Talk:Central Provident Fund

message: The section on disputes added by Yosri was incomprehensible, until I read the reference provided. The reference is dedicated to bias opinion for workers' rights. Yosri, in this case, use a paragraph of the page for the disputes section in a bias way. If you would like to add anything, even if there's reference, please make sure that it is a NPOV and unbias. Anti.Exams (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes & Criticism

message: I re-did the entire page taking out the redundant criticisms and whatever stuff about people wanting CPF to move here and there. So putting this article against others, I rate it as Start class. Please tell me if you beg to differ. Also, I will be adding much more stuff later on during the day as of the time I post this comment. ^^ Anti.Exams (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: its terrible. I should not need to parse the text of the entire section to understand what the current contribution rates are. -- 180.214.70.94 (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The current rates are clearly stated in the (very short) lede para of the article - right at the top/beginning of the article.... Zhanzhao (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rates section

message: Say about the pinyin, wouldn't a multilingual infobox be preferred instead? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinyin

message: :Image:CPFLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CPFLogo.jpg

message: Does the CPF invest in tradable assests?  If so who controls these investments, and how much is owned? Kevlar67 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investing? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Central Provident Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005235513/https://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/AboutUs/about-us-info/history-of-cpf to https://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/AboutUs/about-us-info/history-of-cpf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504120241/http://www.mom.gov.sg:80/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=408 to http://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=408
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714225805/http://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=499 to http://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=499
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315114343/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/CPF/News/News-Release/N_13Dec2012.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/News/News-Release/N_13Dec2012.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417231219/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/Employers/Gen-Info/cpf-Contri/ContriRa.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Employers/Gen-Info/cpf-Contri/ContriRa.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140616094841/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/CPF/News/News-Release/N_8May2014.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/News/News-Release/N_8May2014.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603192723/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/Members/CPFSchemes/CPF_LIFE.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/CPF_LIFE.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924131051/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/Members/CPFSchemes/Medisave.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/Medisave.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923022256/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/Members/CPFSchemes/MediShield.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/MediShield.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923022250/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg:80/Members/CPFSchemes/ElderShield.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/ElderShield.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Holzmann has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Holzmann has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Holzmann, Robert, 2015. "Old-Age Financial Protection in Malaysia: Challenges and Options," IZA Policy Papers 96, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Holzmann's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Central Provident Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=408
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/News/News-Release/N_13Dec2012.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417231219/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Employers/Gen-Info/cpf-Contri/ContriRa.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Employers/Gen-Info/cpf-Contri/ContriRa.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140616094841/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/News/News-Release/N_8May2014.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/News/News-Release/N_8May2014.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140603192723/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/CPF_LIFE.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/CPF_LIFE.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924131051/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/Medisave.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/Medisave.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923022256/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/MediShield.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/MediShield.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923022250/http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/ElderShield.htm to http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Members/CPFSchemes/ElderShield.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all, the following is an exact "massive" copy of what appears on Roy Ngerng's page itself. It is totally inappropriate. Nothing to do with CPF policies, but about his libel case in which he was found guilty. It's like a promotional piece for his cause. 
Does anyone care to comment or dispute this? Else I shall be removing it. Thanks. 
Controversies
===Roy Ngerng===
On 15 May 2014, Roy Ngerng made a post entitled "Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial" on his blog the Heart Truths. Within the post, Ngerng created a chart which mapped the relationships between the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). Ngerng claimed there was an "uncanny resemblance" between this chart and another chart by news agency Channel News Asia regarding the relationship among City Harvest Church leaders, who were being charged with misappropriating funds.. Roy Ngerng’s contract was terminated by his employer, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, in June 2014 because of "conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees, and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits".https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/blogger-roy-ngerngs-employment-contract-with-tan-tock-seng-hospital-terminated
The CPF has been described as "a forced savings scheme" for Singaporeans with "monthly contributions into the fund" to be saved for retirement, or for expenses on "property, healthcare, and their children's education", while the GIC has been described to have "indirectly invested" funds from the CPF.. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance on its part has put forth its explanation as to why CPF funds are invested in Special Singapore Government Securities, to enable CPF Board to be able to pay its members all their monies when due, and the interest that it commits to pay on CPF accounts. The government securities are invested as part of a combined pool of funds managed by GIC, rather than managed in a separate dedicated fund, as a standalone fund would have to be managed conservatively to avoid the risk of failing to meet obligations to CPF members.https://www.ifaq.gov.sg/MOF/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx?FAQ=66093
On 18 May, Prime Minister (PM) Lee responded through his lawyer Davinder Singh, who stated that the blog post alleged that Lee "is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF" and that the allegations were "false and baseless".
Ngerng said that the article was a call for greater transparency on the CPF, the GIC and Temasek Holdings. and called for PM Lee to rebut the points made in his blog post.. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance has publicly stated that CPF monies are safe as all CPF monies are invested in securities that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government, which is one of the few remaining triple-A credit-rated governments in the world.https://www.ifaq.gov.sg/MOF/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx?FAQ=1559
Ngerng apologized "unreservedly" on 23 May, admitting that his allegation was "false and completely without foundation".
On 29 May 2014, Prime Minister Lee filed a defamation lawsuit against Ngerng. In a 4 August affidavit, Ngerng argued that his blog post had been misunderstood, and that he was merely asking for more transparency and accountability for CPF monies.
On 7 November 2014, the High Court of Singapore found Ngerng liable of defamation with damages to be assessed, which was the first such ruling in Singapore over a purely online article. Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there was "no triable defence" and "no doubt that it is defamatory to suggest that the plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation". An injunction against Ngerng was granted, barring him from publishing future similar accusations regarding PM Lee and the CPF. Ngerng expressed disappointment at the verdict, but maintained that he would "still continue to speak up on the CPF and other issues that concern Singaporeans".
On 17 December 2015 the court led by Lee Seiu Kin handed down a judgement ordering Ngerng to pay S$100,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages. Ngerng, through his lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam proposed to pay the S$150,000 in instalments which was granted by the Prime Minister on the condition that Ngerng paid the S$30,000 in hearing costs immediately i.e. by 16 March 2016. Ngerng is expected to repay $100 a month from 1 April 2016 onwards over five years until 1 April 2021 when instalments are increased to S$1,000 until the full sum has been paid by the year 2033. Lee also rejected Ngerng's request to reimburse part of the damages i.e. S$36,000.
: The broader issue is still about CPF. Defamation suit is just a side show; a distraction. He lost it because he admitted to the defamation instead of fighting his cause. Maybe this section should be revised to refocus on CPF issues he raised instead of the defamation part. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't support a blanket removal of the content as the IP is doing. I do support editing it so that it fits the article better.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy drew some parallel regarding the round-triping of church funds and how the CPF operate. That point which generate controversy got loss in the woods because of the lawsuit. Should be able to dig out some reliable references. Jane Dawson (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of massive copied text from Roy Ngnerg's article 

message: On 15 May 2014, Roy Ngerng made a post entitled "Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial" on his blog the Heart Truths. Within the post, Ngerng created a chart which mapped the relationships between the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). Ngerng claimed there was an "uncanny resemblance" between this chart and another chart by news agency Channel News Asia regarding the relationship among City Harvest Church leaders, who were being charged with misappropriating funds.. Roy Ngerng’s contract was terminated by his employer, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, in June 2014 because of "conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees, and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits".https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/blogger-roy-ngerngs-employment-contract-with-tan-tock-seng-hospital-terminated
The CPF has been described as "a forced savings scheme" for Singaporeans with "monthly contributions into the fund" to be saved for retirement, or for expenses on "property, healthcare, and their children's education", while the GIC has been described to have "indirectly invested" funds from the CPF.. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance on its part has put forth its explanation as to why CPF funds are invested in Special Singapore Government Securities, to enable CPF Board to be able to pay its members all their monies when due, and the interest that it commits to pay on CPF accounts. The government securities are invested as part of a combined pool of funds managed by GIC, rather than managed in a separate dedicated fund, as a standalone fund would have to be managed conservatively to avoid the risk of failing to meet obligations to CPF members.https://www.ifaq.gov.sg/MOF/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx?FAQ=66093
On 18 May, Prime Minister (PM) Lee responded through his lawyer Davinder Singh, who stated that the blog post alleged that Lee "is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF" and that the allegations were "false and baseless".
Ngerng said that the article was a call for greater transparency on the CPF, the GIC and Temasek Holdings. and called for PM Lee to rebut the points made in his blog post.. Singapore’s Ministry of Finance has publicly stated that CPF monies are safe as all CPF monies are invested in securities that are issued and guaranteed by the Singapore Government, which is one of the few remaining triple-A credit-rated governments in the world.https://www.ifaq.gov.sg/MOF/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx?FAQ=1559
Ngerng apologized "unreservedly" on 23 May, admitting that his allegation was "false and completely without foundation".
On 29 May 2014, Prime Minister Lee filed a defamation lawsuit against Ngerng. In a 4 August affidavit, Ngerng argued that his blog post had been misunderstood, and that he was merely asking for more transparency and accountability for CPF monies.
On 7 November 2014, the High Court of Singapore found Ngerng liable of defamation with damages to be assessed, which was the first such ruling in Singapore over a purely online article. Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there was "no triable defence" and "no doubt that it is defamatory to suggest that the plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation". An injunction against Ngerng was granted, barring him from publishing future similar accusations regarding PM Lee and the CPF. Ngerng expressed disappointment at the verdict, but maintained that he would "still continue to speak up on the CPF and other issues that concern Singaporeans".
On 17 December 2015 the court led by Lee Seiu Kin handed down a judgement ordering Ngerng to pay S$100,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages. Ngerng, through his lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam proposed to pay the S$150,000 in instalments which was granted by the Prime Minister on the condition that Ngerng paid the S$30,000 in hearing costs immediately i.e. by 16 March 2016. Ngerng is expected to repay $100 a month from 1 April 2016 onwards over five years until 1 April 2021 when instalments are increased to S$1,000 until the full sum has been paid by the year 2033. Lee also rejected Ngerng's request to reimburse part of the damages i.e. S$36,000.
: The broader issue is still about CPF. Defamation suit is just a side show; a distraction. He lost it because he admitted to the defamation instead of fighting his cause. Maybe this section should be revised to refocus on CPF issues he raised instead of the defamation part. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't support a blanket removal of the content as the IP is doing. I do support editing it so that it fits the article better.--DreamLinker (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Roy drew some parallel regarding the round-triping of church funds and how the CPF operate. That point which generate controversy got loss in the woods because of the lawsuit. Should be able to dig out some reliable references. Jane Dawson (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Roy Ngerng