How PAP hoodwinked Singaporeans with statistics - a MUST READ!

[kojakbt]

Playing around with statistics, PAP-style

September 13th, 2010 |

Author: Your Correspondent

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/09/13/playing-around-with-statistics-pap-style/#comment-192035

OPINION

The PAP regime loves to use statistics to buttress its claims that it is governing well and therefore deserving of the highest salaries among political leaders in the world.

Little is it known that the statistics give only half the story and not the complete picture of the reality on the ground. With the mainstream media firmly in its control and the academicians silenced, PAP leaders can simply pluck figures out of nowhere to confuse, mislead and hoodwink Singaporeans.

Let us examine the statistics quoted by PM Lee in his recent National Day Rally speech followed by that made by other PAP leaders.

1. GDP growth of between 13 to 15 percent this year:

PAP leaders are obsessed with GDP figures and often use the numbers to convince Singaporeans that the country is prospering under its rule.

Not surprisingly, PM Lee quoted the economic growth forecast of between 13 to 15 percent this year to support his claims that the Singapore economy is booming which justify the need for more foreign workers.
What PM Lee did not tell us is that the figures are merely a “rebound” from the contraction in our economy we suffered in 2008 as a result of the global financial crisis.

Singapore’s economy shrunk by 6.6 percent in 2008 and 2.1 percent in 2009. Considering the fact that our GDP has decreased by 8.7 percent in the last two years, it really only “grow” at between 5 – 7 percent this year which is not a stellar performance compared to that of regional economies including politically unstable Thailand (7 percent).

Furthermore, the growth is not entirely unexpected with the worldwide recovery from the financial crisis. When Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into recession in 2008, PAP leaders claimed that there was nothing much they can do about it as being an open economy, Singapore is heavily dependent on the performance of the global economy. Hence, Singapore’s GDP growth this year can be attributed more to the recovery of the global economy than to the stewardship of the PAP regime.

GDP growth is hardly an accurate indicator of the quality of life in any country and has come under intense criticisms from many well-known economists such as Nobel Laureate Joseph Stilgitz.

PM Lee only waxed lyrical about GDP growth, but chose not to highlight the other aspects of the economy to Singaporeans:

- median income wages of Singaporeans which has remained more or less stagnant at $2,400 monthly for the last ten years.
- the widening income gap between the poor and the rich.
- the percentage of GDP gains which goes to the foreigners.
In other words, though the Singapore economy is growing, the fruits of its growth is not shared equally among all Singaporeans and it does not necessarily translate into a better life for most of us as the cost of living, especially that of public housing has far outpaced growth in real wages.

2. Low unemployment rate of 2.2 percent:

PM Lee used our “low” unemployment rate of 2.2 percent to dismiss the concerns of Singaporeans that foreigners are taking away our jobs.

Not only is the figure highly inaccurate, it is unbelievable as well. The Manpower Ministry lumps Singapore citizens together with PRs in all its statistics.

The 2.2 percent unemployment rate includes that of PRs too which means that the actual unemployment rate for Singapore citizens may be higher as PRs usually need to hold a stable job before their application for Singapore PR are approved in the first place.

The figure also does not include Singaporeans who have give up looking for a job altogether or those on short-term contract jobs.

MOM also does not publish the underemployment rate for Singapore citizens which may be a more accurate reflection of the reality on the ground since it includes those who are on contract jobs.

3. Majority of Chinese immigrants in last ten years come from Malaysia:

PM Lee tried to reassure Singaporeans that they are not being “overwhelmed” by the mainland Chinese with another half-baked statistics – he said that Singapore accepted 81,000 Malaysian Chinese as citizens between 1999 and 2009 as compared to only 13,000 mainland Chinese.

What he did not tell us is the fact that the mainland Chinese only start coming to Singapore somewhere after 2006 when the flood-gates are flung open for them and the Malaysians have been coming to Singapore for the last thirty years or so.

In order to enable Singaporeans to assess the situation better, PM Lee should give us a breakdown of the origins of the immigrants who were given Singapore citizenship in each of the following year between 1999 – 2009 which will tell us if the numbers of immigrants from China are growing.

We need to know if the percentage of mainland Chinese among the immigrants is on an upward or downward trend over the last decade so as to reach a reasonable conclusion if Singapore is indeed being “sincized” by the PAP’s immigration policy.

This piece of important statistic is glaringly missing from the Department of Statistics. Why are they hiding it from us?

4. Singapore needs immigration due to its low Total Fertility Rate of 1.22:

A few days after the National Day Rally, PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew defended the PAP’s ultra-liberal immigration policies that Singapore needs immigration to boost its low Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.22, which is well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

In an interview with Straits Times, he added that he hopes the newcomers will increase our TFR by having two or more children.

What was not mentioned is the fact that the immigrants aren’t increasing our TFR at all for the last ten years.
Between the years 1999 and 2009, the number of citizens and PRs had increased by 504,200 though the total population had exploded by 1,028,900. [See Ref #1 below]
The Resident Live Births in 1998 was 41,636 and only 37,277 in 2008 – the TFR actually dropped from 1.48 in 1998 to 2.08 in 2008. [See Ref #2 below]
If the immigrants are having more children than Singaporeans as claimed by Lee, then our TFR should actually increase and not decrease.

Lee should reveal the TFR for the new citizens for the last ten years for Singaporeans to judge for themselves if they do contribute to our fertility. If their TFR is less than 2.1, it can only mean that the immigrants are not having more children as they are subjected to the same financial constraints as native Singaporeans.

To compound matters, the immigrants will grow old too in a few years’ time which will only impose an increasing strain on our stretched public healthcare system.

Are the new citizens increasing our birth rates or our aging population?

5. Low income tax of 18 percent:

It is a common public misperception that Singapore has one of the lowest income rate in the world at only 18 percent and we need to pay more taxes if the government were to provide more social welfare benefits for us.
What is lesser known is the fact that Singaporeans are indirectly taxed by other charges such as GST, ERP, COE which actually increase our “contributions” to the state.

It is also not true that all citizens of welfare states like Australia have to pay taxes amounting to 50 percent of their annual income. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have a bracket-based income tax system like ours – only the top income earners have to pay close to 50 percent of income tax while the middle class pay between 20 to 30 percent of their income with the poor paying nothing at all.

Though the citizens of these states have to pay higher taxes, they enjoy higher wages and domestic purchasing power than Singaporeans and not forgetting the fact that their education and healthcare are completely paid for by the state.

6. CPF’s interest rates of 2.5 percent is higher than the banks’:

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong defended the CPF system on the grounds that it offers Singaporeans a guaranteed interest rate of 2.5 percent which is not found in any financial institutions.

What Singaporeans are kept in the dark about is the fact that the CPF’s interest rate is far below the annual inflation rate of 3 – 6 percent meaning that our CPF savings actually lose value over the years.

Besides, most of our CPF funds are tied up with our mortgage loans and not earning any interest from the state in the ordinary accounts. If we sell our homes, we will have to pay CPF the “interest” which would have accrued had the funds remained in our OAs and not used to pay for the housing loans!

Lastly, let us not forget the fact that we will probably never get back our entire CPF before we die. Under CPF Life, we can only withdraw a monthly amount from our CPF accounts a

7. Median income outstripped resale home prices:

In an extensive interview with the Straits Times on 7 April 2010 to defend his dismal track record, Mr Mah claimed that contrary to populat opinion, housing prices have not moved faster than household incomes in the past decade.

To substantiate his claims, he revealed figures collated by the HDB and Department of Statistics which shows that the median household incomes actually outstripped resale home prices from 1999 to 2009:

“So, when people say prices have moved faster than incomes, it’s not true…Realistically, in the last 10 years, prices have moved in tandem with income – except the last year. And this was an anomaly,” Mr Mah added.
[Source: Straits Times, 7 April 2010]

His fuzzy statistics was later debunked by Reform Party CEC member Hazel Poa, a former PSC scholar.
The statistics used by Mr Mah appeared to be so because the prices of resale HDB flats are low and remain stagnant during the years 2000 – 2006:

As we can see from the above figures, the RPI remains in the range of 101 – 104 from 2000 to 2006 and only start picking up in 2007 before reaching a record high in 150.8.

The price increase is contributed largely by the rising demand fueled by immigration in the face of limited supply of new flats built by HDB.

Now if the base year is shifted to 2006 when the prices start picking up instead of 1999, the graph will appear to be drastically different:

[Source: Hazel Poa's blog]

As the above graph has depicted clearly, if the base year of 2006 is used, the resale price index (RPI) would have far outstripped that of median household income (MHI)

Conclusion

Remember the famous saying by Mark Twain:
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics”

The next time a PAP leader plucks some obscure figures out of thin air, stop and ponder for a while and you will soon realize that you have been ”smoked”.

 

[leetahbah]

Isn't this what CSJ said in his speech in response to PM Lee speech?

TR stealing ideas from CSJ??

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

the problem with this is you can reveal all the pappy's untruths and fuck ups and mind you it's chock full everywhere even in more popular forums but then so what?


When it comes down to crunch time. Voting time, i believe pap still has a stranglehold on things.

No matter what has been said and done. No matter how much of such info how much of it is seen by the common man in front of his own eyes as evidenced by anyone walking on the streets of sg for eg, i believe that pap will still win the coming election. Ppl will kpkb about it and simply accept it.

 

[singveld]

that is what happen when you fill the departments with scholars. They give you numbers.

 

[kojakbt]

Isn't this what CSJ said in his speech in response to PM Lee speech?

TR stealing ideas from CSJ??

Doesn't matter where it came from lah... impt thing is to spread the msg around to get more 66.6% to swing against PAP this time...

 

[cass888]

The PAP regime loves to use statistics to buttress its claims that it is governing well and therefore deserving of the highest salaries among political leaders in the world.

Little is it known that the statistics give only half the story and not the complete picture of the reality on the ground. With the mainstream media firmly in its control and the academicians silenced, PAP leaders can simply pluck figures out of nowhere to confuse, mislead and hoodwink Singaporeans.

Let us examine the statistics quoted by PM Lee in his recent National Day Rally speech followed by that made by other PAP leaders.

1. GDP growth of between 13 to 15 percent this year:

Oh kojakbt, let's just do it.

PAP leaders are obsessed with GDP figures and often use the numbers to convince Singaporeans that the country is prospering under its rule.

Not surprisingly, PM Lee quoted the economic growth forecast of between 13 to 15 percent this year to support his claims that the Singapore economy is booming which justify the need for more foreign workers.
What PM Lee did not tell us is that the figures are merely a “rebound” from the contraction in our economy we suffered in 2008 as a result of the global financial crisis.

The beginning of the lie befitting the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan. PM Lee actually bothered to mentioned that the growth rate only measured only 5+% and that we couldn't survive without the FTs.

Singapore’s economy shrunk by 6.6 percent in 2008 and 2.1 percent in 2009.

Considering the fact that our GDP has decreased by 8.7 percent in the last two years, it really only “grow” at between 5 – 7 percent this year which is not a stellar performance compared to that of regional economies including politically unstable Thailand (7 percent).

Read above. Our PM Lee actually acknowledged it, but you, like the MONGREL who bit his masters' hands LOUDHAILER chee soon juan pretended he didnt.

Furthermore, the growth is not entirely unexpected with the worldwide recovery from the financial crisis. When Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into recession in 2008, PAP leaders claimed that there was nothing much they can do about it as being an open economy, Singapore is heavily dependent on the performance of the global economy. Hence, Singapore’s GDP growth this year can be attributed more to the recovery of the global economy than to the stewardship of the PAP regime.

Didn't PM Lee acknowledge just as much? And that is why we need more FTs to displace the useless hasbeens still looking to the rent of the past.

GDP growth is hardly an accurate indicator of the quality of life in any country and has come under intense criticisms from many well-known economists such as Nobel Laureate Joseph Stilgitz.

PM Lee only waxed lyrical about GDP growth, but chose not to highlight the other aspects of the economy to Singaporeans:

Sorry, the economy is just fine for most of us average Singaporeans.

median income wages of Singaporeans[/B] which has remained more or less stagnant at $2,400 monthly for the last ten years.
- the widening income gap between the poor and the rich.

Where is it not happening? The world's bastion of democracy, the US? Or China, a communist country.[/QUOTE]

- the percentage of GDP gains which goes to the foreigners.

Rubbish. Just because it doesn't go to you doesn't mean it goes to foreigners. By the way, I am local and Singaporean.

In other words, though the Singapore economy is growing, the fruits of its growth is not shared equally among all Singaporeans and it does not necessarily translate into a better life for most of us as the cost of living, especially that of public housing has far outpaced growth in real wages.

Speak for yourself. And to anticipate your next question, I am not in a GLC.

Low unemployment rate of 2.2 percent:

PM Lee used our “low” unemployment rate of 2.2 percent to dismiss the concerns of Singaporeans that foreigners are taking away our jobs.

Not only is the figure highly inaccurate, it is unbelievable as well. The Manpower Ministry lumps Singapore citizens together with PRs in all its statistics.

The 2.2 percent unemployment rate includes that of PRs too[/B] which means that the actual unemployment rate for Singapore citizens may be higher as PRs usually need to hold a stable job before their application for Singapore PR are approved in the first place.

The figure also does not include Singaporeans who have give up looking for a job altogether or those on short-term contract jobs.

MOM also does not publish the underemployment rate for Singapore citizens which may be a more accurate reflection of the reality on the ground since it includes those who are on contract jobs.

Go find out if the US includes their green-card people in their unemployment rates.

3. Majority of Chinese immigrants in last ten years come from Malaysia

PM Lee tried to reassure Singaporeans that they are not being “overwhelmed” by the mainland Chinese with another half-baked statistics – he said that Singapore accepted 81,000 Malaysian Chinese as citizens between 1999 and 2009 as compared to only 13,000 mainland Chinese.

What he did not tell us is the fact that the mainland Chinese only start coming to Singapore somewhere after 2006 when the flood-gates are flung open for them and the Malaysians have been coming to Singapore for the last thirty years or so.... [other rubbish]...

Your're making the argument, you give us the statistics.

 

[sammymugabe]

5. Low income tax of 18 percent:

It is a common public misperception that Singapore has one of the lowest income rate in the world at only 18 percent and we need to pay more taxes if the government were to provide more social welfare benefits for us.
What is lesser known is the fact that Singaporeans are indirectly taxed by other charges such as GST, ERP, COE which actually increase our “contributions” to the state.

It is also not true that all citizens of welfare states like Australia have to pay taxes amounting to 50 percent of their annual income. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have a bracket-based income tax system like ours – only the top income earners have to pay close to 50 percent of income tax while the middle class pay between 20 to 30 percent of their income with the poor paying nothing at all.

Though the citizens of these states have to pay higher taxes, they enjoy higher wages and domestic purchasing power than Singaporeans and not forgetting the fact that their education and healthcare are completely paid for by the state.

6. CPF’s interest rates of 2.5 percent is higher than the banks’:

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong defended the CPF system on the grounds that it offers Singaporeans a guaranteed interest rate of 2.5 percent which is not found in any financial institutions.

What Singaporeans are kept in the dark about is the fact that the CPF’s interest rate is far below the annual inflation rate of 3 – 6 percent meaning that our CPF savings actually lose value over the years.

Besides, most of our CPF funds are tied up with our mortgage loans and not earning any interest from the state in the ordinary accounts. If we sell our homes, we will have to pay CPF the “interest” which would have accrued had the funds remained in our OAs and not used to pay for the housing loans!

Lastly, let us not forget the fact that we will probably never get back our entire CPF before we die. Under CPF Life, we can only withdraw a monthly amount from our CPF accounts a

There are somethings strangely inaccurate about what you pasted above.

First, it is a fact that Canada, Australia, NZ (and the US and UK btw) have far far higher tax rates. This applies to all the brackets- the top, high, middle and lower income earners.

I'm not sure how much you earn, but I find it strange that you aren't aware of this very common knowledge that all my friends know. We have done countless comparisons with different countries, many of which we studied in, to arrive at the conclusion that Singapore has practically one of the best and most sound tax systems in the world.

Someone who made $120k per annum here, only pays 5% income tax. ($6k, before rebates and reliefs kick in). Someone who makes the same amount in any of the countries stated above, easily pays between 30 to 50 per cent, depending on which of these countries above.

The tax system in SG is actually one of the few things I feel was well thought out and would make me consider not leaving.

It places the penalty on the spender instead of putting the weight on high income earners on an unbalanced manner, which goes against the spirit of meritocracy and high achieving. Tax generators like GST, ERP and COE, are in place in order to fulfil this vision. If you choose to drive and own a car or take taxis regularly, go to Europe holidays every month and buy big ass 52 inch flat screens, you shall pay MORE ERP and COE and GST and contribute to the tax coffers. It does not place a weight on simply the fact that you have done well in life based on your merit and intellect, which is what an income tax heavy system does. In other words, the more you spend (which is an indicator of your means in any case), the more you are penalised.

This is a system that I think was very clearly borne out of extremely sound critical thinking, yes, by people with helicopter view. Yes, I can actually believe this is by the scholars.

Did you also know the rationale for ERP, and how it was meant to allow more Singaporeans to drive and own a car despite the limited size of the island, using staggered timings? After ERP was imposed, the price of COE practically halved. Even at its peak, COE today is half of the peak of COE in the pre-ERP days. COE is the highest barrier (price-wise) to car ownership. So reducing the COE and making up for the reduction to the tax coffers with ERP means there is a system of staggered car usership. By placing a premium on the peak times of usership, it becomes staggered. In other words, if you want to use it at the peak, you can, just pay. If not, use it at non peaks. This is also thought of by a scholar, Lee Hsien Loong.

Btw, i could be wrong but I don't recall the interest rate for CPF to be 2.5%. Isn't it 5%?

 

[pocoyo]

that is what happen when you fill the departments with scholars. They give you numbers.

They give you numbers.

In return, we give them a lot of numbers in their pay-cheque.

 

[Glaringly]

You obviously are comparing apples to oranges here.

Have you factor in what's the benefits you get from those foreign "higher taxes", comparing our pure tax system that gives nothing back to you?

Besides, pension, un-employment benefits, free education, lower medical, dentistry, and a host of others claim back...

Here we have to top up indirect taxes like annuity ( pathetic payout ), Medicare which have lot's of rule that you have to ends up paying with a lot of your own cash!

Besides, here we are paying market rate for a lot of basic services.

There are somethings strangely inaccurate about what you pasted above.

First, it is a fact that Canada, Australia, NZ (and the US and UK btw) have far far higher tax rates. This applies to all the brackets- the top, high, middle and lower income earners.

I'm not sure how much you earn, but I find it strange that you aren't aware of this very common knowledge that all my friends know. We have done countless comparisons with different countries, many of which we studied in, to arrive at the conclusion that Singapore has practically one of the best and most sound tax systems in the world.

Someone who made $120k per annum here, only pays 5% income tax. ($6k, before rebates and reliefs kick in). Someone who makes the same amount in any of the countries stated above, easily pays between 30 to 50 per cent, depending on which of these countries above.

The tax system in SG is actually one of the few things I feel was well thought out and would make me consider not leaving.

 

[sammymugabe]

You obviously are comparing apples to oranges here.

Have you factor in what's the benefits you get from those foreign "higher taxes", comparing our pure tax system that gives nothing back to you?

Besides, pension, un-employment benefits, free education, lower medical, dentistry, and a host of others claim back...

Here we have to top up indirect taxes like annuity ( pathetic payout ), Medicare which have lot's of rule that you have to ends up paying with a lot of your own cash!

Besides, here we are paying market rate for a lot of basic services.

I'm amused by your post, because even before I logged in, I already wanted to say something, which incidentally directly answers you.

No, I'm not comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing tax systems. And its NOT TRUE that the countries I named have free education and free acceptable healthcare.

You, are just like one of the gullible thousands who possess these two factors: 1) have not lived outside Singapore and 2) believe in anything you read that suits your agenda.

Not sure about NZ, as I have less experience with it, education is NOT free in the US, the UK and Australia.

In the US, citizens pay about S$400k for four years of tuition in its private universities (the Ivy League, MIT, Stanford, Chicago, John Hopkins, Caltech these are among the private universities in the states and many top universities are private, leaving many smart people with the brains to get in taking up hefty loans). There is no subsidy at all. Americans do get subsidised in public universities (which Singaporeans do not. Lots of gullible Singaporeans think that going to a US public university is cheaper for them, these people are retards), but it still costs about S$200-300k in tuition fees. This is why many Americans talk about spending the first 5 to 7 years of their working life paying off tuition loan.

In the UK, citizens do NOT get university education and most get by with bank loans unless they are rich enough to be funded by parents. One of my ex-es, a BBC took up a bank loan for her degree in LSE. Non citizens pay about 6 times more.

In Australia, university fees are much cheaper for citizens but NOT free. They pay about 5 to 10%, the same rate as what Singaporeans pay if they go to our farmer universities.

University is free in Canada for its citizens. But why do you think it only has a population (33 million) that's 1/10 the size of the population of the US (more than 300 million), despite the fact that US citizens don't get free university education? Go and try to figure out.

Talk about free healthcare? Do you know the costs of health insurance in the states?

Free healthcare in the UK? Sure there is. If you are ok waiting 4-5 years for your FREE heart surgery under its infamous NHS system. You may also like to know that in the UK, non-citizens like students and PRs also get to use NHS because I DID!!!

I've always known that the temasekreview amateur clowns are a bunch of embarrassing nobodies and frogs in the well with low IQ. Now its clearer than ever. before they write another one of their embarrassing cringe-worthy articles, they may want to recruit some people into their loser fold, who's actually lived outside of this tiny pathetic island.

 

[Glaringly]

You, are just like one of the gullible thousands who possess these two factors: 1) have not lived outside Singapore and 2) believe in anything you read that suits your agenda.

Unfortunately, I lived and worked in a developed country for couple of years, sure you are disappointed. I even bought a house and sold it before coming back. Yes, I paid high taxes in excess of 30% but I am happy. And again disappoint you, I am eligible to claim pension even while I am no longer residing in that country now.

I said free education and it does not meant all the way to University. Check around before you want to rebuke other's view. You actually doesn't say much except comparing University cost?! Tell me more about what you have heard?

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Someone who made $120k per annum here, only pays 5% income tax. ($6k, before rebates and reliefs kick in). Someone who makes the same amount in any of the countries stated above, easily pays between 30 to 50 per cent, depending on which of these countries above.

This is the problem with taxation in Singapore. It's heavily skewed towards the PAP's fascist ideologies. The best way to deal with fascists is to kick them out of being able to govern.

The PAP has failed miserably in terms of providing affordable housing, decent and common sense job security, a viable and progressive education system, convenient and punctual public transport system, efficient and affordable healthcare system and a viable pension fund for its citizens.

Any political party that cannot offer the above should not be allowed to govern!

Singapore citizens have to sleep along hospital corridors due to the lack of proper hospital beds. Singapore citizens have to wait between 3-6 months before seeing a government specialist doctor or dentist.

Public housing costs have skyrocketed to the extent that pension funds have to be channeled to pay for these overly priced homes which are mortgaged at an average of 25 years. With no state assisted job security against cheap foreign workers from 3rd world countries every citizen is walking on a tightrope should a recession occur.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Btw, i could be wrong but I don't recall the interest rate for CPF to be 2.5%. Isn't it 5%?

There is a lot that you don't know and yet you come here and spout your garbage as though it is the universal truth!

I digress a little and ask you a simple question, what good does Temasek and GIC investments do for Singaporeans and Singapore? What is the purpose of these investments and their proceeds?

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

I've always known that the temasekreview amateur clowns are a bunch of embarrassing nobodies and frogs in the well with low IQ. Now its clearer than ever. before they write another one of their embarrassing cringe-worthy articles, they may want to recruit some people into their loser fold, who's actually lived outside of this tiny pathetic island.

I too am embarrassed by people like you who know very little and yet have the audacity to put others down for speaking their point of view.

A fascist regime such as the PAP needs to be countered at every opportunity. Any time the opportunity to stand up for the masses against a tyrannical regime such as the PAP, one must not waste the opportunity.

 

[Glaringly]

I too am embarrassed by people like you who know very little and yet have the audacity to put others down for speaking their point of view.

I find it very amusing when PAP MSM or their supporters speaks about high taxes in the developed world, they always conveniently leave out the biggest benefits to the tax payers that is "Pension".

Pension allows the tax payers to retire without worries about their continual expenses. And in most cases it allows them to continue living without the need to lower their standard of living. Unlike our "annuity scheme", it couldn't even cover the inflationary cost and you could barely survive without depending on other source of income. It's a big joke!

And also with pension system, you have a choice of "fund managers" to select and grow your pension well above the inflationary rate, unlike in Singapore, you are not given a choice and the money you put in, actually becomes smaller by the time you can withdraw.

 

[rodent2005]

Your're making the argument, you give us the statistics.

If the PAP wants to remain in a job, they better explain the statistics. Of course they can don't give a damn and fuck off.

 

[jw5]

If the PAP wants to remain in a job, they better explain the statistics. Of course they can don't give a damn and fuck off.

It's funny how they manage not to give a damn and still remain.
And I don't mean funny haha.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

I find it very amusing when PAP MSM or their supporters speaks about high taxes in the developed world, they always conveniently leave out the biggest benefits to the tax payers that is "Pension".

Pension allows the tax payers to retire without worries about their continual expenses. And in most cases it allows them to continue living without the need to lower their standard of living. Unlike our "annuity scheme", it couldn't even cover the inflationary cost and you could barely survive without depending on other source of income. It's a big joke!

And also with pension system, you have a choice of "fund managers" to select and grow your pension well above the inflationary rate, unlike in Singapore, you are not given a choice and the money you put in, actually becomes smaller by the time you can withdraw.

The layperson in Singapore pays exorbitantly higher taxes than any other of their counterparts in a developed country. Just calculate the amount that each one of them subsidizes the HDB by purchasing an overly priced home which then goes on to suck out the life of their pensions and you will understand why.

The PAPies are a fascist regime and this is not to be discounted. Fascists are only interested in profits and have very little care for those that cannot contribute to the economy. Those within the masses that can and are willing to contribute to the economy are drafted into a state-wide, life-long journey of unrequited homage to the elite group of fascists that govern the country.

Fascism is dangerous and sucks the life out of the masses. Fascism has to be stopped. The PAP is a fascist political party.

Please vote them out. There is sufficient information out on the web on fascism. You will see that there are a lot of similarities between the PAP and fascism.

Merdeka from PAP! Merdeka for Singapore! MERDEKA!!!!!!!!

 

[Watchman]

Times are bad everywhere !

Set fire to claim losses .

 

[methink]

Fascism is dangerous and sucks the life out of the masses. Fascism has to be stopped. The PAP is a fascist political party.

Please vote them out. There is sufficient information out on the web on fascism. You will see that there are a lot of similarities between the PAP and fascism.

Merdeka from PAP! Merdeka for Singapore! MERDEKA!!!!!!!!

Yes we need to kick the fascist PAP out! Fascists do not tell you the whole truth. They only want you to hear what they want to tell you... their lies.