New Zealand discriminates against Singaporeans.


Dear honest, decent and upright folks,

Let me dissect this UNFAIR and DISHONEST Grounds of Decision –

A. [ The way in which the funds can be accessed or paid out is also controlled by the Singapore Government.]
It is true that Singaporeans’ CPF savings are controlled by the Singapore Government – a government that discriminates against its own citizens and only refunds in full the CPF savings of non-citizens, all nationalities who are not Singapore citizens. Singapore citizens are refunded MONTHLY after the age of 65 until their CPF savings are depleted – and then there is none; yet this woman ruled that the CPF savings are benefits, pensions and periodic allowances!

B. [A true private savings scheme would not have these restrictions.]
A true private savings scheme would not be hijacked and the rules changed at will by a truly democratic government – so the New Zealand government is agreeing with the Singapore autocratic government? What the does it make the New Zealand government – in cahoots with the PAP to hijack the personal savings of Singaporeans?

C. [[24] It is clear that the use of the words “benefit, pension or periodical allowance” in s 70 is intended to capture a wide variety of periodic payments ]
This dumb woman does not understand that REFUNDs are NOT PERIODIC PAYMENTS!

D. [[25] The payment at issue in this appeal is a payment the appellant is entitled to receive monthly, but she says she has elected to receive it quarterly. It is a periodical payment.]
This dumb woman again does not understand the true and honest meaning of PAYMENT.

E.[ The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary defines “allowance” as:
1. an amount or sum allowed to a person, esp. regularly for a stated purpose.]
She now has the audacity to quote from the NZ Oxford Dictionary to suit her UNFAIR Grounds of Decision judgment – is your own savings an ALLOWANCE? What is the TRUTH? This is New Zealand JUSTICE?

F. [[26] The amount received by the appellant is paid periodically and is payable on the appellant attaining a particular age. It is intended by the Singapore Government primarily to replace income on retirement or old age.]
Your personal savings from your employee and employer contributions replaces income? What kind of logic is this? She also knows the intention of the Singapore Government? What do you think is the real intention of the Singapore Government?

G. [We are in no doubt the payment the appellant receives constitutes a periodical allowance.]
This is confirmation of a dishonest and unfair statement as it is self-confirmation of an UNTRUTHFUL situation.

H. [[27] The New Zealand Oxford dictionary defines “pension” as:
a regular payment made by a government to people above a specified age, to widows or to the disabled.]
Indeed, a “pension” is a regular payment from the government treasury made by a government; not a regular REFUND of your own savings controlled by a vitiated government – what a lying, deceitful statement and a disgrace to the New Zealand Ministry of Justice for allowing this to be published internationally! Is this not DISCRIMINATION by NATIONALITY, which is unlawful under the 1993 New Zealand Human Rights Act?

I. [The payments made to the appellant also readily fall within the commonly understood meaning of “pension”.]
The REFUNDS are NOT PAYMENTS – readily fall within the commonly understood meaning of “pension” – is English in New Zealand different from English Language internationally? “Commonly understood” – oh, really?
Another confirmatory bias from this barrister, role-playing as a Judge under the New Zealand Ministry of Justice.…refund-tenants

The continued DISCRIMINATION of Singaporeans by these slanted definitions (according to the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary which is also an insult to the publishers of The Oxford Dictionary) and the UNTRUTHFUL Grounds of Decision is a dire affront to the word JUSTICE, which stands for honesty, truth and fairness above all self-interests and self-serving Chief Executives whose bonuses are linked to how much they can rob the entitlements of the old and vulnerable.

On a FINAL NOTE, only Singaporeans are discriminated by this woman (already convicted of unfairness against her poor tenant) whose ruling that CPF savings are “pensions, benefits and allowances” when her own Prime Minister John Key already had his Singapore CPF TAX-FREE savings safely in his personal bank account, as well as all nationalities who had worked in Singapore.

Is New Zealand a FAIR, JUST and HONEST society, 100% PURE?

You be the JUDGE !