The NZ Prime Minister, the honourable John Key, answered reporters’ queries when his name was mentioned (as he was the only world leader to be mentioned by The Center for Public Integrity) in the release of the Panama Papers Report, that he had a CPF savings account (which he called SUPERANNUATION?) when he worked overseas (in Singapore) – listen to the video and hear him ‘slip up’ by telling the TRUTH – “I do not have it any more since I came back to New Zealand. I now have Kiwisaver – IT IS THE SAME THING”.
Yet, he allows his Chief Executive to steal the CPF Savings of Singaporeans.
A Singaporean’s CPF funds released monthly by the Singapore CPF Board is TAXED 100% by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development – FAIR FOR ALL or INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION and VICTIMISATION of ONE Nationality ?
Political roundup: Remember Dirty Politics?
4:16 PM Friday Apr 15, 2016
In terms of politician links to Mossack Fonseca and other foreign trust accounts, the Prime Minister has taken the threat to his reputation very seriously, even admitting to spending “eight hours on Sunday tracking down details about his Singaporean superannuation fund to be certain that all of his investments were above board”
So John Key’s CPF savings are TAX-FREE while a Singaporean’s CPF savings are TAXED 100% by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development? Is this not DISCRIMINATION by Nationality by the NZ government against Singaporeans?
So he collected his CPF funds TAX-FREE from the Singapore CPF Board? “admitting to spending “eight hours on Sunday tracking down details about his Singaporean superannuation fund “
In the April 2016 Newsletter for Seniors from the MSD, under their section “Fair for all”, the phrase state-funded was stated five times – the CPF is not state-funded in any way, unlike the Kiwisaver which is partially state-funded ($1,000 + $20,000 + annual tax rebates). Yet, the CPF Savings are ruled deductible while Kiwisaver Savings are not?
The following paragraph quoted John Key when he was in the opposition in 2008 –
A government is judged by its treatment of the vulnerable and the duplicity of the National Party shows it cares little for anyone affected.
In 2008 Prime Minister John Key in opposition and publicly campaigning for election in Nelson, when questioned by a member of the public regarding the injustice of Section 70 replied “if you have paid for them you should keep them”.
This vote catching statement of common sense and reality was ignored when National won the election.
Well, he certainly paid for his CPF and he certainly kept his CPF Savings.
Is he concerned that Singaporeans’ CPF savings are kept by his Ministry of Social Development?
What do you think?