In 1981, PAP got the Rothschild to help set up the GIC, which manages Singaporeans’ CPF retirement monies.
Then from the mid-1980s onwards, the PAP started to decrease the CPF interest rates, increase housing prices, reduce healthcare subsidies and increase university tuition fees.
The Rothschild used to control large swaths of the banking industry in Europe and effectively controlled their governments.
In 1982, the PAP started working with them.
When the PAP was set up in 1954 (55 years ago), it said that it wanted to “abolish unjust inequalities”.
It also wanted to ensure social security for the sick, infirm, those in old age and those who can no longer work.
This was outlined in the PAP’s constitution.
But in 1981, the PAP got Rothschild to help set up the GIC, to manage the CPF monies of Singaporeans.
And then in 1982, the PAP changed its constitution.
It removed the intent to “abolish unjust inequalities”.
In its place, the PAP said that it now wanted to create a “self-reliant society”.
Things started to go downhill for Singaporeans since then.
From the mid-1980s, the PAP started reducing health subsidies, it started to increase housing prices and university tuition fees. From the mid-1980s, the PAP also started coming out with ways and creating schemes to make money off Singaporeans.
And from the mid-1990s, the PAP started to depress the wages of Singaporeans and the CPF interest rates.
From the mid-1980s, the PAP started to turn against Singaporeans, after it sought advice from Rothschild and then changed its constitution and removed the focus of equality.
Today, the PAP spends the lowest on social security on Singaporeans, among the developed countries. Many Singaporeans today can no longer afford healthcare and have to work until their deaths. And more Singaporeans are becoming unemployed but there is no unemployment social assistance for them – Singapore is one of very few countries in the world which does not have unemployment protection for its citizens.
Whatever the PAP old guard built for Singapore in the first 20 years of Singapore was thrown out the window. From the mid-1980s, the PAP old guard were also first thrown out of cabinet, and then out from government.
Meanwhile, Lee Kuan Yew threw them out but let himself stayed on. Then he brought in people who started making money off Singaporeans.
Today, the PAP ministers earn the highest salaries in the world. The share of income that goes to the rich also increased from 30% in 1995 to 42% in 2011.
Meanwhile, it is estimated that 30% of Singaporeans today live in poverty and Singaporeans also earn one of the lowest wages among the highest-income countries.
This is what the PAP did to Singapore. It started turning against Singaporeans since the mid-1980s.
In 1984, the PAP created the Medisave to start trapping Singaporeans’ CPF. Today, Singaporeans have been made to pay more than $70 billion into the Medisave but we are only able to use less than 1.5% of it every year.
This was what Mr Toh Chin Chye, the former PAP Chairman, had to say about the Medisave:
“(The Medisave) Scheme… is a taxation, and it is a recessive tax for the simple reason that those who are at the lower income level, because their CPF contributions are lower, will have to pay the full amount, whereas those with higher incomes do not pay the full percentage of their income towards the CPF because there is a ceiling. It is recessive. I feel that all this is a very short-sighted myopic view.
Has the Minister for Health, who was in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, who was in cahoots with the Minister for Finance, taken the trouble to investigate how he is going to get the money to run his Ministry? The first responsibility of the Minister for Health is to ensure the availability of health care services. That is his first responsibility, that he must go round and nag at the Minister for Finance for the money. But he is taking on the job of the Minister for Finance. I totally disagree with the approach of Medisave.
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 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 will be kept for Medisave and you cannot withdraw that, even if you were to die.” has lost its credibility, the management of it. This is fundamental.”
In 1986, the PAP started increasing university tuition fees by several hundred times. Today, Singaporeans are made to pay one of the most expensive, if not, the most expensive tuition fees in the world.
This was what the Singapore People’s Party’s Mr Chiam See Tong had to say then:
“I notice the (university) fee increase is almost twice or three times. Is there a necessity for this big jump, rather than increase it by stages?… I have been told that some foreign students are currently getting half-grants from our local University. What is their position then?
The other question is: why are we charging the foreign students rather low tuition fees at only 50% extra when compared to our own students? When you go to foreign universities, you find that their own students go into their universities almost free, with a lot of liberal grants, but foreign students are charged probably 10 times the amount. So why are we charging only 50% more? Can we not charge our own students less and, perhaps, increase the fees for foreign students?”
This was also what Mr Ow Chin Hock had to say:
“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. I hope the Minister would think about the plight of the families of these students… It seems the university is beset with a sadistic complex. This is incongruous with the benign and compassionate manner in which the Budget was presented by the Finance Minister.”
In 1987, the PAP created the CPF Minimum Sum to trap Singaporeans’ CPF.
This was what the Singapore People’s Party’s Mr Chiam See Tong said then:
“CPF savings are the workers’ money, it is often said. All CPF money belongs to the contributors. Therefore, I say to the Government, it has no business to hold back any money belonging to the people. The Government should now, in clear terms, state whether or not it intends to return all CPF money to contributors when they reach 55 years.
Why do we need to have this minimum sum scheme? Why do we need it? Are you saying that a person on reaching 55 years is unable to take care of his own money? That is exactly what the Government is saying, “Look. We are not going to give you back all your savings at 55 years in case you just have one good spree and all will be lost.” But I do not think so. There will be a few but the majority of Singaporeans are definitely hard-headed and I am sure they know what to do with their money when they reach the age of 55. I think it is an insult to our workers to have that point of view and say that they do not know what to do with their money when they reach 55.
The amount in the CPF is a big sum. I hear it has come to about something like $26 billion and I think this issue of CPF will always be with us because it is the employees’ money and there is a massive amount of money. It is not millions but you are talking of billions. This issue of CPF should be included in the National Agenda because it concerns every employee and the workers have the right to discuss it and to ask the Minister what kind of safeguards they will have to make sure that at the end of 25 years, every dollar they have in the CPF will be returned to them when they reach the age of 55 years.”
From 1987, the PAP started increasing housing prices to earn more money from Singaporeans. Today, Singaporeans are made to pay for the most expensive public housing in the world and one of the most expensive housing in the world.
In fact, the PAP makes Singaporeans pay 60% of HDB flat prices into land, even though Singaporeans do not own the land.
Then-Minister for National Development S. Dhanabalan had said:
“After 99 years the (land is) reverted to the Government. They cost zero. Does it mean that flats which are built on that land should have land valued at zero? Obviously not. So land has got to be valued at market rates. The fixing of the sale price of the flats,… we hope over the years to move the prices closer and closer to what the market price should be.
If the land costs $2 out-of-pocket and the market value is $80, the land will be sold at $80 to HDB. If the HDB is able to recover only $60 by fixing the price at affordable levels, then the $20 is a subsidy. The Government has to give the $20 as subsidy. It is not just a book subsidy. By no means.
If not for the Robin Hood operation in which the Government is involved, public housing would not be possible.”
But Mr Chiam See Tong rebutted Mr Dhanabalan and said:
“You say “Robin Hood”. My goodness? Please explain what you mean by that. I really cannot understand your logic. Please explain what you exactly mean by “Robin Hood”. You are taking from the landowner at $2 and you are selling to the poor HDB flat purchasers at $80, and who is the Robin Hood? The Government pockets the vast profits out of the sale of the flats, and now you say that you are giving these flat purchasers a subsidy. I really cannot see your logic. Now we are sure that there is no out-of-pocket subsidy. It is only a book subsidy. I think this position is very clear now.
We do not want some book subsidy. “Subsidy” means actual money taken out from the pocket and paid to the HDB, and not some accounting or juggling with the accounts gimmick or a transfer of high pricing of land at so-called market value.”
In 1984, the PAP came out with the Medisave to do so and in 1987, it created the CPF Minimum Sum.
Then, in 1990, it came out with the MediShield.
Then, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Lee Siew-Choh who was from the Worker’s Party (and once a leader from the Barisan Sosialis), had said:
“In spite of MediShield insurance, a person stricken with a catastrophic illness finds that he will have to pay either the whole or the greater part of the hospital bill out of his own pocket through Medisave or by cash. He gets very little benefit from the medical insurance even when he most needs help from Government. So we must ask: what sort of MediShield insurance is this that the insured person has to pay such a high percentage of the hospital bill? Does MediShield really insure the people against serious illness?
It would appear that MediShield’s first responsibility is not to the insured person, but to MediShield itself, to ensure that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure… It operates just like private commercial insurance companies. It operates with the object of sure profit and no loss. Yet, it provides less benefits than private commercial hospital and surgical schemes.
But Government MediShield does not have to operate like a commercial business undertaking. Government has a responsibility to look after the aged and the sick. Therefore, it should ensure that MediShield is a truly low cost medical insurance for the aged, that it truly accepts full responsibility in the care and treatment of those stricken with serious illnesses.
When medical services have been made more and more expensive by frequent Government increases in fees and charges, now compounded by so-called restructuring of hospitals, and when most people have only small sums in their Medisave accounts, a government that claims to be a good caring government should live up to its duty and responsibility to look after the welfare of the people and especially of the sick and the aged. But it would appear that the PAP Government believes in passing the buck to the people themselves, in making the sick and aged look after themselves, first, through Medisave and now through MediShield and in making the people pay more and more. All this must be changed.”
In 1994, the PAP then went all the way and increased its own salaries. After they did that, the share of income that went to the rich increased from 30% in 1995 to 42% in 2011.
Today, the PAP ministers earns the highest salaries in the world.
The Worker’s Party’s Mr Low Thia Kiang said then:
“When I heard the Prime Minister’s speech in this House yesterday, I was very shocked. It seems like the future of our country will be determined by how much salary we give to our Ministers and top civil servants.
The logic of the Prime Minister is that the higher the pay the better we can attract the top talents to govern the country and there will be continuous growth in the economy, more safeguards to the people. Otherwise, the future of the country will be bleak.
He went on to point out that corrupt practices among politicians in the United Kingdom was due to their salaries being too low.
On this question, my intuitive reaction is that I do not want people who look to money to run the country. These people will be weighing their losses and gains in terms of money and the policy they embrace will surely be profit-oriented. Even if it results in huge economic growth year after year, and the Government coffer greatly enriched, the livelihood of the people need not necessarily be improved because the formulation and results of their policies will be determined purely from the angle of economic benefits only.
If … the people with potential to be Ministers whom (the Prime Minister) contacted were not prepared to come forward to serve the nation due to the salaries being not sufficiently attractive, then I would suggest that he look again for some others who have the vision and are prepared to dedicate themselves to the nation.
If, after so many years of nation building, we cannot cultivate some talented people with dedication to serve the country, then I must say with great regret that our country is a failure.
If our country is facing this kind of problem today, the elites among our younger generation now would only look at money, then the PAP Government should make an overall review on whether their philosophy of running the country is out of balance, and whether it has been putting too much emphasis on utilitarianism and elitism.”
After the PAP got Rothschild in to help set up GIC in 1981, the PAP then changed its constitution in 1982 and no longer wanted to “abolish inequality”. It stopped taking care of Singaporeans and started creating policies to earn from Singaporeans.
Then, from 1981 onwards, it started getting rid of the PAP Old Guards one by one. By 1988, all the Old Guards were kicked out of government.
Lee Kuan Yew even said to Ong Pang Boon: “… I agree with you. You also had misgivings (about some newcomers), as had the late Dr Toh Chin Chye, over the speed of self-renewal and the effect it was having on the morale of the old guard MPs.”
But they were kicked out anyway.
Then Lee Kuan Yew allowed himself to stay as Senior Minister until 2004 and Minister Mentor until 2011 and was only asked to leave Cabinet after that. After the Old Guards were kicked out, Lee Kuan Yew allowed himself to stay for another more than 20 years.
After the Old Guards were kicked out, they no longer could create good policies to protect Singaporeans.
From the mid-1980s onwards, the PAP started creating policies to earn money off Singaporeans. From the mid-1980s onwards, the PAP started turning against Singaporeans.
SAY NO TO PAP