Solutions for Singapore (& Update 16 of Defamation Funds)

Update on Fund Raising for Defamation Suit to Pay Singapore Prime Minister

Here’s a short update on the defamation funds – S$63.35 was deposited into my account from an AXS machine two days ago. A man also gave my dad S$10 at his stall yesterday. Thank you to the both of you!

Defamation Suit Funds Raised 7 April 2016

My dad sells carrot cake at Block 107 in Ang Mo Kio. Some people had visited my dad’s stall to pass him some contributions. Dad’s stall is open on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday from about 4pm to about 11pm/midnight.


  • I was sued by the Singapore prime minister for an article on this blog and have been asked to pay him S$180,000. So far, I have raised S$29,550.71. 
  • The funds coming in have slowed down. But as long as there are funds coming in, I will update them on the blog.
  • For more information on the fund raising and the defamation suit, please see the end of the article below.

I would like to thank everyone for supporting me and contributing to the funds. I wouldn’t be able to do this without you.

I also wrote a post on my Facebook on the solutions for Singapore and thought to share it here.


Solutions for Singapore

Below, I briefly outline the solutions that Singapore can take, with some calculations and estimates.

Note that in 2013, Singapore has a total cash surplus of S$31 billion.


  • The Singapore government can provide free healthcare, education and adequate retirement as well as provide unemployment benefits for less than an additional S$6 billion and still have more than S$25 billion in savings – all these are possible with the current revenue and without increasing taxes.

(1) Healthcare


(A) Current:

  1. In 2014, the total health expenditure in Singapore is S$20 billion. Of this, government expenditure accounts for about 35% and Medisave accounts for only about 4%.
  2. Singapore government’s expenditure on health in 2014: S$7 billion [3]
  3. Singaporeans currently pay 8% – 10.5% of wage into Medisave. [4]
  4. In 2014, Singaporeans have paid S$71 billion into Medisave [5] but were only able to withdraw S$852 million [3] or only 1.2%.
  5. The Singapore government spends the least on healthcare among the developed countries, as a percentage of GDP. Singaporeans have to pay the most out of our own pockets in the world, purchasing power parity dollar.

(B) Proposed*:

  1. Increase government expenditure to 40%: S$8 billion
  2. Increase Medisave withdrawals so that Medisave accounts for 60% of total health expenditure – benchmarked with other countries. (In total, government expenditure and Medisave withdrawals will account for 100%.)
  3. Medisave withdrawals will increase to S$13 billion or only 18% of total Medisave balance, with plenty of surplus left.
  4. (Future plans: build more hospitals, educate and increase number of healthcare workers – to reduce hospital bed to population ratio and healthcare workers to population ratio – which is currently the highest among the developed countries.)

*There are many permutations to this. For example, Medisave withdrawals can increase to 50% and government expenditure increased to 50%.

(C) Net Effect: Free Healthcare
Additional Government Spending: S$1.4 billion

Background information:

(2) Education


(A) Current:

  1. Singapore government’s expenditure on education in 2015: S$12 billion
  2. Singaporeans pay S$1.6 billion in fees to study in ITEs, polytechnics and universities. [7]
  3. The Singapore government spends the least on education among the developed countries, as a percentage of GDP. Singaporeans have to pay one of the most expensive university fees in the world, for citizens.

(B) Proposed:

  1. Increase government expenditure to S$13.6 billion (to cover for the S$1.6 billion in fees.)
  2. (Future plans: build more universities and increase university enrollment for Singaporeans; educate and increase number of teachers and decrease class sizes – which is currently the highest among the developed countries, and abolish streaming and examinations in earlier years, for greater equality and opportunity.)

(C) Net Effect: Free Education
Additional Government Spending: S$1.6 billion**
**Additional spending can come from other sources e.g. reducing surplus accumulation at educational institutions or reduce government sponsorships for overseas students, which can reduce additional government spending.

Background information:

(3) Retirement


(A) Current:

  1. Central Provident Fund (CPF) pension fund interest rate: 2.5% – 4% – which is one of the lowest returns on pension funds in the world. Singaporeans also have one of the least adequate pension funds in the world. (link & link)
  2. CPF is invested in GIC (and Temasek Holdings) where they earned between 5% and 19.2% last year. Much of the interest earned is not returned to Singaporeans.
  3. Additional government spending to supplement retirement incomes (only introduced this year): ONLY S$320 million (to provide S$100 to S$250 a month for poorest 20% to 30% of elderly Singaporeans aged 65 and above)

(B) Proposed:

  1. CPF to be managed independently (STOP CPF from being transferred to GIC and Temasek Holdings – they will manage government surplus funds instead, which they currently do anyway.)
  2. CPF interest rates likely to increase to about 6% or more (global average pension returns last year was 6%).
  3. Delink CPF from being used to purchase residential apartments; let CPF be used solely for retirement purposes and reduce CPF contribution to about 10% – 15% (this is enough for adequate pension, according to studies). (With higher disposable incomes and increased wages – see (4) below – there will be enough cash on hand to purchase residential apartments, and without the need to pay accrued interest.)
  4. Increase government supplement retirement incomes to S$500 every month for all elderly Singaporeans as the current average CPF payout is estimated to be only a few hundred dollars and is not adequate for retirement – this will cost S$2.6 billion (This component is a stop-gap measure in the interim and is expected to decrease over the years as wages and the CPF interest rates increase and the CPF is able to provide adequate retirement.)

(C) Net Effect: Adequate retirement for all Singaporeans (All elderly Singaporeans will be able to retire.)
Additional Government Spending: S$2.3 billion

Background information:

(4) Wages


(A) Current:

  1. No minimum wage – Singapore is one of very few countries in the world without one.
  2. By right, Singaporean cleaners should earn a mandated wage of S$1,000.
  3. However, there are still about 10% of Singaporeans who earn less than S$1,000.
  4. Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among countries with a similar cost of living and national wealth. Singaporeans also have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries.

(B) Proposed:

  1. Singaporeans would need to earn a minimum of between S$2,000 and S$2,500 to have a most basic standard of living, if there is free healthcare and education, and adequate pension.
  2. Currently, there are about 30% of Singaporeans who still earn less than S$2,000 and about 40% who earn less than S$2,500. The estimated poverty rate in Singapore is 30%.
  3. Implement a minimum wage at S$1,500 for a start and gradually increase it to S$2,000 (or S$2,500) over the course of a few years.
  4. To do so, the government will stop collecting foreign worker levies (In 2011, the government collected S$2.5 billion in revenue from foreign worker levies. At the rate of growth, the revenue could have grown to S$3.5 billion or S$4 billion last year.). If businesses stop paying levies, this can be diverted to increase workers’ wage instead.
  5. The share of GDP that goes into wages in Singapore is only 43%. [21] In other developed countries, the wage share is between 54% and 63%. [22] If the share of wages increase to about 58% of GDP (average wage share of developed countries), this would unlock about S$60 billion of the GDP that can be returned to Singaporeans in wages.
  6. (Future plans: minimum (living) wage will be adjusted annually/biannually for inflation. Labour unions will be strengthened so that the government reduces its role in setting wages and unions will collectively negotiate for wages sustainably.)

(C) Net Effect: Adequate living wages for Singaporeans to have basic standard of living 
(To note, the government already spends S$900 million on the Wage Credit Scheme and S$650 million on the Workfare Income Supplement to supplement the wages of workers, which mean that there is S$1.55 billion in existing funds to tide through the transition into minimum wage. This is in addition to the S$3 or S$4 billion in collects in foreign worker levies.)

Background information:

(5) Unemployment Benefits


(A) Current:

  1. No unemployment benefits – Singapore is one of very few countries in the world without one.
  2. Singaporeans who are out of jobs still have to pay for the most expensive healthcare and one of the most expensive education while having one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world.

(B) Proposed:

  1. Introduce unemployment benefits to 60% of proposed minimum wage for 6 months (for a start) – this will cost S$756 million (There were 81,800 unemployed residents in 2014. The citizen population is about 85% of the resident population, which gives about an estimated 70,000 unemployed Singaporeans. 60% of the proposed minimum wage is S$900. In total, unemployment benefits would total about S$756 million, for a start.)
  2. (Future plans: unemployment benefits can be extended and pegged to individual incomes after the initial trial period and a study of the effects.)

(C) Net Effect: Unemployed Singaporeans are protected while they look for another job
Additional Government Spending: S$756 million

Background information:

(6) Ministerial Salaries


(A) Current:

  1. Singapore’s ministers are paid tens and millions of dollars every year – they are paid the highest salaries in the world (link, link & link). The ministers earn a benchmark salary of S$1.1 million a year. [28]
  2. The prime minister earns S$2.2 million every year (not yet accounting for other bonuses). [29]
  3. The ministers earn the highest salaries in the world but Singaporeans earn the lowest wages among countries with a similar cost of living and national wealth. Singapore also has the highest rich-poor gap and income inequality among the developed countries.

(B) Proposed:

  1. Cap the prime minister’s salary to 10 times that of median income. Last year, the median income was S$3,000 a month. [17] This would work out to about S$400,000 a year for the prime minister (inclusive of one month’s bonus).
  2. In comparison, the United States president earns US$400,000 a year.
  3. Cap a member of parliament (MP)’s allowance to 5 times that of median income. This would work out to S$195,000 a year (inclusive of one month’s bonus) for MPs, which is about what MPs receive now (S$192,500). [31]

(C) Net Effect: More reasonable ministerial salaries 
There will be government savings.



  1. Total Additional Government Spending: S$5.8 billion*** (for free healthcare and education, adequate retirement and unemployment benefits)
  2. In 2013, Singapore has a cash surplus of S$31 billion. (enough surplus in 1 year to pay for the additional spending for 5 years)
  3. Even after the proposed additional government spending above, there will still be more than S$25 billion left.
  • There is no need to increase taxes to increase social spending to protect Singaporeans, as there is currently already enough revenue and cash surplus.
  • This is also possible because what Singaporeans pay into CPF and Medisave is already enough to cover for most of the additional spending for retirement and healthcare, and does not require further government spending.
  • Even with the proposed additional government spending, Singapore will still have the lowest expenditure on social protection among the developed countries.
  • Note that with the proposed spending in the above to provide free healthcare and education, and adequate pension, this would mean that some current expenditure, such as on social assistance and Medifund, will be consolidated – some made redundant – and the expenditure on these reduced, which would mean that there will be more savings. Savings will also come from the reduction of ministerial salaries. (***Taking into account the savings, the total additional government spending might be only another S$3 or S$4 billion.)
  • Also, note that it is estimated that tens of billions of dollars are lost in Singapore due to illegal money-laundering activities, which would be enough to pay for this additional spending for several years.
  • Note also that as wages increase, so will the revenue in tax collected, which will also boost revenue for these spending.

Note: this exercise is not to say that government expenditure should cover fully for basic necessities, but it is to show that this can be done and that there will still be an extravagant surplus left. The next step is to have a national conversation on what should be done – noting that the money which should be used is currently sitting inside government coffers without helping Singaporeans. What matters is whether there is the political will to do this.

Read more:


Thank You for Your Support for the Fund Raising

As of this morning, a total of $$29,550.71 has been raised. I still have to pay another S$149,900 to the prime minister.

If you would also like to help to defray the costs and damages, you can also fund raise to the bank account at POSB Savings Bank Account 130-23068-7 (Ngerng Yi Ling) or PayPal at Thank you.

The funds coming in have slowed down. But for transparency, I will continue to update on the funds raised and used, on this blog.

Meanwhile, I have also attached my LinkedIn profile here, if it might be of interest. I was fired after I was sued – the hospital that I worked at and the Ministry of Health, Singapore sent out press releases to support the firing, with the hospital alluding to the defamation suit.

If you have a job opening, scholarship or fellowship, please feel free to contact me on the opportunities. I would be grateful if you do so. I am open to working overseas as well.

View Roy Ngerng's profile on LinkedIn

View Roy Ngerng's LinkedIn profile View Roy Ngerng’s profile


Background: In 2014, I was sued by the Singapore prime minister for defamation. The judge ruled in a summary judgment that I have defamed him. I have apologised to the prime minister. I was ordered to pay damages of S$150,000 to him. In a settlement reached with the help of my lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, I am to pay an additional S$30,000 in costs. In total, including the previous payment that I have made to the costs of the summary judgment (S$29,000) and application for the Queen’s Counsel (S$6,000), I would have paid/will pay S$215,000. 

Two weeks ago, I have paid the first tranche of S$30,000 (of the S$180,000) to the prime minister. From April 1, 2016, for the next 5 years, I have to pay $100 every month. Thereafter, from 2021, I have to pay $1,000 every month until I finish paying.

You can read the previous updates here: [One] [Two] [Three] [Four] [Five] [Six] [Seven] [Eight] [Nine] [Ten] [Eleven] [Twelve] [Thirteen] [Fourteen] [Fifteen]. I would like to thank for reporting about the fund raising. 

I would also like to thank the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Safenet for releasing statements in support of me, as well as iMediaEthics and Hong Kong Free Press for interviewing me.

You can also read the previous update on the funds raised in 2014 and its usage. I would like to thank The Straits Times for reporting about it. There were also inaccurate online reports that the funds were used to pay overseas trips. This is untrue. You can read more about these in the update here.


  1. Chris Brickhill

    Dear Roy,

    I am writing down my thoughts even though thy contain things you may not like to hear.

    Firstly, let me say that I agree with most of your thoughts and solutions for Singapore.

    Lee Hsien Long neither needs the money due him from the judgment against you, nor wants it. His goal was to put you out of action. He has thus won, and you have lost. You cannot possibly pay the judgement from your own resources, and eventually this will lead to bankruptcy and jail.

    You should be aware that in the civilized works, a world that excludes Singapore, judgments for defamation are almost impossible to obtain. The plaintiff must show in detail what the deformation consisted in and what damage it caused. LHL has not done this. Furthermore, monetary judgements are limited to the actual financial costs incurred by the plaintiff. The amount awarded to him is absurd.

    You are now limited in what you can do, and a lot of your energy which could be directed towards your goals must now be spent in raising funds to pay the judgement and costs.

    What can you do? I think that there are three options. If you continue to fight against LHL and the PAP, you must expect more problems. If you are able to promote and support a strong attack on these people, you may prevail, but the attack must be truly forceful and drastic. I do not think that you can do this by yourself. Finally, you could leave Singapore, get a job in a foreign location and mount an attack from your new home. For your information, there are many who would like to see LSL, and many of his colleagues charged and put on trial in The Hague.

    Please do consider the actual effectiveness of your actions, and what you can no do. I can in fact help.


    Chris Brickhill

    +55 31 9 8598 5575

    Da augosto 2016: Palazzetto Bosso, Sestiere San Polo no. 2716, cap 30125, Calle Amor Degli Amici, Venezia, Italia

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

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

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Please refer to the following letter (PDF format), addressed to the United Nations Human Rights Council, for more information and details about my predicament. The letter was dated 14th March 2015 Saturday.

    Thank you very much for your kind attention.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) is Persecuted, Targeted, and Blacklisted by the Singapore Government led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
    10th April 2016 Sunday 10:03 AM Singapore Time GMT+8
    Age: 38 Years Old

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

    Official Complaint Against the Singapore Government for Allegedly Falsifying Mr. Teo En Ming’s Medical Records

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Please refer to the following letter (PDF format), addressed to the United Nations Human Rights Council, for more information and details about my predicament. The letter was dated 10th October 2014 Friday.

    Thank you very much for your kind attention.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) is Persecuted, Targeted, and Blacklisted by the Singapore Government led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
    10th April 2016 Sunday 10:03 AM Singapore Time GMT+8
    Age: 38 Years Old

  4. Concerned

    Dear Mr Ngerng,

    I admire your persistence and passion in trying to find solutions for Singapore. But two really quick, simple questions:

    1. Your proposals will set the country back by a few billion a year. Recurring. This will quite quickly deplete the surplus and reserves. What happens after that?

    2. How do you propose we attract the best brains to politics if we cap their salaries to something far below what they would otherwise be making in the private sector? Unlike in the US, politicians here don’t have the chance to make tens/hundreds of millions in celebrity appearance fees, a la Hillary Clinton.

    Serious questions I hope you have answers for. Thanks!

    • Roy Ngerng


      (1) Do you maths and read the article. This surplus is there.

      (2) We are looking for people to serve the country, not profit from the country. Singapore has supposedly the best education system in the world. If we cannot find people with the passion to serve, then something is wrong with our system.

      When you get your priorities wrong, you ask the wrong questions.

  5. Jane Liong

    You never even run a small business and propose solutions to run a country? How arrogant! You’re over-over-over-over-over estimating your own capabilities

    • Roy Ngerng

      So sad. Don’t look down on yourself. There is a reason why democracies are called democracies. We come together to develop ideas for the country, no matter who you are. So don’t belittle yourself. We work together. 😀 You remember the pledge right – based on justice and equality. 🙂

      • Jackfruit

        This is nothing to do with democracy. Jane’s question is legitimate in that if u have not even run a biz before how can u even imagine governing a country?

      • Vince

        First, Singapore is not even a real Democratic country, get the fact straight first before you write down your reply. Heck, for some unknown reason, Malaysia and Indonesia rank higher in democracy index than Singapore.

        Secondly, to your reply on other post, “We are looking for people to serve the country, not profit from the country. Singapore has supposedly the best education system in the world. If we cannot find people with the passion to serve, then something is wrong with our system. ”
        I feel the posted has asked an interesting question which you shrugged aside as wrong question. How does “how are you going to deal with brain drain in your country?” is a wrong question?
        How are you serving your country now, while all this time you are profiting from the country by all these debacles?

        Also, what is this nonsense about best education system in the world? Are we living in different world? OR do you mean one of the better education system in the world? (To be fair, Singapore education is flawed at the moment but fixing is in progress, hopefully for the better).

        Third, your surplus, is 2013, how much relevance is there now (2016)? Given that, if you not living in some holes and not knowing how world economics has gone crap since then, how much Surplus does Singapore have in 2015? Using old data to make assumption on making changes to a system, more so with a country, is really questionable move.

        Fourth, while some of the solutions do seems to make sense, have you even considered what would be the consequences or side effect of the changes? In particular, the free education and unemployment benefit system would probably will not work in Singapore or even Asia country in general.

        Do be aware that not many countries provide free education, in fact most of the best colleges in the world do not have them? Ever wonder why? Maybe because, Teachers are people too, they need to raise family, they need salary and they need appreciation of their job (free education is direct contrary of these). Unless, your free education proposal is limited to certain age group, maybe it will work, free education on college level is silly at best. (Though, more subsidy for the students to free them from college debt is always a welcome changes).

        Unemployment benefit, how will it be drafted? Will there be a limit on how long an individual can get this benefit? Will there a be requirement for the individual to be at previous employment before claiming these benefits? etc?

        Minimum salary issue is a very complicated issue to tackle, will there be an overall general coverage to all jobs? Or will there be different minimum salary to different sectors eg. Janitors vs Office workers.

        While most of your solutions are pretty much no brainers, at least you have “something” finally. Now, the question is, will you go further into depth on the full draft on each of the implementation? (from how you put up those solutions, it almost feel like you have been taking pages from the game Democracy 3, and unlike game, you do not instantly change how a country move with a single order to change a policy).

        When other people gave you a question or an opinion that do not suits your liking, you should be persuading them to your side not dissing them aside as nonsense or “wrong” question. If you even believe a thing about “justice and equality” and “democracy”, maybe you should be acting like one. (Unless you are mentoring under certain individual who is currently running for Presidential election in United States of America then…oh dear… “He started it!” …oh I see…)

        One suggestion to act like one is, clean up your own mess rather than having others to pay for your deed.

      • Jane Liong

        Roy, do you know how complex it is to run a country? For example free healthcare is easy to say but once we really have free healthcare: Everyone will flood VIP room of Mt Elizabeth Hospital. It’s free right? Of course all of us pick the best and the most expensive. Everyone loves to be sick and get hospitalized. Why? We enjoy both paid hospital leave and free bed, double benefits. And I really want to laugh to see your free healthcare diagram. Once healthcare is free, that cost will balloon up exponentially. Also hey you’re not talking hundreds, not thousands, not even millions, it’s BILLIONS of DOLLARS. Do you know how large that is? Its easy for you to write $8 BILLIONS here, $13 BILLIONS there. But the ministers taking policy decisions will have sleepless nights thinking about using such a HUGE sum of money. So Roy, my advise is for you not to be overly arrogant. It’s easy for you to write BILLIONS here BILLIONS there in your blog, seems smart of you, but most of us know this country will crumble if you are at the helm implementing all those crazy policies 🙂

      • talesteller


        If you take a closer look at the healthcare diagram you will see that Roy is not really proposing “free healthcare”. Government expenditure on healthcare is $7 billion, which is 30% of total healthcare expenditure. He proposes increasing it to $8 billion, which obviously isn’t going to be enough to cover all healthcare spending! Now that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but it certainly is a much more sane proposal than appears at first glance.

  6. Belittle

    Only Brain Dead people refuses to think. And there is a couple of example here! Lol! Kudos to Roy! Thumbs down to those belittle his effort. Shame on your for not even trying to come up with a solution for the country and pretending to care for the country! Show me the figures lah! Come talk big only! LJKW

    • Vince

      No one really belittling him, the fact that different posters have asked legit questions which have been simply dissed aside by him, pretty much shows how much he really “care” for his country.

      His “solutions” are no brainer, everyone know that will be the case, but how are you going to do it?
      Eg. Solutions for poverty : Give people jobs, give people house, give people food. DONE! There, no more poverty in the world. But, the real question is, HOW are you going to achieve it? Talk is cheap, thinking is even cheaper, action is what needed to solve any issue.

      When you want to implement change, there will be doubts and questions for those who are involved, if you are unwilling to engage and persuade them that your change is the “right” thing to do, then all your solutions are pretty much cheap talk for your own grandeur ego. In a real “equal and justice” “democratic” world, we engage in conversation not push people aside just because they do not agree with you.

    • RED-man

      most of those nasty comments or questions above I guess they don’t even bother to look at what Roy is proposing. By the fact of those argument they give, they are asking those propaganda question structured by PAP broadcast thru our prositute media and registered into their brain. Cheap shot and poor argument.

      Running a country is nothing complicated if you breakdown to its basic. The Government depend on the people to contribute to the country while the people depends on the Government to take care of them to so they can continue to repeat the above mentioned process. The people failed the country failed and therefore whatever Government that is in power will either run or collapsed.

      When your family member is sick, any decent people try to save them even if it mean you used up the last dollars in the pocket. So tell how different it is for the Government to it people?

      Especially when in a country you have a larger collective to share the burden. By the way, if you talk about eating in the share of existing crowd fund, I think you have no idea how a insurance company works don’t you? The insurance collect the premium from the existing young generation and then distribute it to the those who are old and have mature premium. Why don’t you go question them. Banks are running on fractional reserve system, which mean they simply create figure out of thin air and loan it to you then charge you interest. Are you even aware of that? If so, did you Sue the banks?

      Who are you kidding, the world economy build upon debts on top of debts. When it collapsed, all that you own now will reduced to dust.

  7. Vince

    On your free education proposal, have a good read on the current proposal for free college tuition by Bernie Sanders, and have a good glimpse of what both sides have to say on the issue.

  8. RED-man


    When you want to solve any problem, you should look deeper into it. The real question you need to ask is (actually you already asked and it landed you in a law sue) why despite we have so much surplus (as PAP has proclaimed) yet PAP spending on the medical and education keep reducing?

    If you study what many evil capitalism countries did, this actually a form of debt transfer from (country) Government to the people.

    Afterall, there is a limit to how many tax you can create in a country without causing riot, however creative you are like the PAP. But if I (Government) inflated the cost of education, medical and housing (these are basic necessity), I can legally make you transfer your earning to me without giving you a reason to cause a riot. Which is why smart people demand transparency (from PAP) of the inflated cost of education, medical and housing. While the stupid swallow every single stupid excuse PAP gave. When the PAP blame on Globalisation, only by showing the figure of how much Globalisation had inflated into those cost then it is call transparency.

    No, so far they did not. They did not disclose the building cost of the housing, neither the medical investment non the education investment they had put in to justify that.

    Yet here we are, sponsoring foreigner from 3rd world country to study free in our country and deny the local poor more scholarship. Strange isn’t it?

  9. RED-man

    did you also find out that every time PAP increase some budget on education to the so call needy (after many had complaint or lost a lot of votes from election). They steadily and progressively on the other hand increase the school fees of the education. This is yet another debt transfer. Having the middle class paying for the needy. So actually, PAP do not really increase the budget for education at all. Pay special attention next time when they increase the budget. They always say it is for the needy and never for the country. Why needy? because they can keep it small and they can set difficult conditions for them to apply.

  10. RED-man

    so, my friend.

    The real question to ask are:

    1. why when they say we have surplus and yet they have to play all these tricks to avoid paying.

    2. Why they are so secretive on the actual amount really spent against profits?

    Lastly with the above 2 questions, you and me and many smart Singaporean burning question. Do PAP still have money in our reserve? IF there is no reserve, whatever you proposed up there are empty and waste of time.

    Actually, I think most of the so call stupid Singaporean know that. They are just in denial. Afterall, why not enjoy while the scenery is still good.

    Voted in a opposition to find out the truth, will make them hang themselve earlier. Probably turn their assets into ash. All bubble burst. One by one jump from their building. Foreigners leave, all properties price rock bottom.

    Tell me, if you have so much to lose do you want to face the reality? or enjoy the present? The fact is, they want to be cheated, Roy.

  11. Pingback: Defamation Funds Update 18: I Still Have to Pay the Prime Minister S$149,800 | The Heart Truths
  12. Pingback: Defamation Funds Update 19 | The Heart Truths
  13. Pingback: Govt will Protect S’poreans from Violence? Prove it. | My Right to Love by Roy Ngerng
  14. Pingback: Singaporeans Pay High Rates for Health Insurance, but Get Back Low Returns; Other Countries Pay Low Rates, Get Back High Returns | The Heart Truths
  15. Pingback: Singaporeans Pay High Rates for Health Insurance, but Get Back Low Returns; Other Countries Pay Low Rates, Get High Returns | 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