just for laugh: the truth about the CPF

[minority]

u replying to the correct post?
where do you get the figure of 600k for cleaner?

precisely my pt. who benifit most? a Cleaner with 100K in CPF or a Doc with 600K in CPF if ur call for 10% no risk interest happen?

[minority]

illustration #1
can a robinson crusoe retire?
no. he fish & farm until he die. there is simply nobody else to provide food for him when he retire.

Can.

http://financialmentor.com/true-weal...nt-banker/2422

The Parable Of The Mexican Fisherman And Investment Banker

One of my favorite stories – The Parable of The Mexican Fisherman - is perfect holiday fodder that brings much needed perspective to the wealth building game. It is short, fun and packs an important message. Additionally, I provide some related questions at the end of the story to help you plan for a prosperous New Year…

The Parable of The Mexican Fisherman And The Banker

An American investment banker was taking a much-needed vacation in a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. The boat had several large, fresh fish in it.

The investment banker was impressed by the quality of the fish and asked the Mexican how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.” The banker then asked why he didn’t stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican fisherman replied he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.

The American then asked “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman replied, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos: I have a full and busy life, senor.”

The investment banker scoffed, “I am an Ivy League MBA, and I could help you. You could spend more time fishing and with the proceeds buy a bigger boat, and with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats until eventually you would have a whole fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to the middleman you could sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You could control the product, processing and distribution.”

Then he added, “Of course, you would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City where you would run your growing enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senor, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.”

“But what then?” asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You could make millions.”

“Millions, senor? Then what?”

To which the investment banker replied, “Then you would retire. You could move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

One Question the fisherman need to ponder. What if one day a big trawler comes and catches all his fishes and left him nothing to catch everyday? or Maybe climate changes happen and all the fishes in the aread die off etc. What will the fisherman do?

[hopeful]

precisely my pt. who benifit most? a Cleaner with 100K in CPF or a Doc with 600K in CPF if ur call for 10% no risk interest happen?

i still dont get your point but anyway, since playtime is over, a cleaner will always be at the bottom of the dung heap, irregardless of what CPF rate is given, be it 2.5% or 10%.
and even if the cleaner's salary is increased to $1000pm, that $1000pm is still the lowest salary in Singapore. so a cleaner is still eating shit. Thats is the life for the bottom dwellers.

however by virtue that there are foreigners who are earning even lower than them, then the cleaner lifestyle is marginally improved when their salary is up to $1000.

Now the foreigner workers are the ones truly at the bottom of the dung heap in Singapore. However when they returned to their little villages with their savings, they will be enjoying a more comfortable life than singapore's lower class because their neighbours would even be much poorer than them.

[thomastansb]

You should be more careful with your words. My mum earn less than 1k a month and she is not eating shit. Unless you think eating at hawker is equivalent to eating shit.

i still dont get your point but anyway, since playtime is over, a cleaner will always be at the bottom of the dung heap, irregardless of what CPF rate is given, be it 2.5% or 10%.
and even if the cleaner's salary is increased to $1000pm, that $1000pm is still the lowest salary in Singapore. so a cleaner is still eating shit. Thats is the life for the bottom dwellers.

however by virtue that there are foreigners who are earning even lower than them, then the cleaner lifestyle is marginally improved when their salary is up to $1000.

Now the foreigner workers are the ones truly at the bottom of the dung heap in Singapore. However when they returned to their little villages with their savings, they will be enjoying a more comfortable life than singapore's lower class because their neighbours would even be much poorer than them.

[hopeful]

You should be more careful with your words. My mum earn less than 1k a month and she is not eating shit. Unless you think eating at hawker is equivalent to eating shit.

so u take exception to a cleaner eating shit but dont take exception to a cleaner at the bottom of the dung heap?

[eng81157]

so u take exception to a cleaner eating shit but dont take exception to a cleaner at the bottom of the dung heap?

technically, the comparisons are not the same. being at the bottom of a heap does not mean consuming from the heap

[hopeful]

technically, the comparisons are not the same. being at the bottom of a heap does not mean consuming from the heap

thank you for the language lesson. when translating a phrase from one language to another, nuances often get lost. so i will use the original hokkien phrase: cleaners will still "jiak sai".
hopefully no people take offense to this phrase.

[minority]

i still dont get your point but anyway, since playtime is over, a cleaner will always be at the bottom of the dung heap, irregardless of what CPF rate is given, be it 2.5% or 10%.
and even if the cleaner's salary is increased to $1000pm, that $1000pm is still the lowest salary in Singapore. so a cleaner is still eating shit. Thats is the life for the bottom dwellers.

however by virtue that there are foreigners who are earning even lower than them, then the cleaner lifestyle is marginally improved when their salary is up to $1000.

Now the foreigner workers are the ones truly at the bottom of the dung heap in Singapore. However when they returned to their little villages with their savings, they will be enjoying a more comfortable life than singapore's lower class because their neighbours would even be much poorer than them.

thus I repeated n repeated myself. The cleaners need to learn new skills.

how u want me to explain? take out ur calculator and calculate then.

say a cleaner manage to save $50K 10% interest is how much?
a doctor with 600K 10% is how much.

so how is increasing the cpf interest help the poor? or it help the rich more?

should the $ spend be focus on the lower income to get them to learn a new skills to do a job that pay better?

thats progressive wage ladder.

So u got my pt. the poor will always remaind at the bottom if the cannot get a better job regardless the cpf interest rates or not.


Thats wat the who BS pt that the stupid roy missed.

[Arcachon]

http://catherinelim.sg/2014/06/07/an...ster/#comments



An Open Letter to the Prime Minister
I had thought to keep quiet during this period of political transition while watching events unfold. But what is happening currently has perturbed me enough to want to do another commentary. I have cast it in the form of a direct letter to the PM, to convey a greater sense of urgency.

Dear Mr Prime Minister

We are in the midst of a crisis where the people no longer trust their government, and the government no longer cares about regaining their trust.

There are two clear signs that the present situation has reached crisis proportions, that it is not just an affective divide, not just an emotional estrangement between your PAP leadership and the people.

Firstly, the people are resorting to forms of high-visibility, high-risk protest never seen before, such as graffiti writ large on public buildings, persistent, strident online criticism despite stern government warnings and threats, an increased frequency of mass gatherings held at the Speakers’ Corner, as well as increased hostility shown at these gatherings.

Secondly, the protest is not confined to a small group of young dissidents emboldened by Internet power, but is spreading to involve large segments of the population, as seen in a senior citizen’s active contribution to the angry graffiti, and in a public outpouring of sympathy, in the form of financial help, for the blogger Roy Ngerng who is being sued by you for defamation.

How did this crisis arise in the first place?

With utmost respect, Sir, I must point out that it is ultimately your inability or unwillingness to listen to the people. After your initial show of contrition and your ardent promises of change, following the shock of the General Election of 2011 (a change of heart which must have astonished as well as heartened a lot of Singaporeans like myself), your government now seems to be hardening its position and going back to the old PAP reliance on a climate of fear maintained by the deployment of the famous PAP instruments of control, notably the defamation suit.

Hence while you see yourself as simply going by the rules, Singaporeans see you as the PAP juggernaut ready to mow down the little people in its path.In all fairness to you, Sir, the defamation suit, per se, is a legitimate instrument in any law-governed society, allowing anyone to seek redress and justice. Hence, making use of this means to defend your reputation is entirely within your rights, as indeed, you would be the first to affirm that it is the right of any blogger to sue the government if he or she thinks fit. But in Singapore, alas, it is by no means such a simple, straightforward matter. For Singaporeans have long got used to a certain belief that colours all their perceptions, namely, that here, there is no level playing field but one massively tilted in favour of an all-powerful, vindictive government that will have no qualms about reducing its opponents to bankruptcy. Hence while you see yourself as simply going by the rules, Singaporeans see you as the PAP juggernaut ready to mow down the little people in its path.

Again in fairness to you, Sir, it can clearly be seen that you and your colleagues have, since the debacle of 2011, made great efforts to improve the lot of the people. Indeed, anyone can see the improvements, continuously planned or implemented, in the many areas of jobs, transport, housing, education, recreation. But the hard truth is that the expectations of the people, especially the young, go well beyond material needs, to encompass the long denied need for freedom of expression, open debate and public assembly. Unlike the older generation who were grateful for simple amenities such as modern sanitation and clean streets, the new, better educated, globally-exposed, Internet population demand much more.

The truth, Sir, is more sobering: they are seeing these so-called achievements as no more than what is owing to them from leaders who have chosen to pay themselves handsomely to do their job.Indeed, you probably are tempted to call them the spoilt, blasé, so-what generation that is taking for granted these material achievements which would have been appreciated anywhere else in the world. The truth, Sir, is more sobering: they are seeing these so-called achievements as no more than what is owing to them from leaders who have chosen to pay themselves handsomely to do their job. Moreover, the skepticism bred by distrust has cast all these laudable efforts of your government as just self-serving strategies to advance party interests and stay in power. I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed by the pure vitriol of your more extreme online critics who gleefully twist everything that you say and do to serve their cynicism. It is a sad measure of what can happen when trust is gone.

In short, distrust is something so emotionally charged that it is guided by its own perilous logic and propelled by its own alarming momentum. It has already widened the original disconnect between the PAP and the people into an almost unbridgeable chasm.

What can be done to deal with this unprecedented crisis of trust before it escalates further and reaches a point of no return, something which obviously neither side wants?

For a start, there are some hard truths that have to be faced by the PAP, no matter how unpalatable:

1) For the change to be truly beneficial to the people, it cannot be something merely concessionary, much less cosmetic or superficial, such as the leaders giving up the traditional austere all-white uniform for something a little more colourful, so as to blend in with the crowd; abandoning their usual stern, distant style for greater friendliness and smiling approachability; purging their image of all signs of elitism through a more visible presence at hawker centres or the MRT; peppering their speeches with humorous personal anecdotes and admiring observations about ordinary Singaporeans, such as this young person with little education who made good or that hardworking teacher who went out of her way to help her students, etc.

True change goes well beyond all these surface overtures. It has to be no less than paradigmatic, enacted at a much higher level of sincere purpose backed up by sincere action, no matter how difficult.True change goes well beyond all these surface overtures. It has to be no less than paradigmatic, enacted at a much higher level of sincere purpose backed up by sincere action, no matter how difficult. Only then can there be an overhaul of old mindsets and habits of governance, no matter how valued.

Now I will have the temerity to suggest, Sir, that the PAP leadership had, not too long ago, missed a certain rare and valuable opportunity to show the people its sincerity for this kind of change. Shortly after the watershed 2011 General Election, some ex-political detainees made a request for a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations that the government had made against them, a request which was brusquely dismissed. To accede to the request would of course have shocked PAP diehards and the majority of Singaporeans, simply because it would have been so uncharacteristic of the PAP style.

But if it is true that extraordinary problems call for extraordinary solutions, it would have been precisely this act of unaccustomed humility, courage and sensitivity to the people’s feelings, that would have conveyed unquestioned sincerity and honesty, and provoked positive reaction from the people. And if, additionally, there were gracious acceptance of the verdict of the inquiry, even if it meant an apology and the need to make amends, that would have been a gesture large and empathetic enough, to win over even the most vocal critics. It would certainly have begun the process of creating, for the first time in the history of the PAP government-people relationship, a nexus of understanding and reciprocity. (I have dealt rather lengthily on this example simply because to this day, I fervently wish that it had happened)

2) As long as the crisis of trust persists, Sir, all your words of advice, caution and encouragement to the people, all the statements you are making about the need for good politics and good policies, for constructive debate, for all Singaporeans to work together in harmony and goodwill to build a strong, prosperous, stable society where everyone will be cared for, which everyone can call home, etc, etc, will only fall on deaf ears, or worse, be construed as no more than PR pronouncements of much pretension and little worth.

3) The old era that may be aptly called The Lee Kuan Yew Era, is now over, and for the succeeding PAP leaders to be seen as clinging to it despite their obviously good intentions and efforts to respond to the unstoppable forces of change in the new era, is to be caught in a neither-here-nor-there, politically ill-defined domain that gets pushed and pulled both ways. It gives the unfortunate impression of lack of leadership direction, which is invariably and unfavourably contrasted with the strength, conviction and vision of the first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Hence, while Singaporeans attribute Singapore’s amazing success in the world to Mr Lee’s purposeful style, they are less ready to do the same for the two succeeding Prime Ministers whose achievements are by no means inconsiderable. While Singaporeans were ready to accord Mr Lee much respect and trust (though with scant affection), they perceive the younger leaders after him as less deserving of these, and therefore not entitled to lecture and scold them as Mr Lee used to do with impunity. If Lee Kuan Yew alone received the famously humongous ministerial salary increase, the people would not have minded, but when the rest also did, they were outraged.

Today, in a twist of supreme irony that would have incensed Mr Lee, Singaporeans see the defamation suit itself, and not the act that has entailed it, as the very cause of the erosion of trust.4) What had worked well in the old era may no longer be relevant today, or worse, may even be damaging. When Mr Lee Kuan Yew liberally used the defamation suit against his critics, one of the reasons he gave (if I remember correctly) was that he wanted to punish them for implying government corruption, and thus eroding the trust of the people, which he said was necessary for the government to do its work. Today, in a twist of supreme irony that would have incensed Mr Lee, Singaporeans see the defamation suit itself, and not the act that has entailed it, as the very cause of the erosion of trust. A few more applications of this once effective instrument of control, even if legally justifiable, would surely damage the PAP cause further, in the highly charged atmosphere of the new Singapore.

5) While Singaporeans appreciate the original PAP principles of hard work, self discipline, responsibility and incorruptibility, they can see that the inflexibility of style based on rationality, reason, head-over-heart logic and letter-of-the-law adherence may be woefully inadequate to deal with a new era where politics is necessarily complex, messy and noisy. This is because human nature, ultimately, cannot be ignored, and has to be factored into any political equation.

So, in terms of practical action, what can be done about the present growing crisis of trust in our midst?

Again, Sir, I will beg to be presumptuous, and make the following suggestions:

1) You, and only you, Sir, can initiate the process leading to the solution of the problem. In theory and ideally, the three forces for major change in any society, namely, the government, the institutions and the people, work together. But in Singapore, unfortunately, the last two are helpless. Only the dominant PAP can initiate change and sustain it. Hence, whether you like it or not, Sir, if you genuinely seek a restoration of trust, you have first to go it alone, signal your new attitude to the institutions and the people, and patiently encourage them to take the cue and play their part. It will be a long, strenuous process.

A less-than-genuine effort would be something like launching a high-profile project such as the great Singapore Conversation, watch it go through the motions and various stages of a set timetable, and then shrug off the indifferent results.

There must be many in your camp who feel the same way but are reluctant to speak up. It may be a good thing to start listening to them in order to start listening to the people.2) There are some voices in your government, Sir, and some staunch PAP loyalists who have bravely, albeit gently, tried to draw your attention to the growing divide between you and the people. Professor Tommy Koh some time back actually commented that the use of the defamation suit was not exactly commendable or useful in the long run, and recently Dr Lily Neo calmly and tactfully suggested during a parliamentary sitting that you ought to be listening more to the people and communicating better with them. There must be many in your camp who feel the same way but are reluctant to speak up. It may be a good thing to start listening to them in order to start listening to the people.

3) In the end, you and your colleagues who have for decades been skilfully solving tough, bread-and-butter problems faced by the nation, will be in the best position to deal with this equally serious problem of trust. It is of course a completely different problem, but with the same application of efficiency, determination and dedication, it will no doubt be one more crisis solved, or at least defused, for the nation to move on.

This is an epochal time in Singapore’s history, when one era is fading into the past, and a new one is being transitioned into. If the present crisis of trust is not resolved, it will become even more intractable for the next Prime Minister and the new generation of leaders, for by then the crisis would have deteriorated into meltdown. In the absence of the people’s trust, effective government is virtually impossible, as every leader knows. To prevent this from happening, only you, Sir, can pave the way for a new understanding and reconciliation. It is a huge, onerous, daunting and certainly unenviable task of damage control, repair and restoration. But it is surely top priority, if only because the alternative would be just too scary.

Yours sincerely
Catherine Lim

[amk]

Tis entire article is based on one presumption, that those complaining "are right" and the gov is wrong, thus, " please do this and that to rectify", dun " miss the opportunity" blah blah.

And once again these ppl are right because "ministers paid millions".

Catherine Lim, you are so wrong. Do you even consider your basis of argument, that "younger generation takes material achievement for granted because they deserve it since ministers paid millions", is even legitimate ?

[minority]

She hoping to sell more books?

Actually the people will never trust the government. regardless how good. coz the people always think of themselves 1st. Not country.

That is the no. 1 problem. Self centerness of the population. Well Together we stand. divided we fail.

[condoviewer]

Well Together we stand. divided we fail.

[hopeful]

nobody thinks PAP have an image problem?
their image is suffering from death by a thousand cuts.

the PM should really tell his members to stop saying inane things like taking toothpicks from restaurant" or $600k peanuts or even $8 heart operation.
and then stupid stuff like "inside polling station is not within 200m of station"

most times, a simple apology saying that you screwed up and promised you do better next time work wonders than trying to go some legal gymnastics.

i think HC show more balls than the other guys. (even though wayang2), at least she offer to take responsibility for TH poor performance, even though in the end, she didnt leave.
sometimes, image is more important than the reality.

hope pap can wayang like cao cao.
http://www.chinavoc.com/history/three/caocao.htm
"It happened that Cao Cao was once riding at the head of his troops along a narrow path in some wheat fields, and, beholding the luxuriant growth on both sides, gave orders that no one should be allowed to trample on the wheat and that anyone who disobeyed should be beheaded. At this, the soldiers all dismounted and started marching on foot. Presently Cao Cao's own horse bolted and rushed into the wheat fields. In those days, laws were never applied to a sovereign, but Cao Cao said to his officers and men, "How can I expect my troops to follow me if I myself violate the military laws I made. But I am the commander-in-chief. Without me the army would be leaderless. So it behooves me to mete out my own punishment. " With these words, Cao Cao drew his sword and cut off his head-dress in place of his head. Then he had it hung by the side of the path as a warning to all."

[minority]

Like dat say. The the opposes are equally similar. Flipping n flopping on what they say. One moment zero FW policy. One moment say open up. One moment say actually open a little. Largy best keep quiet when queries on their no tender award to own people. N the list goes on.

When government apologies people say government weak got things to hide. When government say $1000 own hdb people say bullshit. When don't debat too much on bill people say not transparent. When there are voice n debate people government in fighting.

All depends what I want to see. Every thing only see half empty. Nothing will appear goods good also say not good enough.

The unhappy will always find reason to be unhappy.

[onglai]

nobody thinks PAP have an image problem?
their image is suffering from death by a thousand cuts.

the PM should really tell his members to stop saying inane things like taking toothpicks from restaurant" or $600k peanuts or even $8 heart operation.
and then stupid stuff like "inside polling station is not within 200m of station"

most times, a simple apology saying that you screwed up and promised you do better next time work wonders than trying to go some legal gymnastics.

i think HC show more balls than the other guys. (even though wayang2), at least she offer to take responsibility for TH poor performance, even though in the end, she didnt leave.
sometimes, image is more important than the reality.

hope pap can wayang like cao cao.
http://www.chinavoc.com/history/three/caocao.htm
"It happened that Cao Cao was once riding at the head of his troops along a narrow path in some wheat fields, and, beholding the luxuriant growth on both sides, gave orders that no one should be allowed to trample on the wheat and that anyone who disobeyed should be beheaded. At this, the soldiers all dismounted and started marching on foot. Presently Cao Cao's own horse bolted and rushed into the wheat fields. In those days, laws were never applied to a sovereign, but Cao Cao said to his officers and men, "How can I expect my troops to follow me if I myself violate the military laws I made. But I am the commander-in-chief. Without me the army would be leaderless. So it behooves me to mete out my own punishment. " With these words, Cao Cao drew his sword and cut off his head-dress in place of his head. Then he had it hung by the side of the path as a warning to all."

last time pple stupid.. today the pple will want to see the real head roll...

[hopeful]

last time pple stupid.. today the pple will want to see the real head roll...

well, LHL need a Wang Hou to appease the masses.

[hopeful]

especially when traitors occupy the highest level of powers.

[hopeful]

Like dat say. The the opposes are equally similar. Flipping n flopping on what they say. One moment zero FW policy. One moment say open up. One moment say actually open a little. Largy best keep quiet when queries on their no tender award to own people. N the list goes on.

When government apologies people say government weak got things to hide. When government say $1000 own hdb people say bullshit. When don't debat too much on bill people say not transparent. When there are voice n debate people government in fighting.

All depends what I want to see. Every thing only see half empty. Nothing will appear goods good also say not good enough.

The unhappy will always find reason to be unhappy.

you see a monkey eat shit. you find it funny.
you see a human eat shit. you find it disgusting.

my expectations of pap and clowns are different. when i see clowns clowning around, i laugh. when i see pap ministers clowning around, it is sickening.

"Every month, when I receive my CPF statement, I feel so rich" by the same idiot who takes half the toothpicks

there is no single critical incident, but it is a series of mis-steps like this that tarnish pap's image gradually.

[onglai]

"Every month, when I receive my CPF statement, I feel so rich" by the same idiot who takes half the toothpicks

lol i googled and found out lss said that!! totally bad and stupid comment!!

it's like someone wearing an armani suit, and cut a few holes here n there, and then tell a homeless man and say 'see? we are the same....'

[minority]

I guess its always easier to claim credit coz that just cant go wrong.

[phantom_opera]

PAP has a communication problem to those who are not financially trained.

ST quoted Tharman as saying that 2.5% CPF OA return is already decent because if GIC/Temasek wants to seek 1y rolling funding it only cost 1.7% on average in the past 10y

While that is absolutely true but that is not how the protesters are thinking ... the more financially trained group will invest their CPF OA in stocks or properties or simply transfer to CPF SA while the untrained of course will just kpkb that 2.5% is below inflation rate

ST should simply say that extra 1% already given to first 20k in CPF OA ... then the debate will be whether 3.5% can beat inflation or not

Then PAP can say first 20k is pegged to inflation rate or 3.5% whichever is higher as the ultimate solution

[Simi]

76 years old lady begged Hri Kumar to help her get CPF money back

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014...pf-money-back/

[Cupcakes]

76 years old lady begged Hri Kumar to help her get CPF money back

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014...pf-money-back/

Hello minority, pls speak on this issue.

[phantom_opera]

Read that Norway GPF return 5.7%pa (with inflation 1.89%pa) since 1998

So the return of 5%pa for SMRA account (first 60k) is considered quite ok provided long term inflation rate is around 1.5-2%pa

[teddybear]

You asking minority to speak on the issue?
Don't you know why he kept quiet?
If you force him to reply, he may say all this just talk cock and bullshit?
As usual, don't expect any word from him that is even slightly critical of the establishment, but he got lots of good words and even exaggeration about (for even those issues that majority singaporeans deemed as bad) ...........

Hello minority, pls speak on this issue.

[Simi]

Hello minority, pls speak on this issue.

don't think Hri Kumar can do much

maybe Singaporean do some donation to her
under a TRUST Account ?

[Simi]

Read that Norway GPF return 5.7%pa (with inflation 1.89%pa) since 1998

So the return of 5%pa for SMRA account (first 60k) is considered quite ok provided long term inflation rate is around 1.5-2%pa

Population of Norway also around the same as Singapore

5 over million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

Their Gini coefficient as of 2011 = 22.3

[Arcachon]

Norway (Listeni/ˈnɔrweɪ/; Norwegian: About this sound Norge (Bokmål) or About this sound Noreg (Nynorsk)), officially the Kingdom of Norway (Kongeriket Norge in Bokmål and Kongeriket Noreg in Nynorsk), is a Scandinavian unitary constitutional monarchy whose territory comprises the western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Jan Mayen, the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, and the sub-Antarctic Bouvet Island.[note 1] Norway has a total area of 385,252 square kilometres (148,747 sq mi) and a population of 5,109,059 people.

Norway Area - 385,252.0 km2, 148,747 sq mi

Singapore Area - Total 716.1 km2, 276 sq mi

[minority]

Hello minority, pls speak on this issue.

The lady have a landed. I repeat Lived in a landed. What else is there to say? If I live in a landed I have no road to go? Or Really worst of than the low income? Who is worst?

She need to attend some finical planning class. No diff from the lady who waste 1M in 1yr. Donno where the $ go.

She have so many options like downgrade to a HDB. sell the landed. and put the suplus into a REITs or equity that pay good divined.

Depend on the $100 CPF? LOL! And people kpkb about min sum. if no Min Sum the when hit 65 how to catch up with inflation?

People are so funny. want Cradle to grave all take care of. Do some planning. Anyway this lady is not like jia lat. got option just don't want. to take. who to blame? blame god lor.

[minority]

Norway (Listeni/ˈnɔrweɪ/; Norwegian: About this sound Norge (Bokmål) or About this sound Noreg (Nynorsk)), officially the Kingdom of Norway (Kongeriket Norge in Bokmål and Kongeriket Noreg in Nynorsk), is a Scandinavian unitary constitutional monarchy whose territory comprises the western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Jan Mayen, the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard, and the sub-Antarctic Bouvet Island.[note 1] Norway has a total area of 385,252 square kilometres (148,747 sq mi) and a population of 5,109,059 people.

Norway Area - 385,252.0 km2, 148,747 sq mi

Singapore Area - Total 716.1 km2, 276 sq mi

Also

Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower.

Resources
Export revenues from oil and gas have risen to almost 50% of total exports and constitute more than 20% of the GDP.[95] Norway is the fifth-largest oil exporter and third-largest gas exporter in the world, but it is not a member of OPEC.