Tan Kin Lian / Columnist
In recent years, it seems that cheating is allowed. You only need to say “caveat emptor” or “registered” with the XYZ authority.
What is cheating?
According to Wikipedia, “Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one’s own interest, and often at the expense of others. Cheating implies the breaking of rules.”
Credit linked notes
Recently, more than 10,000 ordinary folks were misled into investing in credit linked notes. They were told that the notes were as safe as fixed deposits.
The prospectus has a warning “you could lose part or all of your savings on a credit event”. However, the investors were advised by the trusted advisers to ignore this warning as the likelihood of a credit event is very remote.
They were also told that the notes were approved by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Actually, the prospectus said that notes were “registered” with MAS, but the difference between “registered” and “approved” were not clearly explained to them.
It was subsequently found that the nature and risks of the credit linked notes were quite different from what the investors were led to believe. Many people lost their lifetime savings. The total loss was more than $500 million.
SMS premium services
Two months ago, I participated in a free online survey and provided my mobile phone number.
Later, I received regular SMS messages asking me to participate in a contest. If I were careless and reply to the SMS, it would cost me $4 for each contest entry. I had no clue about the prize and chance of winning the contest. I suspected that the payout ratio would be very low, and that could get much better odds by betting on 4D.
After receiving more than 20 SMS messages and avoiding them with great care, I complained to my telephone operator. They “obliged” me by asking the service provider to remove my number from their list. They politely replied that they were not responsible for the service. I do not accept this argument as they probably take a big cut from collecting the monthly fee.
Consumer Association
Recently, it was reported that the Consumer Association (CASE) has received several dozen complaints from their customers who were billed $4 for each premium SMS messages received on their mobile phone. Their only mistake was to “subscribe” and “agree” to the first message. They received more than a dozen of unwanted SMS messages each month and were billed over $50.
I suspect that the number of affected customers is several ten fold of the number of complaints, as the number that complained is the tip of the iceberg.
The executive director of CASE was reported to have said that the service provider met the advertising standards and that they are acting within the law.
Is this a correct way to look at this matter? Is $4 a fair value for the SMS message? Suppose the service operator charges $40 or $400 per SMS message, would they still be operating within the law?
CASE is supposed to have a special responsibility in administering the Fair Trading Act. Surely, this type of behaviour by the premium service provider must have contravened some aspects of fair trading? Can we use our common sense of what is right and fair?
Caveat Emptor
Some regulators say that they are not competent to decide on what products or services are good, bad, fair or unfair for consumers. The consumers should “open their eyes” and make an informed decision.
I disagree with this approach. It is the role of regulators to regulate. It is the role of the government to govern.
The people should expect the government to enforce certain standard of conduct in society. They should expect water to be clean, medicines to be safe, criminals are not free to roam the street and businesses do not cheat customers.
I am glad that this caveat emptor approach has not yet been applied in the health sector. I dread the day when toxic products are allowed to be sold freely and the consumer is expected to take personal care in checking the safety of medicines.
Regulation
How can the regulator decide on the suitability of credit linked notes to be sold to the ordinary folks?
The answer is “asks the expert”. If the regulator appoints a few independent experts to give an opinion about the credit linked notes before they are “registered” to be sold, the answer would be quite obvious. The experts would not be able to understand the product to give it a clean bill of health.
How does the regulator decide on the suitability of the SMS premium services that were being pushed to the customers?
If the service is to be pushed to a large number of consumers, the regulator can check with a representative sample of consumers if the service is useful and fair. Alternatively, the regulator can act and take appropriate action when there is a high rate of complaint about the service. The regulator cannot say, “this is not my duty”.
Unfair advantage
Cheating is defined as taking an unfair advantage, usually in one’s own interest, and often at the expense of others.
The creator of the product and service has better knowledge than the ordinary consumer that is being sold on the product. They should be expected to uphold a standard of fair dealing, and not allowed to take unfair advantage at the expense of the consumer.
If the provider of the product or service takes an unfair advantage, they should be investigated for the offence of cheating. The offence could be misrepresentation, mis-selling or over-charging. The offenders cannot be allowed to get away under the concept of “caveat emptor” or “let the buyer beware”.
Conclusion
We have to return to the old values of honesty. We should expect business to be conducted on ethical standards, so that customers can trust the business to be fair and ethical. We have to stop cheating.
———–
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
“But pls remember this is the internet; there are many lies and disinformation here so it is best you treat my words with a mountain of salt. I cannot take responsibility for this.”
singaporedaddy, you are getting polite these days. These lies and disinformation happen not only in the internet lah. At least in the internet, they get rebuked and corrected if they are so until some sort of understanding is reached.
TOC, I cant believe you deleted my post in which I posed three questions to Mr Tan. I cant help it if he refuses to answer the questions but I simply find it ludricous that TOC practises censorship.
You should delete post #27 too, cos its a reponse to my post. Quick do it before others notice that.
Take a reflection first before condemning the local media for censorship.
Tsk tsk!
To: singaporedaddy, you are getting polite these days,
LOL, Yes, you are right my friend – too right.
52) angmohguy
You want to know what I think abt you? I think you are a f*cked up fellow.
And your questions are irrelevant and out of line and below the belt. TOC did the right thing.
Hello, wake up lah, there is more to life than having tea lah!
Dont believe me, go and ask anyone here.
SD
Oh no!
” The definition of cheating in the Penal Code is quite wide. If your intent is to fraudulenty or dishonestly induce a person to do something that he would otherwise not do, you are “cheating” that person. So, the acts of misleading, mispresenting and withholding information can be construed as “cheating”. ”
Teo Ho Pin is cheating us! He keeps assuring us that Town Council funds are in good hands, safe, blah blah blah… So we don’t need to get alarmed and don’t dig further.
Wait, I’m too harsh. He’s just “misleading”, us “misrepresenting” the facts, and “withholding information” from the public.
On the subject of unsolicited sms/mms, whether they r auto-opt-in or opt-out, at least there is still way to go around it( I’m not supporting that cos i think those r unehtical). How abt the ANNUITY by CPF board where u can even hv a choice to say NO!
Sorry, correction to 56): u can”t even hv a choice to say NO!
28) cjc – if you dont find paying more tax effective in what you want to do, you can always donate directly to the needy people you want to help.
Who are paid millions of dollars to be ministry of communtity services? Their job to help the needy people for the fact they are drawing so much salary in making sure singaporeans aren’t living in a 3rd world country. It was their failure to help those needy but to spend BIG $$ to attract FT with citizenship as compliments to get gold medals in sports for singapore as a main piority.
With all those medals won by so call FT sportsman and woman, I am sure everyone in singapore will not live in proverty because these medals are worth millions in valuation.
To: (54) singaporedaddy on December 10th, 2008 7.44 pm
Relax lah, why are you talking to your dad in this manner?
Hello,
Depending on your perception, “Cheating” and “Profiteering” is the way of life here.
It’s funny that the PAParkers have been doing us for so bloody long that it takes the Lehman and Town Council Fiascos to wake some Singaporeans up!
Those Parkers keep making us PAY & PAY IN ADVANCE! Here are some solid examples:
1. Cashcard, EazyLinkCard, Parking Coupons etc.
2. CPF: They keep taking and delay paying when due. As far as I’m concerned the shameless advertising on “Top Up” that appears on the Sunday Times and elsewhere is another misselling or “cheating”. They tempt you with their better-than-bank-savings interest rate but they never tell you that you can’t take it out as and when you like.
3. Oh, they are going to fixed us up with prepaid card for utility usage soon. They have already screwed the down and out with this callous scheme. They ‘park you” with PAYU – Pay As You Use.
See http://feedmetothefish.blogspot.com/2008/08/gini-coefficient-mdm-ho-ching-mdm.html
The PAParkers are so good that they park our money all over the world [ShinCorp; Citi, Merrill Lynch (still there?), UBS, ABC Learning, etc.] with GIC, Temasek and now Town Councils.
So what else is new?
From a honest society to a “C” society!!! Very sad.
What type of society we hv become??? Whose fault???
60) feedmetothefish on December 10th, 2008 9.14 pm
That why I’ve said earlier here in another post that the discovery of the Lehman and Town Council Fiascos are actually a blessing in disguise to Singaporeans and finally wakes them up. Without these things happening, we could have even been plucked further comes next election when they starts giving out their usual goodies and tricks you people into believing them for another term. Ooooooh, I can’t wait to see the millionaires becoming billionaires soon.
Mr Tan,
Some regulators say that they are not competent to decide on what products or services are good, bad, fair or unfair for consumers. The consumers should “open their eyes” and make an informed decision.
I disagree with this approach. It is the role of regulators to regulate. It is the role of the government to govern.
On this point, if what you are actually trying to say indirectly is that since the PAP government is already meddling or “regulating” so much of the citizen’s life and that they should take responsibility for it, than yes I sympathise with this statement. Hey they have chosen to Nanny, they should take the consequence for such a lapse.
If what you are saying as a general principle of the role of a government (not just PAP but any), I disagree with you. I don’t believe it is the role of government to determine the suitability of a product.
Firstly, it would stifle enterprise.
Secondly, it is not practical for governments.
The role of government or more accurately any state sponsored agencies should be to ensure that product information are clearly spelt out and Caveat Emptor not allowed as a defence. More importantly, such agencies be prepared to prosecute any transgression. The product itself should not be banned.
Also apart from state agencies, there should be more active non state agencies involved with giving their views about products. Too often, I find that there is not enough watch dogs or people with opposing view point coming out. For example in the UK, you can easily pick up plain English information about products. You can also see in BBC, state funded but not run by the government, watchdog doing undercover expose.
For example, why did you not before the mini-bond meltdown made more concerted effort to explain the risks of such products?
The people should expect the government to enforce certain standard of conduct in society. They should expect water to be clean, medicines to be safe, criminals are not free to roam the street and businesses do not cheat customers.
I am glad that this caveat emptor approach has not yet been applied in the health sector. I dread the day when toxic products are allowed to be sold freely and the consumer is expected to take personal care in checking the safety of medicines.
Did you know that health care products are not regulated?
What about Chinese Medicine, they are not subject to the same testing as Western medicine so are you saying the former is not as safe?
What yardstick do you use to determine if something is safe?
In the case of Financial products the yardstick is even more trickier to determine. Risk to an individual is not the same as an average risk.
If you expect regulator to be able to determine if a product is “safe” or not, that how do you determine if the regulator is up to the mark?
In the financial world what is safe? There is nothing in the world to that is not risky. What might be risky to some might be risky to others? What about opportunity cost?
Like I say again, much as I am not a fan of PAP’s often Nannying policy, the last thing I want is for the PAP or for that matter any government to be even more Nannying!
Welcome to uniquely singapore 2009 with casinos, worldclass organ transplant centre, biggest private banking aka wealth management (world is watching, be careful bankers.) + educaton excellece with most class C D E university campus in asia.
59) dad of singaporedaddy on December 10th, 2008 8.40 pm
Even you got to admit that came all the way home right LOL
Here is the definition of cheating as set out in the Penal Code of Singapore:
Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he or she would not do or omit if he or she were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
The insurance agents and the RMs fit the bill if you examine closely their modus operandi.. Their sales training borrowed from the above strategies to outwit the consumers. You notice there is misleading, mis-selling , misrepresentation,
non disclosure, suppression of information, half truth (omission) intention to deceive, to make the victims part with their money(property)
Mr Tan,
As a follow-up to my last point. You noted one example as a case of Caveat Emptor. Here is what you noted
Recently, it was reported that the Consumer Association (CASE) has received several dozen complaints from their customers who were billed $4 for each premium SMS messages received on their mobile phone. Their only mistake was to “subscribe” and “agree” to the first message. They received more than a dozen of unwanted SMS messages each month and were billed over $50.
I suspect that the number of affected customers is several ten fold of the number of complaints, as the number that complained is the tip of the iceberg.
The executive director of CASE was reported to have said that the service provider met the advertising standards and that they are acting within the law.
Is this a correct way to look at this matter? Is $4 a fair value for the SMS message? Suppose the service operator charges $40 or $400 per SMS message, would they still be operating within the law?
Again, here you seem to be missing the point. The question is not whether $4 is a fair value. It might just as well be $1million per SMS message. The question of fair value is not at issue here really. To me the company can charge whatever they like. Hay if people are WILLINGLY paying for it than it is a fair value. The last thing I want is for any regulatory to determine fair value of things.
The real question is whether such payment for a product is made WILLINGLY or not. And whether the full facts of about the product is presented to the buyers.
I was one of those people who was cheated by this same internet scam. What I did was to answer two simple questions in a pop up measuring 2 by 4 inches on my computer screen . I did that excactly and also key in my mobile number. The prize is a apple notebook. On the same pop up there is no mention about receiving premium messages at $4 each. The next thing I knew is receiving messages on my mobile phone every other day. I made many attempts to unsubscribe from this unsolicited meassages without success.
I then brought the matter up to STARHUB which claimed they are only acting as a billing agent for a SYBASE365 and have no control over the matter. Thereafter, I confronted SYBASE365 which claimed they are only service provider for a New Zealand company named TMG, and again, have no control over the matter.
Both STARHUB and SYBASE365 refused to provide me with information on TMG and I subsequently discovered that TMG is deeply involved in internet scams in New Zealand and Australia. The consumer associatons in these countries have already taken them to task.
When I was finally saddled with a bill of about $70, I lost my patience and threatened to expose the role of STARHUB and SYBASE365 in this scam. That is when both of them got wise and offered me a full refund.
If anybody wish to expose STARHUB’S role in this scam or to claim their refund from them, I am more than happy to help.
There are more and more cheating cases going on in Singapore these days. Worse still, they are set up all over the system now whether the business is private, MNC, public listed and even statuory boards, its all in the system now, you don’t check them, they keep plucking you people until you find it out yourself bacuase they know singaporeans are busy people and they don’t really bother to check their bills.
Now when I see news about some desperate people stealing petty amount of money and being jailed for many years, I shake my head.
Why steal a few hundred dollars and get jailed, when you can legally cheat a few hundred thousand of dollars. Who knows, government may even give you some award!!
I am wondering what Mr Goh Keng Swee is thinking…
Mr. Tan, your article has surfaced a key issue – cheating – in our society, and I applaud you for that.
However, I am “pessimistic” on the impacts of the article’s urging to the gahmen to raise the standard or for that matter revert to the old values of honesty. By this, I mean, it’s a wrong call to the wong standard. The gahmen is so ingrained in their interest …. and … of what standard could the gahmen be capable to meet to this call, when all these years, perhaps even dated to the year 1963, we the citizenry have already been so often blindly cheated and robbed off in so many aspects and values of nationhood, human rights and trusts.
Sigh….
angmoguy (#52),
Do not keep repeating your postings. If your questions are unanswered – after your repeated posting – take it that the person do not want to answer them.
Also, your comments were disallowed as they had nothing to do with the article on “cheating”.
And freedom of speech does not mean you go around stalking or spamming with repeated questions.
angmo = white = P–?
[i] So do we just want to blame the local banks and government because they are easy targets?[/i]
who sell you the ^guranteed^ bonds?
who earned that fat commissions when you buy?
lehman brothers?
if that is the case
don’t blamed the banks that sell you
we also don’t used the police to get our saving back
right?
afterall it none of the police buisness
if it none of the police buisness
can i get my kitchen butcher knife
and sliced the banker’s hands off for selling me a products don’t don’t guranteed my savings?
yes or no
will do
The “system” has led to us lossing so much money, so much savings.
We can never forget. We will never forget!!!
After living in China for a few years, I learned “There’s NO free lunch” from the culture there. There is no charity at a place where everyone is out looking for himself only. And sadly, Singapore is becoming a place like that.
There is no hand-outs in Singapore, charity organization had failed doing the right thing… Singapore has becoming a very materialistic place and cheaters are out there trying theirs best to lay their hand on gullible Singapore who easily trust a stranger.
If you go to USA big cities, you will understand why no one wants to talk to you when you are a stranger. Most big cities Americans are street-smart, but many Singaporean who lived all their life in a society with many rules and regulation with their life kind of “planned” by others asking them to go here and go there had lost their own sense of “independence”. They become easy target to cheaters……
Remember “There is NO free lunch!!”
“63) Tan Ah Kow on December 10th, 2008 9.55 pm
Also apart from state agencies, there should be more active non state agencies involved with giving their views about products. Too often, I find that there is not enough watch dogs or people with opposing view point coming out.”
May I ask Mr. Tan Ah Kow why would not such non state agencies exist in the past.
From observations, don’t you think that all along we do not have the national culture to encourage this kind of non state agency intervention or should I say it used to discourage it. I hope to be corrected.
At least for now, there are more and more people like you Mr. Tan Ah Kow who seem to see that there is a real need for it. In short, if the garment cannot handle, please do not deter others of doing it.
Mr. Tan, good article. Maybe you can consider petitioning for the casinos to be closed down. From what you described in cheating, casinos will only accelerate the process. The house always win.
“… Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one’s own interest, and often at the expense of others…”
On that note, may you can petition try to shut down all cosmetic surgery practices and all the sports enhancing equipment companies. All of them give people “unfair advantage” over the rest of the consumers.
Everyone should run naked and bare-footed.
“79) partisan on December 11th, 2008 11.16 am
Maybe you can consider petitioning for the casinos to be closed down. From what you described in cheating, casinos will only accelerate the process. The house always win.”
And why do people who gamble seldom complain about the process which is loaded in favour of the house. Mr. partisan, simply because no one perceives it as cheating because the odds are clearly “spelt out” for all to see. Of course, some gambling games are con-jobs but surely you are not referring to this kind right.
Even people, with high intelligence in mathematics like permutation, combination, 4-D-tion, toto-tion, lottery-tion, also gamble without any complain. They will make noise when losing money but not on the ‘cheating’ process.
Mr. partisan, look at the context of the article. The article educates something more on the positive rather than negative for society.
“79) partisan on December 11th, 2008 11.16 am
On that note, may you can petition try to shut down all cosmetic surgery practices and all the sports enhancing equipment companies. All of them give people “unfair advantage” over the rest of the consumers.”
You do not really need full regulations. Either regulations or alternative channels to make a lot of noise will do to moderate the better power of business or to sham them if need to. So that people can be educated.
The educational channels must be widespread, visible and also in the form that ah pek, ah mak, ah gu, ah te will have the benefits of knowing & understanding what is going on. So you know why NGO and activists for certain causes play important roles in society.
#81
Either regulations or alternative channels to make a lot of noise will do to moderate the better power of business or to sham them if need to.
Either regulations or alternative channels to make a lot of noise will do to moderate the better power of business or to SHAME them if need to.
We have been cheated by the Government to serve our National service thinking that it is the way to go – for the good of our Nation. But here comes the Foreigners who can become Singapore citizen rather easily.
Stop exploiting us as cheap labours for NDP, International events for your own ego boostering created image of Singapore.
A cheat is a cheat by any name.
If any of the descriptions presented by TKL fit, than a cheat is a cheat. What is there to argue about?
So damn sad that we have been so cheated that we are even beginning to argue over the definition of a cheat. In case anyone still have any doubt – THIS PAP GOVT IS A CHEAT!
There are cases where half-truth is being presented and this is amounting to cheating. We only see the good portion but we are in the dark for the bad portion. I agree that with TKL that we should preserve our traditional values and not just for cheating. We must start evaluating our values instead of just pursuing on money making. It will be sad that one day we will lose ourselves and unable to distinguish the good and the bad.
Don’t you think selling borders on cheating if half truth and half lies are told to the customer? Or up play the positives and downplay the negatives or complete lies.
Selling is manipulating between these options.
Selling and pushing financial products and life insurance revolves around them.
Isn’t this cheating?
Very good elaboration.
It seems to me the new business values on KPIs and $$$ have compromised the old value of business being conducted on ethical standards.
We are told to “get real” because life is not fair itself. This world has become practical and realistic to an extend that the old values you hold on to, unfortunately, are eroding.
Though i do not follow very closely on the mini-bond saga, why have the regulator, MAS or the government been very slow to response to it till now? Things will just quiet down eventually. I am not an expert here, but could it be because of the number of established financial institutions and the amount involved here? Fearing a backlash from these F.I if we cramp down on their wrong-doings. Singapore, being a liberalized market, needs them. Could the response from government been different if this would to involve just some lesser companies that is “not essential” to us.
What are we taught here? Cheating has different meaning, ethic has no value and fairness exist only for the rich and powerful. Welcome to the “Real World”!
Hi Partisan (#79)
The casinos are regulated and the odds are fair. They can be calculated. The margin is fair.
For people who likes to gamble, go for the roulette. There are 37 numbers (0 to 36) and you get a 35 chips for every 1 chip that that you bet.
If you bet the whole table, you spend 37 chips and get a return of 36 chips. The cost of betting is 1 in 37 or 3%.
The other games have bigger margins for the house, but they are regulated and can be calculated. It is not betting, but not cheating.
Many financial products take away high charges. These charges are not disclosed and cannot be calculated (e.g. the odds of losing all your money on a credit event) or on a dual currency investment. The amounts that are being “cheated” are shocking!
If there are no malpractice in the market place, there is no need for REGULATORS.
If there are Regulators that DO NOT REGULATE, there will be more cheatings.
Do i sound odd?
puppy.
Regulators ‘should not or have to ask the experts’.
THEY MUST BE THE EXPERTS THEMSELVES! HOW DO THEY QUALIFY THEMSELVES TO BE REGULATORS?
puppy.
Honesty does not pay: see how our Ministers continue to get fat salary and say sweet nothings while the livelihoods of the ordinary citizens are put at risk by them not doing anything concrete and substantial. They wait and see what other governments are doing and the people si (die) lor! Same for CASE and all the cheaters. As long as they act within the law (meaning the government get a good cut), it does not matter that people are cheated.
84) gemami on December 11th, 2008 1.27 pm A cheat is a cheat by any name.
If any of the descriptions presented by TKL fit, than a cheat is a cheat. What is there to argue about?
So damn sad that we have been so cheated that we are even beginning to argue over the definition of a cheat. In case anyone still have any doubt – THIS PAP GOVT IS A CHEAT!
Liars! Big Liars! the system here is made to protect them no matter how you dig out their dirty thing, they will still be protected. See what they did to the 3 kangaroo T-shirt guys? world laughing stock they created.
Do you know the default rate of Baa CDOs is 23% compared to the mere 2% default rate of Baa bonds?
I urge Mr. Tan not to be so quick to dismiss the reliance of caveat emptor. He may find it most useful to warn his readers to exercise caveat emptor on what he has written.
Let me demonstrate:
“Recently, more than 10,000 ordinary folks were misled into investing in credit linked notes. They were told that the notes were as safe as fixed deposits.”
- he assumes that all 10,000 ordinary folks were told the same thing by the thousands of officers. Was there a finding of fact in this regard ?
“it was subsequently found that the nature and risks of the credit linked notes were quite different from what the investors were led to believe.”
- was the conclusion arrived at through an investigation or court proceedings after witnesses were questioned and documents looked at? Who or which agency concluded what he has stated ?
“I do not accept this argument as they probably take a big cut from collecting the monthly fee.”
- Did he really know as a matter of fact that the service provider did what he said they probably did ?
” I suspect that the number of affected customers is several ten fold of the number of complaints, as the number that complained is the tip of the iceberg.”
- on what basis was his suspicion based on?
“Is this a correct way to look at this matter? Is $4 a fair value for the SMS message? Suppose the service operator charges $40 or $400 per SMS message, would they still be operating within the law?”
- lawyers usually will not attempt to interprete the law on speculation. Yet, Mr. Tan would challenge them to do so.
“CASE is supposed to have a special responsibility in administering the Fair Trading Act. Surely, this type of behaviour by the premium service provider must have contravened some aspects of fair trading? Can we use our common sense of what is right and fair?”
- Which section of the Act was breached and what were the exact facts in relation to the alleged breach ?
“We have to return to the old values of honesty. We should expect business to be conducted on ethical standards, so that customers can trust the business to be fair and ethical. We have to stop cheating.”
- It was good that Mr Tan later reproduced the definition of “cheating” from the Penal Code. Perhaps he might venture further to demonstrate the exact factual matrix, right down to the name and date and incidence of the alleged cheating.
By account of the matters above, it would appear that his case lacks the usual rigour. Hence, my first instance urging that he should tell his readers that his article is caveat emptor, lest he be accused of cheating them.
Hi Mark Goh (#94)
The definition of cheating in the Penal Code of Singpoare is show below.
Cheating
Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he or she would not do or omit if he or she were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.[98] For example, A cheats if he intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him when A does not intend to repay it, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. Cheating is punished with imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.
It is ridiculous that you ask me to prove all of my statements. Where is the authority that is supposed to implement the laws of Singapore? Can they close a blind eye to unethical behaviour? Surely, it is their duty to investigate if any offense has been created?
Remember, they have the resources and the powers to investigate. Ordinary citizens like me, and the victims of these toxic notes, do not have these resources.
Hi Mark Goh (#94)
Very interesting piece…
Did you warn readers to exercise caveat emptor on what you have written?
Let me demonstrate:
“he assumes that all 10,000 ordinary folks were told the same thing by the thousands of officers. Was there a finding of fact in this regard ?”
You seem to be disputing Mr Tan’s alleged claim. Do you have other evidence to challenge in this regard ? Also the problem is that there does not seem to be any investigation. So what is your talk of a finding of fact? Do you have the facts?
“was the conclusion arrived at through an investigation or court proceedings after witnesses were questioned and documents looked at? Who or which agency concluded what he has stated ?”
“Did he really know as a matter of fact that the service provider did what he said they probably did ?”
“on what basis was his suspicion based on?”
Why is it that you are NOT asking for a fair and independent investigation BUT rather for the individual to take on the onerous task to do what the job of the regulator (MAS)? Is this
the norm to be expected in Singapore?
Based on the above, it seems that you would have people not speak up unless the regulator says so. Yet the regulator is perceived to be not doing its job.
“Which section of the Act was breached and what were the exact facts in relation to the alleged breach ?”
“It was good that Mr Tan later reproduced the definition of “cheating” from the Penal Code. Perhaps he might venture further to demonstrate the exact factual matrix, right down to the name and date and incidence of the alleged cheating.”
You seem to imply that there is NO cheating. Could you demonstrate the exact factual matrix, that there is NO cheating in each of the “investments”?
By account of the matters above, it would appear that your case lacks the usual rigour. :)
BTW, Mark Goh (#94),
The logic of what you wrote is reminiscent of the PAP’s logic in their arguments. Not that I’m implying that you are associated with the party.
89) puppy on December 13th, 2008 11.42 am
If there are no malpractice in the market place, there is no need for REGULATORS.
If there are Regulators that DO NOT REGULATE, there will be more cheatings.
Do i sound odd?
A very good example is the TCs using the sinking funds to invest into those risky bonds when those funds paid by the people are actually meant for maintenance of HDB flats. If the TCs does that behind the peoples back, is this also call malpractice too?
Mr. Ponzi must be proud that his business model could pull off a big one from time to time. This time mad off or Mad Off pulled it real big….$50B
I am not surprised the next one will be an insurer especailly companies which declare low annual bonus and gamble away their specail bonus. Too bad next year
policyholders will have to put up with low or no annual bonus because you have let your insurer lose your money.
Hi tiredsingaporean;
We are waiting for the TCs’ explanations and hope they will provide the answers.
puppy.