The PAP Stopped Taking Care of Singaporeans 30 Years Ago. Will You Still Vote PAP?

2015 is 1984 all over again.

In 2015, the PAP is using the same tactics that it used in 1984 to try to win the general election. But will you let them?

1 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP wanted to celebrate “25 Years of Nation Building” and the 30th anniversary of the founding of the PAP. Then it held the general election at the end of the year. In 2015, the PAP wants to celebrate SG50, to celebrate 50 years of Singapore’s independence. It is expected that the next general election will be held soon too.

In 1984, the PAP wanted to talk about its “political ideology of survival and the concept of achievement”. In 2015, it is doing the same all over again.

In 1984, the PAP spent $18 million to put up a “National Exhibition” towards the end of the year to spread its propaganda. In 2015, it is doing the same again. It will be putting up the futuretogether.SG exhibition near Gardens By the Bay.

The PAP is doing the same things to try to win the general election. It is once again trying to whitewash Singaporeans with its propaganda. Will you let them fool you again?

2 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP wanted to prevent Singaporeans from taking out our CPF. The PAP wanted to increase the age at which Singaporeans would be able to withdraw our CPF, from 55 to 60, and later to 65.

But Singaporeans were furious. When the general election was held later that year, many Singaporeans decided not to vote for the PAP. The PAP lost 13% in votes.

But the PAP did not stop there. In 1987, it created the CPF Minimum Sum to trap Singaporeans’ CPF inside. Since it could not increase the retirement age, it found another way to lock up Singaporeans’ CPF.

The PAP kept increasing the CPF Minimum Sum. This year, it increased it to $161,000. In 1984, many Singaporeans felt betrayed and decided not to vote for the PAP.

In 2015, will you still vote for the PAP? The PAP did not listen to Singaporeans 30 years ago. It still does not want to listen today. The PAP still does not want to take care of and protect Singaporeans.

Will you still vote for a government to hurt you?

3 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP wanted to increase the age at which Singaporeans would be able to withdraw our CPF.

Mr Toh Chin Chye spoke up against it. In 1988, the PAP decided to ask Mr Toh Chin Chye to leave parliament.

From Mr Toh Chin Chye:

“This problem of touching the CPF should be related to the use of the CPF, the management of the CPF and the contribution of CPF. I have repeated, time and again, that the CPF, having risen now to 50% of wages, is becoming a vexatious burden, not only to the employee but also to the employer. The employer is now paying 25% of salary towards the CPF, plus 2% payroll tax, plus 4% Skills Development Fund. That makes 31% cost on payroll alone. Of course, if there is an increase in salary from NWC recommendations, all these taxes go up. The burden on the employee is that his take-home pay becomes less, and since his take-home pay becomes less it is an issue for union bargaining, (house-unions now) to bargain with the employer for more pay.

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.

Let us look at the problem in general. Over the last five years, 1979 to 1983, an average of 8.4% only has been withdrawn from the balance due to members who contribute to the CPF. Only 8.4%, that is if they retire at 55. I would like to put this question to the Minister for Health or the Minister for Labour who is responsible for administering the CPF. What would this percentage be if the withdrawal age were raised to 60 or 65? Of this amount that was withdrawn, two-thirds were spent on buying houses, mainly HDB flats. So only one-third was spent on retirement. In 1983, $1,718 million were withdrawn but only $374 million were spent on retirement.

So the problem we should ask ourselves is this. As the deposit in the CPF grows and grows, our balances in the CPF will grow, and when we withdraw that sum of money, will we suddenly have overnight millionaires as retirees? How many of them are there? Will it generate inflation? I do not think it will be, because if two-thirds of the balance are withdrawn for purchasing houses and only one-third for retirement, therefore it is less of a concern that raising the age to 60 or 65 will mean that we will be controlling consumption by the private sector. What is irksome is this: that the Government is using people’s savings and telling them how to spend their savings. That is the nub of the problem.

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.”

Now I ask the Minister for Health, and I asked him last time, whether his word is binding on future Ministers. Neither will the Minister for Labour’s word be binding on future Ministers for Labour. Can any Government or any Minister guarantee that in future years a law will not be passed that will say, “All Special Accounts in the CPF cannot be withdrawn until you die”? Your Special Account now is up to 10%; 6% Medisave, 4% for what? So unless you use the CPF to buy property, your money is in real danger of being kept under lock and key by others, not under your own lock and key. This is the nub of the problem – the credibility of the management, gradual encroachment into the purpose of the CPF which was instituted really to provide for retirement.”

4 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP wanted to increase the age at which Singaporeans would be able to withdraw our CPF.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam spoke up against it. In the same year, the PAP sued Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam and caused him to lose his seat in 1986.

From Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam:

“Mr Speaker, Sir, what I cannot understand is this. If you say that a person of the age of 55 is not able to manage the money and, therefore, should not be allowed to withdraw it, then how can you say in the same breath that when he reaches the age of 60 he will be able to manage his saving, invest it and look after it for the rest of his life? I should have thought he would be less able unless, of course, you are hoping that between 55 and 65 he will die, and then the monies will revert to the Consolidated Fund. Is that what you are thinking of? That is, if he has not nominated somebody else.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposal to raise the age of withdrawal of CPF savings from 55 to 60 and eventually to 65 is an attempt, and I say it is a disgraceful attempt, to bond our workers to their employers. An employee who has worked with an employer, when he reaches the age of 55, is compelled to continue working for that employer. He has not got the freedom to opt out of it because he says, “I cannot get my CPF savings. So if I do not continue, then I shall not have any money at my disposal.” So this is an attempt to bond him to continue working for his employer. That, in my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is completely disgraceful in this time and age. No employee should feel bonded to continue working for his employer.

At Table 2.2 you find that 50% or more of workers who were able to continue working with the same employer were forced to accept reduced wages. Mr Speaker, Sir, you see there that the door is open for exploitation by the employer of his employees. The employer can very well turn round and say, “Well, if you want to go on working, and I know you have to go on working because you are not going to get your CPF savings, you take this reduction in your salary or in your wages, otherwise there is no work for you with me.” This is economically unsound, not only just for the worker but also for the country as a whole. It militates against the employer mechanizing or bringing in automation into his industry or whatever he is doing, because he says, “i can now rely on cheap labour. I only have got to wait till my workers turn to 55.” So economically it is unsound. It also does not take into account the fact that there are workers who are unable to continue working after 55, not because they are decrepit but because the sort of work that they have been doing is too tiring, takes a heavy toll on their health that they would be unable to continue with that sort of work. I am, of course, referring to workers who work in hard manual labour. It would be totally unreasonable to expect workers working in manual labour, and hard manual labour at that, to continue to work in that same labour after the age of 55. Is it not time he had some easing of his work? If he is to do that, he has to turn to other jobs. And if he turns to other jobs, what are his chances of getting another job at the age of 55 on the same salary or wage that he has been drawing? The chances are that he would probably find himself accepting a job with much lower wages. What does he do then with all the needs, the commitments that he has, at that age?

Reference has been made to the education of the children. There was a reference made to a parent who wanted to send the son or daughter to the university and who wanted to support him or her. Would they be able to do that if they are forced after the age of 55 to take a reduction in their wage with no other monies at their disposal?

Then there is the question of the uniformed workers, people who are in uniformed service. Even the Government recognizes that when you are in a uniformed service, after say, 20 or 30 years, you should be retired and allowed to choose some other employment less onerous, less demanding. That is why we have a lower retirement age for our people in the uniformed service. If they are not able to withdraw their CPF savings, how are they going to manage? So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this proposal is completely iniquitous. By all means, encourage our citizens to continue working after 55, to 60 and even to 65. But I cannot see the need to tie this down to the CPF. It is a completely wrong use of the CPF Act. It is dishonest, Mr Speaker, Sir. If this proposal is accepted, may I say it amounts to cheating our citizens of their monies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, only on Friday the Prime Minister in this House remarked that I had let down the voters in Blair Plain. I am afraid the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he had been given wrong information. They were completely wrong on their predictions as to what was going to happen in the Anson bye-election. But I would not go into that. He was saying that I had let down the voters. What is this proposal? Our citizens have been persuaded to put up with this compulsory deduction of a quarter of their salaries. It has not always been a quarter. It has only just come up to a quarter. But it has been quite substantial. They have been persuaded to put up with this and suffer as a result of that on the promise, on the expectation that they would get it when they reach 55. As the Member for Rochore said, it was simply that they were asked to deposit the monies with the Government just as you go and deposit the monies with the bank or a finance house.

Now, suddenly, the Government turns upon them and there is a proposal that the Government should say to them, “i am sorry, chaps, we are not going to give you the money at 55. You better wait till you are 60 and maybe even then we won’t give you the money. We might only give it to you when you are 65.” And what guarantee is there that they are going to get it when they are 65?

This is not the first time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government would have gone back on its word. I mentioned, was it last year, the workers’ welfare fund. There was a solemn declaration made in this House in 1965 when we came out of Malaysia that the payroll tax would be set aside for the welfare of the workers. A fund would be set up. That was a solemn declaration made in this House. And as I pointed out, that was forgotten. There has been no welfare fund for the workers and the payroll tax was paid into the consolidated fund.

As I said, this is not the first time that this Government would have gone back on its word to the electorate. So I would ask the Minister and the Government to think very carefully before it embarks on this dishonest act which, as I say, would amount to downright cheating of our citizens. I do not want to repeat what has been said by others.”

5 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP wanted to increase the age at which Singaporeans would be able to withdraw our CPF.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam spoke up against it. Then-Health Minister Howe Yoon Chong threatened Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam to sue the PAP for breaching the law and locking up Singaporeans’ CPF.

When the PAP could not increase the retirement age in 1984, it created the CPF Minimum Sum in 1987 so that it could lock up Singaporeans’ CPF.

Today, the PAP keeps increasing the CPF Minimum Sum (now known as the Full Retirement Sum) to lock Singaporeans’ CPF up. This has resulted in many Singaporeans who are now unable to retire and Singaporeans now have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.

The PAP also reduced the CPF interest rates from 1986 and increased public housing prices and university tuition fees from 1986 to become one of the most expensive in the world, and to lock up even more CPF from Singaporeans.

In fact, the PAP also did not want to tell Singaporeans what it has been taking the CPF to use. It has been siphoning off the CPF to the GIC since 1981 but did not want to tell Singaporeans. In fact, it said that it did not do so in 2001, 2006 and 2007 and only admitted for the first time that it did last year.

Will did the PAP not want to tell Singaporeans the truth?

Do you think it is time for Singaporeans to sue the PAP for breaching the law?

6 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, after the PAP wanted to increase the age at which Singaporeans would be able to withdraw our CPF, Singaporeans were angered and felt betrayed by the PAP. They gave a slap to the PAP. The PAP lost 13% in votes.

In a post-mortem report, Lee Hsien Loong wrote that the PAP has to stop being “arrogant and unfeeling”.

Fast forward to today, it seems the PAP has become out of touch.

Now, Lee Hsien Loong says that Singaporeans support the CPF because there are no protests outside parliament. But Singaporeans are not allowed to protest outside parliament!

He also said that he does not believe “transparency is everything” and that the “funds are accountable to the government”.

Today, Singaporeans finally only know last year that our CPF is invested in the GIC. However, the GIC claims that the PAP government “neither directs nor interferes in the company’s investment decisions” and the PAP also claimed that it “plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC”. But it has been exposed that the prime minister, deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers also sit on the GIC’s board of directors which is clear that what the PAP and GIC say are not true.

How then will the CPF monies of Singaporeans be accounted for? Clearly, there is a conflict of interest.

But Lee Hsien Loong also said that “you can do something about it”. He said that Singaporeans don’t have to vote for the PAP.

Will you still vote PAP?

9 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1986, the CPF Study Group, under Professor Lim Chong Yah 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.”

Professor Lim Chong Yah also said, “The 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?”

However, the PAP ignored Prof Lim’s recommendations. In 1986, the PAP started reducing the CPF interest rates to return lesser to Singaporeans. In 1987, it created the CPF Minimum Sum to lock up Singaporeans’s CPF. In 1989, it created the MediShield to lock up even more of Singaporeans’ CPF. From 1986, the PAP started increasing public housing prices and university tuition fees by several times over, causing them to become one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive in the world. This caused Singaporeans’ CPF to be wiped up even more.

Today, Singaporeans have to pay the most out from our own pockets to pay for housing, healthcare and education. Singaporeans also earn one of the lowest wages among the highest-income countries and have one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.

Over the past 30 years, the PAP stopped taking care of Singaporeans and started creating policies to make money off Singaporeans.

Will you still vote PAP?

7 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP wanted to increase the age at which Singaporeans would be able to withdraw our CPF.

This caused a furor in which Singaporeans felt that the PAP has betrayed them and gone back on their promises.

Then-Health Minister Howe Yoon Chong who made the recommendation to increase the CPF withdrawal age did not stand for election. Singaporeans were angry and voted for opposition politician Mr Chiam See Tong to take over his seat.

Today, several ministers are responsible for the CPF of Singaporeans. Ex-Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam are responsible for the CPF. So is Health Minister Gan Kim Yong who is responsible for our Medisave and MediShield. Lim Swee Say is the current Manpower Minister and Khaw Boon Wan is the ex-Health Minister and current National Development Minister who is responsible for the high housing prices, which has locked up our CPF monies.

Together, the PAP has earned billions of dollars from Singaporeans from our CPF, Medisave, MediShield and housing.

Do you think these ministers should step down? Do you think they should still be allowed to be in government?

8 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, the PAP’s votes dropped by 13% after many Singaporeans decided not to vote for the PAP.

Singaporeans then helped opposition politician Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam retain his seat and sent in another opposition member Mr Chiam See Tong to take over Potong Pasir.

It was the first time that there were two opposition politicians in Singapore since independence. However, the PAP then sued J. B. Jeyaretnam and caused him to lose his seat in 1986.

Over the last 30 years, the PAP has continued to create and change policies to make money off Singaporeans.

Today, the PAP has locked up the CPF of Singaporeans and many Singaporeans are unable to retire today.

Many Singaporeans also no longer trust the PAP.

Will you still vote PAP?

10 Will You Still Vote PAP

In 1984, two opposition members were sent into parliament for the very first time.

However, the PAP did not change. It continued to want to make money off Singaporeans. It continued to create policies to hurt Singaporeans.

In 1987, the PAP created the CPF Minimum Sum. In 1989, the PAP created the MediShield. From 1986, the PAP started increasing public housing prices and university tuition fees by several folds. All these allowed the PAP to lock up Singaporeans’ CPF further.

In 1991, Singaporeans grew even angrier at the PAP. The PAP’s vote share dropped further. It received only 61% of the votes and this time round, 4 opposition members were sent into parliament.

But the PAP never stopped. It kept creating and changing policies to earn money from Singaporeans.

At the last general election, in 2011, the PAP’s vote share dropped to its lowest ever, to 60.1%. Singaporeans sent in 6 opposition members into parliament.

But still, the PAP did not stop. It continued to create policies to siphon off money from Singaporeans to earn.

The PAP never stopped and it never will. It will continue to create policies to hurt Singaporeans.

Will you still vote PAP?

It is time to vote for a new government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans.




  1. Singaporeans

    Wow … Not bad. Even they never take care for 30 years Singapore people prosper, one of the highest GDP per capita, low unemployment rate, best education, health care, best public housing, no corruptions, low crime rate and many countries in the world look up on us and respect. This government amazing isn’t it? So glad you think majority Singaporean are idiots. If your articles make you feel happy, go write more please. Keep this good works, Roy.

      • Jason Lim

        I see what you did there… PAP Internet Brigade. Quit your act, we are not fools anymore

    • The

      Highest GDP per capital – who benefited? Those millionaire ministers, and billionaire and millionaire instant citizens.
      Best education in the world – who benefited? Locals unemployed or retrenched, and those foreigners and instant citizens with forged degrees, degree from unknown university or ranked 444th or degrees from degree mills getting the job.
      Best public housing – costing an arm an a leg and a whole life mortgaged to the hilt.
      No corruptions? You living under the coconut shell. Remember the CNB and SCDF chief. Remember the many cases of top civil servants caught for corruption? Remember Teh Chiang Wan?

  2. Singaporeans

    Hey very confusing. How come for party who said will take care the people end up in mismanaging the tax payer money, practicing conflict of interest, keep lying in parliament, hiding the truth and cannot answer to residents? How much more if they manage the country?

    • Norman Wee

      Or heckler Roy Ngerng with his convoluted logic and reasoning that Singaporeans would have a spinning headache and don’t know what hit them except mumbering Cpf, Cpf, cpf…

      • Jason Lim

        Its the heart for the people that matters.. the people are angry. Quit trolling here, PAP IB, we won’t believe your lies.

  3. MonkeyBusiness

    PAP offers you banana with the skin on. Roy, and his gang, offers you banana without the skin. Same banana, one protected the other without prospective skin.

    As a monkey, which do you prefer?

      • Hardeep Saini

        Hi Norman
        I believe that your comment is discriminatory in nature.
        It was uncalled for.
        You should apologise for this to Roy.

      • wallansaini

        The same way one does not say that an ugly person is ugly, or
        that a fat person is a porky pig, or
        an autistic person is stupid, or
        a black person is black, or
        a bespectacled person is four eyes.

        An educated, civilised individual with a good upbringing will respect everyone, regardless.
        Roy has done much research and analytical study on this matter.
        If you don’t agree with him, fine.
        Either agree to disagree or put forth contrary arguments with your own study and analysis.
        He has not personally attacked you. There is no need to personally attack him.
        It is uncalled.
        I live in Australia and your remark can be used to prosecute you under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 2004. I believe that Singapore is signatory to a few Human Rights Conventions at the United Nations which means that you could be prosecuted for your remarks.
        I am not trying to be a smart ass here.
        Just like to let you know that we are living in the 21st Century and the 1st world countries have laws protecting people from all sorts of discriminatory behaviour.
        If you are a good Christian, or a good Buddhist you will refrain from such discriminatory remarks.
        Roy is just like you, a human being with feelings.
        If you would not like someone to discriminate against you in anyway, than it is only right that you show similar respect to the next person.

      • Norman Wee

        #hardeep saini what’s so discriminatory when calling a spade, a spade. maybe you need to go back to school…no need to be holier than thou…

      • Norman Wee

        #hardeep saini your lingua was wrong…its sarcacism, not discriminatory. And it was not directed at Roy but all those talking about bananas. Are you sure you are equipped enough to participate in foray like this?

      • wallansaini

        Hi Norman
        Your response was discriminatory in nature when you said “Don’t forget Roy is gay”.
        I wasn’t talking about the “banana” comment.
        There is still time to apologise.
        A religious person with a sense of compassion for the fellow human beings will not make such derogatory remarks.
        Obviously you are not religious, or educated, or has any compassion or empathy for anyone.
        That’s bad karma that you have gained upon yourself.
        Life here on Earth is just a passing.
        You have no idea how to prepare yourself for the afterlife.
        Good luck.
        You will need it when you get there.

      • Norman Wee

        I just saw wallandaini”s holier than thou comment. Instead of taking me on my comments he resort to name calling such as “not religious, or educated, or has any compassion or empathy for anyone.” We are in a debate foray and save all these for the church or monasteries. I hope you have prepared well enough for a cosy place up there. Of course please don’t forget bring Roy along, amen

  4. james

    Yes, I will still vote for PAP, because none of you all can suggest a better scheme than current CPF scheme. All I heard is picking problem without solution.
    Here you said GIC uses our CPF to earn 6% return but paying us 2-4%, there you said Temasek holding made big loses using our CPF money. What I know is, profit or lost, we still get our CPF money, ie. our money is still safe and sound, and I need not to worry about my retirement life. People who are worry are those who refuse to work when they still capable of.

    • R

      rOy said that CPF is not really our money, it is actually tax. We paid the highest tax (37%+2-5%) in the world

      • Singaporeans

        Oh yes. The “tax” that you can withdraw to be used for payment of your property, take care your retirement, medical, etc. on top of that there is guarantee interest to your benefit.

        Roy is so clever, he used the term “tax” which you will hate to hear. For better clarification: check yourself in cpf website.

        But if you bored with the truth out there, come here and read his articles. Pretty good Made in Singapore fictions.

    • Living&Contented

      Yes. And not forgetting the previous comments saying “Best education in the world – who benefited? Locals unemployed or retrenched, and those foreigners and instant citizens with forged degrees, degree from unknown university or ranked 444th or degrees from degree mills getting the job.”. My husband works in a recruitment company and you know what? It is not that companies prefer to hire foreigners, on the contrary most companies prefer to hire locals because of convenience. In fact the candidates often reject job offers due to distance being too far, job scope too stressful, salary too low some dont even want to go for interviews if they find that the company is small or not an MNC. Low employment rate? More like choosey and never contented Singaporeans.

      I am a low educated secondary school qualified working adult but even I can get a flat, earn and save and have a family (no i am not born in a rich or even well to do family) i had to stop studying to go to work to support myself since 17. If u cant get a job but i can, something is wrong.

      Cpf? I have a roof over my head thanks to cpf. Otherwise with my salary i can never get a place, EVER. Part of that, medisave, only God knows how many times I didnt have to pay upfront cash or full payment.

      I will still vote for PAP why? Simple, i am doing well living here under their rule for all my life and I AM STILL LIVING. So thank God for that.

      Just my point of view.

  5. Pigs

    It works for some it doesnt work for many especially the third and fourth generation and beyond. Money, ultimately, not enough even for the richer and rich.

  6. WhySoStupid

    Why should it be Roy’s way or PAP’s way? Why should it be opposition or incumbent? Why you so stupid? Why? Why? Why?

  7. Singaporeans

    WP is good and experience. Others not so experience so not recommended. With WP as the only experience opposition party, we can assure you will see more magic show in parliament like make your money disappears and unanswered. Sometimes you need to see a comedy show.

    And also the residents can start do exercise by cleaning up their HDB and surrounding area by yourself with still paying them every month. Let your lift be broken, so you can start climbing by stairs. Strengthen your knees.

    Hope WP residents property price go down, if you think yours too expensive now, so can fetch more buyers with low price. Just a tip: for those buyers, choose PAP after 5 years so the price is up again.



    Awesome article!
    Can’t wait to watch Singapore PM’s secretary disgusting gaudy example of excess and privilege.

    • GilaGoat

      That’s the problem with these people. They go up on stage to protest. But they go about it in a timid way by jokingly reminding everyone they could be arrested. Then in acts of boldness, they tore up the rubbish and fling it into the air. Then they bow down to pick up the rubbish for fear of being arrested.

      You see the picture there? The tiny crowd doesn’t look convince either. 🙂

      • TheJoker

        The way they fight injustices is to walk into the cage but leave the door opened behind them. Once inside the cage, they beat the drums with their chopsticks and attempt at karaokeing. Those outside watching them are invited to come through the opened door.

        Those outside looking into the cage and cheering also managed a weak smile and a punch into darkness.

        We will back you up and help keep the cage door opened – they yelped.

  9. YouVirgin

    PAP has a bigger cock. Nice to suck for many. Very juicy and tasty, can you blame them? But Amos said, me no like suck cock. You give smaller party cock , me also no like suck party cock either.

    Why? Cuz Amos straight. Amos like virgin bride. You have?

  10. Celine

    Thanks Roy for sharing the history of PAP taking advantage of singaporeans. For those who continue to vote for one party govt, shld it eventually get to be one party again in the coming election, do not complain when cost of living keeps going up cos you are the ones who gave them the power to do that.

  11. Return Our CPF $$$ & Go Harakiri!

    Thanks Roy:) Brilliant! Just Ignore those Pigs, Moron, Imbecile, Mole, Lackey, Ass-licker, Cock-sucker, Distractor & Mother-fucker!!! Treason! Karma=What goes around comes around:) Go4it!

  12. TokTokChiang

    Tok tok chiang tok tok chiang…cum cum…cheap cheap…buy buy…huat ah….tok tok chiang…tok tok chiang

  13. Looney

    Who cares about what roy says. His reputation is dead and he has no credibility . Even the opposition thinks he is a pap mole to taint their reputation. Frankly, he is the most laughable character in Singapore history. Am not joking, I say it again, the most laughable. Every thing about him is rubbish. If I am pap I would be most happy if they are standing against people like roy. Roy, if you are reading this, pls know that as an opposition supporter, I think you are a useless shitty gay. Anyway, I will still vote for opposition, but still you are rubbish.

  14. wallansaini

    A fantastic write up, Roy.
    Always worth a good read.
    As your readership increases, so will the votes for the opposition.
    The deniers cannot change this fact.
    The PAP WILL lose more votes come GE2016.

    • Norman Wee

      An American author wrote a book on political, economic and current situation costing at that time us$80. He made a prediction which didn’t come true and I got the book for 30Singapore cents.

      • wallansaini

        Shows how stupid you are.
        Wasted your 30 cents.
        And you come to these forums with your 30 cents worth of ideas that are not even yours because you are too stupid to have ideas of your own.

      • Norman Wee

        I just come across this name calling piece of your. You don’t get this 30CTS analogy, do you, but only good at name calling. Don’t you worry, for the papers for kacang puteh wrapping is worth more than that and more than what Roy has been spewing. Name calling and expletive spewing are halmark of an empty vessel.

  15. WindOfChange

    Mr Yeo said: “I think we’re going through, in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era …. A certain sense that this is where we were, we’re now in transition, but where we will be is not quite settled. And we’re feeling our way into that future.”

    So highly educated, so many followers and admirers, such well spring of experiences and wisdom, so influential and so much wealth and power. How can you not know, sir?

  16. vote Lee million out !

    we vote at least 50 opposition into parliament they will vote to reduce all MP n Lee million dollar salary

    • Looney

      If and when opposition wins you think they will lower their salary ? after some oppositions have won, have they lowered their own salary ? losers like you people will forever hope the system change and your lives will become wonderful. continue to hope. lol.

  17. Singapore Citizen Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)

    Subtle Denial of Medical Treatment by the Singapore Government for Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) PDF document:

    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
    Singapore Citizen
    Targeted Individual
    5 July 2015 Sunday Singapore Time

    Random Number Generator:

  18. Pingback: How the PAP Tried to Hide What They are Doing With Your CPF | The Heart Truths

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s