If we either politicise the process or take an overly legalistic approach as opposed to this case-by-case evaluation in the financial institutions and FIDREC, there’s less likelihood that we get a fair outcome for investors.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
we need to sue before we know the result.
if we never sue we will never know the final judegement.
we will not rest in peace if we never sue.
Tharman knows very well it reflects badly on the PAP government regardless the outcome of the court ruling. He is speaking for PAP, not for investors or Singaporeans. This is similar to how PAP dealt with IBA and the Privy Council.
When the Privy Council ruled in favour of Goh Chok Tong in Goh Chok Tong vs JBJ, PAP said the Privy Council’s ruling is a shining example that reflects the independence of the Singapore Judiciary. When the Privy Council ruled in favour of JBJ in JBJ v Law Societyon Mr JBJ’s removal from the rolls of advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court in Singapore, the PAP reacted in saying the Privy Council is meddling with domestic politics.
But now when you have a state organ being pitched against state agency, there is no way the PAP government can deny any responsibility for doing their job badly. Clearly, from Tharman’s words, you can tell their loyalty is aligned to the party and not the country.
then we must even sue and sue.
“a fair outcome”
I did not know that PAP leaders like to be “fair” in the their dealings with people that get in their way of a “good and honest government”.
Mr Thurman S, evidently you are not learning from the old man. He carries a hatchet when he talks about fairness in your face.
“Overly-legalistic” = “unfair”??
Isn’t it the POINT of a legal system to ensure FAIRNESS and JUSTICE?
Unless our legal system doesn’t allow for that? What is Tharman saying?
The courts should handle it. A society not governed by laws is anarchy. Let them determine whether there was mis-selling.
I beg to differ from mini-star’s view that it is far more useful to have good disclosure of financial products than MAS to judge what product should be in the market.
Just an analogy, would AVA (or whoever regulate foods) allow tainted milk to be put on the shelves of supermarket even if the sellers put up prominant displays to tell buyers that the tainted milk may be detrimental to health?
The whole episode has put MAS in bad light. It also explain the mini-stars (Tharman and Lim Kng Kiang) used the same phase “not to politicise” the whole affair.
He also said : “A three-step process offers an independent review of a case first at the financial institution which sold the products, led by an independent person with no link to the institution.”
I question how independent can the review be at the bank given that the independent person’s role is only to supervise the review process. The review panel is still made up entirely by bank’s executives. Even if the review cases are submitted for the independent person for audit, how effective can the person be when he did not even get to hear the side of the story from the complainants.
We all know why Tarmac is afraid to go to the courts. He was convicted there before and it will bring back bad memories for him. He will try by hook or by crook to avoid the courts.
Because he has lost his b**ls, the rest of Singapore suffers.
Now we know.. no wonder MAS is reluctant to investigate..
MAS also lost money due to the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy.
If MAS investigate and punish the banks, MAS will not look impartial.