The evil face of New Zealand’s discrimination against Singaporeans – Part III (a)

The following link is a report in the Singapore Straits Times newspaper about another Singaporean DISCRIMINATED by nationality (unlawful under the NZ 1993 Human Rights Act –

A 66-year-old Singaporean failed in his bid to get senior citizen pension benefits in New Zealand after a tribunal found he had not first used his Central Provident …

A 66-year-old Singaporean failed in his bid to get senior citizen pension benefits in New Zealand after a tribunal found he had not first used his Central Provident …

The SSAA removed the Grounds of Decision –

so TRANSPARENCY is DEAD IN NEW ZEALAND but you can find their biased lying reasons and filth in the website –


WHY DID THEY REMOVE THE GROUNDS of DECISION?  Please share this for all the world to see the devious, evil shenanigans of the Ministry of Social Development to steal the savings of the law-abiding old and vulnerable while paying out in full willingly and without question, to Black Power and Mongrel Mob retirees who have not paid out a single cent in taxes all their drug-dealing lives.


Therefore, when they say that Section 70 is to ensure we do not deserve what we had worked for, the NZ government is sending a message to everyone to not use their initiative to go and find work overseas, but to just lie back and relax and don’t bother – in other words, they lump us hard-working folks with these gang members who are a scourge on society.  Which country in the world gives so much respect to gangs? These gang members frequently appear on TV and other media – but the NZ Seniors Party are shunned and totally ignored by the media.  Even the “cat-hater”, Gareth Morgan,  with his new TOPs Party had more media coverage and got 800+ members in his first week of forming his party.


An appeal against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee [2015] NZSSAA 100 (11 December 2015)

Last Updated: 26 May 2016

[2015] NZSSAA 100

Reference No. SSA 132/15

IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964


IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of Auckland against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee


Ms M Wallace – Chairperson

Mr K Williams – Member

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 1 December 2015


The appellant in person

P Siueva for Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development



[1] The appellant appeals against a decision of the Chief Executive upheld by a Benefits Review Committee to suspend payment of New Zealand Superannuation to the appellant from 12 August 2015 on the basis that the appellant had failed to apply for a pension from the Central Provident Fund Board of Singapore .

[2] The issue in this case is whether it was appropriate to exercise the discretion in s 69G of the Social Security Act 1964 to suspend payment of New Zealand Superannuation to the appellant when he failed to take reasonable steps to apply for a pension from the Central Provident Fund Board.


[3] The appellant and his wife and two sons emigrated to New Zealand in 2000. The appellant’s sons were aged 8 and 10 years when they arrived in New Zealand. The appellant was granted New Zealand citizenship in 2004. He remains a citizen of Singapore .

[4] The appellant turned 65 years of age on 25 November 2014. He made an application for New Zealand Superannuation which was granted.

[5] The appellant disclosed in his application that he had lived in Singapore for

50 years and eight months prior to emigrating to New Zealand. He was requested to make an application for a pension from the Central Provident Fund Board in Singapore .

[6] The appellant contacted the Ministry and advised that he objected to applying for a pension from the Central Provident Fund Board and explained his reasons for this. There were a number of communications between the appellant and Ministry staff over the issue. Ultimately, on 12 June 2015 the Chief Executive wrote to the appellant advising that if he had not made an application for his Singapore pension by

3 July 2015, his New Zealand Superannuation would be suspended.

[7] On 20 July 2015 the Chief Executive suspended the appellant’s New Zealand Superannuation, effective from 12 August 2015. The appellant was advised of this decision.

[8] The appellant sought a review of the decision. The matter was reviewed internally and by a Benefits Review Committee. The Benefits Review Committee, by a majority, upheld the decision of the Chief Executive. The appellant then appealed to this Authority.

[9] When he first contacted the Ministry about this matter, Ministry records suggest that the appellant put forward the view that it was discriminatory to require people from countries that paid pensions, such as Singapore , to be required to apply for those pensions, which were then deducted from their entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation.

[10] The appellant explained both at the hearing of this matter before the Authority and in his later submissions to the Ministry, that his concern about applying for a pension in Singapore was that it would make the Singapore authorities aware of the whereabouts of himself and his sons.

[11] The appellant says his concern about the Singapore authorities locating him relates to his concern about the requirements of the compulsory military service legislation in Singapore known as the Enlistment Act, and in particular the impact this legislation might have on his sons’ careers. The appellant explained that one of the reasons for the family emigrating to New Zealand was that his sons were struggling with the need in Singapore to be fluent in a second language. He and his wife feared that the boys would not meet the entrance criteria for university because of this. In New Zealand both boys have attended university and appear to be set to have successful careers. His sons are now aged 25 years and 23 years and have spent much of their lives in New Zealand, although the elder son is no longer living in New Zealand. The appellant is concerned as to how his sons may be affected if his whereabouts became known to the Singapore authorities. He suggested that his sons may be forced to go back to Singapore to complete military service and could be prosecuted as enlistment defaulters.

[12] The appellant submitted that the right to require a person to apply for an overseas pension was discretionary. In the circumstances outlined, he should not be required to apply for a Singapore pension.


[13] Section 69G of the Social Security Act 1964 requires every applicant for New Zealand Superannuation to establish to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive that they and their spouse or partner have taken all reasonable steps to obtain any overseas pension or benefit to which they may be entitled, to or that may be granted to either of them.

[14] Section 69G(2) and (3) gives the Chief Executive a discretion to give written notice to an applicant for New Zealand Superannuation to take all reasonable steps to obtain an overseas pension, to which that person may be entitled, within a specified period.

[15] Section 69G(4) provides that where a person does not comply with the notice given by the Chief Executive under s 69G(2) or (3), the Chief Executive may:

(a) refuse to grant the benefit applied for by the applicant;

(b) suspend from such date as the Chief Executive determines, the benefit granted to the beneficiary until either:

(i) the beneficiary provides information establishing to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive that he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain any overseas pension that he may be entitled to; and

(ii) the benefit is terminated under subsection (5);

whichever first occurs.

[16] Section 69G(5) provides that where the benefit has been suspended under subsection (4) the Chief Executive may, not less than 40 working days after the suspension, terminate the benefit from such date as the Chief Executive determines.

[17] The appellant did not suggest that he had not received written notice as required under s 69G(2). Nor did he suggest that he had taken reasonable steps to obtain a pension from Singapore .

[18] Rather, he says that the Chief Executive has a discretion to give the notice requiring steps to be taken under s 69G(2) or (3) and a discretion to suspend or terminate his benefit. In his case, he should not be required to make an application and his benefit should not therefore be suspended.

[19] The appellant says that the government in Singapore has a large computer which links all of its government departments, and if he were to make an application for a pension in Singapore his current whereabouts would be disclosed. The appellant claims that if this occurred, there may be significant repercussions for his sons who have apparently not registered for or undertaken military service in Singapore .

[20] The appellant says that neither he nor his sons have returned to Singapore since they left in 2000. He does not intend to return to Singapore and he has advised his sons not to return to Singapore .

[21] The appellant was completely unable to explain what action the Singapore authorities might be able to take against him or his sons if they became aware of his residence in New Zealand.

[22] The Singapore Enlistment Act provides that a person who is a citizen of Singapore or a permanent resident who is not less than 16 years and six months of age, must register for military service. Failure by a person subject to the Act to present himself for registration may result in a fine not exceeding SGD10,000 or a

term of imprisonment not exceeding three years, or both. The court may also order that the person present himself for registration for National Service by a particular date, and an additional penalty applies if that person fails to register for service.

[23] The Act further provides that:

• Every person who is fit for National Service and enlisted on or after

1 January 1971 is liable to render full-time service for a period not exceeding two years (with certain exceptions).

• A person who is subject to the Act and has been registered, or a child over the age of 13 years, must obtain an exit permit to remain outside Singapore and is required to return to Singapore before the expiry of the period for which he was allowed to stay outside Singapore .

[24] As the appellant was over the age of 50 years and his sons were both under the age of 13 years at the time they came to New Zealand, we infer that the appellant and his sons were not required to obtain exit permits before leaving Singapore .

[25] A ministerial statement on National Service defaulters by the then Minister for Defence in Singapore , posted on 16 January 2006, announces a tougher stand to be taken against those who default on National Service obligations. The statement includes the following information:

• The constitution prevents a person from avoiding military service by renouncing their citizenship.

• Those who have emigrated at a young age and have not enjoyed substantial socio-economic benefits are allowed to renounce their citizenship without serving National Service.

• Pre-enlistees who go overseas for an extended period are required to post a bond. Since 1992 the bond quantum has been set at SGD75,000 or half the combined income of the parents, whichever is higher.

• The penalties for defaulting under the Enlistment Act were to be increased and in future, prosecutors would be asking for terms of imprisonment to be imposed in serious cases. A serious case includes those who default on their full-time National Service responsibilities for two years or longer from the time they were required to register or enlist, or from the time their exit permits expired.

[26] The Constitution of Singapore makes it clear that a person cannot renounce citizenship of Singapore while they are subject to the Enlistment Act unless certain conditions set out in the Constitution have been complied with.1

[27] It is unclear how the appellant disclosing his presence in New Zealand would impact on either himself or his sons. The appellant himself is no longer subject to the Enlistment Act. He did not produce any evidence that the Singapore Government has ever sought extradition outside Singapore for a breach of the Enlistment Act. There was no evidence from either of the appellant’s sons about their position or whether they are still citizens of Singapore . One of the appellant’s sons no longer lives in New Zealand, in any event.

[28] As a Commonwealth country, no extradition treaty is required for an application for extradition to be made by the Government of Singapore in respect of someone living in New Zealand, but an application can only be made for an extraditable offence. Such an offence must be one that constitutes an offence in New Zealand and in

respect of which there is a penalty of at least one year’s imprisonment.2

We are

unaware of any equivalent New Zealand offence to a breach of the Singapore

Enlistment Act as there is no compulsory military service in New Zealand.

[29] We conclude that the possibility of either of the appellant’s sons being extradited to Singapore from New Zealand as a result of a breach of the Enlistment

Act, is remote.

[30] We are not satisfied that there is any real danger or disadvantage to either the appellant or his sons if the appellant’s whereabouts were to become known to the Government of Singapore .

[31] A further matter to be taken into account by the Chief Executive in requiring a person to apply for an overseas pension will be the prospects of the person being granted a pension. The appellant first advised the Ministry in a phone conversation on

20 November 2014 that he knew he did not have any entitlement to a Singaporean pension. He later advised that his pension fund with the Central Provident Fund Board was about SGD10,000 before he left for New Zealand. He stated that he had worked as a cashier at a hotel and then as a conscript in the army. For much of his working life he had worked as a contractor or a subcontractor and did not have to contribute to the Central Provident Fund. When questioned about his work history at

the hearing before the Authority, the appellant said that he had had an apprenticeship

1 Found at

2 See Extradition Act 1999, section 4..

as an aircraft mechanic. There appear to be some discrepancies in the appellant’s explanations, but in any event the point is that the appellant does have a Central Provident Fund Board account and it is reasonable to infer he may be entitled to a pension from the fund. The Ministry note that the age of eligibility for payment from that fund is 62 years. The appellant is now over 62 years of age.

[32] As stated above, the Chief Executive has a discretion to give notice requiring steps to be taken to obtain a pension. He also has a discretion to suspend a benefit when a notice has not been complied with.

[33] Taking into account all the circumstances outlined, we are satisfied that the Chief Executive was correct to exercise his discretion to give a notice to the appellant requiring him to take steps to test his eligibility for a pension from Singapore within a certain timeframe and to suspend the appellant’s New Zealand Superannuation payments when he failed to take reasonable steps to apply for that pension.

[34] The appeal is dismissed.

DATED at WELLINGTON this 11th day of December 2015

Ms M Wallace


Mr K Williams



Therefore Section 70 encourages Kiwis to not use their initiative to find work overseas but to smoke, drink, do drugs, join gangs etc. – otherwise you, the hard-working one, will be penalised and robbed by the Chief Executive of the MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 

Singapore returns the CPF savings of its citizens in monthly instalments BUT New Zealand steals it outright 100%; but does not touch their Prime Minister’s CPF savings, ex-Singaporeans’ CPF savings, Malaysians’ CPF savings or Filipinos’ CPF savings.  IN OTHER WORDS, NEW ZEALAND PRESSURES SINGAPORE CITIZENS TO GIVE UP THEIR CITIZENSHIPS – so why is the Singapore government allowing the New Zealand government to reduce the coffers of the CPF department?  Why is the Singapore government not protesting against this blatant discrimination against Singapore citizens in New Zealand but instead lecturing China about some rocky outposts in the South China Sea, which even the Filipinos are not interested about China taking over these rocks?  Or moaning about the dead-duck TPP at APEC in Peru which the Donald had announced is already buried?  Why remain curiously silent and not stand up for Singapore citizens? – “For you, with you, fuck you – go and fight your own battles and stand up for Singaporeans’ rights on your own and at your expense?”

So now we know why progress and productivity are moving at a snail’s pace in the Land of the Long White Smokescreen and the little red dot.

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 !