bankrupted? Didn't he just visited Norway and UK?
-
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.
Power to Roy Ngerng
- Thread starter tonychat
- Start date
bankrupted? Didn't he just visited Norway and UK?
For someone to get bankrupt and this will cause another fucker to lose his job and forced to fuck off, I think this is a GOOD OUTCOME.
Oh btw, if the above happens, you too will be OUT OF YOUR STINKING JOB! LOL
Let's bring democracy to Singapore, to bring about a more "effective, inclusive and just" society to create a "successful, competitive" nation "that is "sustainable, creative and prosperous".
It's time we vote right and vote in a new government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans
Roy Ngerng
It's time we vote right and vote in a new government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans
Roy Ngerng
Of course, many Singaporeans are doing that now??? when is your turn?
Does the PAP think that Singaporeans are less "able" or that our service is less important?
Do you think this is "fair"?
It is time we vote for a government which will learn to treat Singaporeans with dignity and equally. It is time we have some self-respect and vote for a government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans.
Do you think this is "fair"?
It is time we vote for a government which will learn to treat Singaporeans with dignity and equally. It is time we have some self-respect and vote for a government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans.
FUCK your mother chao chee bye
where is that chee bye kia roy ng? donate already he MIA.
KAN NI NA BU CHAO CHEE BYE:oIo: :oIo:
where is that chee bye kia roy ng? donate already he MIA.
KAN NI NA BU CHAO CHEE BYE:oIo: :oIo:
Does the PAP think that Singaporeans are less "able" or that our service is less important?
Do you think this is "fair"?
It is time we vote for a government which will learn to treat Singaporeans with dignity and equally. It is time we have some self-respect and vote for a government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans.
Wow.. Papib crying pain... Go find your PAP master and get screwed in your ass.. Then less pain.
Another useless and poor attempt to insult people's intelligence.
Look who is talking !!!
Singaporeans have to decide the questions they should ask the PAP MPs who refuse to answer about the CPF. The PAP MPs have never answered to the questions on the lack of transparency and conflict of interest over the PAP government's management of the CPF. So far, silence. Are they hoping Singaporeans will forget?
(1) In the past, Singaporeans would talk about how the CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings but the government has never clarified on this. In 2012 and 2013, I wrote two articles which traced how the CPF is indeed invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings, from several government websites. Last year, I was told to take down these two articles and the PAP government then deleted the information that I had traced from its websites.
(2) The PAP government also claims that it "does not interfere" in the GIC's investment decisions and the GIC had up until last year said that it does not know if it manages the CPF because "it is not made explicit to them" by the government. However, the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers also sit on the GIC's board of directors, so there is a clear conflict of interest.
(3) In 2001, 2006 and 2007, the government also denied that the CPF is invested in the GIC. The then-GIC chairman, Lee Kuan Yew, did so in 2001 and 2006. In 2007, when The Workers' Party's Low Thia Khiang asked in parliament if the CPF is invested in the GIC, then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said no.
Up until now, the PAP government has never answered to these questions.
So far, silence.
Are they hoping Singaporeans will forget?
The PAP does not want to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans.
The only way Singaporeans will know the truth is when Singaporeans do what is right and vote in a new government which will answer to us.
It is time we treat ourselves with self-respect and vote for a new government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans.
(1) In the past, Singaporeans would talk about how the CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings but the government has never clarified on this. In 2012 and 2013, I wrote two articles which traced how the CPF is indeed invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings, from several government websites. Last year, I was told to take down these two articles and the PAP government then deleted the information that I had traced from its websites.
(2) The PAP government also claims that it "does not interfere" in the GIC's investment decisions and the GIC had up until last year said that it does not know if it manages the CPF because "it is not made explicit to them" by the government. However, the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers also sit on the GIC's board of directors, so there is a clear conflict of interest.
(3) In 2001, 2006 and 2007, the government also denied that the CPF is invested in the GIC. The then-GIC chairman, Lee Kuan Yew, did so in 2001 and 2006. In 2007, when The Workers' Party's Low Thia Khiang asked in parliament if the CPF is invested in the GIC, then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said no.
Up until now, the PAP government has never answered to these questions.
So far, silence.
Are they hoping Singaporeans will forget?
The PAP does not want to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans.
The only way Singaporeans will know the truth is when Singaporeans do what is right and vote in a new government which will answer to us.
It is time we treat ourselves with self-respect and vote for a new government that will take care of and protect Singaporeans.
SINGAPOREANS WITHIN THE ESTABLISHMENT ARE SPEAKING UP
(1) From Donald Low:
“This kind of meritocracy breeds a belief among its beneficiaries that they are entitled to their rewards, that the market system is inherently just, and that inequality is natural. They view those who have not succeeded in the system as slothful or lacking in merit — and thus undeserving of state support. Such a system increases resistance by the rich to the redistributive policies needed to address inequality.”
Corporate malfeasance imposes much larger costs on society than the so-called entitlement mentality of the poor addicted to government welfare.
It also means strengthening our social safety nets and other redistributive institutions, and ensuring a fairer allocation of risks between state and citizens.
Institutionalising dissent
In the long run, we are better off relying on a system of distributed intelligence, on Singapore having a diversity of ideas and competing options, than on a system that is critically dependent on a similar group of people, no matter how bright they might be.
I’m more worried about how the desire for control, harmony and stability might weaken the already weak incentives for policymakers to allow competing ideas to surface, and to subject these to serious debate and analysis,” he said. “In short, I’m less worried about the risks of polarisation than I am about the effects of incumbency, the inertia of the status quo, and the tyranny of old ideas.”
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/contain-singapore’s-rich-…
If the Government, with all its risk-pooling and demand aggregation ability, cannot finance that need sustainably, it is almost certainly impossible that households would be able to do so. The only serious alternative, therefore, is that those needs aren't financed at all - and that many Singaporeans' lives remain in misery as a result.
(1) From Donald Low:
“This kind of meritocracy breeds a belief among its beneficiaries that they are entitled to their rewards, that the market system is inherently just, and that inequality is natural. They view those who have not succeeded in the system as slothful or lacking in merit — and thus undeserving of state support. Such a system increases resistance by the rich to the redistributive policies needed to address inequality.”
Corporate malfeasance imposes much larger costs on society than the so-called entitlement mentality of the poor addicted to government welfare.
It also means strengthening our social safety nets and other redistributive institutions, and ensuring a fairer allocation of risks between state and citizens.
Institutionalising dissent
In the long run, we are better off relying on a system of distributed intelligence, on Singapore having a diversity of ideas and competing options, than on a system that is critically dependent on a similar group of people, no matter how bright they might be.
I’m more worried about how the desire for control, harmony and stability might weaken the already weak incentives for policymakers to allow competing ideas to surface, and to subject these to serious debate and analysis,” he said. “In short, I’m less worried about the risks of polarisation than I am about the effects of incumbency, the inertia of the status quo, and the tyranny of old ideas.”
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/contain-singapore’s-rich-…
If the Government, with all its risk-pooling and demand aggregation ability, cannot finance that need sustainably, it is almost certainly impossible that households would be able to do so. The only serious alternative, therefore, is that those needs aren't financed at all - and that many Singaporeans' lives remain in misery as a result.
Roy is so intelligent to be able to trace and find out all these by himself. He is an example of a young and intelligent Singaporean!
http://thehearttruths.com/2015/03/16/what-you-should-ask-the-pap-government-about-singaporeans-cpf/
What You Should Ask the PAP Government about Singaporeans’ CPF
By Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Roy Ngerng
The PAP has sent out its activists to give out flyers in the Aljunied GRC to ask residents to question the Worker’s Party on its finances.
But even as the PAP claims that there are “serious problems” with the Worker’s Party financial management, the PAP government’s management of the CPF funds of Singaporeans is equally questionable. We wrote up some questions in the design of a flyer.
Please feel free to print out and distribute this flyer to ask Singaporeans to question the PAP government on its management of our CPF and why the PAP has not been transparent.
Dear Singaporeans,
The PAP government has refused to come clean on some serious problems that will affect you.
1) Improper Governance
The PAP government has given $275 billion of our CPF pension funds to the GIC and Temasek Holdings to invest. The PAP government said that it does not interfere in the GIC’s investment decisions and the GIC up until last year said that it does not know if it uses our CPF because it said that this is not made explicit to them by the PAP government. However, the GIC is chaired by the Singapore prime minister and the board of directors are also made up of the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers. Temasek Holdings is also managed by the prime minister’s wife. It is not known how much she is paid and how her salary is determined. The PAP government and GIC certify their own work and pay themselves, with little checks and would not release transparent and full reports.
2) Overcharging by the PAP Government
From 1974 to 1986, we were earning 6.5% on our CPF. The PAP government then said that it would peg the CPF interest rates to the banks’ interest rates to give us higher returns but since 1986, the CPF interest rates have instead been dropping and dropping until it has reached the lowest at 2.5% (on the Ordinary Account).
Compared to the other countries, the PAP government charges the highest investment costs to manage Singaporeans’ CPF and gives the lowest returns. This is our “lost money”. It means we have less money to retire on and to pay for our housing, healthcare and education.
WHAT YOU SHOULD ASK THE PAP GOVERNMENT Pension Fund Returns 2014
Sources: Sweden, Switzerland, India, Australia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore
3) GIC and Temasek Lost More than $100 Billion in 2008
In 2008, GIC and Temasek Holdings lost $117 billion, which was nearly 80% of the value of our CPF at that time. In 2008, the PAP government then suddenly increased the CPF Minimum Sum. We do not know if our CPF has been used to paid for these losses because the PAP government has never submitted transparent and full reports.
The PAP government deliberately remained silent to important queries posed by Singaporeans.
You deserve immediate answers to the following questions:
What You Should Ask the PAP Government about Singaporeans’ CPF
By Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Roy Ngerng
The PAP has sent out its activists to give out flyers in the Aljunied GRC to ask residents to question the Worker’s Party on its finances.
But even as the PAP claims that there are “serious problems” with the Worker’s Party financial management, the PAP government’s management of the CPF funds of Singaporeans is equally questionable. We wrote up some questions in the design of a flyer.
Please feel free to print out and distribute this flyer to ask Singaporeans to question the PAP government on its management of our CPF and why the PAP has not been transparent.
Dear Singaporeans,
The PAP government has refused to come clean on some serious problems that will affect you.
1) Improper Governance
The PAP government has given $275 billion of our CPF pension funds to the GIC and Temasek Holdings to invest. The PAP government said that it does not interfere in the GIC’s investment decisions and the GIC up until last year said that it does not know if it uses our CPF because it said that this is not made explicit to them by the PAP government. However, the GIC is chaired by the Singapore prime minister and the board of directors are also made up of the two deputy prime ministers, several ministers and ex-ministers. Temasek Holdings is also managed by the prime minister’s wife. It is not known how much she is paid and how her salary is determined. The PAP government and GIC certify their own work and pay themselves, with little checks and would not release transparent and full reports.
2) Overcharging by the PAP Government
From 1974 to 1986, we were earning 6.5% on our CPF. The PAP government then said that it would peg the CPF interest rates to the banks’ interest rates to give us higher returns but since 1986, the CPF interest rates have instead been dropping and dropping until it has reached the lowest at 2.5% (on the Ordinary Account).
Compared to the other countries, the PAP government charges the highest investment costs to manage Singaporeans’ CPF and gives the lowest returns. This is our “lost money”. It means we have less money to retire on and to pay for our housing, healthcare and education.
WHAT YOU SHOULD ASK THE PAP GOVERNMENT Pension Fund Returns 2014
Sources: Sweden, Switzerland, India, Australia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore
3) GIC and Temasek Lost More than $100 Billion in 2008
In 2008, GIC and Temasek Holdings lost $117 billion, which was nearly 80% of the value of our CPF at that time. In 2008, the PAP government then suddenly increased the CPF Minimum Sum. We do not know if our CPF has been used to paid for these losses because the PAP government has never submitted transparent and full reports.
The PAP government deliberately remained silent to important queries posed by Singaporeans.
You deserve immediate answers to the following questions:
- Why did the PAP government say that it does not interfere in the GIC when it sits on the board of directors of the GIC?
- How much did the PAP government, GIC and Temasek Holdings earn from our CPF and how much are Singaporeans losing?
- Why did the PAP government charge higher investment costs than other countries to manage our CPF?
- Why did the PAP government take our CPF to earn 6% to 16% in the GIC and Temasek Holdings but return only 2.5% to 4%?
- What is the latest financial situation at the CPF, GIC and Temasek Holdings and will the PAP submit full reports?
- You can print out and distribute this flyer to ask Singaporeans to question the PAP on its management of our CPF and why the PAP has not been transparent.
Similar threads
