Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Duty of the Government

Friday, September 04, 2009

Duty of the Government

Someone posted an anonymous comment, "people should look after their interest, instead of depending on the authority to take care of them. "

This is only half true. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that thieves and crooks do not go around cheating people. It is so easy for these crooks to create financial scams. If complaints are made, the authority should investigate and take action to bring these culprits to court.

These dishonest people should not be allowed to operate freely, by advertising their dubious products, holding sales seminars and sending sales people to push them to the unsuspecting public.

We now have a sad state of affairs. Complaints of cheating are not investigated by the authorities. People who are cheated are asked to take legal action against the culprits.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...: I think MAS finding indicated that there is no cheating hence no action in that respect is necessary?; September 04, 2009 11:37 PM
Anonymous said...: If they dig deeper, there will definitely be more findings. Prospectus not distributed to investors, claiming that the investment is safe as bonds, etc. Not only 10 or 20 ppl claiming misselling and misrepresentation. There are thousands in S'pore and many much more in HK, Taiwan and many other parts of the world!

S'pore FI's are the angels, they don't missell or misrepresent so as to make more money. HK FIs are the baddies, anyhow sell so must compensate? hahahaha; September 05, 2009 1:01 AM
Anonymous said...: I think both sides are taking it to too much of an extreme. It is neither right to claim that there is no cheating (as stated by Anonymous 4/9 11:37 pm) and cheating on all cases (as claimed by Mr Tan). The truth lies somewhere in between. Some may be fraud, others negligent by either sales people or investor.

And I won't call everyone an "unsuspecting public". If someone point a gun at your forehead, you will not realise the danger only if you have not seen a gun before. Likewise, when a sales person approach you with a CLN , you should expect a marketing spin and not to trust fully. Only those who have not seen a salesman can claim that they are truely "unsuspecting".

That's why an across-the-board compensation approach used by HK is not fair. It merely shows the weakness of a democratic system. Singapore's case-by-case approach is appropriate.

And I would like to point out another thing. Many great nations in history started from humble beginnings with little resources but managed to conqure the world (e.g. Turks, Mongolians, Japan). The source of strength is their people; and there's a high proportion of their population who have the strength to go to war and defeat their enemies. Likewise, if Singapore wants to win the war against financial scams, everybody must be resilent enough to defeat their enemy. Copying HK's approach will only make Singaporeans a bunch of wimps. I don't want the future of Singapore to be like that. If there's really any failing in MAS' approach, it would not be about the lack of compensation, but its very poor effort in educating the public not to trust salesman.; September 05, 2009 1:13 AM
A Tan said...: It is also very, very easy for people to complain when they lose $. Have the land people lodged a police report, if not why?

As to why people are vulnerable to scams, surprising it is because "a little knowledge is dangerous"http://www.fisca.sg/financial_education?mode=PostView&bmi=202514; September 05, 2009 6:18 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: To poster of 1:13 AM
I did not claim that everyone is a crook. It is wrong for you to make such a statement, without proper understanding.

But it is the duty of the Government to investigate if any a scheme that looks likes a scam, rather than allow it to be marketed to the public without any control. This is why many countries, including Singapore, have a law to control collective investment scheme.; September 05, 2009 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: To poster of 1:13AM
The main complaints from the investors are :
(1) minibond products are unsound products and unfair products
(2)the newspaper advertisments and sales brochures misled many investors into believing that it is a 5-year bond issued by the six leading banks.
Do you think that to address the above complaints, a case-by-case approach is appropriate?
P; September 05, 2009 8:45 AM
Anonymous said...: There could be some 'fraud' in the prospectus or pricing statement etc. Everyone knows it is highly technical in the product. The FI's may have been cheated in the first place without knowing it. The only way is for the investors joining together to seek Financial Expert's opinion. Do not sit on the fence waiting for others to do for you. The FI's will be serious in compensating you only you are serious seeking compensation.; September 05, 2009 10:39 AM
Anonymous said...: You and I may not agreed with the MAS finding conclusion but MAS did investigate. At the end the conclusion is you buy going in with eyes big big so what to do?; September 05, 2009 2:27 PM
Anonymous said...: To posters 11:37PM and 2:27PM
The MAS investigation findings is incomplete because it did not address many complaints raised by the investors such as:
(1)minibond products are unsound products and unfair products
(2)misleading newspaper advertisements and misleading sales brochures
....
It is not fair to make conclusion based on an incomplete findinds
P; September 05, 2009 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, eyes open big big but the big eyes are covered by what is presented, which contains half truths and lies.

The interesting thing is. If you are of a higher educational level, these half truths and lies are no longer half truths and lies?

So if you still go in

1) you willingly chose to be cheated??
2) you are clever enough to identify the structure and risk of the product and stupid enough to get this little returns on taking such a big risk?; September 06, 2009 2:42 AM
Anonymous said...: To poster of 1:13AM

"The source of strength is their people; and there's a high proportion of their population who have the strength to go to war and defeat their enemies. Likewise, if Singapore wants to win the war against financial scams, everybody must be resilent enough to defeat their enemy. Copying HK's approach will only make Singaporeans a bunch of wimps. I don't want the future of Singapore to be like that."

Does this imply that when a victim is robbed by robbers, the police should not help the victim and let the victim fight alone with the robbers because for the nation to be strong, everybody must be strong enough to defend himself against the robbers?; September 06, 2009 10:40 AM
Anonymous said...: To poster of 1:13AM
"when a sales person approach you with a CLN , you should expect a marketing spin and not to trust fully. Only those who have not seen a salesman can claim that they are truely "unsuspecting".

It is not the salesman that the minibond holders trusted so much. It is the six leading banks and MAS that they trusted.
They never expect that someone would dare to mislead the public in the newspaper involving the six banks because the banks and MAS will be pursuing them if the newspaper advertisements are misleading. (At that time, the minibond holders have high regards for the six banks and a very high regards for MAS).

Until today, they still can’t understand why the authorities did not go after those parties responsible for the misleading newspaper advertisements and the misleading sales brochures.; September 06, 2009 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I posted the comment that everybody needs to be responsible for themselves instead of always looking to the authorities. Which govt in the world is smart enough to prevent problems before they appear ? Not everything that caused the financial collapse last year in the US & Europe was illegal but many of them were plainly immoral, had been going on for a very long time, before everything blew up. Which govt actually woke up in time ? So why do you think the authorities will be able to catch anything the next round ? First and forecast one has to be responsible for oneself instead of palming off the responsibility to somebody else. It is the duty of society as a whole not just the govt to look after those amongst us who cannot take care of themselves.; September 10, 2009 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: A victim robbed by robbers may be blamed for one or some of the following reasons:

(1)she went out alone late at night
(2)she visited a deserted/quiet street
(3)she is not alert (did not look around when she walks)
(4)she show off her valuables
………….

But no matter what are the reasons, the police must still pursue the robbers.

As for the minibond case:

(1)The victims bought the product which advertised prominently in the newspaper like a long term (5-years) bonds issued by the six leading banks.
(2)The victims bought the products from the well regulated and well respected (at that time) institutions.
(3)The interest rate of 5.1% offered is similar to many low risk long term financial products.
(4)Because of the reputation of the six leading banks, the victims willingly park their hard earn (20 years saving) money for 5 years just to earn a 5.1% return.

…………

Therefore, if minibond investments could be considered as irresponsible investments, then I would like to ask: who are the most irresponsible, the issuers (Lehman Brothers), the regulator (MAS), the distributors (FIs), the trustees (HSBC) or the investors?
P; September 11, 2009 11:06 AM