Rejected for publication – letter to the Straits Times forum page
Wednesday, 19 November 2008, 10:53 pm | 3,167 views
The following letter was sent by Mr Vincent Sear to the Straits Times. The Straits Times has rejected it for publication.
Sir,
I refer to the letter of November 18, 2008, from Mr. Chua Seng Yang, “Questions on investment product rally.” Mr. Chua, like many others, may have different opinions and points of view on the issue of the collapse of structured investment products, and we all should accommodate and respect opinions and points of view that are different from our own. However, Mr. Chua has also written, “It was not too long ago that Mr Tan was the chief executive officer of NTUC Income and his own agents adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous. Why did Mr Tan not tell his agents to practise more ethics then, when he was CEO?” I would like to invite Mr. Chua to substantiate his allegation, which I find groundless and even slanderous.
I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Tan Kin Lian in NTUC Income several years ago, in a position directly linking senior management to agency sales force. As far as I know, at no time did Mr. Tan advocate any unethical or unscrupulous practices for his sales force. The highest risk product available from NTUC Income then was probably the Technology Fund ILP (investment-linked policy). It also sustained hefty losses during the dot.com crash of the early 2000s but there was no complaint of mis-selling from investors like what is happening with the Lehman Brothers minibonds now. That was because investment losses and mis-selling or misrepresentation are different things. When investors are fully aware of the risks, there’s no complaint about losses.
Vincent Sear
—–
Email this article to a Friend
Bookmark this
straits times think that it is very good.
thats why today newspaper do not like it also.
no choice what to do?
if i am taking my very high pay i also do not want to lose everything.
sad sad.
how many people are willing to take the risk of losing everything like tan kin lian.
my highest salute to tan kin lian and his family members.
thank you very much.
i hv a personal friendship with tkl.
he iz a stubborn but kind hearted soul.
he can be very judgemental, opinionated, agggressive & even very personal but he is an upright man.
fttb
cpa, cfa
tan kin lian will leave a good name for his descendents because of his kind deeds. they will live with pride and honour.
Comments edited by moderator.
Please do not post derogatory remarks against families of whomever.
maybe we should start a fund and commission a statue of mr tan to be placed at hlp. I’m sure many would donate to this cause and this would permanently silence all his critics and put the elites to shame.
Yes, I second that. I am willing to donate 10% of my pay to fund the commissioning of his statue.
2) foreign talent to be
This is the reason why Singapore needs more upright people like TKL.
It is good to be opiniated and stubborn if one has a high level of integrity, honesty & sincerity.
This is even more so with the types of people around you who have only one set of opinions, that of their masters, who undoubtfully, are also the ones who line their pockets.
Stubborn upright man or men with swaying integrity. The choice is clear. The majority may not be right always.
I fear for Mr Tan Kin Lian as he is getting very high profile for his deeds. He as a single individual stand alone against the mighty adversary spells nothing but potential troubles for him and his family. I certainly do not wish to see Mr Tan KL ending up like our late JBJ.
The great pioneering leaders of Singapore are long gone. They are either dead or ill. The new team leading under the same brand does not share the same integrity and passion of our forefathers. Our country is slowly moving towards the decline with more and more unaccounted skeletons in the closet starting to surface. But the good news is that the new age are sick and tired of the decomposing leadership. If we want to retain the good lives painstakingly sculpted by the forefathers, Change we need. It will be too late if we slip into real physical economic and leadership destruction.
But will our people remember the multiple sagas to cast the right vote in 2012 or be distracted again by another round of petty personal attacks again?
Not too long ago, TKL stated he needed 100,000 signatures so that he can then Stand Up and give all Singaporeans the choice to be elected into the Office of President of the “Litter Red Dot”. As an upright man, I think there is no problem for TKL to lift and realise his ambition to serve. At least he sincerely and openly offer his candidacy.
Can TOC offer its website to test the ground for TKL in the form of “virtual votings”? I am sure all TOC “bongo’ and “wanaba” people will YES. If No, go hell with them.
Include my signature please. However, I believe he would have problem coming out to help when he become president.
Still remember the sacked President who need to climb out of Istana to eat roti prata?
wah, start a fund and commission a statue?? I would contribute to a fund, but not to bulit a statue. A fund that may help people like Mr TanKL to find resources to built a strong team to challeges the men in white, in whatever GRC come election.
I find it STRANGE that ST did not allow the author’s mail to be published when it allowed Chua SY ’s unsubstantiated allegations to get published. I see nothing wrong with Vincent Sear’s letter. To have a pluralistic society, we must ensure both sides of views are given the chance to be heard.
On moral grounds and ethical grounds, I believe we must not let this matter rest as the implication is too great for humanity.
I hope there is some way this issue can be made known to the public to get their comments on the situation. This is the least we should do. If we allow unsubstantiated allegations to get published every now and then, one day if this thing happen to us, how would we feel? Like the investors who lost money, are they glad that someone stepped forward when they needed one? Would any of these have done the same ?
I hope this issue can be fully dealt with and use it to educate the people about Ethics and let them understand more about our society, the constraints we live in and the meaning of pluralistic society.
If we do not pursue this matter, it will die off soon and the people loose a chance to learn. Such chances are rare to have.
If the ST only published all the MIW thingy and not this issue, TOC should do it by newsletter distributed out to all household letterboxes like those circulated by IKEA. Have them in English and Chinese edition so everybody gets to read it and know the truth of whats been going on in Singapore, expecially to area like chinatown, redhill and all hdb hubs.
I always found TKL astrange & opinionated from my view of him as Income CEO.
But I changed my views on a job creation project I was involved with him & Income at the height of post Sars when unemployment & retrenchment was high in SG.
He bought the idea put forward, reviewed biz plan and gave green light to set up our proposed people centric business project to give the unemployed a job.
He was a man of the people & a doer who spoke with action vs many highly paid political ppl & office holders. That made the diff and my changed view of him.
He knew the plight of the man on the streets & did something innovative whn presented with the idea. Maybe he came from the ground vs those critics.
My respect remains & with current recession & unemployment, too bad I cannot revisit the same approach & assist the affected bec, current Income mgt is focussed only on core biz.
K
Hope not another character assassination attempt by media & the powered as TKL’s people engagement via the recent speaker corner activities have become prominent making some nervous. Common political approach in SG.
Local media are always siding the govt. That’s why I only browse their papers. I prefer to seek more news & info from the internet.
why bother to send to ST forum?
ST, like all other newspaper, is controlled by SPH
and SPH chairman is Tony Tan
Tony Tan was ex-deputy PM
—————————————–
forget about printed media, it no longer works in this new generation
people are reading online news everywhere and use forum/blog to communicate
TOC is a good example to gather public opinion and regulate it in an open & fair manner
I hope the singapore government will NEVER NEVER pass the law sanctioning euthanasia. The financial world is already a mess — not because people are not clever, but there is a lack of moral integrity.
by allowing euthanasia, we are once more allowing a group of people, the doctors to have to decide whether to kill or not to kill. Let us all assume that people’s hearts are not pure, and there will be doctors who are prepared to do something that is not right or good .. euthansia is against the code of human decency.. never allow a loophole to initiate what is “murder”
I sent a letter to ST Forum before also, about how our reputation is endangered everytime the gahmen chooses to sue over defamation. I also forwarded the letter to our AG Chambers.
AG Chambers said they will consider it.
ST Forum editor replied saying ‘thank you, but because they receive more than 70 letters a day, editorial decisions have to be made’
The ST Forum editor seems to believe that, in the next day’s paper, letters on dog poop and feeding monkeys deserve more attention.
ST will never publish such letters, and who cares? Most post-65ers I know don’t read the ST regularly, because you just can’t take them seriously.
Just look at yesterday’s headlines:
“SINGAPORE: RESTROOM ASS’N WANTS 70% OF PUBLIC TOILETS ACHIEVE 3-STAR RATING BY 2010″. And it went on to say, “Restroom Association (Singapore) will also be expanding its Happy Toilet School Education programme, which is currently conducted in primary and pre-schools.”
How profound and thoughtful! Trying to flush current affairs of utmost gravity down the toilet bowl?
Well, Mr. Chua Seng Yang is right. Nobody can say he’s wrong. Tan KL did slash the returns rate for income policies during his tenure as NTUC Income’s CEO. There’s no denying that.
Singaporeans, most of them at least, have an amazingly forgetful memory.
16) hitachi08 on November 21st, 2008 12.47 pm
While I partially agree with you and like what you say,
the fact is many still Pay And Pay for printed news daily.
Reading something day after day has a few effects on the person. eg. they cannot feel normal without it for 1 day. The others I am not at liberty to say.
But you can guess.
panter92, if you have access to Chua,
please ask him to read this blog for the numerous questions posed to him by readers, specifically, does he have solid evidence to prove for his allegations ?
If not, can you ask him why he said what he said? Also, why TOC reader forum letter not published when his was ?
Middle Voter,
You represent one of the many Singaporeans with a very forgetful memory. Have you forgotten how Tan KL slashed the return rates for Income policies that many workers applied for? He was CEO at that time and he agreed to it.
Now, after his ouster, he complained here and there. But how many people who remember past history would trust him? Unfortunately, many Singaporeans forget easily and will turn to anyone when they’re in trouble. Even if that someone may make matters worse. And I’m not talking about the mis-selling issue.
~sigh~
Tan KL did slash the returns rate for income policies during his tenure as NTUC Income’s CEO. There’s no denying that. – panter92 (#20)
He is the CEO of a Co-Op. How to give higher returns if the investment pools are not functioning well?
hey guys, how do you know if a letter to straits times is rejected? would they tell you by email or something?
i sent in a letter on wednesday but all i got was a call to confirm that i’m a real person. no other news so far.
I know TKL has done many good things recently. But even he started to speak up and risk antagonising the government only after he has left NTUC Income, a GLC. I would imagine few people would want to risk their livelihood by antagonising the government because the government is omnipresent.
I refer to Panter92 postings (#20 and #23).
The bonus rates of Inome was reduced during the Asian financial crisis in 1998 and the dotcom crisis in 2003. They were nencessary due to reflect the drop in asset values.
In subsequent years the bonus were partially restored in 2004 to 2006. In fact the excellent investment yield in 2007 justify a further restoration of the bonuses, but this was not carried out by the new management. Instead, they restructured the bonus and reduced the guaranteed portion. This was the source of my protest.
I believe that it is the duty of any life insruance company, not just a cooperative like NTUC Income, to give a fair return to its policyholders for their many years of savings. They should treat their policyholders fairly.
I normally do not reply to statements that are intended to mislead. In this case, I wish to give a reply to put the record straight.
Hi,
I need full kit of solar energy complect for my home, Where I can look at thechnical specifications and examples? We search on internet and not find this.
Please if you have some instruction please post.
Mr Tan Kin Lian,
Both the income policy and these investment products are the same. Please compare them before you go about contradicting yourself.
Your income policy was sold much earlier, before the Asian financial crisis or the dotcom bubble. You also claimed it was safe am I not right? At least, your sales agents did. So why were the returns slashed then? Everything was in black and white wasn’t it?
As for these current failed structured products, aren’t they almost exactly the same? They were bought when times are good.
So since you’re at Hong Lim Park protesting about the failed products with alleged mis-sellings, what about your agents? Can we protest against you?
*laughs*
Btw, this argument isn’t mine. It’s from an Elfred in YPAP. I won’t take credit for his work, but I think in his life so far, he did do or write something worthwhile.. at last.
haha…
#29 panter92.
Your statements are flaws. You have made unwittingly sweeping statements ie. use brush stroke and kills all in in bloody GO.
Are NTUC Income agents that bloody BAD? All of them seem to be mis-selling – Or to YOU only or you are a former agent of Income and has an axe ready to swing? Why?
As far as I know as an Insurance professional (no Income agent or worker), TKL runs Income fairly. When times are bad, the Company try to be the last in Singapore to cut bonuses AND when good times return, restore bonuses and these are placed in the GUARANTEED portion of the policies to earn more future bonuses unlike some others that mask up in terminal bonuses etc. which are non-guaranteed
Please panter92, do not just sweep the dust under your “bundak” only? Do not just laugh off lightly? Be an adult. Wake UP.
Panter92 (#29),
Before you continue to make sweeping statements, I stress you should go and do your own independent research instead of qouting on Elfred from YPAP. This is equivalent to depend on Straits Times on domestic political development in Singapore.
Your entire argument in #29 is completely self-defeated by your first sentence: Both the income policy and these investment products are the same. This is because Income policy and investment products are not the same.
The former is capital-guaranteed and returns is still dependent on market condition. The latter is capital-protected and returns is also dependent on market condition. When market condition is bad, the return on both products is inherently slashed.
The issue with the recent saga of failed structured products is mis-representation. Whether the structured products were bought in good times or bad times is actually immaterial to the case of mis-representation because they are not related.
I do not wish to reply to panter92, as he is making unfair statements just for the sake of argument or to attack my character.
I thank Oscar Choy and smallvice585 for presenting the situation quite fairly.
For those who write to ST forum expecting their letters to be published after one or two tries seems abit tough.
I wrote to ST forum at least thrice a week and so far on an average I got a letter published in print edition per month. This is the average I think most writers will get unless they are daily writers. Many of course went to the online forum section. Many more were discarded.
I believe that ST forum receive hundreds of letters each day and frankly they need to be selective on what they could publish.
If you want your letters to be published I guess the key is to write more and the law of average will take care of itself.
I wonder if TOC can setup a section to collect and archive the letters that sent to STForum but never get publish or been alter beyond its actual meaning by MSM editor.
There are many complains about the inethical act of MSM that modify and leave out certain critical sentences that define the tones of the letter.
You will be surprised that majority of citizen think that Singaporean is stupid, apathetic and ridiculous when the STForum tends to show complaint of Singaporean over mundane thing. Little did these majority realize that ST intentionally and selectively choose those letters that will not anger their pay political master.
Most meaningful letters go into waste because these letters sent to ST Forum get downplay or never get publish, perhaps the letter will be much appreciated here in TOC instead.
34) Daniel:
Thats seems like a good suggestion.
It’s up to TOC to take up the idea though logistically it will be overwhelming I guess.
“It’s up to TOC to take up the idea though logistically it will be overwhelming I guess.”
It highly likely since ST says it collecting 70 letters daily, and perhaps many may be repetitious, or can only select those few to make their masters happy. Nonetheless, TOC can consolidate those letters into a single post or download zipfile by week , rather than do it daily because that will be awful lot of work. Most letters are very well-written and well-summarised. Those letters might turn up to be a good source of information and discussion, as TOC can leverage on the reader who read the letters,
If TOC do this well, those who post to ST Forum will soon see it as viable alternative to MSM and help spread the word. Infinite storage versus limited Paper space, and that is where TOC can compete against MSM.
Yes, yes, yes…. TOC should print all the letters in full, letter that the ST does not print. I write regularly and have submitted to the ST before. The law of averages doesn’t work. Have you anlaysed (Gilbert Goh) what the ST prints and what it doesn’t. Also, for the letters printed, what has been censored or re-written? I have since stopped writing to ST as I do not wish to have my writings distorted and misrepresented in print.
Tan Kin Lian – you should just disregard statements made that has no basis, and not waste you time attending to such letters especially if such people cannot differentiate the difference between an Income policy and these structured products, and the core of the issue in the minibond saga which is mis-representation. I believe you are already busy following up on the minibond issues for the unfortunate investors.
Cowboy – the ST calls to check your identity but it does not gaurantee that they will print you letters. No courtesy call afterwards even if they do not print your letter. They have no obligation to print your letter and can throw it into the trash can on the basis that they have too many letters to print and yours is not selected. However if you write propoganda for the government you can be quite sure you will get it printed.
Soojenn
Frankly I wont know why they rejected some but published others. I guess they have their selection criterion. Sometimes they editted alot but often, at least for my case, they did not really remove out alot of the points that I raised.
For your info, my first letter was published about 6-7 years ago after three months of fruitless writing. I must have written at least 20 times before they decided to publish one letter! After that, I managed to get more letters published but I wrote alot so they may have cast compassion on me I guess to publish my letters at least once a month!
For a start, it may be good to write topics that interest the public. However, as interesting hot topics are also picked up by other writers so I guess you may have to compete. It may be good also not to write too long as ST forum pages sometimes can only fit not more than 5 letters a day. ST online Forum is an easier place to start with and I have a lot of letters slotted there. Of course, compared to the print section where everybody can read, ST online forum does sound secondary compared to the forum print page section.
If you write just to complaint against the govt, it may also be a bit difficult for the paper to pick it up unless it is really very well written. It may be good to self moderate a little and still manage to get your valid points across. That probably may be the key to getting your letter published but I am merely speculating here.
For starter, do try out the free My Paper “I Say” column. They are very supportive of letter writers and generally will print what you have sent to them. I must have at least 20 letters published there.
I still feel the law of average will take care of things here. If you write alot and reasonably well, I don’t see how you can be ignored for too many times. So never give up! Your next try may be your first letter that they will publish!
Hope this help.
Hi guys,
We’d be glad to publish a consolidated list of letters rejected by the Straits Times or TODAY. Of course, if the number of such letters become too many, we too will have to be selective of which ones we publish.
For a start, we’ll publish such letters every Monday.
So, please help us spread the word and let all your friends know that we can publish their letters (original or rejected ones).
Thanks for the suggestion!
Andrew Loh
Is it possible for the published letters would have its own front page?