1 May 2013
Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times
I wish to give my rebuttal to the letter from Miss Grace Tan Mui Gek
"Why protect these investors?" (ST 1 May 2013}
Ms Tan did not address my key concern. There are already existing laws
on deposit taking and issue of securities that are supposed to be administered
by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
The gold bar scheme that promises an attractive rate of interest and return
of capital is akin to a deposit. It should be possible for the MAS to advice the
operators that they could be running foul of this law, and if they still persist, to
file a charge in court.
Miss Tan give the ridiculous example of strangers standing outside the
corridor of her flat. I am not asking the authority to act against these
strangers.
I am asking the authority to act against a company that is registered in
Singapore, promotes investment schemes that could infringe the
existing laws in Singapore, advertises their dubious products through
the main newspapers, television channels or public talks, and
carrying on these activities for several years.
Being allowed to operate for so long, they acquire the mantle of
authenticity.
By putting them in the Investors Alert List, they MAS do know
of the existence of these dubious schemes but did not take action to investigate.
How many members of the public are aware of the existence of such a list?
Some of these products are later found to be fraudulent and have been investigated
by the Commercial Affairs Department. But the action is taken far too late, and
too many investors have lost a lot of savings. This will bring down the good
reputation of Singapore.
Tan Kin Lian
President
Financial Services Consumer Association