The following is a letter sent to the Prime Minister by Mr Tan Kin Lian on Nov 10, 2008.
10 November 2008
Mr. Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister
Republic of Singapore
Dear Prime Minister,
I appeal to you to look into the plight and financial losses suffered by about 10,000 investors from the Mini-bonds, High notes, Pinnacle Notes, Jubilee Notes and other credit-linked notes that have been sold to them by the financial institutions.
This appeal is made in accordance with the following statements made by you as chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore at a staff seminar held on 29 October 2002 on the topic of “Market Discipline and Caveat Emptor”:
QUOTE
Our efforts to promote market discipline and a caveat emptor regime have focused on enhancing the amount, quality and timeliness of information disclosed by institutions. We have shifted from a merit-based supervisory approach to a disclosure-based approach that emphasises market discipline to incentivise financial institutions to conduct their business in a sound, efficient, and professional manner. The local banks in particular have significantly improved their disclosure practices.
We must continue to update our disclosure standards in line with industry developments and international best practice. Furthermore, the mindset change is not yet complete. The public still expects to be protected from downside risks, for example when playing the stock market, but more so when depositing their money in banks. Hence one major motivation for introducing deposit insurance is to change this mindset, and get people to understand that only a limited first tranche of their deposits with a bank is protected should the bank run into trouble.
But disclosure by itself is not enough. It must be accompanied by investor education. Investors have to understand and use the information provided to them. They must learn to make sense of this information and use it to look after their own interests. We also need a pool of knowledgeable analysts and journalists who will shine the spotlight on any obscure fine print that the lay investor fails to notice. A more informed and sophisticated investor base will reinforce market discipline and form the basis for a more vibrant and mature financial sector. In all these respects, we have a long way to go.
Market discipline also requires an effective enforcement regime. To preserve investor confidence, penalties for transgressions must be swift and appropriate. MAS now has the power to investigate and bring a court action for market misconduct under the new civil penalty regime. This will complement the existing criminal penalty regime administered by CAD.”
UNQUOTE
On 10 October 2008, I submitted a Petition signed by 983 people addressed to the Singapore Government. It was handed over to Dr. Andrew Khoo, Executive Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, who received it on behalf of the chairman, Mr. Goh Chok Tong. This Petition said:
QUOTE
We, the undersigned, write to petition the Singapore Government, particularly the Commercial Affairs Department (Singapore Police Force) and/or the Monetary Authority of Singapore, to conduct a full and independent inquiry in relation to the credit linked securities sold by various financial institutions in Singapore. These structured products include the Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes, Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Notes and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Notes.
Singaporeans, including the persons who have signed this petition, lost their hardearned savings by investing in these financial products. Such products clearly did not suit the risk profiles of these consumers. The consumers were not made aware of the high risks involved in the financial product when buying the product. They became innocent victims of misrepresentation by the financial institutions that distributed the structured products.
We now wish to be assured that those who invested in such financial products have not been victims of negligent and/or dishonest conduct and/or fraud by these financial institutions.
The Government has a duty to ensure that investment products are marketed and sold appropriately in our jurisdiction. Such products must be sold in a manner compliant with the laws of Singapore. Financial institutions, including their respective key management, that do not follow the laws or regulations applicable to them must be held accountable for such breaches.
Please commence a full and independent inquiry into the sale of structured products by various financial institutions in Singapore. If the inquiry deems necessary, the Attorney-General of Singapore should act against these financial institutions. We also ask the Government to help these investors to claim fair and adequate compensation from these financial institutions for their losses which are caused by the misconduct of these financial institutions.
We ask the Government to act now and restore the peoples’ faith in our financial System.
UNQUOTE
In a supporting letter to the Monetary Authority of Singapore, I have mentioned some of the possible areas where the laws of Singapore might have been breached. They are set out in annex 1.
I have received an acknowledgement from MAS of the Petition. Nearly one month has passed. I have not heard from MAS if they intend to act on the requests contained in the Petition, namely to commence a full and independent inquiry into the sale of structured products by various financial institutions in Singapore and, if the inquiry deems necessary, to act against these financial institutions.
I appeal to you, Prime Minister, to ask the MAS to act more swiftly and appropriately, in line with this vision:
QUOTE
Market discipline also requires an effective enforcement regime. To preserve investor confidence, penalties for transgressions must be swift and appropriate. MAS now has the power to investigate and bring a court action for market misconduct under the new civil penalty regime. This will complement the existing criminal penalty regime administered by CAD.”
UNQUOTE
Annex 2 contains an article written from the perspective of an investor.
Thank you.
Tan Kin Lian
———
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
Dear Smallvoice585,
Petitions, citizen activism and internet discussions do not wield any power in the real sense. If we are passionate in our beliefs and love for the nation, we should seriously consider entering politics. Only with political power can we make real changes.
The PAP Govt always speak with one voice. So, if there are to be alternative voices, they must come from outside Parliament. But, as I’d stated, Tan Kin Lian’s petitions and letters and internet activism can be ignored and there is nothing we can do about it.
Thank you for voicing out how PAP contributes to social unrest in Singapore. PAP today is dangerous to Singapore. Unless PAP revives its socialist roots, PAP can only be a threat to Singapore’s future.
#51,
What does socialism mean to you, and how extreme should socialist policies be? Do you reckon also that the ruling party today is in capitalist mode (I apologise for using the only other term relating to the subject I know)? Just 2 simple questions from an ordinary Singaporean.
#50
Hi, ‘smallvoice’ doesn’t come across as having an over-inflated ego. Why do you say that? He sounds like a great guy. Lots of charisma. Should enter politics himself. He’ll be the darling of media political correspondents. Everyone will love ‘smallvoice’.
He sounds like a great guy. Lots of charisma. Should enter politics himself. He’ll be the darling of media political correspondent – moderate (#53)
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/a-word-on-obama/
See how great a darling he (smallvoice585) is in the comment thread of the above-mentioned article. He will be darling of Straits Time’s political correspondent.
With respect to socialism, I aspire for a more equitable society. For starters, the formula for determining ministerial salaries and civil service bonuses should include the Gini Coefficient on equal weightage as the GDP. This is to fundamentally re-align the minister’s sense of purpose towards meeting societal needs.
Prior to the privatisation of Singapore Telecom, DBS, Singapore Post, PSA, etc, the PAP government used to be a lot caring while making pragmatic decisions in economic policy-making. GDP growth is dependent to good economic policies and this does not require the government to be only pro-business.
Back in the 70′s and 80′s, there were many PAP MPs who were sympathetic to the people. I can’t say this remains true today. Now, we have a government which is detached from its citizens, and citizens who are detached from their government.
With respect to socialism, I aspire for a more equitable society. For starters, the formula for determining ministerial salaries and civil service bonuses should include the Gini Coefficient on equal weightage as the GDP. This is to fundamentally re-align the minister’s sense of purpose towards meeting societal needs. – smallvoice585(#44)
I am glad to see someone with similar aspiration on TOC. Maybe smallvice585 ought to be running for politics in Singapore.
With respect to socialism, I aspire for a more equitable society. For starters, the formula for determining ministerial salaries and civil service bonuses should include the Gini Coefficient on equal weightage as the GDP. This is to fundamentally re-align the minister’s sense of purpose towards meeting societal needs. – smallvice585(#44)
I am glad to see someone with similar aspiration on TOC. Maybe smallvice585 ought to be running for politics in Singapore
typo: i misquoted smallvoice585. It ought to be smallvice585
42) Anonymous
it’s caveat emptor
You see, it depends on which side of the fence you’re on.
White Fence:
“It’s Caveat Emptor! You knew the risks. If you do not, you are responsible to go find them and understand them”.
Black Fence:
“What is caveat Emptor? It is, buyer’s risk: the commercial principle that the buyer is responsible for making sure that goods bought are of a reasonable quality, unless the seller is offering a guarantee of their quality“.
yah, you;ll make an excellent politician and please don’t wear white.
what are you waiting for, ni hai zai deng shi me ne, smallvoice?
Hi Mr Tan Kin Lian,
We appreciate your good work and perseverence.
Singapore is indebted to you.
Best wishes
/// 25) smallvoice585 on November 12th, 2008 6.01 pm
It is difficult to hold a politician to his words as he chose those words that are expedient to his purposes on that occasion. It is not expected that he will do as he promised as the situation may have changed and many other considerations may take precedence. Sadly, that is how politics work in the real world. ///
smallvoice585 – I think you should preserve this paragraph, cast it in concrete, or enlarge this paragraph into A3 size and frame it. Come election time, please dust this paragraph off and publish it here again or in the Straits Times. Your smallvoice will instantly be very loud and clear.
I find it amazing that MAS can subcontract its duties to 3rd parties. Deliotte and Touche is now looking into the minibond scheme I supposed paid by MAS to ensure they are devoid of any errors in their actions. Haha. (ouch!)
About time we terminate our top level ministers and subcontract their duties to other consultancy firms. Why pay them top dollars so that they can subcontract their fiduciary duties to 3rd parrties?
Tan Kin Lian, you remind me of His late Excellency Mr Ong Teng Cheong.
At a time of crisis in Singapore our President Nathan is glaringly quiet.
Was he born in the year of the mouse?
60) T
I have a very high regard for smallvoice and like most commentators over here I do feel he brings about a sense of balance to some of the discussion threads.
However, the comment he made that impacted another highly esteemed commentater T needs to be addressed appropriately.
In order to do this, I shall put a face to the quote. This face shall be the PM himself, Lee Hsien Loong.
Let’s imagine him saying this:
It is difficult to hold ME to MY words as I chose those words that are expedient to MY purposes on that occasion. It is not expected that I will do as I promised as the situation may have changed and many other considerations may take precedence. Sadly, that is how politics work in the real world
Tell me what you think now.
I have a very high regard for smallvoice and like most commentators over here I do feel he brings about a sense of balance to some of the discussion threads. – gemami (#62)
Not everyone agrees that smallvoice585 brings a sense of balance.
when things go wrong, we blame the government for not helping us or sheltering us or protecting us – annonymous (#42)
When the government and/or PAP monopolise the channels of welfare, human rights and addressing legitimate grievances, this is what you get. We, the people, are in a rock and hard place. The government has to let go first.
moving along, I recall what MM Lee just said – if you want 5% – you go in with your eys open. High return, high risk.
What do you think of the compulsory CPF $20,000 in Ordinary account? earning 4%.
High risk? ABC learning centre, Merrill Lynch, Citibank? Suchou.
In this case, we have no chhoice, but the risk is very real now.
/// 64) sub contract on November 13th, 2008 1.39 pm
High risk? ABC learning centre, Merrill Lynch, Citibank? Suchou. ///
sub contract – by saying this, you are actually agreeing with what MM said – high risk high return and going in with eyes wide open (personally, I prefer eyes wide shut by Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman).
You see, Temasek and GIC went into these multi-billion investments knowing well the risks, and when they tank, they keep very quiet and did not blame the sellers or investment bankers who hawk those lemons. They did not scream “mis-selling” or that they are financially illiterate, or worse still, plain illiterate.
I only have sub-prime six air-dew-cay-shern hor…
Someoone pointed out to me that the OCBC preferencce shares pay a dividend of 5.1%. The preference shares have lower risk compared to the ordinary shares of OCBC. And OCBC is still “solid as a rock”.
It is not correct to label the investors who want 5% return as “taking risk”. If they wish to take risk to lose their principal, they should get 20% return.
Hi sub contract (#61)
It is not the duty of President Nathan to speak at Speaker’s Corner and to voice the grievances of the investors. So, don’t blame him for keeping quiet.
Actually, I am the person who is born in the year of the mouse. But, that does not stop me from making noise in Hong Lim Park.
Hi Kin Lian,
OCBC pref shares’ dividend of 5.1% is not guaranteed.
/// The payment of dividends on the preference shares is subject to declaration by our Board of Directors. As the preference shares rank ahead of ordinary shares, OCBC Bank would have to declare dividends on the preference shares if it declares dividends on the ordinary shares. Since the end of World War II, OCBC Bank has never stopped paying dividends on its ordinary shares. ///
In other words, in bad times, there may be no dividends. And I believe we are about to enter, if not already there, into really BAD times.
The fact that OCBC has paid dividends since WWII doesn’t give me any comfort. Lehman Brothers was going strong for 158 years….
the big big issue is Nathan remaining dead silent on Temasek and GIC investments.
he has yet to say whether this govt has kept him in the loop and
surely he ought to have the same info as HC and MM.
it is high time for someone to swap places with Nathan.
notice i left the title of president out for him, simply because
he did not earn it through the people’s votes.
I mean, if you retire, retire and shut up. Don’t be involved, because you choose to retire. Go Batam better! – physician (#69)
If you are uncomfortable with Mr Tan KL raising important social issues and championing the cause for victims, you should be questioning how these issues even emerge in the first place? Which organisation and political party create the environment that resulted in the fiasco in the first place? If you don’t like the answer, I beg you to leave.
Mr Tan Kin Lian,
I think you are going to have more and more ‘escorts’ because of your high profile and the impending election wind sweeping in our direction.
I urge you to keep your dignity and continue what you do best.
“Ignore the ignorant” is the best antidote.
Cheers :)
For me, the whole minibond saga does not really interest me much as I am not a investor and I am not affliated with any FIs.
However, I am more drawn to the fact that one man TKL to be specific has done a wonderful job of gathering these distraught investors and giving them a voice.
What is so special about this man? He has two ears, two eyes, one mouth (maybe a big one), one nose and two hands – very ordinary and just like you and me. Sure he was an ex CEO with NTUC Income before with many years of high level work experience. But is he any different from you and me?
He has a big heart to speak out for the downtrodden and lost investors.
He has the unceasing zeal to do something for those who looked forlorn and disappointed.
He has a spirit of a lion to talk back at the authorities by way of petitioning and open protest at HLP.
He has a never-say-die attitude to pursue the matter at all cost even though he was warned time and again “to be careful” by supporters.
He has a determined unwavering atttitude to see that things are properly look into and that they are not swept under the carpet.
Singapore is proud to have such a son on our land and we need many Tan Kin Lian out there who is willing to stand out and be counted despite the cost.
Singapore needs sons and daughters to speak out with a loud voice so that many out there can look up.
Singapore will be a better place as there is someone out there who is willing to risk it for the benefit of our country. My only hope is that there will be more Tan Kin Lian out there who will come up and take the lead as we all look like lost sheep in our country battled around by those whom we have foolishly voted.
Hong Kong lawmakers vote for Lehman Brothers probe
Dikki Sinn , The Associated Press , Hong Kong | Thu, 11/13/2008 10:58 AM | Business
An investigation will be launched in Hong Kong into the sale of financial products linked to collapsed U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers after lawmakers voted overwhelmingly for a probe.
The legislature passed a motion 47-4 empowering a subcommittee to summon top financial officials and bankers and have them turn over internal documents during the investigation. Four other lawmakers abstained from Wednesday’s vote.
“The Legislative Council has the responsibility to investigate the cause of the saga, whether there’s any dereliction of duty and whether there should be any punishment,” said Kam Nai-wai, a Democratic Party legislator who helped investors with Lehman-linked products over the past two months.
Hundreds of investors who lost money protested outside the legislative building Wednesday while lawmakers debated inside for more than seven hours. They have complained bank sales staff did not fully explain that the financial products they purchased were linked to the bankrupt U.S. company, leading them to believe they were a low-risk investment.
Banker David Li said any investigation would slow the efforts of banks in reaching settlements with their clients and damage Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial center.
“Subjecting banks to what amounts to an unlimited power to demand documents and the appearance of bank managers before the subcommittee will only draw resources away from the great efforts banks are making,” said Li, who represents the banking sector in the legislature.
The Hong Kong Association of Banks said in a statement issued late Wednesday that it hoped lawmakers would be “discreet” in handling the confidential business information of banks and the personal data of customers while conducting the inquiry.
Billions of dollars in bad debt forced Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., once the fourth-largest investment bank in the U.S., to file for bankruptcy in September, a victim of the world’s worst financial crisis in decades.
——————————
Our team A leaders and highest paid ministers should be ashamed of themselves!
During crisis, we can see the difference that bring out a man – TKL not receiving top pay salary, our most highly paid ministers and stat board officers, our National bank CEOs etc
My sincere prayers for TKL that nothing will happen to you but do be extra careful of what you say.
I will at the Hong Lim park on 15 Nov to show support to you although I not an investor.
Keep up the good work, Mr Tan.
most likely the PM will throw your letter into the dustbin and he will say what to do. I don’t think the govt will want to involve in this issue. Mr Tan can bring this matter to parliament if he is voted in the next GE. Definitely all uncle and auntie will support Mr Tan whether he is independent candidate or under a good opposition party.
smallvice 585,
If that being the case, that we have a government detached from its citizens and vice versa, what are you going to do about it? Aside that, I find your ‘government’/ ‘citizens’ adjunct here interesting. People usually use the ‘government’/ ‘people’ one. Why do you use ‘citizen’, and how does it reflect on who you are? Are you, or have you had any experience, in the civil service?
“Aside that, I find your ‘government’/ ‘citizens’ adjunct here interesting. People usually use the ‘government’/ ‘people’ one.”
“Are you, or have you had any experience, in the civil service?”
People ? Citizen ? What difference does it make to the article.
A lot of people in the private sector have never been in the civil service. Does NS count. What is your point Mr. moderate.
“Our team A leaders and highest paid ministers should be ashamed of themselves!”
What ? Ashamed of themselves ? They are always so proud of themselves by saying they are different from the rest !
All the talk, will it produce result- especially for the Opposition in the next G.E? I don’t think so. People will still clamour to vote for the PAP.
78) Chelsea
YA though my spirit is with them reality does set in to tell me that they may not win more than the 2 SMCs. Singaporean voters have the weird habit of attending all the opposition party raliies and then woke up the next day to vote for the lightning sign.
We are too cushioned by our country’s political climate to vote otherwise. I remembered the first time when I voted for the opposition, I could not sleep the day before and trembled all the way to the polls.
Will I be traced by my vote? Will I now be hunted and spied upon? Is my life in danger?
I am sure that I am not alone with my perceived fear which is very psychological but real.
Nevertheless, I am still alive now and could even work for a govt-linked company for a year.
All the fear I am afraid is very real. The oppisition parties need to challenge this perception that when people vote for the opposition they will face certain adverse repercussions.
mr tan kin lian
if ocbc goes belly up, which though improbable (like lehman was) is possible
would you still call the pref shares low risk? at 5.1%pa yield?
bear in mind, these bonds have no maturity date…which means you carry ocbc’s risk for the rest of your life…and your next generation’s too, unless ocbc choose to repay that loan
the pref shares are as high risk as the ocbc shares themselves…all these so called investors simply are too unschooled to realise
78) chealsea & 79) Gilbert ,
In battles such as the GE, every vote counts, Isn’t it sad that the Alternatives are losing votes to the PAP because of fear? The PAP do not win the votes, it is the Alternatives who are losing the votes to them.
I guess a simple calculation will tell us how important this element of fear is to the PAP.
First of all, there is a variety of fear.
a. fear that Big Brother might be watching you.
b. fear that the long arm of Big Brother might wake you up in the middle of the night to take to an unknown, dark and horrible place.
c. fear that you will be rocking the boat too much which in turn jeapodise your own welfare.
d. fear that your children will not be accorded the same privileges as those who had voted for the PAP.
e. fear that your HDB flat might lose its value.
f. fear that your estate might not be able to upkeep itself without you having to cough up extra maintenance fees.
fear, fear ,fear fear ….. here, there and everywhere.
With this variety, and many more, it does not need a mathematician to tell you that in every category listed, all it takes is for 0.5% to 1% of the population to fall into each category.
This is where the PAP has been able to win all these past elections.
All things, even without being equal, points to an equal or possibly stronger Alternative support, let’s say, 40% to 40%. However, the Alternatives have been losing elections after elections because of these 10% to 20% of the population who voted out of fear, conciously or subconciously.
This is why, people like us must go out and educate these people that they have to look beyond their fear so that we can hope for a better tomorrow, a better Singapore, free from the clutches of the PAP.
If you think you do not need this freedom for yourself, at least, think for your children and how they will be suffering under this kind of governance. It can NEVER get any better, only worse. Your children will pay the price for your inaction and fear.
Dear Mr Tan
With all due respect, you being the ex-CEO of NTUC Income and all, but from all that I’ve been reading about your approach towards this issue, and your assessment of what is risk, what is returns, which party is responsible for what, I don’t think you understand the concept of investments / investment instruments.
It’s commendable that you’re trying to be a voice for the people but you’re also in a way misleading as well since your concept of what constitutes riskless, low risk, high risk is not correct in itself.
It’s rather like fighting a battle without understanding what actually caused it.
I’m not on the side of the banks. But neither am I on the side of the consumers especially after watching how they’ve behaved
True there might be the handful who were ignorant and naive enough to go for what they thought was a free lunch, but the majority simply …..
Someone mentioned that “What is caveat Emptor? It is, buyer’s risk: the commercial principle that the buyer is responsible for making sure that goods bought are of a reasonable quality, unless the seller is offering a guarantee of their quality”
Correct.
Then everybody should sue Lehman Brothers!!! They were the ones who offered a guarantee on their quality. They were the ones who went round telling everybody who market their products that they have 158 years of history behind them. They were the ones who made representations of unfounded (as we found out painfully later) financial stability to back that guarantee.
Why take it up with the middle men who are just as clueless as you and I about the financial situation of the company? Heck, even the staff of Lehman weren’t aware of the financial instability what more tiny DBS in half-way across the globe Singapore
Barking up the wrong tree.
Get everybody’s act together. File a class action suit against Lehman and you might have a better chance of getting their money back.
No way is the vacumm cleaner salesman going to guarantee against the malfunction of the vacumm cleaner. The manufacturer will.
Go for the manufacturer.
“Then everybody should sue Lehman Brothers!!! They were the ones who offered a guarantee on their quality.”
Did you read the ShittyTimes that paint the pictures that Lehman Brothers should be entirely responsible for these craps ? Read more web post and understand the main issue. The main issue is mis-selling and mis-representation of DBS not some merely stupid bank fallout. The Lehman FI fallout does not absolved from all blame of local banks here from mis-selling and representation.
Anyway, you’re not the first to regurgitate the ShittyTime’s nonsense here. Why not you save your money subscribing to ShittyTime and read more meaningful posts in the web.
Look like not only there are clowns in the government, there are more like-minded clowns that worship ShittyTime lurking around in the web.
“Get everybody’s act together. File a class action suit against Lehman and you might have a better chance of getting their money back.”
ClassACtion against thy court ? Isn’t MM Lee make his statement clear ? Since when the court ever defy and reverse MM Lee’s “Word of Wisdom” ? Can anyone ensure the partiality of the court when the final verdict is issued by the emperor ?
High notes was structured and sold by DBS bank.
Not Lehman brothers. 82) got it all wrong.
Oh come on guys, I think he #82) Anonymous meant well.
Has anyone asked for the complete definition of ‘caveat emptor’?
If, by going with the definition mentioned: ……unless the seller is offering a guarantee of their quality” there might be a case to pursue the main culprit who sold the product.
Go after the main man is what he means.
#82 here
I was part of a misrepresented sale some years ago. Also with an American firm. Who then went bankrupt. Filed for Chapter 11.
I took part in the class action suit.
We won. I got some (not all) of my money back.
No hassle. Took a couple of years, but no hassle. Filed a couple of papers, some evidence and that’s it.
No need for all these angst.
The courts there took care that justice is meted out against the perpetrators.
To #83 Daniel, if you understand to file your suit in the right court, you shouldn’t be worried about MM Lee. He doesn’t have jurisdiction everywhere.
Hi #82
It is not proper for you to pass judgement under an anonymous posting. Your views may differ from my views, but you are entitled to your views. It does not give you the right to judge my views.
#76
A world of difference. For instance, if something is a ‘comment’, you call it a comment, not an article. Name the word correctly, and things will turn out fine. Call a ‘comment’ an ‘article’, and no one will treat you seriously, unless of course they want you to continue making mistakes, and encourage you to do so; be undiscerning. Notice that ‘smallvice 585′ refuses to answer my questions. He’s too smart to.
“To #83 Daniel, if you understand to file your suit in the right court, you shouldn’t be worried about MM Lee. He doesn’t have jurisdiction everywhere.”
I don’t think you fully understand culture and workflow of the governing system here. Are you saying this in the context of Singapore court or somewhere else ? Right Court ? I thought that there is only one court in Singapore. “He doesn’t have jurisdiction everywhere.” Oh boy, I think you really underestimate the old folk. The old folk is always the last weapon to use to settle issue and has the final say. Has always been in the past and in the present, and maybe in the future if he still active.
Anonymouse #82
There are several parties involved in this saga. On one side you have the investors and on the other side you have the RMs, the FIs, and the manufacturers.The RMs, the FIs and the manufacturer are severally or jointly liable .This is the perogative of the investors to sue whoever they deem fit..
As for the vacuum salesman analogy, it is incorrect to say that the salesman is NOt LIable. The salesman could have misrepresented or mis -sold the vacuum cleaner, eg that it could function as body shrinker or tummy reducer.
That is what the RMs was accused of, for mis-selling and misrepresenting the products and risk was the major factor in the fiasco
Hi, if there was one single and common component about these structured products that was misrepresented, that you can put your finger on, what would it be? Is it only the risk involved with minibonds and such, and exactly what kind? It is claimed that full disclosure wasn’t made about the risks involved with the products, so what kind of risks weren’t disclosed? Hope my questions are understood.
Hi Gemami:
Yes you are right – the cost of fear is the reason why the ruling party enjoys such crushing victory for every GE despite the fact that we all know many people out there are fed up with the establishment.
So how do we eradicate this perceived fear which is very real?
I hope TOC can use this platform to assure all Singaporeans that voting is safe, secret and truthful.
When I asked my mum who is 77 years old now who she will vote for in the next GE, her reply was prompt “PAP la? Who else?”
When I countered her with the list of grouses of the ruling party, her reply later was “Also PAP la. Who else can i vote? for?.” For the record, my mum is only educated up to secondary school and belongs to those who are politically apathetic. The majority of our elderly ill-educated folks are such.
It clearly shows that the majority of our elderly folks numbering close to at least 20% if out total population out there will go for the ruling party anytime and are strong supporters who could not be swayed anyhow.
To #83 Daniel, if you understand to file your suit in the right court, you shouldn’t be worried about MM Lee. He doesn’t have jurisdiction everywhere. – anonymous (#86)
I believe the sales contract states clearly that forum must be the Singapore Court. I know this sounds strange because misrepresentation can potentially void a contract but until the contract has been voided, we are stuck with using the Singapore Courts.
I personally like the idea of using the Singapore Court because it would stake public opinion on the impartiality of the Singapore Court against the reputation of MAS as a financial regulator. If the court decides in favour of the retail investor, MAS looses out as a financial regulator because it would be deemed to be a useless body despite all the mounting evidence. If the court decides in favour of the banks, the court looses its moral authority which would be a blow to Singapore’s reputation as a clean corrupt-free state.
Either way, the government is still the looser. Hence, I am not surprised by MM LKY and PM LHL would attempt to discourage the investors to take the banks to court.
When I countered her with the list of grouses of the ruling party, her reply later was “Also PAP la. Who else can i vote? for?.” – Gilbert Goh (#92)
Does your mom live in a walkover zone? If so, she really has nobody to vote. However, if she is truly apathetic, she should not vote at all even if the Opposition actually contest in her zone.
Aside that, I find your ‘government’/ ‘citizens’ adjunct here interesting. People usually use the ‘government’/ ‘people’ one. Why do you use ‘citizen’, and how does it reflect on who you are? Are you, or have you had any experience, in the civil service? – moderate (#75)
I am not in the civil service. However, I am very influenced by the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that distinguishes a citizen from a human. Also, at the same time, citizens only include visitors, so all the interest of PR, foreign talents, etc are secondary to me. Citizens’ interest comes first.
If that being the case, that we have a government detached from its citizens and vice versa, what are you going to do about it? – moderate (#75)
I would love to run for GE but I don’t fulfil the residency requirement for GE candidate. GE candidates must have 10 year residency in Singapore prior to GE. I have spent a number of years abroad and the earliest GE I can run for in view of this requirement is 2021. Such is life, but I intend to help out as an election agent for the Opposition.
Correction to Post #94:
Aside that, I find your ‘government’/ ‘citizens’ adjunct here interesting. People usually use the ‘government’/ ‘people’ one. Why do you use ‘citizen’, and how does it reflect on who you are? Are you, or have you had any experience, in the civil service? – moderate (#75)
I am not in the civil service. However, I am very influenced by the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that distinguishes a citizen from a human. Also, at the same time, the electorate consists of the citizens, so all the interest of PR, foreign talents, etc are secondary to me. Citizens’ interest comes first.
“If the court decides in favour of the banks, the court looses its moral authority which would be a blow to Singapore’s reputation as a clean corrupt-free state.”
Either way, Singapore’s reputation will be damaged whatever the ruling is. And that is why gov want the bank to settle with the investor. No court case means no ruling. However it seems the bank neglect the “invulnerable” investors which is stupid because there is really no difference between vulnerable and invulnerable investors when it comes to buying the nasty product itself because all just trust the RM because the RMs represent the National Bank, and National Bank don’t deceive people. If the RM can’t even understand the product from the prospectus, let alone the investors ! The RM is just the product of the system of the bank, and cannot be fully blame for it, the main culprit is the system not the RM considering that it is not one sole RM’s act.
Anyway, Singapore must be screwed for the good of Singaporean otherwise the citizen will always be taken for granted by the gov and the GLC. Take it as heavenly punishment. Recall the story of Unsinkable Titanic where the captain once says that even God can’t sink the ship ?
“I personally like the idea of using the Singapore Court because it would stake public opinion on the impartiality of the Singapore Court against the reputation of MAS as a financial regulator.”
I doubt we will see it happen. Judging from the tactic use against Gopalan Nair, the court can use prolonged and delay tactic to increase the cost of burden of investors. All they need to do is to tell the investors it may take years to resolve and that lawsuit cost may even overrun their cost, therefore discouraging the investors. The worst thing is that there is no MP, no ministar, no clowns to help the investors to ensure court partiality. The case will be long forgotten and move on, and MORE GOOD YEARS will happen again.
A class Action looks good but it should fight in other country, not in here. I am thinking if the local investors can join forces with those in HK (if possible).
Judging from the tactic use against Gopalan Nair, the court can use prolonged and delay tactic to increase the cost of burden of investors. All they need to do is to tell the investors it may take years to resolve and that lawsuit cost may even overrun their cost, therefore discouraging the investors. – Daniel (#97)
Until the retail investors have attempted to take the banks to court, I disagree with your pessimistic assessment because it would suggest that our Singapore Court is already an impartial forum for matters of the ordinary citizens. Until proven otherwise, we should not question the integrity of the Singapore Court. There is no political cost in taking the banks to courts. With the ongoing protest against MAS, DBS and other FIs, MAS’ hands are already tied from taking side. If not now, when to take the FIs to court?
“our Singapore Court is already an impartial forum for matters of the ordinary citizens. ”
Who guarantee the impartiality ? How is it I yet to see a champion from the ruling party that stand ground with the investors. Give a minister as a champion with his reputation and job as stake. Without a champion, just like in real world without a project champion, a project will guarantee to lose. You must have a backing from influential figure to ensure impartiality and accountability, and having TKL is not enough to assist justice since TKL is downplayed by the gov.
YOu have SM, PM, MM jumping to conclusion and implying CAVEAT EMPTOR without checking on the perspective from the investors, so what can we expect from the court ? Is our court known for impartiality when SM, PM, MM are already involved in making the conclusion ?
I will have more confident if SM , MM , PM did not utter their insensitive statements.