What’s the Fuss over Singapore CPF and Roy Ngerng?

By MIKOspace

Nagging Questions abound on Roy Ngerng’s "Shocking Facts About CPF" .

Did PAP Take Our CPF to Pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s Losses? Unfortunately, or fortunately, Roy and his co-writer DID NOT answer his own question in the undisputable affirmative.

I read many times Roy’s arguments over several posts regarding CPF, income inequality, Government Reserves, HDB Car Parks, Medisave and Medishield, poverty and a host of social issues he so passionately advocates. Most of these issues are unrelated to each other. It is however plainly painful to see Roy’s desperate attempts to persuade his readers to connect his missing dots so as to make some kind of connections between his interesting infographics in order to arrive at his “conclusions” regarding some kind of sinister motives in the PAP Government to conspire against Singaporeans and, particularly, to expropriate our hard-earned CPF funds.

It is known that GIC and Temasek Holdings lost $117 billion in 2008, mostly due to the US financial crisis. The writers produce lots of “official” statistics in beautiful charts and infographics. But statistics are not arguments. Not a single shred of evidence - no smoking gun - is produced to trace the flow of funds from CPF to their supposed end eventually to cover GIC and Temasek’s losses.  It would have been better if the writers had “follow the money” and show the “missing funds” in the CPF, and trace their path, in some forms - whether as loans, equity, advances, gifts or bonds – into the books of GIC and Temasek.  They did not do so.  It would also be a better bonus revelation for them to reveal that these “losses” – an astonishing S$117 billion were never paid back into the CPF. 

The alleged big dark hole of $117 billion in the CPF’s books is surely difficult to miss since the CPF reported its Funds to have only about S$252.5 billion as at 31 December 2013.  And if no money were actually “missing” from the CPF – please check audited public accounts in CPF Annual Reports – how could the CPF have been used to cover up GIC/Temasek losses?  In fact, the writers already refuted their own conclusion when they observed that since 2007, “CPF balance Grew by 90% … but GIC grew by only 69% and Temasek Holdings grew by only 21%.

The writers fail to grasp the significance of their own discovery. Their statement is by far the clearest evidence that GIC and Temasek DID NOT receive CPF Funds. The figures are true and only make sense if both GIC and Temasek were just “fund managers” and therefore the funds under their  “management” are not technically Temasek/GICs’ and therefore cannot be entered into their accounting books or balance sheets in accordance with standard accounting procedures and practices.

This should have been the end of the allegation that “the PAP took our CPF to pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s losses”.  It did not.

Perhaps, “Shocking Facts About Singapore CPF” was NOT and was NEVER intended to argue that “CPF was used to pay for GIC/Temasek losses”.  That conclusion was seized upon only sometime at the end without leading logical arguments towards it. Therein lies the fundamental weakness and failure of of “Shocking Facts”.

The “Shocking Facts” posts began by pointing out and illustrating that the contribution rates to CPF was “unusually” high relatively when compared to other countries’ provident and pension contribution rates. Nothing “shocking” here. This is neither new nor revealing.  There is nothing sinister; and the associated reasons for this to be used for national development, housing and medical are transparent, and are not unduly unreasonable....

It is clear that the writers did not understand the concepts that they used to argue poverty and income inequality in Singapore. If they did intend to use “Poverty” defined and measured by the World Bank as daily earning of just US$1.25 (or S$1.50 per day), the writers have actually asserted that 28% of Singaporeans or 963,200 persons in 2013 earn just S$39 per month!  In 2013, the Singapore labour Force was 3.44 million as at June 2013.

I wonder whether I have been reading and fed blatant falsehoods and lies. Or it is simply just sloppy research, ignorance and poor analysis. Better analysis, better research, credible statistics and direct relevant evidence cannot be substituted by loud and emotional political slogans to cover up for illogical and bad arguments.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Read Full Article with more References:

What's the Fuss over Singapore CPF and Roy Ngerng?