Comments posted by ming in CNA Forum:
On a case-by-case basis, with a breezy wave of his hand like some Jedi knight the Minister for Finance wants the crowds at Hong Lim now gathering in strength to disperse. Have faith in the MAS. As the former Managing Director of MAS, Tharman would be in the position to tell us that MAS can be your advocate, prosecutor, judge and juror because they are staffed by so many talented and handpicked scholars. It is superior and efficient because everything is fused into one body just like Singapore.
Let the scales fall from your eyes and you will see that the trust which so many Singaporeans have placed in this system is unjustified. We have been fooled by the decades of prosperity and lulled into believing that obedience is all that is needed to perpetuate the good life. Those who remember their duties as citizens are called mad and suffer the indignity of ostracism. But when the reality hits and you realize that the system is not right, and by virtue of having awakened you become mad, the colossal blunder we have made as a people will chill you to the bone.
Note to the Minister of Finance:
Unless people like Tan Kin Lian are included in an independent investigation to be conducted by a special body that is separate from any governmental group because the investigation must cover how these products were regulated, no one will accept what is concluded. If you want closure Tharman, do the right thing. As the putative Prime Minister, I urge you now to set our country on the course to long term peace and prosperity. As a citizen and a member of the Cabinet, you swore oaths that you would. Now I ask that you make good on it.
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?p=2387433#2387433
To be strictly honest, those comments on public service office holders by this time are not entirely fair either.
ReplyDeletePeople did consider, sign and pay. At the risk of sounding like adding salt to injury, again very honestly speaking, very few if any did at all take the time thereafters to review their articles and/or voice any feedback at any point in time leading til losses are actually announced. Be truthful to oneself, how does this reflect on their attitude towards their personal investments if its that impt?
Yes People monies, including public councils, are involved and adversely affected.
I agreed with investigations, but I am saying compensation and refund should not be taken for granted, like its almost natural. Then nothing is learned and this entire episode is doomed to repeat.
You expect him to say "Yes I support Tan Kin Lian 's rallies and will ask MAS to act fast on his petitions?" Come on.
ReplyDeleteSo don't take the minister's comments too hard. It's only natural if you know the PAP long enough.
For the unfortunate victims, I am afraid you just have to learn an expensive lesson in trust. Too bad, if it is also unaffordable.
"Jedi knight"?
ReplyDeleteThink "Seith Lord" or "Emperor" or "Darth Vader" more appropriate.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_303479.html
ReplyDeleteSomeone urged Mr Chua Shen Yang to take back his statements because his letter implied that NTUC Incme insurance agents are engaged in unethical practices when you are the CEO.
This is defamation against NTUC Income and you.
Maybe you could discuss with NTUC Income to seek further action against such defamation.
"Unless people like Tan Kin Lian are included in an independent investigation to be conducted by a special body that is separate from any governmental group because the investigation must cover how these products were regulated, no one will accept what is concluded."
ReplyDeleteI agree. The chairman of MAS, who happens to be the Senior Minister, reported made a comment about investors being "greedy". He appeared ignorant of the other factors involved in this sorry state, of people losing their, plausibly, hardearned money, because when they invested they were not told what they should have been told. The RMs were probably ignorant themselves, or lied to an extent, "to clinch the deal". Next, there was this comment from the MM about investors investing with their "eyes open". Here again, this minister was looking only at a tiny area of the picture, and thus was oblivious to what's presented by the entire picture. For anyone, ministers included, to pass comments like this is dangerous. It may not be damaging to themselves, but it can be hell of a danger to others. They themselves may not be aware, of course; they need others to point this out to them
pay high salary to get the best.
ReplyDeleteBut if they failed, they should "GO'
citizen votes count
我的看法是，如果有人呼吁和拒绝法律的途径，越是突显了真打官司的话，银行会输的可能性很大。
ReplyDeleteThis are my views:
If someone keep on asking you not to sue the bank, it shows that if you really take action to sue the bank. The looser will be the bank but not you.The chances for you to win is higher.
Is the Oaths(made by Cabinet Members) You mentioned in the Article binding?
ReplyDeleteIf it is, how should the Oaths be exercised and or executed??
shanren
The CDC also suffered.
ReplyDeletetown council 亏了这么多，还竟然大言不惭的说 － 要大家看整体的回报，而不要看个案。
但是，做这么高风险的投资，平均回报只有3％。买新加坡政府的国债，回报是2。9％。亏了这么多钱，做了这么高风险的投资，只比国债的回报多0.1%, 是不是混蛋？
这样的搞法，早该认错下台了。还竟然大言不惭。
难道不是权力的傲慢？
The Finance Miniter asked the FI to investigate and compensate the investors where mis-selling can be proved.
ReplyDeleteI remember the Chinese saying which means "plot with the tiger for its skin" - will it work??
HS
" 下台..? 相信您也知道,行动党官员不认识这个词, 他们的作法, 是把责任推到别人去,算了吧,当着是一场恶梦啦!!!!
ReplyDeleteREX
When they failed in their duties or make mistakes, they tell you not to politicise the matter. When times are good, they said because you have good government (is this politicise?). They als forgot their pay is so high that no countries can match. Common Tharman...how to trust those words anymore???
ReplyDeleteSome questions on the comments by FM and MAS that each case is to be treated fairly.
ReplyDeleteHow is this interepreted ?
Is each individual case by case investigation fair ? How would it be "fair"?
Will it be more "fair" to the FI in the business sense when each case is reviewed behind closed doors ?
Is the FI trying to recover their loses on each case?
How about the investors that had been led on by the FI advisors on the purchase of such products ? Will they be again led on behind such closed doors resolutions ?
How many cases of mis-selling/representation cases are necessary before there is a clear case for MAS to intervene, that is not sufficient now?
Are there power plays in play now that MAS fears that the FIs would pull out of Singapore?
Would that mean the louder you are, the likely you can draw actions to be done ?
Can FM and MAS clarify on what is fair for each case when insufficient information on the products were presented to the buyers at point of purchase. ie. prospetcus were only sent after you had purchased the products. How would the FI advisors present their product knowledge in just a 1-2 training session ?
I put forward these queries on what is mentioned as fair.
There is a golden rule to investing:
ReplyDelete-Do not come into the capital markets seeking no risk or 'capital guaranteed' products, but rather ask yourself, what amount of risks are you willing to undertake for a certain amount of return?
How did such a complex instrument which few fully understood be distributed to so many retail investors? Was it cheating & fraud on the part of banks? Was it the greed of the investors hankering after the 5.5%? Or both? Ppl will debate on for a long time but it boils down to 4 factors; bullish expectations, complacency, greed and to a certain extent 'legal deception'.
Bullish expectations - With the buoyant markets, everyone expected the prosperity to continue for many more years, banks included. Investors who made money in property/stocks looked to the CLNs, thinking it was an investment that gave lower returns on lower risks (because FD rates were low). Investment banks saw it as a cheap way to raise capital, local banks jumped on the opportunity to increase their fee income. Investors thought it was a safer alternative to FDs. Both banks and investors became complacent and greedy. Hence structured products which took on the default risks of large entities deemed 'too large to fail' then became proliferated. Just as investors, non of the local banks which distributed the CLNs expected these entities to go under. But if one truly understood the risks involved, one may have avoided them altogether. But at the same time, how can one expect RMs who also did not fully understand these products to be tasked with advising on them?
Yes, there must have been some cases of mis-selling (Greed on the part of RMs). Yes, some investors must have taken it up with 'their eyes wide opened'. But it will be very diff to pinpoint one party as being solely at fault.
I have utmost respect for Mr. Tan who is fighting for those who have lost their hard earned money. In my eyes he is the people's champion.
But I have wrote my piece here today because I can't help but wonder; why are so many people so vocal and critical here, but they do not write directly to the forum or directly to the government or ministers? If Mr. Tan were to be criticised for politising this issue or be ridiculed as 'anti-PAP', 'anti-establishment', how many would come to his defence? How many who have rallied behind him, asking him to stand up and be their voice would suddenly turn meek, quiet and anonymous?
In pragmatic S'pore I say the answer would likely be disappointing.
I hope more will write responsibly on this blog space as Mr. Tan has encouraged, and be responsible for what they say.
Sincerely,
Harold Lin
Town Council is govenment body, right? Town Council not greedy, right? Town Council buys with eyes open, right? Town Council understands risk in prospectus, right? Town Council also wants to beat inflation, right?
ReplyDeleteXXX will probably say to Town Council...
You buy with eyes open, right?
You want high interest so you must take high risk, lor!
If you file your complaint, FI will reply within 30 days.
No special treatment for Town Council one.
FI will handle your case as a case-by-case basis.
FI will do the Right thing if there is mis-selling.
Especially if you are above 62 and has primary school education only.
What!? You dont qualify...less than 62...many PHDs...Ok lor, go Fidrec.
What!? More than $50,000...Fidrec cannot handle...
Too bad lor...take it as a lesson...BUYER BEWARE
Still, the absolute amount ($12000000) is big.
Since residents' $ is involved, how is Town Council going to give residents a reasonable explanation?
Nevermind...small % what...
But for many of us, it is OUR LIFE SAVINGS
To Mr Harold Lin, on your pondering "... I can't help but wonder; why are so many people so vocal and critical here, but they do not write directly to the forum or directly to the government or ministers?"
ReplyDeleteI have written and spoken my views to the press (ST, BT, Today, NewPaper), but alas they have not found my story to be "news-worthy" for publication. After awhile, I come to realize they were told by their chief editor to look out for success stories only. They are more interested to find out when is our next Open Forum with the FI, with MAS.
I have seen many letters written to MAS, Trustees, FIs etc, with very sound and valid points; but alas the replies received so far have side-stepped the key issues.
Mr. Tan's blog allowed our views to be published where the press/media does not think it news-worthy. Unfortunately, there are non-victims who use his blog to criticise him; yet he is magnamious to publish them.
Yeong-Nathan beats Putney to win the women's title in at 44th QubicaAMF Bowling World Cup
ReplyDeleteFirst-ever victory for Singapore in the BWC history
Such a great victory but our local press is happier to promote Li Jiawei going to Beijing to hold her wedding.
Such are the sell out shameless ways of the Pappies and their minions in the press.
Dan
Today's ST, MXX also invested in such structured products. Unbelieveable. mxx bought with both eyes opened? Why never consult Gxx? ??????/
ReplyDeleteMAS and town councils should explain why they deem it fit to invest in products that risk 100% of the principal for 5% return over 5 years. These are financial experts, we should hear justification for making these "sound" investments.
ReplyDeleteEven MAS invest in these products. Can you trust their "financial wisdom" to handle this fiasco?
ReplyDeleteThe blind still trying leading the blind...
Government say treat each case separately to be fair:
ReplyDelete"Vulnerable" - they get 100% compensated since they are old and uneducated
"Town Councils" - they get 100% since they are PAP
"MAS, IDA, SLA, PEB, SCSC - they get 100% since they are gahmen stat boards
"Rest" - you get nothing since you went in with "eyes open"
Now you know why they insist case by case.
From all past events, MAS has entirely lost the trust of people. Any independent investigation must include Mr. Tan Kin Lian otherwise whatever the MAS findings will never be fair to the original investors (weakest party).
ReplyDeleteFor such risky product with just 5.2% return, maybe 4D and TOTO mke more sense!
ReplyDeleteI think those scholars and MAS are not that smart, they also got burnt in investing. Now I don't understand why they enjoy high pays yet losing so much money and people hard-earned saving.
ReplyDeleteTown council investment must be
ReplyDeletetransparent by monthly bulletin on
notice board with info on :
New investment and amount
Old investment result
profit /loss of investment.
Town council have high caliber people but they are still burnt under this crisis?
without current situation occur I think we people are kept in the dark.
there once was a Deputy MD at MAS who did the "right" thing by reporting to his Minister in charge that he felt uncomfortable about certain rumours going around in the property market and asked if he could investigate...we could do with more of such public servants...
ReplyDeleteMan - this guy can really write very well
ReplyDeleteThe most inspiring speech so far that I have heard