-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
NMP Chia Yong Yong: CPF Is Not Your Money, You Cannot Call The Shots
- Thread starter xingguy
- Start date
right & never ever let them forget that either.
Most sinkees don't have you kind of dough lah.
You have been conned by the PAP ...you should have received $200,000 in returns, instead you got only $30k!!!!!!!!
Look at this paraplegic bitch Chia Yong Yong's CV:
She graduated from NUS with only a basic law degree in 1985 and since then, she has been working as a lawyer at the various firms:
1986: Lawyer, WT Woon & Company
1986 – 1988: Lawyer, Ramdas & Wong
1988 – 1990: Lawyer, WT Woon & Company
1990 – 1995: Lawyer, JYP Chia & Company
1995 – 1998: Lawyer & Partner, Tan Chye Chia & Looi
1998 – 2005: Lawyer & Partner, Foo Chia Partnership
2005 – 2012: Lawyer & Director, Goodwins Law Corporation
2012 – 2013: Lawyer, Yusarn Audrey
2013 – present: Lawyer & Partner, Yusarn Audrey
A rolling stone gathers no moss and the PAP who have run out good dogs and bitches have to resort to recruiting this paraplegic bitch.
From her track record this paraplegic must be a very quarrelsome bitch!
She graduated from NUS with only a basic law degree in 1985 and since then, she has been working as a lawyer at the various firms:
1986: Lawyer, WT Woon & Company
1986 – 1988: Lawyer, Ramdas & Wong
1988 – 1990: Lawyer, WT Woon & Company
1990 – 1995: Lawyer, JYP Chia & Company
1995 – 1998: Lawyer & Partner, Tan Chye Chia & Looi
1998 – 2005: Lawyer & Partner, Foo Chia Partnership
2005 – 2012: Lawyer & Director, Goodwins Law Corporation
2012 – 2013: Lawyer, Yusarn Audrey
2013 – present: Lawyer & Partner, Yusarn Audrey
A rolling stone gathers no moss and the PAP who have run out good dogs and bitches have to resort to recruiting this paraplegic bitch.
From her track record this paraplegic must be a very quarrelsome bitch!
And she doesn't even know the difference between a pooled fund and an individual account. So much about the PAP's ability to secure talents!
That's the point. Only a fool like Leongsam thinks otherwise. Employers aren't so stupid as the forum host.
[h=1]CHIA YONG YONG, PLS GO BACK TO THE HISTORY OF CPF[/h]
Post date:
5 Mar 2015 - 2:56pm
Background story: NMP Chia Yong Yong: CPF Should Remain Inflexible because Not all of it is "Our Money"
Dear Fellow Singaporeans,
According to one of the latest crop of NMP’s Ms Chia Yong Yong she is uncertain whether CPF money is her money.
If she is so uncertain what would she do if one of her ex-employers Ramdas and Wong were to put a claim on her CPF on the grounds that she has not been judicious in spending her withdrawn CPF?
What would she do if our government were to claim back what it had contributed to her account in the good budget years?
Would she appeal to the High Court and argue that such acts are not only unconstitutional and illogical but undermines the very faith that Singaporeans had placed in their little piggy bank for the past 50 years?
If Ms Chia Yong Yong lies prostrate and allows her ex-employer and the Singapore government to take back what is not hers then there is nothing much we can do to help her.
But for the rest of us who are not NMP”s and not beholden to the powers that be we must state loudly and clearly that we do want our CPF money back and the sooner the better. If these so-called NMP’s were to ever control Parliament then at the stroke of a pen or at a drop of a saliva our CPF money can vanish into the deep blue sea. No matter how judicious we want to be we will end up as beggars depending on our government on more handouts.
With due respect to Ms Chia she ought to go back to the history of the establishment of CPF and she ought to revisit the How Yoon Chong Report that proposed that the CPF money be released at age 60 but because of a cowardly government that did not dare to take the bull by its horns and instead initiated the so-called Back Door Minimum Sum Scheme this resulted in the current quandary that we are in.
It is not as if I do not respect the intellectual integrity and professional prowess of our NMP’s but the more besieged our power holders are the less rigorous are the standards of NMP selection.
Gone are the days of Walter Woon and Dr. Kwanwalit Soin who can help justify this rather undemocratic institution. But ultimately if the NMP catch is neither “fish nor fowl” and not accountable to the people then whatever they sprout in Parliament must be taken with a big pinch of salt.
Yours Sincerely,
Patrick Low
Post date:
5 Mar 2015 - 2:56pm
Background story: NMP Chia Yong Yong: CPF Should Remain Inflexible because Not all of it is "Our Money"
Dear Fellow Singaporeans,
According to one of the latest crop of NMP’s Ms Chia Yong Yong she is uncertain whether CPF money is her money.
If she is so uncertain what would she do if one of her ex-employers Ramdas and Wong were to put a claim on her CPF on the grounds that she has not been judicious in spending her withdrawn CPF?
What would she do if our government were to claim back what it had contributed to her account in the good budget years?
Would she appeal to the High Court and argue that such acts are not only unconstitutional and illogical but undermines the very faith that Singaporeans had placed in their little piggy bank for the past 50 years?
If Ms Chia Yong Yong lies prostrate and allows her ex-employer and the Singapore government to take back what is not hers then there is nothing much we can do to help her.
But for the rest of us who are not NMP”s and not beholden to the powers that be we must state loudly and clearly that we do want our CPF money back and the sooner the better. If these so-called NMP’s were to ever control Parliament then at the stroke of a pen or at a drop of a saliva our CPF money can vanish into the deep blue sea. No matter how judicious we want to be we will end up as beggars depending on our government on more handouts.
With due respect to Ms Chia she ought to go back to the history of the establishment of CPF and she ought to revisit the How Yoon Chong Report that proposed that the CPF money be released at age 60 but because of a cowardly government that did not dare to take the bull by its horns and instead initiated the so-called Back Door Minimum Sum Scheme this resulted in the current quandary that we are in.
It is not as if I do not respect the intellectual integrity and professional prowess of our NMP’s but the more besieged our power holders are the less rigorous are the standards of NMP selection.
Gone are the days of Walter Woon and Dr. Kwanwalit Soin who can help justify this rather undemocratic institution. But ultimately if the NMP catch is neither “fish nor fowl” and not accountable to the people then whatever they sprout in Parliament must be taken with a big pinch of salt.
Yours Sincerely,
Patrick Low
It is indeed pathetic that this handicapped lawyer does not see it fit to fight for the cause of the disabled, impoverished or undermined in SG society, but instead takes the same stance as the overbearing establishment.
She is in this for herself. Ingratiate herself to LHL, maybe she can become an MP too.
The fact that the PAP allows CPF to be used for property investments allowed me to achieve far more than $200,000 in returns.
If sinkies don't have my kind of dough, it is not my fault and it is not the fault of the PAP. Everyone is provided with the same opportunities.
Baloney. There is no equal opportunity. That is PAP bs.
Median takehome income is $1700 ...so how many sinkees have your kind of dough?
You don't seem to get the big picture ...you brag about your 30k interest earned for the year ...and I am telling you that you should have gotten $200k instead for that year but not for the cut taken by your master.
You have lost more in returns than the gains from your property sold.
The big picture is that I have done far better under the PAP than I would have under any other government and that is because the PAP allows far greater flexibility when it comes to managing the issue of retirement funds.
If other people don't do so well, it is not the fault of the PAP. It is their own fault. If the median income is only $1700, the problem lies in their genetic makeup. It is a known fact humans are not equal. No government can change the natural order of things.
Dumb governments try to equalize wealth. Smart governments work in harmony with nature instead of against it.
i also earned a profit selling my flat and making a windfall from cpf proceeds in that sale. with that lump sum, i was able to put a substantial down payment on my new home in order to secure a solid mortgage loan. the mortgage on that home has fully been paid off. this is all possible, thanks to the pap! 
i also earned a profit selling my flat and making a windfall from cpf proceeds in that sale. with that lump sum, i was able to put a substantial down payment on my new home in order to secure a solid mortgage loan. the mortgage on that home has fully been paid off. this is all possible, thanks to the pap!
Further proof that PAP is the BEST!!!! :p
What is good for you is not necessarily good for the rest of sinkees. We want a government to serve the majority, not just the rich.
If you have lots of dough, you can do wonders with it if you invest and not speculate. Most sinkees have their retirement funds tied up in their pigeon holes. How to grow that amount, like that?
You are in the top 10 percent, so you can't generalize your situation as the panacea for the woes of the masses.
So, what should the government do with this majority of average folks?
There is NO government that try to EQUALIZE wealth.
6 years after the financial meltdown and the global economy is still limbering along. So much for right-wing policies of low taxes and no regulation.
Consumption drives growth and when most of the wealth is in the hands of a minority, there is little room for growth. Please ponder.
a cripple in crippled parliament......!!
get out if you got nothing sensible to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
get out if you got nothing sensible to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
former Singtel from Lor 18 is oso best???
So why are u living in new Zealand instead of sinkieland?come back to sinkapour and live in harmony with nature instincts of PAP.
dont worry.... even the speaker of the house dont know much about civil servants and ministers on pension. so much about gong cheebye.
singtel was farking good... much better then M1. only BMW is one class better.
Similar threads
