PM Lee’s parliamentary disclosure found wanting, ministers’ total bonus more than 10 months in 2017

I refer to ST’s “Parliament: Political office holders received average performance bonus of 4 months’ salary in last 5 years” and Today’s “Govt ministers paid an average performance bonus of 4.1 months in 2017“.

NCMP Leon Perera ” had asked about the bonus paid to Cabinet ministers in the last five years in terms of the average total of bonus months, and the highest and lowest total of bonus months paid to an individual minister”.

Although ministers receive 4 different types of bonuses in 2017, ie performance bonus (3 to 6 months), national bonus (5.25 months, see image below), 13-month bonus (1 month) and AWC (1.5 months), PM Lee disclosed only figures for performance bonus which downplayed the obscene total ministerial bonus that’s rarely paid even in the private sector.

Singaporeans are now under the impression that ministers were paid about only 4.1 months’ bonus in 2017 (Today’s headline) when, in fact, they received more than 10 months’ bonus.

Despite the ministerial salary review in 2012, PAP has still managed to pay ministers obscene amounts in tax dollar bonuses while average income earners struggle with PAP-created high cost of living.

If the PAP government has nothing to conceal from citizens, the following information should be disclosed:
– PM Lee’s and individual minister’s total bonus in 2017.
– Similar annual bonus information since ministerial salary was revised in 2012.

And Leon should not have accepted the non answer from PM Lee.

Ministers are paid max 6 months performance bonus plus 6 months national bonus, a maximum total of 12 months.  PM Lee is paid a maximum of 12 months’ national bonus only.  To a person like Ah Kow, he will be initially confused but eventually come to realise that L P = P L.  Just another for PAP to complicate things to confuse citizens. 😉

Posted in POLITICS | Leave a comment

99-year land cost of a $400,000 HDB flat = $2.76 million

HDB prices flats to include construction and land costs.

Although land cost is estimated to be 60% of the price, flat buyers – lessees, in fact – do not own the land.

Over a period of 99 years, land cost can amount to million$ when ‘accrued interest’ is included.

Assuming interest rate to be 2.5%, a CPF member who pays in full for a $400,000 flat (60% land cost = $240,000) will end up paying a total of $2.76 million in land cost over the 99-year lease.

Even with land cost at 50% or 40%, HDB lessees have been screwed.  Big time.
1hdblease1pLand sales contribute to government revenue and in essence is a form of taxation.

Over the duration of a HDB lease, lessees lose an average of more than $1 million to PAP.  No wonder the PAP fears to disclose land cost component!

And isn’t it a scam to include land cost when lessees do not own the land?

Posted in HOUSING, POLITICS | Leave a comment

HDB legal counsel clarifies HDB ‘lessees’ are ‘owners’, but only according to PAP-enacted legislation

In 2014, I queried the HDB on the ‘ownership’ status of flat buyers.

HDB principal legal counsel replied and explained that this was according to the Housing and Development Act:
“In fact, the term “owner” has been defined in the H&D Act to include a person who has purchased a leasehold interest in the property.”

Any idiot would of course have known that a flat ‘lessee’ could not be the ‘owner’ at the same time, unless of course it was a case of own self rent to own self. 😉

In a Parliament controlled by PAP for more than 5 decades, it has the ability to redefine anything under the sun, eg CPF = Government reserves = Citizens’ own money.

Email from HDB legal counsel below.<>
6/13/2014 4:41 PM
To: pipakh Cc: Christina Cynthia DASS

Dear Philip Ang,

We refer to your emails to SAE Cynthia Christina Dass dated 6 June 2014 and to CEO, HDB dated 8 June 2014 on the above query.

2 HDB “lessees” are “owners” of their flat. In the context of the Singapore Land Registration System, HDB flats are leasehold property, with a tenure of 99 years. Therefore, when HDB sells flats to the purchasers, we are selling this leasehold interest of 99 years to them, subject to the provisions in the Housing and Development Act (H&D) Act. In fact, the term “owner” has been defined in the H&D Act to include a person who has purchased a leasehold interest in the property.

3 For HDB flats, the document of title issued is a “Lease” instrument. Therefore, the parties in the Lease instrument are referred to as “Lessor” for the seller/developer and “Lessee” for the purchaser. Notwithstanding the use of the term “lessee”, the purchasers have ownership rights and do have the right to deal with the flat, eg. to sell or transfer the flat, subject to the terms of the lease, the H&D Act and HDB’s prevailing policies. The term “Lessee” does not detract from these rights.

4 We hope we have clarified your doubts.

Yours sincerely,


Posted in HOUSING | 3 Comments

FB images from 31 July to 19 August 2018


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When Minister Lawrence Wong resorts to lying, PAP’s end may be near

Fact: Minister Lawrence Wong has continued to lie about HDB flat ownership. (ST)

Minister Wong:
“When you buy a car, how long can you use a car for? Is it a rental car, or your car? A 99-year lease is far longer than 10 years. It is yours. It is an asset. It is owned by the homeowner.”

Wong should have known that car buyers do not sign a lease agreement with, say, Motor Image or Tan Chang Motor.

Unlike HDB flat buyers who are lessees, car buyers are owners.

Lease Agreement confirming HDB as lessor buyers are lessees:1hdblesseeLawrence Wong did not simply tell a half truth: he blatantly lied.

HDB flat buyers can no longer trust the PAP which has lied about our home ownership status for more than 5 decades.

Posted in HOUSING, POLITICS | 6 Comments