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》

What PAP Has Done to Your CPF and Doesn’t Want Singaporeans to Know (The Real History) (Part 2)

由于方便大家阅读,作者把文章分成两部分。《第一部分》已经在2014年8月22日发表在如下网址。这是第二部分。全文如下。

The English version of this article was first published here.

行动党在1984年已经引进保健储蓄作为‘国家医药储蓄计划,个人必须把自己收入的一部分存入保健储蓄户头里,为将来个人或其亲属住院、日常手术和部分门诊的开支。’

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.

杜进才先生批评保健储蓄时说,‘没有任何人有能力拥有两个医药福利计划。’

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

他也说,

He also said that:

保健储蓄是一种税收,对于低收入阶层而言,这是一种隐藏性的税收。因为公积金的缴交率是极其低的,他们将会支付全部的金额。然而,那些高收入者并不需要支付全额的公积金缴交率,因为公积金缴交率是有顶限的。我个人认为(保健储蓄)这是一短视的做法。

(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.

他们是否费时去调查卫生部和贸工部与财政部是否有共谋,他们从这里拿经费去维持自己部门的运作?卫生部的第一个反应是确保医疗服务的存在。这是卫生部的第一个责任。他们必须四处去向财政部要钱。但是,他是在执行财政部的工作。我完全不同意有关处理保健储蓄的问题。

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

陈树群在国会也说,

Mr Tan Soo Khoon had also said in parliament:

议长先生,单从国家保健计划本身和强调经济上的考量方面看,我个人有一个令人不快的感觉,财政部的手伸入其中。政府承担的社会责任在哪儿?议长先生,我相信,在政府的关系负责健康保健社会责任和提供费用之间,我们必须需求平衡点。但是,我对计划的主要批评是,因为它忽视了一些疾病将会

这是涉及关心保健和提供医疗费用的问题。但是,我主要批评的是有关(保健储蓄)计划。不论个人有没有任何过失、个人付出多大的努力去坚强的面对以防止疾病的发生,但是,由于它忽视了认识到这个计划的疾病已经侵入体内。

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.

议长先生,没有任何人知道他们的肾脏和心脏已经出现问题了。没有人知道癌症已经能够袭击他们了。医疗护理对于长期的疾病有许多的例子。事实上,应该是所有的例子,长期的疾病对于个人和他的家庭将会是一个沉重的经济负担。因此,保健储蓄不是一个可以适合解决这些需求的。议长先生,在这样的情况下的结局是是深远的。价假设一个病人无法使用他们的保健储蓄户头的钱去支付全部或一部分这样的开支,他们可能会寻求延期入院治疗直到他们的健康恶化或者更严重的是他们可能自己寻求自我医治的途径。

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.

最终,人民将会发现保健储蓄是一项完全无法吸引人的提议,因为当人们发现存入保健储蓄户头的钱一旦他们需要用时无法动用,那么,人民将不会积极的把钱存入这个户头。

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.

事实上,今天我们都知道,新加坡人宁可选择死亡也不愿到医院寻求治疗。

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

今天,政府收到保健储蓄户头的钱已经是660亿元,但是,在2012年只有7.68亿元从保健储蓄户头里提取出来作为直接开支,或者是只占了保健储蓄结存总额的1.3%。

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

 在2011年从保健户头提取的数额是7.22亿元。与2011年保健储蓄户头的存款总额131亿元相比较,占保健储蓄总开支的5.5%。

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

现在,如果从保健储蓄户头里提取相等于2011年总提款额的7倍,就是51亿元,这将会帮忙新加坡人通过保健储蓄户头支付保健费用的总额是38.5%,再加上目前的保健津贴,就可以为保健费提供总款额的70%的开支,或者是其平均开支与其他发达国家在保健的开支一样。

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

即使从保健储蓄增加7倍的提取款额,也即等于新加坡人只是需要花费相等于2011年保健储蓄结存总额的9.1%!这就是说,在保健储蓄户头里还有超过90%的存款。这足够行动党拿我们的保健储蓄户头的钱干他们要干的事。

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

那么,为什么行动党只允许新加坡人从保健储蓄户头里提取那可怜的1.3%款项,自己还得从兜里拿出超过60%的现金去支付医药费呢?

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?

梁志轩先生也估算了,在2013年,新加坡人存入保健储蓄户头的钱约80亿元,包括保健储蓄户头所赚取的利息,合计健保储蓄户头的总存款款额是108亿元。

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.

梁志轩先生同时也计算了,当您看到政府在医疗保健支出的总开支是71亿元。即便是包括从健保储蓄户头提取的15.6亿元,健保储蓄保费8.176亿元,保健基金支付1.02亿元,以及建国一代配套第一年的费用2.6亿元。所有支出的项目总额也就是97.6亿元。这比起新加坡人缴入保健储蓄户头和赚取利息的总款额108亿元还要少。

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!

这些款项的数据说明了:新加坡人每年存入保健储蓄户头的钱是足于覆盖政府所有的医疗保健开支的。假设这些数据是正确的,为什么新加坡人还需要缴交税收?那些保健医疗津贴去了哪儿?

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

事实上,在1984年开始实施保健储蓄制度时,政府说要承担津贴50%的医疗保健开支的。但是在保健储蓄制度实施了两年后。行动党突然把政府应承担的保健医疗津贴削减到30%,造成了新加坡人必须从保健储蓄户头为自己支付更多的医疗费用。

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

今天,行动党是发达国家中支付医疗开支最低的国家,同时也是世界上最低的国家。

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

在1990年,当保健储蓄实施时,政府说,‘保健储蓄的存款额是帮忙公积金会员能够应付可能无法足够支付B2/C级病房的费用。’

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.”

李绍祖医生在国会里说,

Dr Lee Siew-Choh had said in parliament:

很明显的,保健储蓄首要任务不是为了受保人,而是为保健储蓄本身。这是为了确保政府不会涉及到任何可能需要支付额外的开支。保健储蓄的运作就如私人的商业保险商业公司。它营运的目标就是:保证利润和不亏损。同时,它提供给受保人的在住院和外科手术的利益比私人商业保险公司来的少。

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.

但是,政府的保健储蓄运作并不需要如商业保险公司一样。政府的责任是必须照顾所以年龄的投保者和各种病患。因此,必须确保保健储蓄是真正为全部年龄的人的低成本的医保。保健储蓄必须真正承担全部的责任为照和治疗那些长期遭受严重疾病折磨的病患。

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.

在今年6月份,工人党非选区议员严燕松揭露说,‘在2001年和2013年,根据公积金局的年报,保健储蓄收到的保费是37.04亿元,但是,支付保险索赔是21.9亿元——就是说,扣除了索赔费后还有余额是15.14亿元。’他说,‘我让新加坡人自己去评估这笔15.14亿元是否是保费多过索赔款款的‘一笔可观的数额款’。

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.”

这就是说,从2001年开始,政府收到的保健储蓄保费只支付了59%的索赔款,其余额款项被视为利润所得。

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

工人党非选区议员严燕松也详细的说明,保健储蓄基金‘截至2012年底的资本充足率是165%’。他说,这个资本充足率是远远超过了金融管理局所规定的最高45%资本充足率的120%。他指出,政府‘已经设定了保健储蓄基金的资本充足率是200%。这是比金融管局所要求的还要高’。他问政府有这个必要吗?。‘自2013年底,保健储蓄基金也有的净资产是6.133亿元。这个数额是比去年支付方索赔款高出了1.8倍。’

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.”

在1984年, 当行动党要推迟公积金提取的年龄从55岁延长到60岁时,杜进才先生很快看穿了行动党的伎俩并嘲笑他们的这一决定。

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:

这些令人不安的问题是在与公积金的年龄相关的。年龄的问题已经被遗忘了,因为政府已经触碰到人民的储蓄问题了。

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.

这个涉及公积金的问题是与动用公积金、管理公积金和公积金的缴交相关的。我已经一再不断的重覆,公积金上调到50%已经是令人无法承受的了!这不仅仅是雇员的问题,也是雇主的问题了!

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.

杜进才说,财政部特别关心那些钱被锁在公积金而导致商业银行流动资金的减少。我想,财政部必须特别担心这件事。这是一个极其正常的关心的想法。它应该不允许卫生部把手伸入公积金或者调高公积金缴交率。因为这将会引发的社会问题了。我们必须更加仔细看待这个问题。我们要有宏观的观点。我要知道,我们是否有长远的观点。但是,议长先生,我没有这样的狭窄观点。那就是,在不受干扰的情况下沿着这条线索看下去,或者深入探讨它对其他方面所产生的冲击。

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.

杜进才说,我个人认为,基本的原则已经背离了。这个基本原则就是:到底公积金性质是一个定期存款?还是借给政府的贷款?总之,这两者的性质在佼佼者年龄达到55岁时都是可以按期赎回的。假设我到商业银行存入一笔钱。在到期时我到银行要取回这笔钱。同行的经历告诉我,杜博士,您必须在明年才来银行提取这笔款项!事情就是这么简单,公积金局管理已经失去了它的信用。这是一个基本达到问题。您被保健储蓄所吃惊。然后,他们说,‘在公积金户头里的6%的存款将会被作为保健储蓄用途。即便是您往生了,您也不可以把这笔款项提取出来’。

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.”

根据当时的海峡时报报道,‘国会议员为杜进才博士的25分钟充满热情的讲话发出了大声的喝彩。’

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

我感到非常遗憾,我无法与杜进才先生交谈。

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

今天,公积金收到新加坡人的公积金已经累计了2600亿元。但是,去年新加坡人只允许使用公积金的总款额不到这个总 累计的总款项的5.9%。

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

Slide9

终于,在1989年,公积金为学生实施了教育计划,这是要‘协助低收入家庭支持他们自己或孩子在政府批准的新加坡教育学院的求学。’

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“.

但是,欧进福(麟集选区国会议员)说,

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

主席先生,大学生补习费再一次调高了。这次调高补习费完全不是因为成本的增加。因为过去两年的开支只是增加了20%….。在1987年教育部长在国会里宣布调高补习费时,他说,他不希望在看到另一次大规模的调高补习费。但是,就在他说这些话的两年期间,大学的补习费调高了30%到80%之间。这次调高的比例是117% 到4545%之间。这是数据是Dr Aline Wong提供的。一部分学生受到了接连两次的调高补习费的打击。

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.

事实上,新加坡人是世界上支付大学补习费最高的国家。

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

Slide6

政府花费在国际学生在新加坡的学位的开支是3.54亿元,大学去年的盈余最少是4.51亿元,但是, 新加坡人仍然还要从自己的口袋里拿出4亿元来还补习费。

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

在这期间,政府为国际学生提供了52%的奖学金,但是,给新加坡人的学生的奖学金是6%。

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

Slide2

不仅仅是大学的收支有盈余,其他的法定机构也累计了盈余,但是,Krause问道,‘庞大的法定机构实质上垄断了整个新加坡和有足够的市场联系足于影响市场的价格。累计盈余是事实上反映了价格是超过平均的成本….为此,与其他的公司一样定出最高的利润为目标,(Krause说)。法定机构在制定价格政策时,可以采取保本的政,从而降低成本。’

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

他解释说,‘在最初的几年,政府的财政尚未有盈余时,政府通过向公积金借贷作为其发展开支的预算。’

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

无论如何,政府的盈余已经增加了,特别是1970年后期,一般而言,作为公积金的管理者,公积金对政府就成为多余的资金了。就在这样的情况下,建屋发展局就介入了。

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

在1968年,立法通过了允许公积金投资在政府公债或‘新加坡政府债券(SGS)或者是预付存款(那就是)….实际上就是(公积金)会员把储蓄款姐给政府。反过来,做出了实际的投资决策。’

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.”

单单是公积金局的户头的资金就占了新加坡交易所70%的交易活动,这个庞大的交易数额实际上是一种注册股票的形式,而不是股票交易所的第二板投资。

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

因为,‘公积金局限定(会员)只能投资在政府的债券。今天,这样(的规定)实际上已经占了GDP的内债110,9%了。’

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.

‘从1983年开始,公积金的资产和官方的外汇储备是大约持平的’,这就清楚说明,‘国家的外汇储备中一大部分实际上是把公积金储蓄并入。’。

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.

黄分享了他无法忘记的例子,‘我问了一个银行的职员有关利用公积金储蓄投资新加坡政府债券的可能性。他表示惊讶。他认为不会有人会考虑投资在低回报的新加坡政府债券。他解释说, 新加坡政府债券是属于不流动性的资金和具体的发行可能需要特别的来源。’这就是说,‘我们偶尔会有个别的投资者来询问有关新加坡政府债券的事宜。’

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.”

就是这样,我们的公积金是一个没有人要购买的投资产品。为什么行动党要拿我们的公积金储蓄去购买新加坡政府债券呢?

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

但是,公积金在之后都去了哪儿呢?

But where does the CPF go thereafter?

‘新加坡政府投资有限公司(简称GIC)是在1981年5月22日注册成立了。成立的缴足资本金是2百万元。’Linda Low也揭露说,GIC‘是以3.45亿元投资在36家公司的资金设立的。’假设是这样,那么,这36家公司是那些公司?这36家公司设立的发展资金是不是动用我们的公积金?他们的投资回报在哪儿?

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?

在过去几十年里。行动党一直拒绝让新加坡人知道公积金就是投资在GIC的事实。

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

然而,在1986年一个由林崇椰教授领导的研究公积金的小组已经揭露,‘基金的筹措是通过政府的国家储备和政府其他机构受委托的金融管理局管理的基金购买新加坡政府发行的债券。然后,再由GIC负责管理这些基金。’

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也同时这样写道,‘从1970年末期开始,公积金储蓄作为公共盈余的一部分,已经与其他的资金混合在一起由淡马锡控股负责在本地进行投资或由GIC在海外负责投资。’

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).

无论如何,把公积金转给GIC本身就是一个问题了!因为‘GIC的在法律上是一家私人有限公司——他是从国会和公共监督下被移出去的。这样的安排没有为会员提供最高足够的投资回报的复利息’。因此‘当公积金会员知道他们的户头的结存时,他们并不知道投资的基本讯息或投资决策的业绩以及没有关于投资回报和会员的回报的讯息。’

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.

正因为这样,‘法律规定了,GIC并不需要披露它的投资业绩和活动...公积金会员并没有被告知有关最终的投资的结存款额。’

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也说,‘为了增加GIC在公积金投资的盈余,然后再支付给公积金会员,在公积金的大量盈余账上是一个隐藏性的税收。这是一个双重的周期性、高度后退行的和经常是巨额的数额...对于低收入的会员而言,公积金的盈余结存是他们的最大非住房产业的财富。’

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对于行动党的这种利用公积金的做法提出了告诫说,‘新加坡把作为退休金用途的盈余作为投资方式是与国际最佳设计退休金管理的实践相背而驰和具有巨大的潜在政治风险的。这样一种集中式的储蓄由一只不透明的手、不需负责任的代理管理,它也是扭曲了储蓄的投资过程的。这将会导致没有效益的资产收益回报。’

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同时也解释说,‘把公积金和金融管理局的基金混合在一起让GIC进行投资可能是一种好的投资方式或者是一种管理策略,因为这样投资回报率就不容易被追查到、制度化和代理投资的政策目标实际上由政府口述....在结存的另一面,集中制度取得低利率回报,这与不良的投资没有多大的关系,而是隐藏性的税收。这个差异大约是3%。授权委托投资的意思就是社会债券基金成了预算案所需要而绑架和做出决定了投资的决策。’

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.

在今年6月,淡马锡控股也否认自己管理我们的公积金的钱。

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

Temasek doesn't invest or manage CPF savings

但是,正如副总理兼财政部长善达曼所说,‘(政府)把4亿元的资产作为资金注入这家公司(即淡马锡控股)’这就是说明‘这些公司的资金就是政府靠政府投入的。’公积金的钱就是在政府通过(政联企业)私营化后转入淡马锡控股的。这是就意味着:事实上淡马锡控股是管理过公积金的基金!

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!

新加坡政府说淡马锡控股没有用新加坡人的公积金去进行投资

Temasek Holdings Did Invest CPF

在1982年,当时的劳工兼通讯部长解释说,‘公积金的储蓄是占新加坡的(国家)储蓄的一大部分。这个储蓄是用来作为资本的形成。这就是投入建设新厂房、安装新的工厂和设备,扩充基础建设,如道路、码头港口和通讯、建造住房等等。这些设施与新加坡的经济和政治的稳定所取得了效果就是吸引了每年巨额的投资。这样又再继续设立更多的商业、工厂和企业。’

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补充说,‘淡马锡控股的成立注册资本是从财政部的盈余注入和接管了国有企业并发展了这些主要的企业。’

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.”

当‘在1980年末新加坡的国营企业开始进行私有化时…..淡马锡控股,这家新加坡政府的投资臂膀现在分享了大部分从政联企业或者GIC分割出来的企业,如新加坡电讯等等。’

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.

因此,这就足于清楚说明,淡马锡控股是已经动用过新加坡人的公积金。淡马锡控股是否归还这些被动用的公积金?

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

在1987年,杜进才先生批评了行动党的私有化计划。

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

让政联企业在股票交易所挂牌并不等于私有化。私有化的意思是(政府本身)从商业领域净身而退和停止与私人企业竞争。让一家政联企业在交易所进行挂牌上市时是极其聪明的做法。它可以从公开市场筹措资金作为运作。否则,就必须从政府那里获得支助或者向政府借贷。相信很多人都不认为这是私有化。

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.

政府在股票交易所的运作中扮演着一个控制的角色,他们还需要让这样多的政联企业到股票交易所上市吗?他们是否是担心对股票市场的(无法)控制。这并不是一个虚拟的问题。在1994年,发生了一件有关政联企业吉宝(KEPPEL)与怡和证券的事件。政府在这事件发生时,政府应用对怡和证券的影响力让吉宝脱离困境。

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.

与其他私人企业不同,政联企业有政府的直接或间接的旧雇主的关系。…政府通过释放公积金的基金收购信托股来干预股票市场。政府的干预手法包括了政府持有的公司股票…一部分在股票交易所上市的政府企业不是私有化的。我宁愿把这些政府公司一起出售,让它们成为私人企业。

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.

在1998年,行动党是否使用同样的手法迫使新加坡人的邮政储蓄银行帮忙发展银行从困境中脱离?

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

Phang解释说,新加坡的‘经济是通过控制跨国家的企业和国有控股企业而享有传统的具有实质意义控制这个资源(例如85%的土地上属于国家所有和在宪法上或普通法上没有任何的地主的权利。)是实质上的垄断权力。’

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.

这也就不会意外,新加坡在世界裙带资本主义排行第五位了,也是世界上最容易搞‘政治关联商人最喜欢发展的地方。’

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

这或许就不会感到意外,通过行动党政府单方面把物价抬高或压低工资,进而让新加坡成了世界上居住环境 最昂贵的地方。

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

更着要的是,淡马锡控股可能要否认它动用过我们的公积金去投资。无论如何,‘在2004年,(国会)修订了一条法令….允许政府把国家储备金转拨给主要的国有企业和公司。 这些国家储备金的转拨过程是获得总统的批准的。就这样,淡马锡控股收到了政府转拨的国家储备金。’假设是这样的情况,这就非常清楚的说明了淡马锡控股可以拿我们的公积金去投资(因为我们的公积金是属于国家储备金的一部分。)

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).

在这期间,淡马锡控股的首席执行员、新加坡总理的太太、前总理的媳妇,何晶说,‘财政部是我们(淡马锡控股)在过去、现在和未来几代的新加坡的主要股东。’

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.

前财政部长胡适道也曾经说过,这些(国家)储备是属于新加坡人民的。

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

实际上。一本书名叫:《东南亚的政府企业的改革》(‘Reforming Corporate Governance in Southeast Asia’)已经明确的新加坡人民是有权拥有淡马锡控股和成为它的终极股东的。这何晶本身已经承认的。

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

假设这样,为什么淡马锡控股却成为‘豁免的私人公司’和GIC是一家‘私人企业’,不需要提交完整的公司业绩报告有关它们动用新加坡人民的钱的情况?为什么行动党要把淡马锡控股和GIC改为私人有限公司性质的企业,暗示要新加坡人无法知道这两家公司如何动用我们的公积金的情况。

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)

现在,当我们看到在2008年GIC和淡马锡控股亏损了我们已经可以确定了GIC和淡马锡控股事实上是动用了我们的公积金去进行投资。他们没有应该归还我们的这些钱依法是我们的。当我们看到在2008年淡马锡控股和GIC亏损了1170亿元或在2008年我们的公积金结存市值下跌了77.5%时,我们不得不质疑,在2008年行动党政府突然调高了最低存款额是否与此有关联?新加坡人民是否要承担他们的投资亏损?

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

GIC和淡马锡控股赚取的投资回报是一笔巨额额款项。

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

正如我所说的,今天一个人在25岁时开始出来社会工作的薪金是每月1千元。他一直工作到55岁,也就是工作了30年。他将会失掉30万元。这包括他必须支付他的组屋的地价(因为他(租赁)的组屋合约不包括土地,这套组屋单位的产权也不属于他的。)

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

对于一个开始在社会上工作每月赚取3千元的中等入息的新加坡人,(他一直工作到55岁,也就是工作了30年。)他将会失掉75万元。

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

Slide5

梁志轩先生已经计算了,今天,一个新加坡人在21岁开始到社会工作的新加坡人,每月赚取1500元。他一直工作到65岁的话,他失去的将会超过150万元。

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

一个新加坡人在21岁开始到社会工作的新加坡人,每月赚取3000元。(他一直工作到65岁的话)他失去的将会超过3百万元.

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

Slide7

Christopher Balding教授也计算过,一个新加坡人从1980年到2011年赚取的平均工资将会失掉26万元

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

假设以我们的公积金投资在淡马锡控股,这笔钱又没有全部归还给我们为例子,那么,一个新加坡人将会亏损近4百万元。

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

因此,这就看您是如何看待这个问题了。一般上,新加坡政府将会让新加坡人亏损70万元到3百万元之间,或者应该依法属于我们赚取的超过50%的回报。

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

假设以这个论述为基础,您将会看到,本地210万的劳动力人口,新加坡人可能会死去的总款额将是7万亿元。

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

今天,GIC和淡马锡控股在世界上主权财富基金的排名是第8名号第10名。

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

Slide40

无论如何,新加坡人是世界上最少足够退休金的国家之一。

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

Slide52

Slide53

Slide54

这就是为什么过了10多年的今天,新加坡会出现越来越多的问题。那是因为行动党政府拒绝承认他们拿了我们的公积金投资在GIC和淡马锡控股。

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.

事实上,今年5月30日行动党政府最终才承认这个事实:‘政府的资产(包括了公积金在内)主要是由GIC管理。‘

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

但是,他们是在过去无数次的否认之后才承认。

But this is after numerous denials.

李光耀在2001年否认这个事实。(我们应该感激工人党国会议员必达星把这个历史事实挖出来!)

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

Screenshot (45)

在2006年,李光耀又再一次否认这个事实。

Lee Kuan Yew denied this again in 2006.

Screenshot (49)

在2007 年,时任劳工部长的黄永宏也否认这个事实。当时工人党国会议员刘程强先生询问,‘政府投资在GIC的资金是否来自公积金?’黄永宏回答说,‘答案是没有。’

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

事实上,在2008年,第二财政部长又狡辩说,‘政府不需要参与管理(GIC和淡马锡控股)投资’和‘这些基金管理公司自行独立决定商业活动和决策’,因此,(入股破政府参与)‘这将会引发更加多的关注’。

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”.

无论如何,事实上今天引起了关注是更加多了。现在已经毫无悬念的肯定行动党是参与了管理GIC,但是,他们却继续否认这个事实。

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!

政府的内阁就在GIC的董事会。新加坡总理是董事会主席、两位副总理和两位部长和也是董事会董事和前部长李光耀也是高级顾问。

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.

GIC Board of Directors

同样的,GIC的董事会成员就是政府政府的内阁成员。

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

Screenshot (69)

Screenshot (71)

Screenshot (74)

Parliament Raymond Lim

这是不是荒唐!GIC说,‘GIC董事会向政府承担资金组合投资的业绩表现的责任,但是,政府没有干预公司的投资决策。’

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)

更可笑的是,行动党政府还狡辩说,‘在GIC、金融管理局和淡马锡控股在投资上的决策是纯粹由他们整个管理团承担责任。在GIC、金融管理局和淡马锡控股董事会里的部长不扮演任何的角色。’

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

事实上,在2012年和2013年我曾写过两篇文章。那是我特意从政府的网站搜索到有关我们的公积金实际上是被政府动用去投资在GIC和淡马锡控股。尽管如此,政府已经把这些证据从那些网站上删除了。

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.

因此,新加坡人民从此无法知道,政府是通过公积金局购买政府的债券把我们的公积金投资在国家储备篮子里。

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

Slide1

这就让我们不可能知道,我们国家的储备金(包括我们的公积金)是由金融管理局、GIC和淡马锡控股负责管理的。

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

的确。‘从一开始,公积金已经成为进行社会的经济和发展提供了一个现成低廉成本的资金了。’

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.

然而,‘毫无根据的说政府是利用“(利息)低廉”的公积金去进行投资。(李显龙)说,‘“一些人说,。。。政府要用(利息)低廉的资金去金投资赚取利润。我们不需要这些(利息)低廉的钱。我们不是那种政府。”’

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.’

同时,刘程强先生问道,‘扣住公积金不让已经达到提取公积金年龄的会员提取目的是(不是)要让GIC可以有现存和(利息)低廉的资金可以作为投资?’黄永宏回答说,‘假设(公积金的资金利息)是怎么低廉,将会有一批人排队等着这样的资金。(但是)没有人出现。’

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.”

但是,在1983年海峡时报报道说,‘公积金…..被证明是政府的一个(利息)低廉的资金来源。公积金局购买了政府的股票和政府把(利息低廉公积金)便宜的钱借给了建屋发展局。’

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

最后:房子里还是摆着那头大象。——意即:公积金仍然是政府用来投资(利息最低廉)最便宜的资金来源。

Finally, there is still the elephant in the room.

工人党非选区议员严燕松问过国家发展部长许文远。 许文远‘确认政府组屋在99年租赁期届满时的屋值是零!’和整体重新发展计划(SERS)‘不是一个纯粹有意图替代要届满租赁期的组屋的计划。’

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”.

在(2014年8月17日的国庆群众大会上)星期天,李显龙把自己扮演成财务顾问。他阐明说,新加坡人你将可能会赚取到(足够的退休金),假设在屋契回购计划下,把剩余35年租赁期的组屋卖回给建屋发展局。

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.

然而,  Joseph Cherian教授指出,政府屋的屋价在66年后将开始贬值,一直到它的99年租赁期满是零价值。这就是说,假设政府屋只剩下33年的租赁期,屋价就开始下跌了。

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

这也就是说,假设您的组屋的租赁期少过33年,那么,在屋契回购计划是多余的。您就不单单是‘没现金的穷人’。您将同时是‘没资产的穷人’。

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.

这样一来,您是否会得到额外的资金过退休生活呢?

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

的确。Koh Seng Kee已经预先警告说。‘就如大多数的产业是以99年租赁期性质出售的,新加坡人把自己毕生的储蓄投资在一个逐渐贬值的产业上。’和‘除非和直到政府发出讯号说他们准备更新产业租赁合约,新加坡人的储蓄(即政府屋)将不会超过两代人。’

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.”

您看清楚了吧!

行动党是在一座金山里打滚!——我们的公积金!从那个时候开始,由于他们手上握住了我们的便利钱(公积金局),他们是不会停止动用的。他们已经成为了一个强迫性的赌徒。同时开始用我们的公积金去进行各种各样的赌博。首先把公积金切割用在建造住房、接着是保健和后来就是教育。

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.

他们(动用我们的公积金去投资)已经上了瘾。因为他们不让新加坡人把公积金提取出来。如果我们把公积金提取出来,公积金的户头的钱就越来越少,他们就会像瘾君子一样‘断货’。他们为了不让公积金的来源‘断货’,他们设置了最低存款额的障碍不让新加坡人民提取自己的公积金。接着,他们调高公积金最低存款额的数额和以及提高提取年龄来延长我们提取公积金。与此同时,他们减低支付给我们公积金储蓄户头的利息率。他们的这一切所作所为就是要把我们的公积金紧锁在公积金户头里,这样他们就可以自己动用我们的公积金去进行投资。

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.

他们还是不满足于自己追求的权利和财富!他们打开了引进移民的大闸门让世界上的巨富进来。这些移民到新加坡的巨富可以帮忙他们变得更加富裕。他们为了满足这些巨富的要求,他们从国外引进了廉价劳工以压低新加坡工人的工资。

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.

这一切事情30多年前已经发生到现在。

同胞们,他们动用了我们的(公积金)低廉的钱去进行投资。他们已经失去理性了。他们把我们的公积金握在手里疯狂地当成是他们自己的钱使用。这就是为什么今天新加坡人无法储蓄到足够的退休金的原因。在行动党的脑海里,他们从来未曾想过如何帮忙国人计划退休的事。您将为他们提供线程池的信用而工作到死亡

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.

以下是公积金局、GIC和淡马锡控股之间盘根错节的商业关系流程图。这足于说明我们的公积金在新加坡的经济对新加坡人所产生的有害坐作用。

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

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN@chinese

THE GREAT SINGAPORE LOCKDOWN

Linda Low解释说,公积金目前自身的用途是‘从1970年开始,公积金是为国家所用的,不是为公积金会员所用的,特别是当政府的预算案从不敷转为长期的盈余时。’总之,政府是不会放弃这个‘永久存在的公积金——财政链接或隐藏性的税收,让行动党政府可以同时控制着资金资源而又能巧妙的处理国家的政治与经济的同时,控制着公积金会员在消费、储蓄和投资方面的选择权利。

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.”

基本上,行动党就是要控制新加坡人民的生活方式。他们是通过公积金和建屋发展局操纵我们新加坡人的工资、需求和消费力的途径来实现的。

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强调说,‘公积金绑架了许多的计划。它不可能同时的为这些计划服务。’

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

B.C. Ghosh说,‘公积金对我而言,是在我们高速增长的日子里一个迷失方向的事’。与其他人的说法一样,他说,‘呼吁让公积金回到照顾老龄人作为其主要目的的原点。’

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 也同时表达了,‘公积金开始的阶段是为了新加坡的经济增长和政治经济发展可能无法对一个成熟的经济和人口老龄产生效利。多种的性质和不幸的经济周期性问题和结构危机结合在一起。。。已经动摇了公积金。’

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 大胆的说,‘公积金会是成功和有前途的。但是, 这需要在一个具有很大的社会安全下新的纪元里才会出现这个大转变。’

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.”

最后,Asher ventured大胆的说

Finally, Asher ventured:

假设,让公积金的计划从住房贷款中脱钩这是一个相当危险的考虑。那么,公积金的计划可以考虑分成三个部分:住房、医疗健康和退休金。

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.

其次,投资政策和业绩表现必须完全透明化和与政府的投资公司脱钩。这样的投资必须是按市值计价和公开化。

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.

其三,所有的投资回报必须让公积金会员获悉详情并把投资所得归还给公积金会员。

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

简单的说,行动党的做法是,他们的生存是通过榨取了新加坡人的公积金和现代化的奴隶劳工为自己的生活而累积财富(不是为我们的生活)。准确地说,只要行动党继续在位,新加坡人的问题将持续的存在。

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.

或许,我们可能知道为什么在2014年8月17日的国庆群众大会上,李显龙并没有对公积金的政策进行任何具有实质的改变——行动党政府的调整(公积金的)政策已经来到了终点了。他们在我们的公积金的问题上已经到了极限了。他们现在是在寻找一个使用我们的公积金和一个可以让他们继续延长使用的平衡点。这是为了让他们能够便利的继续占用成本低廉的资金资源(我们的公积金)。对行动党而言,他们是有一个完整回馈建议的渠道的。无所谓。假设这些(建议)不是为了新加坡人民或我们的钱。他们是合法使用的。

Perhaps now we might understand why there were no significant changes made to the CPF at the National Day Rally (17/-9/2014)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.

非常明显的,行动党是不愿意放走能够让他们获与天一样高的薪金的这头‘金牛’(公积金)。问题是:在行动党的脑海里首位考量的是:他们怎么可能改变(公积金)的政策的同时确保仍然维持自己的薪金水平。朋党资本主义的网络是保护他们在政治合法之上继续维持着与天一样高的薪金的利益的。

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?

今天,对于暗示有关重新制定公积金与多种用途脱钩的想法将会导致行动党的朋党资本主义的结束。行动党对此事是非常清楚的。如果产生了这样的想法,这就意味着经济的增长。强烈紧随着他们的就是必须与新加坡人民分享成果。所以这样的想法对行动党而言是不可能。这是直接与他们的政治架构相抵触的。他们的发展是建立在不均衡的财富分配给有利于他们的人。

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.

正是如此,不惜一切成本追求增长和继续新加坡人的公积金允吸进入政府的金库就是为了强化这件事:行动党是更加顽固的维持自己的优势和情愿把自己的公民锁在他们的制度控制下,而不愿让经济阔步前进到了一个高峰与人民共同分享。因为他们宁可看到新加坡人民的寿命妥协,也不愿意自己的政治寿命受到威胁。

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.

假设情况确实是这样,行动党为什么会为了保护他们的霸权而牺牲我们的利益和违反我们的意愿?也许,行动党作为一个政府必须按照常规发展而苦恼只有这样才有可能让新加坡继续向前进。假设,新加坡人民把行动党与政府切割开来,这将会让我们的国家出现新的生活。

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.

那么。 这个问题将是:新加坡人民是否准备出现否决一个坏的政府并使自己从行动党被锁紧的圈套里解套出来?

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?

现在,您知道,现在自己已经失去了很多,或者,您将会失去更多!您不要为自己所失去的做一些事吗?

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

第四场《归还我们的公积金》集会

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

Return Our CPF 4 Poster 1b

在2014年9月27日,在芳林公园将举行第三场《归还我们的公积金》集会。

On 27 September, there will be a fourth #ReturnOurCPF event.

请以实际行动参加我们的第四场集会。这是非常清楚,行动党是拿了我们新加坡人的公积金和操纵我们的公积金去为自己的用途。新加坡人还希望行动党会制定新的政策让我们能够储蓄足够的钱过退休生活。这事实是不会发生的——不会在行动党当政的时期发生的。您可以从上述资料里看得非常清楚,假设行动党确实要照顾新加坡人民,那么,他们首先就必须重新解除自己已经制造的紧束圈套。他们制造的这个紧束圈套是在让自己和朋党发达富裕。因此,他们没有理由解除这个紧束的圈套。

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?

除非,您是能够为他们赚取更多的钱的,同时,您对他们是一无所用的。假设,新加坡人民还是继续希望行动党将会突然间显现出照顾新加坡人民的想法,很不幸的新加坡人民只能继续自己的梦想。假设,今天行动党会照顾新加坡人民, 那么,母猪都会爬树了。

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.

假设说,2014年8月17日的‘国庆群众大会’是一个测试点,那么,这就是证据说明,他们已经来到了一个链接的终点。如果行动党(同意)给新加坡人民更多的钱,那就意味着等于行动党手上的钱就减少了。这是行动党不可能做到的事。如果他们要从新加坡人民手中拿走更多的钱,那就意味着他们将激怒更多新加坡人民。对于他们来说,他们现在是不会去这干这事的,因为在政治上这是不明智的事。

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.

请在在9月27日到芳林公园出席第三场集会。让我们在这一天见面。为了我们有一个未来美好的生活和我们的孩子的将来,让我们一块儿团结在一起,发出要求改革的共同呼声。

So on 27 September, 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.

您可以到以下网站浏览有关这次集会的详情

You can join the Facebook event page here.

同时,我的案件将于2014年9月18日开庭审讯,这是一个全天的聆听审讯。

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

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Poster 2@chinese final

#ReturnOurCPF 4 Poster 2 final

Advertisements

67 comments

  1. The Oracle

    I’ve completely debunked Roy’s CPF numbers under a previous post of his but he still continues to post lies. No wonder he is in trouble.

      • johnson

        Yes, I confirm again from the link that your numbers got debunked uneqivocally. I feel sad for you that you are not even aware of it:

        August 22, 2014 – 8:39 am
        Xmen

        @Oracle,

        Yes, the 1995 number is correct. Other than that, everything is just your speculation. 1994 balance is blatantly false. Repeating the same false claim 100 times does not make it right. Also, at retirement, most people would have their CPF accounts for 30 years or so, not 20 years. So the loss in the CPF earning is far higher than what you claim (without any factual basis)

      • The Oracle

        You clearly can’t read or think for yourself. My numbers are correct for a typical person who is 20 years in CPF as clearly stated in my post – and I also agreed the difference would be higher for someone 30 years in CPF. HOWEVER we’re talking about $15k versus say $25k and not Roy’s $1.5m to $3m silly numbers – he is totally out of the ball park and leaving Earth orbit!

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        I have completely debunked your bogus and flawed analysis in the same link you provided. If you want to be taken seriously, invest time to do some in-depth research instead of wasting time to repeat the same superficial claims here.

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        Just to be clear, I am not making any judgment on Roy’s numbers. However, your analysis is clearly wrong so don’t pretend to be stating the facts. If you do your proper research, you may even find some prior analysis from some professors online. A real analysis takes days and weeks of research, not minutes on an excel spreadsheet.

      • The Oracle

        @meifen
        You’re just another die-hard Roy supporter so you are not even close to impartial. My numbers add up – Roy’s don’t.

      • Rachel Tan

        @meifen, just ignore the Oracle. It is clear he is the die-hard Roy hater on this blog. I can see his devious comments all over the shop.

      • The Oracle

        Sure, ignore the guy who posts numbers and the calculations behind them but don’t, whatever you do, question Roy’s ridiculous numbers!

      • meifen

        @ Rachel, thanks for your advice. I just happen to drop in a few days ago and someone already labelled me a die-hard supporter. It is an irony to read this guy asking people to be impartial when his plucked from the air calculations bears no source or references.

    • Oracle's Rally At Hong Lim Park

      @ Oracle
      Why don’t you organize a rally at Hong Lim Park?
      Tell everybody how you debunked Roy.

      • meifen

        Rallying is not troublemaking. This false perception must be debunked. Rallying is a legal activity that is carried out for political purpose. Having a political purpose is not a crime or dirty thing. As long as you never use your chauffeur paid for by taxpayer to ferry you around for your political campaigns or your principal private secretary to handle your defamation suit, that should be fine.

      • Xmen

        @Oracle,

        Of the 42 comments posted so far, over 80% are about you (Oracle) and Alan (another PAP troll).

        Who are the ATTENTION SEEKING TROUBLEMAKERS here? LOL.

      • Regina

        We can see Alan has been drawing much attention to his mom’s pussy. He calls it pussy Roy. Cute.

  2. Deaf Frog's Toothpick

    what tickles me the most about pro-govt folk’s unthinking nature is when someone outside government suggest increasing wages for the low income,

    they will say: no!!!!!!!!

    then when government officials come out and say no, they will say: “NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! we absolutely agree”

    then government says, ok we increase wages for the low income, they will say: “YES !!!!!, YES, YES, YES, absolutely agree, thats was the plan all along, WE remember making the suggestion to increase wages 200years ago”

    well, if a well paid prostitute were to have a contest with these folks to see who can change position faster, the well paid prostitute will most likely lose.

    • The Oracle

      Typical insults and no factual info to back up your claim.

      I can say worse about Roy and his close followers. ANY suggestion or correction is shouted down and usually with gross insults (see posts under past blogs for proof) – and Roy continues quoting the same incorrect CPF, etc. statistics. Roy is a liar and a troublemaker and. while I originally thought his heart might be in the right place, it is clear now he doesn’t let facts get in the way of his tediously long blog posts (which are mostly filled with the same rubbish he has posted 100 times before).

      • Deaf Frog's Toothpick

        @ The Oracle

        kindly bring my feedback back to PAP HQ, I prefer Teo Chee Hean leading the PAP as Prime Minister as compared to Lee Hsien Loong, if cannot, my second choice is Ng Eng Hen.

        thanks.

  3. johnson

    Well, when you push a dog into a corner, it will fight back. What more a hero. It is a grave mistake to instruct TTSH to sake Roy. Now, Roy will make it his full time job to screw PAP. You lose your job now, he will lose his job 2016.

    • Alan

      I like the dog part, which actually show who he is now, baring his fangs like a rabies infested dog.

      He lost his job because he can’t perform. He screwed himself he choose to lie! And once he is put away like a sick dog, life will be back to normal!

      Fortunately that day is just round the corner!

      • johnson

        You sound more like the dog. I can see you barking whole day long on Roy’s blog. HDB says such noisy and useless dogs need to be debarked.

      • Nancy Brew

        Is not that we are incapable of trash talk like you. Since you guys have taken over, we are happy to leave trash talk to committed idiots to do it for us . We sit back, relak, let these idiots, like yourself, take over. Let them spend their entire life in forums churning out rubbish. I am sure the public and foreigners will have new found” praises” for local idiots lol

      • Alan

        Please stop acting like an angel or pretend to be the victim here! Anyone who followed the blog would know who started all this nonsense here! And by all mean you idiots are experts in this field.

        You idiots can even create multiple identities just to hurl insult to anyone who speak against Pussy!

        I just continue with your fancy that all!

      • Psychiatrist

        Alan, do you love your mother pussy? Is that why you need an excuse to remind you of your love for your mother?

      • Alan

        I love my mum as a whole person!

        Only a pathetic asshole like you will focus on a certain part of the anatomy which tell very much who you are pervert!

        This also tell what kind of idiots support Pussy Roy!

      • Roy Fanny

        So how many pussies have you eaten other than Roy? Don’t be shy, there is nothing wrong in eating many pussies Ha

      • Kelly

        Strange. All we can see is. .. you are the only one who draws attention to pussy. No one else did it until you started it. And now you call strangers pervert? Do you need medical help? lol

    • The Oracle

      And to be more correct, Roy did publicly admit writing his blog while at work – a firing offence in most companies!

  4. Ray

    Roy, when comes to blogging, your style of uploading the same material or being so long winded(also make browsing difficult) reveals your weaknesses as an individual, a thinker and a communicator. Leave the facts to a link and don’t be an old tape recorder.

    Keep it short and sharp(organized, simple, clear and on target) will reach out better or unless your intent is to commit suicide(laughing stock) before your adversaries.

    • Nicolah

      I don’t read pap crap but Roy maybe guilty of churning up crap like them too. Why oppositions are as stupid as the incumbent I will never understand

  5. Observer

    Every time when the politicians come out and make things right or better, somewhere else usually gets worse later. Year after year, more and more problem surfaces. In fact, life has become more dreary,burdensome and the future looks even bleaker for most people, especially succeeding generation, as the years roll by.

    People never learn, just like church goers, that snakes will always be snakes.

  6. Peacock

    No use lah. Spend all your time acquiring skills that are as useful as being useless. Still extremely bodoh lah. Just that, they have papers certifying their brains have been raped by maggots.

  7. Temasek

    when i started to contribute CPF monthly, i thought government will also contribute 50% amount of our pay into our own cpf account , that will become our retired welfare , now, i felt we were cheated by government , they have no any coin to welfare us, all money was from our own earned.

    so what is the different if we save it by ourself into our own bank account ?
    after all LKY is a scammer ! he needs huge Money , he does want to borrow from bank, instead from us .
    I hope he die soon, nothing benefit he left to us, only huge money daily spent on his family as well as his dogs.
    5 solutions
    1: LHL step down sfter this Sept Court. at least 15 years jail life
    2. Ho Ching must to be tried . at least 10 years jail life
    3. any one can be new PM for Singaporeans by voting . voting , as long as no greedy leader
    4. Abolish the presidential system, Singapore is not a kingdom. Do not need to support a person who had nothing to do , like the president.
    5. new government must give each above 70 old age a basic monthly living cost , about 300 SGD per month. per day 10 SGD is not greedy for elderly, as long as they are Singapore Citizen , is still much less than Chian. but China is not the first World country, and Singapore IS.

    LKY before said, he wants to make Singaporeans life standard like Switzerland before 2012. but Switzerland government give above 65 years old people monthly 2000 USD, in the case, Singaporeans asked mercy cost only 300SGD, is not greedy alright .

    PAP said, save Money for future, i think if can not take care of existing life, the future is an empty.

    • Alan

      Another freaking parasite talking in his dream! Why don’t you stick out your tongue and wait by the door if you just want to be fed?

      • Helen

        Alan.
        Seriously. How do your parents and relatives benefit if Roy fails in getting PAP to keep their promise of returning our money when we turn 55 years old?
        How will your children benefit when they have to look after you when you grow old?

      • Alan

        They’ll not benefit nor they’ll be worse off! They enjoy a regular payout complimenting what they are getting from their kids! And this is the system we should inculcate.

        I don’t like idiot who used the excuse of speaking for the public to advance his personal gain! What’s more using lies to screw up the life of the majority individual! Pitching for parasitic theory without considering on the consequence of the others in the system!

        So are you going to use another identity to ask the Same stupid question again?

      • Helen

        ” Pitching for parasitic theory without considering on the consequence of the others in the system! ”
        @ Alan @ 11.20am, 3 Sept

        Alan
        Why do you call it “parasitic” ?
        The CPF money belongs to Singaporeans.
        We are just asking for the return of OUR money … at 55 years old … which was the original PAP promise.

        “consequences of the others”
        – we can always have an option
        – those who want to take out all their CPF money at 55 years
        – those who want to leave their CPF money with PAP
        – free country, free choice
        – what’s the problem?

      • Alan

        Do we have to go thru this again? Just go thru the comments of Roy’s shitty post and you have the answer!

        If not, ask your MP.

        In a nutshell, what are the remedy if you squander away all your money before you die! You can’t have your cake and eat it too right? Don’t tell us how responsible you are! As long as it’ll happen to 1 asshole then we shall stick to the current plan.

        No one is supposed to be responsible to your life!

      • Hello Mr. Alan !

        Hello Mr. Alan !
        Easy way ,
        just out of the leadership , we take over ! we take over GIC, and Temasek !
        we can make it for ourselves
        No more PAP ! ok !!!

    • Helen

      Alan
      Your logic contradicts itself:
      Alan’s logic here:
      “Don’t tell us how responsible you are! As long as it’ll happen to 1 asshole then we shall stick to the current plan.”

      Contradicts Alan’s next statement;
      “No one is supposed to be responsible to your life!”
      ANSWER:
      I agree.
      No none is responsible for me.
      So give me back my CPF money.
      I don’t want you to be responsible for me.

      • Alan

        Don’t play with words!

        When u screwed up your money after the cpf, who is going to pick up your shit til u die? Isn’t that a burden to the future?

        If this is something u idiots can’t understand, too bad!

      • Helen

        Alan
        You keep contradicting yourself:
        YOU SAY:
        “When u screwed up your money after the cpf, who is going to pick up your shit til u die?”

        MY ANSWER:
        You already say no one is responsible for our lives.
        Therefore, if I screw up my money …. nobody is going to pick up my shit till I die.
        I don’t want PAP to pick up my shit … including looking after my CPF money.
        So give me back my CPF money so you don’t have to pick up my shit anymore.

    • Howard

      Alan, everyone is responsible for their own asshole. You have one. Your mother has one. Your father has one. Lee KY has one. All assholes must take full responsibility. Well said.

  8. shang

    If Singapore leader don’t share country’s benefit by giving elderly ( above 70 age ) 300 SGD per month ,
    So, Stop high income policy for themselves !
    PM’s maximum monthly salary must not exceed than 30,000SGD !
    10 times of Engineering level ‘s pay, is much reasonable !!!!!

    solve PM’s high pay first, then solve the elderly ! they have the same rights to share Singapore !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    iif PAP’s dog describe the taking elderly system is fed system , yes, we need to feed the elderly. only elderly have this Privilege, not prime minister !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    the great moral of the First World country is Privilege of elderly ! the others are secondary .

  9. Jimmy

    We now live in a place, they state pays to hire Filipino maids, care for the elderly. Their PM’s income not the first of elderly .Singapore should either not claim it’s the first world, since don’t share with people the basic welfare like First World country. It shamed Singaporeans . PAP is time for quit .

  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:

    http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/mpich-discuss/2010-August/007811.html

    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