),”


If so, can PAP not prevent prices from exploding? Or, why does PAP want housing prices to escalate upwards?

Khaw Boon Wah Firstly, we control the construction programmes. Secondly, we set the price

‘在1977年Phang and Wong进行了调研显示,建屋发展局和公积金局为住房提供有效性贷款政策是冲击屋价的最主要因素。这些政策包括了在1981年扩大公积金储蓄使用于购买私人房地产,和在1993年放宽了允许建屋发展局组屋在转售市场的抵押贷款,以及在1994年引进了公积金补助购买转售市场的建屋发展局组屋的政策。’

A study by Phang and Wong (1997) shows that policies on the availability of HDB and CPF finance for housing had the most significant impacts on housing prices. These policies include extending the use of CPF savings for private housing in 1981, liberalizing the terms of HDB mortgage loans for resale flats in 1993, and the introduction of CPF grants for purchasing HDB resale flats in 1994.


As such, PAP has intentionally created policies to drive prices upwards. And they have done so by manipulating our CPF to get Singaporeans to use more CPF to soak up the HDB demand they created. Now, do you see why they needed every Singaporean to believe in owning their own homes? It might be political, but the real reason is financial.


Indeed, we can track how PAP’s policies did increase housing prices.



Also, in the 1980s, PAP started to make flats more expensive by “increas(ing) … prices based on housing type, location, floor level, view, and other aesthetic factors,” making Singaporeans use more of our CPF to pay more for the flats.


Previously, flats were built and sold cheaply below market rates but PAP started including “Land cost … in the final selling prices … though the true formula is not revealed,” which drove flat prices upwards as well. Today, “Land now makes up about three-fifths of development cost on average, up from two-fifths in 2008.”



PAP made flat prices grew so quickly that “between 1981 and 1988, four-room flat prices rose by an average of only 2.5% per year, but between 1988 and 1992, prices increased dramatically by an average of 12% every year!”



Things are even worse today, from 2008 to 2013, “land costs have grown at an average compound rate of 18.2 per cent a year, compared with 9.1 per cent for HDB resale prices” but “incomes (only) rose at a compound annual rate of 5.3 per cent for the average household“.


Phang Sock-Yong教授说,‘1981年的放松政策和1993年放松政策建屋发展局和公积金局条例,允许转售市场的政府组屋使用公积金购买的政策造成了对屋价极大的冲击。这也为炒卖房地产泡沫以及后来的泡沫爆破提供了导因’。这是和1997年和2000年以及今天所发生的潜在威胁是一样。

Professor Phang Sock-Yong said that, “The 1981 liberalization as well as the 1993 liberalization of HDB and CPF regulations for HDB resale flat housing loans had significant impacts on housing prices, contributing to the development of speculative bubbles that subsequently burst.” The same happened in 1997, 2008 and threatens to happen again today.”


Also, “Singapore’s mandatory savings and housing policies have very substantial impacts on household’s consumption and investment patterns. Savers’ and consumers’ rights in decision making are constrained by numerous CPF and HDB restrictions and regulations.”

好了。为什么行动党对1986 有关公积金研讨小组提出的不要过度扩大公积金的住房政策忠告采取忽视的态度?现在就是证据了!——因为他们可以从公积金和建屋发展局的(售屋)活动获利,这也是他们所要达到的目的。

So, why did PAP ignore the warning from the CPF Study Group in 1986 not to over-extend the CPF for housing? It is evident now – there is a lot of money for them to make from Singaporeans’ CPF and HDB, and they wanted it.


Because the “CPF started to withhold from individuals an increasingly large portion of their own financial wealth“, Professor Lim Chong-Yah thus said in the CPF Study Group’s report that this “emasculate their sense of economic initiative and enterprise”.

香港经济研究中心的Richard Wong博士说,‘这一系列的宽松措施已经和公积金强制性储蓄计划背道而驰了。’

Dr. Richard Wong, Director of the Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research, said that, “This sequence of liberalization measures contradicted the original aims of the CPF as a compulsory savings scheme.


Professor Lim Chong Yah also said, “[T]he large sums of money vested with the fund are in effect held `hostage’ to governmental decision-making: ipso facto, 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?”


Today, the same question can be asked. Do we have a government that is “honourable and as capable”.

香港经济研究中心的Richard Wong博士总结的说,‘公积金制度已经可能导致一个大多数人更加平等的社会,除了统治者和被统治者之间的差距。但是,同时,它已经达到通过强制性每一个人40%的(公积金)储蓄获得2%的回报。’

Wong concluded “that the Singapore CPF has probably resulted in a society where most people are more equal, except for the gap between the rulers and the ruled. But this has been achieved by forcing everyone to earn a 2 percent real rate of return on some 40 percent of their savings.”

Phang Sock-Yong教授猜测说,‘新加坡的房屋策略是一个内在驱动的政策和集中控制主要决定于储蓄率、储蓄资金的分配、土地的使用、房屋建造和制定住房价格价格等等都是由政府决定的。在世界上的其他国家,这是一个新古典的经济噩梦。’

Phang also surmised that, “Singapore’s housing strategy is inherently policy driven and centrally controlled, with major decisions on savings rate, savings allocation, land use, housing production, and housing prices being largely determined by the government. It is, in other words, a neo-classical economist’s nightmare.


Now, because the CPF contribution rates were increased from 10% in 1955 to 50% in 1984, this “restrain(ed) aggregate demand”.


Thus “The (increasing) CPF contribution (resulted in) … lower take home pay and hence less expenditure on consumption … (and) the CPF system has created a shift of demand (and hence resources) from the retailing sector to the construction sector. Therefore, compared with other economies of similar level of development, the CPF system would mean a less developed retailing sector in Singapore. This also helps to explain why the retail sector in Hong Kong is more developed than that of Singapore.


Indeed, personal consumption in Singapore has been declining.



So has purchasing power grown much slower.



Singaporeans also have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries, and which is lower than even Malaysia and on par with India.


‘政府通过强制性的公积金缴交率已经上升,’这已经导致‘过度储蓄和过度投资在私人房地产’,但是, 在其他领域的投资却不足,进而造成了缺乏本地企业家精神。新加坡人在开始进行商业投资时,面对行动党的制造的各种高昂的开销,诸如调高租金成本和行动党直接参与经济领域的竞争。

The government, through the mandatory CPF contribution rates which have escalated,” have resulted in the “over-saving and over-investment in residential properties” but under-investment in other areas, and created a dearth of local entrepreneurship, as PAP made it more expensive for Singaporeans to start businesses via rising rental costs as well, and because of PAP’s direct competition in the economy.


Today,  Singaporeans have to pay the highest social security (CPF) contribution rate in the world.



In 1986, supposedly “in response to public complaints that CPF interest rates were below bank rates and were also inadequate as a hedge against inflation“, “the government decided to peg CPF interest rates to market rates.


The Minister for Labour and Communications cautioned that CPF interest rates “could well be lower than what CPF is now paying” if market rates fall, and this can apparently “result in lower construction cost and hence lower selling prices of flats.” “The government (also) warned that if CPF interest rates were tied to market rates, when the latter went up, HDB mortgages would have to pay more for their loans.

在1986年之前,公积金 的缴交率从1955年的2.5%到1974年的6.5%。公积金的6.5%的缴交率一直延续了12年,即到1986年。这样的公积金缴交率,新加坡人民是可以在自己的公积金户头里赚到钱的。

Prior to 1986, the CPF interest rates kept increasing from 2.5% in 1955 to 6.5% in 1974 and remained at 6.5% for the next 12 years until 1986. Singaporeans were able to earn in our CPF.



But from 1986, when CPF interest rates were pegged to market rates, the CPF interest rates only continued falling and never picked up from where it left off. In fact, it went all the way down to 2.5% in 1999, to the rate when CPF first started and stayed at that level.

CPF Ordinary Account Interest Rates from 1977 to 2007


PAP said that since interest rates fell, housing prices would fall as well. However, not only did flat prices never fell, they shot up and escalated dramatically.

Nominal House Price Indices and CPI cropped


The CPF that has to be withdrawn for housing mortgage also shot up.

Annual CPF Withdrawals 1960 to 2013


The CPF interest rates thus became “administered by the government and “computed monthly and compounded and credited annually.

为此,Mukul Asher先生说,‘这是“不符合经济原理的”每年支付固定利率给予实际上是35年或更长的时间的储蓄计划(亦即是一个人一生的工作时间)’。他也说,‘公积金实际的利率从1987年到1998年的零增长。那还得感激通货膨胀的原因。这是违反了累计逻辑原理的。’

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


In 1999, PAP changed the interest peg again.

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


And from then on, Singaporeans were only receiving 2.5% interest on our CPF Ordinary Account, or the lowest since 1968.



Leong Sze Hian has shown that Singaporeans are thus made to earn the lowest interest rates on our CPF retirement funds in the world.


Asher and Nandy说道,‘无论如何,由政府的代理人和银行以集中控制国家储蓄,是被视为对他们有相当的优势的方式。’

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


Basically, PAP has planned to use CPF (and HDB) to control the lives of Singaporeans, how we spend, what we use etc.

今天,‘公积金的储蓄总额已经从仅有的9百万元开始’,到了2014年3月份上升至260,000,000,000元,以及附加 169,000,000,000元的购房款与 26,000,000,000元的投资款。

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

我已经计算了中等结存位数是5万5千元,那就是说,超过50% 的新加坡人的公积金户头里根本就没有5万5千元这个数额。

I had calculated that the median CPF balance is $55,000, which means that half of Singaporeans do not even have $55,000 inside our CPF.

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

新加坡人民为何无法在公积金户头里储蓄到这个数额?那是因为‘新加坡的工资结构上极其不合理的’。‘70%的公积金储蓄必须提取出来支付购房’,‘由于公积金里存有大量隐蔽性的税收,造成了公积金实际的回报率是低的。与此同时,因为受限制的竞争而造成的高的交易成本。 ’

The reason why Singaporeans cannot save inside our CPF is because “the wage structure in Singapore is highly unequal,“, “70 percent of contributions (have to be) withdrawn (for housing)“, “the real rate of return is low due to implicit tax on CPF wealth… (and there are) high transaction costs due to restricted competition.


In 1987, “The Minimum Sum Scheme was introduced … to help CPF members set aside sufficient savings to support a basic standard of living during retirement,” so the PAP said. The Minimum Sum (MS) was set at $30,000 in 1987.


In 1995, “members were required to set aside a MS of $40,000 …  (which would be increased) by $5,000 a year until it reached $80,000 in 2003.


In 2004, this was raised again “by $4,000 a year, and adjusted for inflation… It will reach $120,000 (today’s dollars) by 2013.


I had asked the government about how many Singaporeans are actually able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in only cash and what the CPF median balance is. However, the Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin refused to answer.


Today, 90% of Singaporeans are unable to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.



Half of Singaporeans have less than 35% of the CPF Minimum Sum inside our CPF.

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


73.5% of Singaporeans do not even have half of the CPF Minimum Sum of $77,500.

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


Yet, Lee Hsien Loong still announced that the CPF Minimum Sum will increase to $161,000 next year (2015). This is preposterous.

尽管行动党知道,绝大多数新加坡人民的公积金户头里的储蓄是无法到最低存款额的要求的,但是, 为什么行动党还要不断的调高公积金最低存款额?

But why does PAP keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, even though they know that the majority of Singaporeans do not have enough at all inside our CPF to be able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum?


In fact, why did Lee Hsien Loong still increase the CPF Minimum Sun to $161,000. Did he show how much Singaporeans actually have inside the CPF and any plans to help Singaporeans reach the CPF Minimum Sum at all?

CPF Minimum Sum Grows Faster Than the CPF Itself@Facebook


Why does PAP want to lock our CPF up?


The PAP thus used the CPF Minimum Sum scheme to lock-up Singaporeans’ CPF:


1.1995: CPF Minimum Sum raised by $5,000 every year until 2003

二、1995年:要求预留现金4千元作为到了2003 年可以达到公积金最低存款总额的50%;

2.1995: Required to set aside cash (of $4,000) to meet CPF Minimum Sum until 50% is reached in 2003


3.2003: CPF Minimum Sum raised by an additional $4,000 every year until 2013

四、2009年:取消从公积金户头里提取50% 存款的条例;

4.2009: 50% withdrawal rule phased out


5.2013: Excess CPF monies can only be withdrawn upon meeting the CPF and Medisave Minimum Sums, and $5,000


PAP said that the CPF Minimum Sum is “adjusted yearly for inflation“. However, the CPF Minimum Sum has been growing by more than 6% every year even though inflation has only grown by 2% annually! Why does PAP want to increase the CPF Minimum Sum by so much to trap our CPF inside?



There were also two sharp rises in the CPF Minimum Sum in 1995 and 2008.

在1995 年主要归因于他们更改了每年调高5千元的公积金最低存款额。

The sharp rise in 1995 can be attributed to the policy change to raise the CPF Minimum Sum by $5,000 every year.


However, the 2008 rise is mysterious. Some people have speculated that this is due to the $58 billion loss that Temasek Holdings had made from the end of March 2008 to November 2008 and the $59 billion loss the GIC made in Financial Year 2008. Prior to May this year, Singaporeans did not have clear evidence that the CPF was invested in GIC and Temasek Holdings.



PAP claimed that, “transfer of funds cannot be used to hide investment losses” and that “The issue of whether the investment of the reserves results in gains or losses over time is therefore distinct from the question of whether there is a draw on Past Reserves.” Does this make any sense to you?


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


Other than trying to lock our money inside the CPF, PAP also tried to prevent us from being able to withdraw our own money.

Linda Low说,‘在1984年政府尝试调高公积金提取年龄从55岁调高到60岁。人民的反应非常冷淡。因为人们认为政府已经不遵守承诺了。’因此,‘一个避免让这个问题尖锐化和缓和下来的做法就是实施最低存款额计划。’

Linda Low said that, “In 1984 the government tried to increase the CPF withdrawal age from fifty-five to sixty. The attempt was very poorly received, as people viewed the government as having broken a promise.” So, “One way of getting around this problem has been to institute a scheme minimum sum, which softens the impact.



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

Paul Yip已经说了,延长退休年龄:‘或许是一个更好的政策选择….这是意味着延迟和减少(公积金会员)从公积金户头提出现金,同时,将会有越来越多的公积金进入公积金户头。’

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


This will reduce withdrawals and lock-in more of Singaporeans’ CPF – but for what and who to use?


Professor Lim Chong Yah had asked if we can “guarantee that … governments would be as honourable and as capable” Can we trust PAP to have our interests at heart?

无论如何,正如Yasue Pai指出的,‘在缺乏透明度的情况下,政府投资公积金的结存和对公积金(资金管理)缺乏完整的战略目标所产生的问题是:这个(公积金)制度是不是一个有利于公积金会员的制度。’

However, as Yasue Pai puts it, “The lack of transparency in the way the government invests CPF balances and the lack of an overall strategic objective of the CPF puts into question whether the system is really in the best interest of members.

Yasue Pai也解释说,放松‘移民政策也可能减少了公积金提取的时间。’他也同时解释说,鼓励‘现在提高生育率(是)…减缓了问题(通过往后增加公积金缴交率)’可以同时减少提取款项。但是,他说,‘这是不应该鼓励依靠这种政策….因为这样以拥有一个孩子所涉及到成本和考虑的问题,远远超过政府提出税务奖励的决策。因此,鼓励政策的影响可能是小虽然努力沿着这条线应该鼓励。’

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

正如我们 可以看到的,在近年来,行动党的半心半意的尝试增加新加坡人的生育率也同样的基于这样的思想指导。

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

Singapore TFR


Indeed, the PAP also followed Yip’s approach and relaxed the immigration policy. In fact, if you trace the growth of Singapore’s migrant population, you can see how it also coincided in the early 1980s and 1990s with the periods of housing boom.


There was also a sudden spike in 2004, which can also be traced to two key policies introduced under the premiership of Lee Hsien Loong – the EntrePass scheme to set up business and the Global Investor Programme to become permanent residents for high-net worth individuals. This has also resulted in the dramatic escalation of housing prices.



The “increases (in) the overall supply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor (have also) depress(ed) the wages of Singaporeans.”


Thus from 2001 to 2011 (before CPF started omitting this information from their annual reports), the number of CPF members who earned $1,000 kept increasing even though Singapore supposedly became more wealthy.



And from 2004 when the most recent spike in migrant inflow occurred, there was also a spike of the proportion of Singaporeans who were earning less than $1,000. The wages of Singaporeans were depressed and more and more Singaporeans cannot earn enough.



Yet, Lee Hsien Loong remained unapologetic to the effects of rising cost, wage depression and CPF depletion. He had said, “In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here, my Gini coefficient will get worse but I think Singaporeans will be better off, because they will bring in business, bring in opportunities, open new doors and create new jobs, and I think that is the attitude with which we must approach this problem.



Today, Singapore has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world.



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



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


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

Re-entry into employment


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



Also, whether Singaporeans are able to accumulate CPF depends on whether we are able to have a job. Thus it becomes problematic that the pension system in Singapore relies solely on the CPF and Singaporeans can otherwise not be able to save. This is worsened by how PAP pays Singaporeans such low wages and creates policies to depress our wages, such that Singaporeans do not have additional cash to save for retirement as well.

Screenshot (25)_edited


Perhaps now you can understand why PAP has to go out at all costs to prevent the withdrawals of the CPF to sustain their parasitic system.


and so you will understand why the PAP government refuses to allow dual citizenship and makes it a path of no return if a Singaporean chooses to renounce his/her citizenship. And also how a permanent resident (PR) “cannot withdraw the CPF monies unless he or she gives up PR status and leaves Singapore and West Malaysia permanently, with no intention of returning for further employment or residence” which is a veiled threat to prompt second thoughts about leaving, and thus allowing the CPF to be entrapped inside for their own uses.


The PAP’s “policies, particularly centring on a reduced tax burden on capital income and reduced mandatory contributions by employers to the CPF, have (also) been partially responsible for the declining share of wages.


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


Today, Singaporeans earn the lowest wage share among the developed countries, even though Singapore has become the most expensive place to live in, in the world.


This “growth strategy of creating an environment for the MNCs and the state enterprises to earn high profits has contributed to significant inequalities in the wage structure and income distribution.


Thus it is problematic that PAP claimed last year that income inequality has stabilised and last week that income inequality has actually been reduced.



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

Gini Coefficient 2008 vs 2010 vs 2013

在另一方面,从1995年到2011年,新加坡10%分享最富裕收入的人已经从30% 上升至42%。

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



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



The dramatic increase in the share of income among the richest also coincided with whence PAP decided to increase their own salaries in 1994 by pegging the salaries of the ministers to


two-thirds of the average of the top 24 people in 6 professions”, to earn million-dollar salaries and the highest in the world.



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



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



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



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



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



And the rich-poor gap has only kept widening over the past 50 years. This is SG50 for you.

photo 2 (32)


Asher thus estimated the poverty rate in Singapore to be very high – at between 27% to 35%.

Singapore Poverty Rate Asher 2007

这是与Lien Cent中心的社会创新和新加坡管理大学社会科学系估计达到26%是相一致的。

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



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


更加严重的是,Tilak Abeysing突出的指出,‘新加坡的30%的家庭所花费开销是比他们的收入还多。’他们‘去年花费开销是收入的105%到151%。最主要是花费的开销是在上涨的房屋开支方面。

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



However, this was fervently “disputed” by PAP. Of course they would. If you knew how PAP is jacking up prices and making you pay more from your CPF into their flats, you would become ballistic and wallop them.


But today, you finally know the truth.


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.



Essentially, PAP has calculated very incisively how much they need to pay you in wages, how much they can take it back from your CPF, and how much you are left with to just have enough to pay for the basic necessities which they own as well – telecommunications, transport, public utilities etc.



For the poorest 30%, it is even worse off for them – the PAP created a perpetual handout class, to create a class which would be too scared to lose their “handouts” and can be forced to rely exclusively to protect the PAP’s base.



But this widening income inequality has major social implications.


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

Inequality vs Prisoners


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

Inequality vs Social Mobility


Because Singapore has the highest income inequality among the developed countries, this has also resulted in the highest level of self enhancement in Singapore among the developed countries, where people are likely to view themselves as being better than another person, which has led to a more self-centred and inward populace.

Inequality vs Self-Enhancement


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

The Equality Trust Income Equality vs Trust


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

photo 1 (31)


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


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


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


Join the #ReturnOurCPF Facebook event page here.

Return Our CPF burning rose poster

Return Our CPF sun poster

Return Our CPF burning sun poster

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2 chinese

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Part 2



  1. The Oracle

    I see Roy is quoting the average Singaporean will lose $1.5m to $3m as the government is paying closer to 3% rather than 6% on CPF. That number is ridiculous – about 100 times higher than the truth.

    • reply The Oracle

      reply to The Oracle,
      you’re like a fly ,
      flies spread due to carry an variety of pathogenic microorganisms and crimes against humanity.

  2. Jaden

    I see Oracle keep repeating the same argument. The PAP government also keep repeating that HDB is losing billions to “subsidize” Singaporeans. Why don’t you try to dispel this myth since you are “non-partisan” as you said yourself? All I see from you is onesided attack on Roy. Even tough I don’t agree with him, I see some wisdom behind the claim that Singaporeans are losing money to the PAP in terms of opportunity cost that could not be measured in terms of dollars and cents. According to recent report, as high as 30% of the ITE graduates do not take on jobs that they have studied in. I reckon this figure is higher for degree holders and MOM is not revealing all. These opportunity costs are in the millions.

    • The Oracle

      Hi Jaden,

      Roy keeps repeating the same argument – even when proved wrong on some points. Two posts ago I gave a spreadsheet breakdown of a typical CPF member’s potential CPF loss at 3.5% versus 6%. I am not denying CPF could pay more but the number Roy quotes is from fairyland, not Singapore.

      Re ITE graduates: Totally different topic but the fact is they pretty much all can get jobs. When you compare this to unemployment in Europe – over 50% of under 30s in Spain are unemployed for example – we are in much better shape. Having said that though, if 30% are not getting jobs in their chosen field of study then it points to a potential mismatch between courses offered and this should be looked into in more detail.

      • Jaden

        Hi Oracle, you certainly don’t sound like a Singaporean. Are you a pinoy? Why you seem so contented that Singapore is in better shape than Spain, Indonesia and Rawanda? I can understand your elation and your praise for Singapore government if you did hail from these places and now a new citizen. Any third world aliens that come here would be full of “wow” “wah” because you experience a jump in standard of living from your third world slum.

        Singaporeans born here have totally the opposite experience because their standard of living has been going downhill ever since Lee Hsien Loong took over. We were promised the “Swiss” standard of living. Instead, we got the Swiss cost of living and maybe slightly better than Spain standard. But we used to be near to Swiss standard. Now it is more like Hong Kong or worst. Hong Kong at least got better transport system than us.

        Crony capitalism. I am sure you are part of it since you are not experiencing what most Singaporeans are experiencing. It would not be far fetch to put you as someone coming from pinoyland from the way you write.

        As for what Roy has written,. yes, perhaps some exaggeration, but most are based on facts supported by NUS charts. You are free to criticize, but, your one-sidedness makes you a “non-partisan” observer. Your persistancy puts you on par for the course as a PAP dog. Your insistance of comparing us with the worst puts you as accomplice in making Singapore a wretched place to stay.

        You are born a traitor and perhaps you have served the Japanese imperial army during WWII like our dear leeder. Yes, you can go write a book and brag about it. We will spit saliva at your grave after you die, perhaps to dig out your grave if any, and build a flyover over your skeletal remains if any. You are no different from all the eunuchs that are instrumental to the downfall of a nation.

        Please read the history books. People like you should not breed.

      • share true

        you talk not true, In Europe, Each Unemployed people, they lost job, but not lost income , they have income stability monthly as the same amount as they working . because their government have been built up the union policy to protect workers, so the jobless people received cost of living until they find the next job, the first 5 years period will be the same, later will received 80% of their original salary ,

        you only talk the unemployment rate, you did not tell the whole story , i think, your PM knew . his family three generations studied in Europe before,

        you can cheak via your embassy in each countried of Europe, or check it from website.
        my sister live in Europe, their government good treat to their people, also good to my sister, she is an housewife, but their government also give her basic cost of living via transfer to her husband’s account . one person , one cost of living, It is their kindess policy . also, she see doctor cost free, i will say more laster, now i am busy , alright .

      • The Oracle

        I see you are resorting to the usual insults typical of a Roy follower – sad. And for the record, I am Singaporean but I spent almost 10 years in the UK – I know very well how the European system works, or rather doesn’t work.

      • Xmen


        These people spent more time in Singapore (almost 10 years longer) than you. They know very well how the Singapore system works, or rather doesn’t work. So stop telling them that they are wrong! You have no idea how difficult life is for people who could only dream about living in a first world country. They are not asking for government handout, they are only asking for government responsibility and accountability to its own citizens!

      • jasmine

        Well said Jaden and Xmen. I couldn’t agree more. This Oracle has totally lost touch with the common ground and is making a fool of himself trying to comment on Singapore policies from his ivory tower.

      • stone

        I have spent 40 years in sg, my dad has spent 74 years in sg. We support our cpf.
        oracle, I have read all ur posting. I find them most useful. Of cos, I will go bk and read the official cpf website to authenticate.
        Ppl like roy is telling half truths. Wat is half truth?
        Half truth is basically presenting some parts of official documents, reports. Then make a false story of them. By doing so, it makes roy’s blog look real. Very devious….

  3. Jaden

    The PAP has damaged the social contract by importing millions of cheap labour and putting redundant many skilled and professional jobs that Singaporeans want to do. If we continue to allow the PAP to fester such anti-Singaporean policies just to enrich a few crony businessmen, these toxic policies will bring to an end a Singaporean first society. Singaporeans have to wake up before it is too late. The posionous mushroom that PAP is delivering has already started to damage the Singapore core. We have to end these by stopping the PAP mushrooms and their parasitic soothsayers from blooming.

  4. 李總理故意糟蹋國人

    政府拿人民的錢去冒險,就像父親把孩子們的錢拿去賭場,回來要全家老老少少勒緊腰帶,要努力省錢, 最好過穆斯林的斋月,該吃的不吃了, 該穿的不穿了,還要改變習慣,重新設計房間,最好把睡床改造成韓國的榻榻米床, 以便節省空間租給一批外來人 --- 李總理最後描述讓國人過一種難民營的生活。--- 他怎麼講的出來呢 ?他是井底之蛙呢 ? 還是不當他人是一個人看待,所以他在故意糟蹋國人 ? 我比較相信後者。

    這類無恥之徒,即時被人們打死, 也不解氣 !
    新加坡怎麼讓一個沒有生活體驗的人做總理呢 ?他哪裡懂 ? 一個白痴做總理10年不变, 无视白痴毁了新加坡的一批极端自私自我的同僚, 黑暗处被一条毒蛇吓到, 打开灯光,其實是一堆草绳。

  5. tan

    You people who keep criticizing the government, have you all even look at the big picture and consider the trade offs? Is life in Singapore really that bad? I mean, really? Try to be practical and realistic in your expectation and you will see a more balance view.

  6. share true

    I sat down and share about European’s benefit:

    1. Their children, from birth to 18 years , receiving monthly rations of State giving for living cost, about 300.00 SGD per month for each child. Even foreigner’s children, as long as the parents are working in Europe, there are benefits.

    2. From kindergarten to university, is completely free.

    3. free to see a doctor, hospital stay free, free check-ups. In any European country, after the sick, see a doctor, hospital stay for free.

    4. if the layoffs, government pay responsible of issuing the monthly income till the person find the next job . The maximum term is five years.

    5. If you can not find work, and want to learn carpentry , or painting, or sewing , or dancing , etc., all skills courses free offer by government ,The maximum term is 3 – 5 years. in addition, During the course period also got about 2000.00SGD monthly for living expenses.

    6. law rules a week for 37 hours working time . Overtime work is illegal, in violation of for human pressure the bottom line .Night work pay is the three times of the day pay.

    7. Government issued about 1500.00SGD annual vacation allowance to each person, if over 65 years old still continue to work, an additional payment of 30,000.00 SGD as incentive transferred by government

    8. Each elderly live exclusive apartments by the State to pay the rent. Government is responsible once a week, to help the elderly bathe, clean up the room. After the death also in charge funeral expenses.

    —- Previously reported that the elderly are not being taken care, it lied about the truth.

    9. ambulances, rescue helicopters dispatched. People do not have to pay a dime.

    10.every year in parliament debate the how do make annual financial allocation, even if they raise pigs, are subject to welfare, they want to eat healthy pork.

    Before criticizing the West, in fact, they are frogs. Western system is the best system.

    conversely . their Prime Minister’s income is the normal . much much lower than Singapore ,
    they don’t touch or take people’s fund away.

    That is why the European community are the most civilized human society. it is real. I was moved to tears,
    i hope please don’t bully singaporeans again, be good leader , showing your kindness, make a bit changes. everybody have to live nice .life has just once, cherish,

  7. share true

    in addition, if university student will stay not at home, will received about 1500.00SGD for rent cost per month. if the working place far In 20 km away, government pay the transpotation cost. many thing, i can not remember all , i will share next time,

  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Pingback: [漫画]新加坡人是如何被哄和被套牢的 | The Heart Truths
  11. 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!!!

    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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s