not a bad turn out. Hope to see more.
10, 000 investors burnt. only small portion of these turned up.
self-fulfilling prophecy?
self-defeating mentality?
kia si?
comfort-zone?
ineperienced?

Is Mr Tan blackmailing, being irresponsible and scared?

Mr Tan Spoke:

“the banks will not go to court, the bank will settle out of court, because to go to court, the publicity is going to be very bad for the banks and for Singapore”…..” if the reputation of Singapore is so bad”

Isn’t he blackmailing?

I’m going to sue you. You pay the money out of court settlement other wise I will sue and your reputation will be gone. Isn’t blackmailing?

Isn’t being irresponsible by putting country’s reputation at stake?

In fact I don’t agree with him Singapore’s reputation will be at stake. This is an investment contract between FIs and investors and these products are legal in many countries.

However, he thinks that Singapore’s reputation is at stake due to these proceedings. Why does he want to do something which is not good for Singapore? Why didn’t he try indoor before bring the whole thing to Hong Lim park? Responsible people don’t harm their own country. Is he following Dr Chee’s way? Isn’t being irresponsible by putting country’s reputation at stake?

Is he scared?

In his speech he initially mentioned three petitions and changed to four but didn’t talk about the third petition. What is about the third petition? Is he scared or hiding something?

What are the possibilities Mr Tan has messed up the whole post-minibond saga for his own political agenda?
1) After so many weeks, he decided to have these meetings in-door. It should be done from the beginning.
2) If a RM calls you and agreed to be your witness, this is your strong triumph card. Why should make it public?
3) Why did he decline to meet MAS officer? Is he looking down on junior level officers? If this officer is the person handling the issue, why doesn’t he put up the case to him rather than looking for status? It is definitely better than sending it through email.

Yes Mr. Tan successfully used this post-minibond saga to reveal his political ambition but I think the investors could be in a strong position without Mr Tan’s involvement.

2) Banker on December 28th, 2008 2.46 pm

“these products are legal in many countries”

What products are you referring to? Minbonds? DBS Highnotes?

Please list the many countries, please.

3) Sgcynic on December 28th, 2008 3.05 pm

“these products are legal in many countries”

Yes, these products are legal, but in most countries, they don’t sell to retail customers like the case in Hong Kong and Singapore.

Even as the products are legal, we are talking about mis-selling, and mis-representing. There is no probe / investigation in this regard.

“This is a practical and fair way to deal with the problem. The banks know it is in their interest to deal with the customers fairly, because there is ‘reputational risk’. In other words, if the banks do the right thing, their customers will remember them for a long time. If they do the wrong thing, customers and potential customers will also remember them for a long time. The banks know this and have every interest in sorting this out expeditiously and fairly. “

Minibonds case to be handled fairly, says PM

Banker,

Would you like to compare what PM Lee said with Mr Tan’s view. Please tell us was PM Lee trying to blackmail the banks with the above remark?

Regards.

Mr Banker

I disagree with you that it is ‘irresponsible to put the country’s reputation at stake’. Of course, we also probably differ a lot on what reputation means. For eg (let’s digress a bit to make my case) – during the defamation suit between Attorney General and Asian Wall Street Journal, the rationale for suing is that ASWJ is ruining our reputation. However, my opinion, and i have written to ST Forum and AG about this, is that by appearing so petty, the AG is also putting our reputation at stake.

So in the same way, if this Lehman fiasco is not settled fairly for the mis-sold investors, then won’t our reputation be affected as well? That we do not protect consumers but the big businesses.

Secondly, sometimes, if all a big organisation cares about is reputation, sometimes to do the right thing for the people, you have to force their hand. This is called lan lan bo bian.

#2 Banker
Sometimes, we see MPs from different constituencies giving grocery, transport vouchers, etc to the poor. Ulterior motives? No ! Why should anyone read too deep into it? Politicians or not, it is only morally correct to offer those in distress a helping hand. Mr. Tan K.L. was just doing it.

When the lehman fiasco broke out, no one from the FI was able/willing to anwer our enquiries. Our authority was nonchalant. Mr. Tan came in only AFTER this remained unchanged for some weeks.
Can you care to elaborate why you think the investors could be in a strong position without Mr Tan’s involvement?

Banker, do you think banks ever bothered about about Singapore’s reputation in the first place when they did such things??? Hahahahahahahaha…

9) partisan on December 28th, 2008 11.33 pm

Bravo! Well said partisan. I must comment that what you said made a lot of sense.

“There are no progress”. Not from the selected and walkover MPs, not from the regulator MAS, and not from the leaders at the top who ignored the (esp. elderly) victims. What mandate and moral standing do these “leaders” have.

“This is a good tactic”. Yes! Mum’s the word. If you can’t be bothered and is not willing to wayang to lend a ear, let alone a helping hand, keep quiet. Let MAS suppress the noisemakers.

“Here’s the template”. 1. This should never have happened. I’m not sorry that it has. 2. What to do. It’s happened. 3. That’s life. 4. See things in perspective. 5. Let’s move on.

“There is no perseverance or persistence found in such activities – I liken it to bringing people to somewhere high, and leave them hanging high and dry”. “This is hardly MP/EP material.” That’s right! So why are we paying them millions!!!? Sack them!

Bravo partisan! :>

hey banker,

as what some here have replied to you,
a legal product can be mis-sold if it is mis-sold.
to put it simple for you,
if there is mis-selling. that is illegal.

to put it even more bombastically simplistic no-brainer,
a contract that is legal can be void if one party mis-sells.

comprehension 101.

i hope, really, u are not a banker serving people who place their hardearned money in your hands.

i also bank. i bank real hard…. on the table. sometimes.

There was a person who , when I told him that I heard 10,000 investors were affected by the minibonds etc,
he told me that there are less than 10k due to double-counting as in
some investors bought more than 1 product.

So, is it that there are less than 10,000 NRIC’s involved here?
Is what the person say true?
thanks.

9) sgnic

Thanks for your compliments.

Empty vessel makes the most noise (and this is amplified through the loudhailer). It is just noise, noise, and more noise. Of course, now we know that there is a political motivation behind.

The good thing I see from the Hong Lim sessions is that it has certainly helped some opportunists to get some form of free publicity and air-time. Talking about building happiness ($$$) on other people’s misery. These folks already lost money in the junk products, where got money for getting more legal advice?

If really so “kind” and want to help such minibond victims, then do it for free all the way.

12) partisan on December 29th, 2008 1.37 am

I respect the ones who make noise, especially when those who are paid to do their job don’t and yet have the cheek to be partisan. If only more citizens are politicality motivated to dare to change, this country wouldn’t be going down the drain. LOL.

Banker

If banks think they can win in court, they shld fight all the way, neh? By winning, they will show that they did not mis-sell?

As to blackmail, so you would say MAS was blackmailing banks to settle with the “vulnerable”? Follows from yr analysis of TKL’s comments, what?

As to political agenda, so what?

If people become ministers for S$million salaries, waz wrong with juz being pollitical, rather than mercenary? Is greed for money OK? But not the desire for fairness?

As to S’pore’s reputation, ever tot DBS shld have tot abt it before it sold Hongkies the rubbish. Isn’t it 23% owned by S’pore govmin, a national champ (chump?) and the S stands for S’pore?

If you are a banker, you wld know the harm done to S’pore’s reputation by DBS. Hongkies with long memories link it with the Carrian case that hurt the reputation of M’sian companies in HK. Sime Darby took a long time to recover its reputation in HK, even though it was not involved in the Carrian case and was (and is) a well run co.

Banker, think before you pontificate.