atans1

Posts Tagged ‘PM’

More evidence PM is clueless about ordinary life in S’pore

In Political governance on 29/08/2014 at 4:39 am

It’s not juz eating cockles with mee siam which incidentally is at least an attempt in fusion food: Malay with Chinese.

Recently, PM was criticised by the usual anti-PAP cyber warriors, for comments he made at a dialogue session moderated by DBS CEO Piyush Gupta;  comments on the “divisive nature of the internet”. Actually I think, their comments show how self-centred are the critics.

This is because they missed something very important that he also said, while focusing on something that even my dogs* know is a PAP Hard Truth: “Internet is bad for the PAP. So rubbish and smear it.”

BT reported on 23 August that at the above gig, PM said “Our population is aging, we have to take care of our old folks, and give them assurance and security. But the purpose of life is not assurance and security. The purpose of life is to use that security in order to achieve something new and different, and do better than the people who came before.” Emphasis mine..

Well the words I highlighted show that he’s clueless (or insensitive?) about the importance of “assurance and security” to S’poreans, whether they vote for the PAP or not.

“Assurance and security” is something PMETs and their families (and the poor) need because their “purpose in life” is to pay-off their “affordable” 25-year HDB mortgages, or private property mortgages, and have enough to live on in retirement without “downgrading”, “lease-backs” (Uncle Leong shows how unfair are the terms) .or moving overseas (which is a great idea except that most S’poreans juz don’t want to move).

Because of “market-based” pricing mechanisms, is the “correct” pricing (Think CoEs and public housing),  pricing out of reach housing and cars for those without access to cheap credit? I suspect it is. 

When you think about it, govt must be thinking of “controlled” market, not “free” markets. .In both the property and CoE markets, the govt decides the availability of the product. Only the price is “free”. This is especially true of land: the government controls the supply of land for development, auctioning parcels at its own discretion to developers. The price that developers pay helps decide the value it then puts on land that is used to build HDB flats on. In the case of CoEs, there is, we are assured, a formula.

If the usual suspects had not been so self-centred, they could have accused the PM that his”$2m” annual salary, and his privileged background makes him clueless or indifferent, or boh chap about what matters most. And they would have a reasonable point.

——

*Dogs have the intelligence of a five-year old child. Better still, they can sniff out s**t. They’ll bark loudly at one of Roy’s and Hui Hui’s gigs. But will fall silent and wag their tails when Uncle Leong talks.

 

 

Take on PM’s NatDay message: Trying to lull us into complacency

In Political governance on 10/08/2014 at 5:01 am

The gd news that it won’t work.

But let’s begin with the message.

In the 1999 science fiction film “Matrix”, the Matrix is a simulated world created by machines to keep humans complacent. In S’pore today, is the PAP is trying to receate a Matrix here to lull us into complacency: things can only get better under cont’d hegemony the PAP? This tot crossed my mind when I read this CNA report. My comments are interspersed

Singapore’s economy grew 3.5 per cent in the first half of the year, bringing the growth forecast for the rest of the year to between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent. That is narrower than the forecast by the Trade and Industry Ministry in February this year of between 2 and 4 per cent. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said this in his National Day Message on Friday (Aug 8) ahead of Singapore’s 49th birthday. [Growth for the full year will be below last year’s 4.1%: at best growth be 15% lower than last yr.]

Mr Lee outlined some priorities for the country, including giving Singaporeans greater peace of mind in their retirement years and helping everyone achieve their potential, regardless of their family background or circumstances. Ahead of his National Day Rally, Mr Lee also hinted at several policy changes to come. 

In enhancing retirement adequacy, Mr Lee said his team is studying how to make it more convenient for retirees to get cash out of their flats, in a prudent and sustainable way. Currently there is the Lease Buy back scheme. It is a monetization option to help low-income elderly households unlock part of their housing equity, and receive a lifelong income stream to supplement their retirement income. Response to the scheme though has been somewhat lukewarm, with just over 300 households signing up for it since it was enhanced in February last year. [Well it’s pretty mean.]

The Prime Minister will also talk about ways the Central Provident Fund system could be improved at the National Day Rally in a week’s time. [It doesn’t need tweaking, it needs to be retot. Mad Dog Chee is right to say that retirement has to be delinked from housing and healthcare: CPF puts these three issues into one pot. 

“Stronger safety nets are not just to give you peace of mind, but also to build confidence to hope and dare,” said Mr Lee. “Our system will help you shoot for the stars. Everyone will have full opportunities to fulfil your potential, regardless of your family background or circumstances.”  [Believe this and you believe that the the PAP is socialist or that the moon is made of green cheese.]

Mr Lee said education is a big part of achieving this. To that end, a committee tasked with reviewing polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education studies is expected to announce its recommendations to help young Singaporeans acquire the relevant skills, to succeed in a constantly changing, economic environment. [Juz let more people who can meet the standards get in the local unis. And don’t suppress the pay of skilled technicians like plumbers and electricians. And don’t import FTs by the A380 cattle class. 

“You are talented, passionate and confident. You deserve to chase your dreams and be the best you can be. The academic route is not the only way up. We will also help you upgrade yourselves while you work. We will help you master specialised skills, and earn advanced qualifications as you progress in your careers,” said Mr Lee. [Why love FTs meh if Singkies so good? Why have to spur S’poreans?]

But Mr Lee said this is also a matter of social values: “As Singaporeans, we must judge a person not just by his educational qualifications but also by his skills, contributions and character. This is how we keep Singapore a land of hope and opportunity for all.” [Give me a break. Scholars get all the best jobs. ]

He added Singapore will succeed, only if its citizens stand together as one united people. There was a rallying call by the Prime Minister for Singaporeans to come together despite their differences and to uphold the spirit of the Pioneers who built this country. … said Singapore has changed, so there also needs to be a reassessment of its position, direction and strategies. Err, what about rethinking the need for PAP hegemony? And the emphasis on the “right” tots.The problem is very existence of Hard Truths: Tony Blair last month said “A Changing world means changing policies and a changed party.”]

… even as Singapore has made strong progress since independence, it has not reached its limit. As the country turns 50 next year, Mr Lee observed that many Singaporeans intend to embrace and mark the special occasion in their own ways. [Migrating?]

He said it is this collective sense of ownership and belonging, that will take this country forward, in a changing world. collective [Sense of ownership and belonging? What sense of ownership and belonging?]

The gd news that that it’s difficult to make us complacent is because the govt is always making too conservative and unreasonable assumptions when it comes to “safety net” issues . Take CPF Life; S’poreans “invested” in CPF life bear the risk of fund going bust.while knowing little of its inner workings. And Medishield is starting to look too expensive with reserves of 200%. this means higher than optimal (for us) premiums.

Oh btw, Ang Yong Guan (remember him?) on Facebook recently said govt’s “share on health is 35% and the Health Minister intends to bring it to 40%. That means our OOP (out of pocket) is 60%. That’s still high for citizens. It should be the other round 60-40% and not 40-60%. 4% of GDP on health and they are damn proud of it. For health, they can go higher than that.”

He is right.

Roy’s defence has me confused

In Political governance on 06/08/2014 at 4:43 am

TOC has an article on Roy’s defenceMr Ngerng said while his apology to Mr Lee for an article he wrote on 15 May remains, he nonetheless is disputing Mr Lee’s claims that the article had in fact defamed Mr Lee as claimed in Mr Lee’s lawsuit …

In his affidavit filed on Monday, Mr Ngerng disputes the meanings of the allegedly defamatory article ascribed to it by Mr Lee’s lawyers, and argues that the content of the article “does not convey the twisted meaning” which Mr Lee’s lawyers claim it does.

So why apologise, if there is no defamation?

Doesn’t make sense to this ex-lawyer, the way the defence is unfolding.

When Roy was threatened with a defamation suit, activist lawyers were suggesting that a plausible line of defence was that as Kong Hee’s and gang’s case was still in progress, Roy’s comparison did not amount to defamation because Kong Hee and friends were not criminals: they were on trial and the presumption of innocence applied. They had not “criminally misappropriated” anything. I tot that this defence had merit.

So Roy’s apology was puzzling, though not surprising (he S’porean and $ talks):

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

So did this later on:

“You know, when I wrote the article, it was never my intention to say that the prime minister had misappropriated the money. And I have never said this.

Then came his “defence” that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” against his client based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression

My take then on all these.

Now the position is that despite saying the apology still stands: “There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well. It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”

Err what about the apology, Roy? And yes, I’ve read his affidavit and nowhere does it try to explain why the wording of the apology (which explicitly says that Roy accused the PM of of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies still stands when the defence is now :”There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well. It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”

Curiouser and curiouser.

For the sake of Roy and the administration of justice and its reputation, the Law Society should ask M Ravi’s psychiatrist if he is competent to practice law. If not, the AG should ask the Law Society to ask his psychiatrist if he is competent to practice law.

Let’s not wait until M Ravi screams obscenities in a mosque, or causes a row in a Hindu temple or prances half-naked in Hong Lim Green before his mental state is examined and found to be “impaired”. If it then turns out that M Ravi’s bi-polar disorder is affecting him again or he is not taking his pills, the Law Society could be in serious trouble for allowing him to practice law.

What no lecture, teaching moment from PM?

In Humour on 16/07/2014 at 4:55 am

Congrats Germany on winning the World Cup! Argentina fought hard, but Götze’s beautiful goal was the difference. – LHL

Err thaz all from PM? And I’m glad. I’m not complaining.

I’m one of those who cringe at the memory of leaders past who used to try to use contemporaneous events to show that the PAP does things better or to disparage or lecture S’poreans. One GCT was the expert.

I couldn’t stand his attempt to use a tragedy in Japan (the tsunami in 2011)  to lecture us. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/learn-from-japanese-set-example-leh-elites/

So I was pleasantly surprised at PM’s Facebook message: short and sweet and accurate: that goal was sublime, as was the run and cross that preceded it.

PM could have pointed out that the German win showed that when the 6th best paid mgr (think PM and his cabinet) meets the 22nd best paid mgr, the 6th wins. Argie is only paid 23% (albeit a six figure sum) of that of the German mgr’s millions.

But then maybe a certain PAP MP eye doctor will raise the issue? After all he is clear in his mind that money is the measure of a person.

Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/why-smc-should-act-against-pap-mp/

BTW, I juz saw on FB, Goh Meng Seng’s comments on the video of his performance at “Resign PM” event.

Don’t like that leh: don’t see PM no ak

The 28th Sun Valley Conference was held in Idaho from 8 to 10 July 2010. Attendees included Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation, Tim Cook of Apple, Jeffrey Bewkes of Time Warner and Marissa Mayer of Yahoo. Technology company executives are also expected to make a strong showing. On the invite list are Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, Intel’s Brian Krzanich, eBay’s John Donahoe and Martin Lau, the president of Tencent, a behemoth of the Chinese Internet industry. Jack Ma, the co-founder of the Chinese Internet giant Alibaba Group, is on the invitee list …

A few yrs back Lee Hsien Loong was a guest at this event.

Ang moh tua kees respect him, even if GMS doesn’t. But then GMS has strange tastes. He was adviser to to TKL who lost his deposit in PE2011. Rumour is that the dynamic duo is planning to form “The People’s Voice” to contest the next GE. OK, OK I made the rumour up.

 

 

How PM & Roy can resolve matters satisfactorily/ Roy’s defence: Work-in-progress

In Humour on 11/07/2014 at 5:24 am

(Update at 6pm: My legal Morocco Mole got it almost right: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/07/lee-applies-for-summary-judgement-against-ngerng/. By going for summary judgment, PM is saying Roy’s defence in BS. MM told me that PM’s lawyer was going to strike out defence. Going for summary judgment is more aggressive.)

Here’s a constructive suggestion to PM that will make him appear magnanimous and yet deter future libelers  and slanderes.

Below is my suggestion on what PM should ask Roy to do in return for accepting Roy’s published apology

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

and waiving damages.

PM should make Roy listen to Tharman’s CPF speech in parly on Tueday 10,000 times, continuously (with breaks for toilet and meals) in an unairconditioned room . At the end of the session, he must be able recite the speech word for word without any mistakes. If he can’t, he has to listen to the speech until he can recite it word for word.

And then he must write out the speech in longhand 100,000 times. That should be sufficient deterrent to others who want to defame PM. They might have to undergo similar treatment.

But then Maruah would object that this would amount to torture or cruel, unusual punishment. but then Maruah is the kind of organisation to object if the govt placed a middle-class activist in a cell with aircon, tv and internet access: guy must have personal toilet with a bidet.

But let’s be serious: what does a macho, man-biting talented footballer have to do with a gentle, unemployed gay S’porean star blogger with itchy fingers.

Both are celebrities. Both are braggadocios, despite their undoubted abilities (one with his footie wizardry, the other with word spinning). Both are full of self-confidence. And they enjoy changing their stories to fit their ends.

Suraez

“The truth is that my colleague Giorgio Chiellini suffered the physical result of a bite in the collision he suffered with me,” said Suarez in a statement.

Suarez has previously said he lost his balance and did not bite Chiellini.

The media reports that he changed his story after being told that Barcelona would not to buy a unrepentant Suarez.

Roy

After PM sued him for defamation, he was pretty quick to say on 23 May

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

Now (OK 17th June) he wrote:

“You know, when I wrote the article, it was never my intention to say that the prime minister had misappropriated the money. And I have never said this.” What about the apology Roy?

And his defence is now that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” against his client based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression*.

Err so why did he apologise in the first place? He now says he had no intention to libel and didn’t and anyway PM can’t sue him.

(Furthermore, his lawyer Ravi also denied allegations of malice on Ngerng’s part and also denied that the prime minister is entitled to aggravated damages.)

And given that the apology was not accepted, an apology that he could have continued using in his defence, and he has changed his defence, why hasn’t he come out to say the following is “inoperative” or “tak pakah”?

As it is

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

still stands and it is why PM’s press secretary is legally correct to say

I refer to the article “A butterfly on a wheel” (June 13th). You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng. This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation …

, despite a “Marxist Conspirator” saying AG should take action against her. Although a lawyer, she is talking rot.

Saying that the apology is no longer applicable, given that PM has refused to accept it  will  make sense of Ravi’s comments that the case is sub judice. As it stands, M** Ravi’s comment does not make sense because, it seems that so long as Roy doesn’t withdraw his posting of 23 May, the legal position is that he has admitted that he has defamed PM and that the only issue before the courts is that of damages.

My Morocco Mole in legal circles says that the PM’s lawyer will be making an application to strike out Roy’s defence that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression.

One gr0und is that Roy has apologised.

On the issue of whether the suit prevents S’poreans from discussing the CPF issue, a claim Maruah makes, Roy’s sifu, Uncle Leong, has written extensively on the issue, making most of the points that Roy claims he has discovered and exposed. Actually Uncle Leong has been telling us about these “discovered” dfacts fir yrs.

Yet Uncle Leong has not been sued or lauded like Roy because he has avoided making allegations of theft. His articles are factual.

Why is Uncle Leong is sifu? Roy came into prominence in 2012 (I think) when he co-authored with Uncle Leong a series of articles on the CPF system. Before that series, Roy was a no-body.

Related posts:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/who-is-right-pm-heart-truths-consumer-survey/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/constructive-suggestions-for-anti-pap-paper-warriors/

*”Derbyshire principle” that his myopic (or inability to count?) gf and sidekick chickened out of trying?

 When TRE relaunched, PM’s brother sued and Ravi wanted to defend TRE on the basis of Article 14. Richard Wan (elite school boy and scholar) found another lawyer to kai seow. TRE lived to fight another day.

**No jokes pls like that the “P” in “P Ravi” stands for “Politican”. It stands for Philemon.

PM talking cock? Impossible to know if trade-offs are reasonable, fair or appropriate

In Political governance, Temasek on 29/06/2014 at 4:49 am

(Or “Shades of Orwell’s Big Brother?”)

Came across this thoughtful piece by Andy Mukherjee over the weekend. It explains clearly the issues and trade-offs Singapore faces in building our ideal society, while ensuring that Singaporeans have jobs and economic opportunities to build better lives and a brighter future.
As the article points out, we do enjoy important advantages compared to other countries, but it will still not be easy. There are serious trade-offs, which we must be willing to acknowledge and address. If we just pretend that everything can be better, and no hard choices are necessary, we will get into trouble. Mukherjee calls this “please-all economics”, and expresses confidence that Singaporeans are too pragmatic to fall for it. We must make sure that he is right. – LHL on FB two weeks ago

Piece PM raving about: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/breakingviews-singapore-unrest-idINL4N0OQ07F20140612

But if we don’t know how much money we have, and how much are the returns the reserves are making for us, how can we judge if the trade-offs PM and his govt make are the right ones? After all he has as gd as admitted his govt got immigration, welfare, public tpt and public housing policies wrong by changing (sorry tweaking or is it evolving?) these policies.

And these were policies significant numbers (self included, and I note not M’sian new citizen Pussy Cat Lim who confines herself to general banalities) had been warning against for yrs. We were called “noise”, until the govt decided to change these policies.

This is what one LHL said many yrs ago when he was DPM and economic and financial czar:

The Singapore government, May 16, defended the secrecy surrounding its financial reserves of more than US$100 billion, saying it was not in the national interest to disclose details.
The veil of secrecy was necessary to protect the Singapore dollar from speculative attacks, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in parliament.

“It is not in the people’s interest and the nation’s interest to detail our assets and their yearly returns,” he said.http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010516a3.htm

This remains the govt’s stand.

And if I remember correctly, his dad once said that info reserves had to be kept a secret so that S’poreans couldn’t ask for more welfare, which they would if they knew how much money S’pore had. Readers correcting me or referencing the quote appreciated.I can’t find it via my googling.

In this mobile internet age, it is sad and self-defeating that the the PM and the PAP govt (ministers and civil servants) cling to the Leninist system that all information is political and can be designated a “state secret” at any time if the govt decides it does not help to bolster the govt’s or party’s own legitimacy and power.

BTW flaw in AndyM’s analysis which disqualifies from being an unbiased analyst

There is a fifth way which Mr Mukherjee has not considered. It is to reduce and reallocate government expenditures. In particular, the government can consider reduce defence spending so as to increase spending on welfare. This is a classic “Gun vs Butter” resource allocation problem studied in elementary economics. At present, Singapore is spending nearly a quarter of the $57 billion estimated government expenditures for FY2014 on defence alone (23% at $13 billion) … [TRE]

Maybe he aiming to be a PAP minister? He is a FT based here.

He did serious weight-lifting in 2011 at a Temasek briefing:First of all, congratulations on beating the sage of Omaha because [ … ] you seem to have out performed Warren Buffett on every horizon. He was BSing as Temasek and Berskshire cannot be compared ’cause Berkshire is listed, Temasek is not.

And if you think PM’s remarks on trade-offs when juxtaposed with his remarks  on the need for secrecy on reserves are Orwellian, his press secretary’s remarks in relation to Roy Ngerng are even more chilling:

… What is at stake is not any short-term positive or negative impact on the government, but the sort of public debate Singapore should have. When someone makes false and malicious personal allegations that impugn a person’s character or integrity, the victim has the right to vindicate his reputation, whether he is an ordinary citizen or the prime minister. The internet should not be exempt from the laws of defamation. It is perfectly possible to have a free and vigorous debate without defaming anyone, as occurs often in Singapore. Emphasis mine

Foster public debate by suing for defamation? Come on, pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it. I’m reminded of the slogans in 1984:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

 

 

SIR – I refer to the article “A butterfly on a wheel” (June 13th). You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng. This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation. After promising to apologise and to remove the post, Mr Ngerng did the opposite; he actively disseminated the libel further. This was a grave and deliberate defamation, whether it occurred online or in the traditional media being immaterial.

What is at stake is not any short-term positive or negative impact on the government, but the sort of public debate Singapore should have. When someone makes false and malicious personal allegations that impugn a person’s character or integrity, the victim has the right to vindicate his reputation, whether he is an ordinary citizen or the prime minister. The internet should not be exempt from the laws of defamation. It is perfectly possible to have a free and vigorous debate without defaming anyone, as occurs often in Singapore.

Chang Li Lin
Press secretary to the prime minister
Singapore

– See more at: http://www.economist.com/news/letters/21604530-ukraine-singapore-employment-housing-food-trucks-john-birch-society-football-0#sthash.lPfPUP1T.dpuf

 

Roy’s a real S’porean

In Political governance on 22/05/2014 at 10:22 am

Update on 24 May at 9.15am: PM is not happy with Roy’s apology because Roy has not offered to pay costs and damages. If I were PM’s lawyer, I’d be offended by Roy’s lawyer’s comments on my professional integrity and competency on the issue of costs.  I’d complain to to Law Society. M Ravi forgot to take his pills?

Let’s see if Roy continues to be garang. He’s made his bed, he has to lie in it.

—————–

I’ve heard from several usually reliable sources that Roy Ngerng is holding out on the issue of paying damages. He is willing to apologise to PM but not willing to be saddled with a huge debt (based on the precedents set by the cases lost by Dr Chee and JBJ) the amount can run to millions of $).

Well so Roy is a true-blue S’porean. Words are cheap, but money is a serious matter.

Well at least, we wouldn’t have to bear him pontificating on sacrifice. His willingness to apologise shows his mettle. JBJ or Chee would not apologise.

Actually PM’s been a patient man. I blogged this weeks ago saying Roy must be an alien for blogging

On govt stealing interest from CPF http://sonofadud.com/2014/04/04/cpf-and-hdb-10-real-dirty-tricks/

And on CPF contributions being a tax and CPF being theft despite this study ranking S’pore’s CPF system as the  7th best out of 20 pension systems analysed http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/042914/top-pension-systems-world.asp?utm_source=newstouse&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=NTU-4/30/2014

(https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/pm-police-chief-kirsten-hanheart-truths-are-aliens/)

PM needn’t have waited until Roy decided to compare the CPF system to criminal misappropriation. Roy had been making that point for a long time. Maybe PM was kooning and juz woke up? Or was working so hard trying to find answers to govt policy failures that have upset S’poreans? Think the tpt revamp.

What do you think?