1. Petitions to MAS
1 wish to give you an update of the progress of the three Petitions sent to the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Petition #1 was sent to MAS on 9 October 2008. It was signed by 983 investors of the credit linked securities. It asked the Government to investigate into possible wrong-doings by the financial institutions that created and marketed these securities to the retail investors.
If there were possible wrong doings or breaches of the existing laws, specifically the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act, the Petition ask the Government to take appropriate action against the financial institutions and to seek fair compensation for the investors for their losses.
I met with Dr. Andrew Khoo and his colleagues on 9 October to hand over the Petition, which was addressed to Mr. Goh Chok Tong, chairman of MAS. I briefed Dr. Khoo and his colleagues about the possible areas of breaches of the existing laws.
I have not heard from MAS subsequently on the outcome of this Petition. I have sent two rerquests to Mr. Goh Chok Tong and to Dr. Andrew Khoo for a meeting to discuss the progress. So far, I have not been successful in getting this meeting.
Petition #2 was sent to MAS on 17 October 2008. It was signed by 277 investors. It asked MAS to investigate the sales training and marketing processes of the financial institutions that distributed these securities. Specifically, the investigation should examine if the sales representatives that distributed the securities were trained about the correct features of the securities and on the content of the prospectus, so that they can give the correct information to the investing public.
I have received an acknowledgment to this Petition. I do not know if the MAS intend to carry out any investigation as requested in the Petition.
Petition #4 was sent to MAS on 31 October 2008. It was signed by 1,017 investors. It asked MAS to review the complaint handling process of the financial institutions that distributed the credit linked securities. It asked MAS to set up an independent unit to receive the complaints and to encourage the financial institutions to adopt a collective approach in offering fair compensation to the investors who were misled into investing in these securities.
I have asked for a meeting with a senior official in MAS to discuss this petition and to follow up on the progress of the earlier petitions. My request was declined.
I reminded MAS that I am speaking on behalf of about 1,000 investors. They should not ignore my request for a meeting or to treat me like any single individual with a grievance. Even a single voice should be heard. If 1,000 voices are not loud enough, I wonder what will make our officials hear?
I will continue with my efforts.
2. Letter from an investor
I wish to share with you the views of an investor called SB. It is posted in my blog. This investor is willing to share some responsibility for investing in the credit linked securities carelessly, but is unhappy with the response of the Government leaders. I read his letter to you:
http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=11702093
I replied to SB that his approach is along the same lines that have been covered in Petition #1. So far, I have not heard from MAS if they intend to carry out an independent investigation into this matter.
3. Statutory declaration
A few weeks ago, I suggested that each investor should get a lawyer to help you to write a statutory declaration. This statement should explain how you were advised into making the investment. If you were given the wrong information or were misled about the credit linked notes, this fact should be stated in the statutory declaration. The lawyer will help you to state this fact properly.
You should make the statutory declaration truthfully and honestly. If you tell a lie, you can be prosecuted under the law. However, if you tell the truth, your statement under oath will have a stronger impact.
If many investors make similar statements about how they were sold or mis-sold on the credit linked notes by the sales representatives from the same financial institution, these declarations taken together will establish a pattern of mis-selling by the financial institution. It will convince an independent and impartial judge about the mis-selling.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore and FIDREC said that the statutory declaration is not necessary.
Subsequently, we learn that many of the financial institutions have rejected the claims of mis-selling made by the investors.
If your claim has been rejected, I advise you to make a statutory declaration now and lodged your complaint again with the financial institution. If they reject it again, you can use your statutory declaration to lodge your complaint to FIDREC.
You have lost many tens or hundred of thousand dollars in making these investments. It is better for you to send $120 to make the statutory declaration and lodge your complaint again.
If the statutory declaration is still rejected by FIDREC, you can join the collective legal action. The statutory declaration can be used for this third step.
4. Collective legal action
My committee is discussing with a few lawyers on the approach to take on a collective legal action.
Our Government leaders and MAS have advised that this should be avoided, and that other avenues are open for the investors to seek their redress.
Many investors have lost faith in their recommended approach.
My committee will help the investors to prepare for collective legal action, but we still advice that the legal action should be taken only as the last resort.
I hope that the MAS will respond to my requests for a meeting to discuss how the matter can be resolved fairly and that a costly legal action can be avoided.
We are still keen to seek an outcome that is fair to the investors and preserve Singapore’s reputation as a financial hub that can be trusted to take care of the interest of the ordinary people.
Tan Kin Lian
Some advices to everyone:
ReplyDelete陈先生再次展现勇气，要求金管局作为一个监管机构去调查银行有没有从事“系统性的误导性销售”。他代表的不是去谈判，而是petition背后的苦主们去做这个要求。
当然，苦主们自己也可以排队去金管局一个一个的去要求。
陈先生的建议是对的，那就是，赶紧去做一个法律文件 － statutory declaration ---affidavit. 这个文件就是为了以后打官司用的。也就是说，这个官司的准备动作必须做。虽然最后可能用不到，但没有这个压力在后面，估计银行只会敷衍了事。Pls reserve your right to sue the bank.
这里有一个建议，应该值得大家注意的就是香港那边的发展。用香港的发展来和我们做对照，给银行和金管局压力。如果一个中国的特区都能够独立调查去找出银行的误导，为什么新加坡做不到？Pls follow closely with how HK solve this problem? If HK can solve it nicely, why Singapore cannot?
Gerald Ee in a straits times report is saying that your initiative in asking investors to make a declaration is akin to contaminating the investigation into misselling. What is your reply to this?
ReplyDeleteIf need be, we will support the legal action.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteHave you consider forwarding your valuable views on these CL Notes and some of the readers' comments to the various Ministers' blog sites? If no reply is forth coming , perhaps it is another indication of the Gov's stand on these issues.
U see even so called independent party is biased. Just make a statutory declaration only, so big words he used ! Where got hope? Where got justice? Where got government?
ReplyDeleteI believe that if Mr.Tan has not started this petition, it would take much longer to resolve this issue. Just read the negative comments given by top leaders like MM and PM Lee. If their opinion is that buyers should be beware, do you think the bank will want to resolve this matter soon since its the investors' ignorance?
ReplyDeleteI think at least the petitions give the investors the courage to pursue what is Right and Justice.
After reading the news in the Internet, I realised how inadequate THe Straits Times is. Why didn't they report Hong Kong government is investigating the banks? And why didn't they report that USA had fined banks who sold these toxic products and paid back 100% investments? Seriously, The Straits Times has done a bad job in not reporting crucial news that could be of help to the helpless investors. Their governments are doing much more. To reporters who are reading this, As Singaporeans get more educated, we will not rely on The Straits Times alone. We read World news from The Internet. Please report essential information, else we will just boycott the newspaper since we can't get information that is relevant to Singapore.
Dear Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteIs it legal to set up a campaign fund collected from donations to support legal campaign against the banks mis-selling these toxic products? I am sure many citizens will be glad to donate to show their supports, be it $5 or $10. The fund will serve two purposes. It is a proxy of measuring public support of your actions on behalf of the victims. It will also be put to good use when legal actions is unavoidable. The HK govt has injected money to the HK consumer council's legal fund to help victims to bring the banks to court. It is unlikely the SG govt will "do the right thing" similarly. If govt don't help, then let the citizens raise fund to help the victims.
Collective legal approach should be best as many investors would be too vulnerable individually. I know of older folks that have invested their life-saving and currently really asking for help.
ReplyDeletecan everyone read and understand the above chinese text? I urge all the investors to prepare now for legal action in future.
ReplyDeleteThere must have some investors with great courage to fight back the money. Then, other investors will influence by your courage and stand up to fight with the bank.
Cheer up and do it.
I agree with the contributor who suggests a campaign fund. If the Govt & MAS decide to wash their hands on this unhappy episode, the fund to fight for justice & fair play is the next alternative!! Contributions can be in the region of $10/- onwards or for that matter any amount from the aggrieved investors will suffice. The Fund can be a legacy for the next generations & a testimony to fight for justice when our elected representatives have abandoned their roles. Perhaps the Fund can be called TKL Justice & Fair Play Fund in respect for your thankless task & role in standing up for the helpless investors!!!
ReplyDeleteAs John SK wrote ".. If no reply is forth coming , perhaps it is another indication of the Gov's stand on these issues."
ReplyDeleteIt is a wonder that you are still pursuing this issue and providing updates which the government would conveniently ignore otherwise and I am sure the investors affected by this fiasco appreciates your persistence to get to the bottom of it. By the way I note that the Petition Nos. are 1, 2 & 4. What was Petition 3 if there is any?
It is now more than six weeks since you have raised this petition and handed this over to Dr Andrew Khoo for the attention of the MAS Chairman Mr Goh Chok Tong, and two further requestes to meet. Only this will happen in Singapore. As one of the writers wrote "....If HK can solve it nicely, why Singapore cannot?" - Precisely, HK is international and apparently more transparent that Singapore. The voice of the people are heard in HK and apparently not in Singapore. In Singapore, Singaporeans are only digits in the eyes of LKY and the government, so what do you expect. Not even the courtesy to give you a response after 6 weeks. There could be two possible reasons in my mind (i) perhaps this is to NOT legitimate what you are doing, or (ii) pehaps they just have no balls to sit down and meet to discuss. Top, elite people selected from the creme de la creme in power, unable or afraid to meet up you you? This is an irony? They have the whole machinery of the civil service behind them to prepare themselves and shoot you down. Apparently they are not prepared.
You suggestion on the statutory declaration is excellent and should have been followed on. MAS and FIDREC are not keen that all the investors go into this mode as they see the difficulty to wriggle out of their responsibilities once the wheel is set in motion. And on their response that "Our Government leaders and MAS have advised that this should be avoided, and that other avenues are open for the investors to seek their redress." - there is absolutely nothing done genuinely to help these investors, just talk? A statutory declaration will also weed out investors who are NOT genuinely misled. Furthermore, it provides more specific information to deal as a group with the banks and financial institutions responsible for this. The statutory declaration as you indicated can be used in more than one way (i) Lodging a complaint with the FIs - "I advise you to make a statutory declaration now and lodged your complaint again with the financial institution." (ii) Lodging a complaint with the FIDREC - If they reject it again, you can use your statutory declaration to lodge your complaint to FIDREC. (iii) Join the Collective Legal Action - If the statutory declaration is still rejected by FIDREC, you can join the collective legal action. The statutory declaration can be used for this third step.
Some investors may not know how to make the statutory declaration and your advise on the contents which should be declared in this will be useful, e.g. (i) Name of Institution (ii) Name of Relationship Manager (and his superior if involved) who sold the products to the investor (iii) Name of the products sold and the amount invested (iv) date of investment (v) what information was provided, e.g. brochures, leaflets, or just a print out from the bank. There may be other important information to be included. Providing a sample of this will also be useful.
With your persistence in moving this forward, let hope that something comes out of this, though I am not optimisitc.
Dear friends of Structured Notes:
ReplyDeleteHave you wondered why chewing gum cannot be retailed, but structured notes can be retailed.
Well, chewing gum can halt the whole MRT train?
But, structured has already halted our normal life?
Well, banning chewing gum sale is not over-regulating?
But, we do not want to over-regulate retailing of structured notes?
Well, you may not know where and how to throw away chewing gum?
But, even professional do not know what is structured notes?
What is the moral of the story.
No moral is required for retailing of structured notes.