Thursday, November 27, 2008

Speaker's Corner 5 p.m. Sat 29 Nov

There will be a meeting of investors of the credit linked notes at Speaker's Corner at 5 p.m. on Sat 29 Nov.

Agenda
1. See your MP
2. Misrepresenation in prospectus
3. Ask for information in writing
4. Experience with FIDREC
5. Mental health concerns
6. Class action
7. Special meeting on Sat 6 Dec

44 comments:

Chan J C said...

Mr. Tan

Once again, thank you so much for your time and effort.

See you there!

Concerned said...

If we have time, we can also talk about the losses suffered by the Town Councils, and why most MP just "Diam", "Diam", except two brave MP, Eunice Olsen and Silva Lim (WP). The rest just a very big disappointment. Worse, Dr Teo still tries to justifies the losses. No words of apology or any remorse shown.

Anonymous said...

To analyse a little more, the DBS HN5, ML Jubilee 3 & Pinnacle CLN 9 & 10 are gone and the noters will have no alternatives but go for class legal suit on the ground of misrepresentation.

LB Minibond all series concern, there are other alternatives other than taking legal suit, and if a new swap counterparty will come to the rescue the notes continue to run till maturity subject to no credit event in the three major areas of risk.

Pinnacles CLN 1,2,3,5,6 & 7 had 4 to 6 REs in the Synthetic CDO CDS basket defaulted but the notes continue to run till maturity or in the event that their respective subordinate level of the specified capital thresolds have been breached hence a mandatory redemption.

It is very difficult to UNITE all the CLN noters for an unified action.

Anonymous said...

no Christmas turkey this yr. have to settle for chicken rice as per some retirees who lost their entire savings!

Chan J C said...

Hi Mr. Tan

Anonymous said...4:14pm

To analyse a little more, the DBS HN5, ML Jubilee 3 & Pinnacle CLN 9 & 10 are gone and the noters will have no alternatives but go for class legal suit on the ground of misrepresentation.

Agenda 2 and 6 should address this situation.



LB Minibond all series concern, there are other alternatives other than taking legal suit, and if a new swap counterparty will come to the rescue the notes continue to run till maturity subject to no credit event in the three major areas of risk.

Maybe there should be a separate agenda to discuss if MAS has a resolution and the next step.



Pinnacles CLN 1,2,3,5,6 & 7 had 4 to 6 REs in the Synthetic CDO CDS basket defaulted but the notes continue to run till maturity or in the event that their respective subordinate level of the specified capital thresolds have been breached hence a mandatory redemption.

Is it possible to write a petition to have MAS to look into the possibility to re-structure all these series like Minibond series?


Thank you again

SGDividends said...

Hi Concerned,

To be fair, we think Dr Teo is alright to justify the losses that occured with the Town Council's investments.

Frankly no one expected this thing to happen.

Case in point even Temasek Holdings ABC investments went awry and Temasek is, as we know, considered smart.

So frankly, we feel our town councils should not be blamed for making a bad investment given the situation at that time.

They might just had wanted to make a better return for the fund at that time, which translate to the good of the town. =)

What is done is done. Its time to move on to help the retirees who have been misled by financial instiuitions. Town councils are the victims too...

Anonymous said...

To 4:14pm

Even if there is a new swap counter party for Minibond, the notes will very likely end up like Pinnacle Notes 9 & 10. The Minibond is a very toxic product and in the current market conditions, it doesn't take much for a credit event to occur, the risks are multiplied many times. It should now be renamed "Mini Time Bomb" !

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr.Tan,

I think it's also important for you to discuss the following recent msg on Strait Time.I copied the following posting for your reference:
http://luntan.zaobao.com/viewthread.php?tid=127577&extra=page%3D1&page=3

其实这个编辑说得没错,打官司当然是耗时耗利的事。但其中他的论点说 - 新加坡的银行都已经雇佣了最好的律师行来帮助他们。那言下之意,是第一流的律师都被银行雇佣了,所以投资者要告银行很难,又是否可以这样解读:

(1)只能找次等的律师。

(2)第一流的律师都没有原则,都帮有钱的银行服务

(3)以后凡是个人和公司打官司,既然都找不到好的律师,那干脆别想。

那如果是这样的话,就太可怕了。依此推论,那以后穷人就算被有钱人欺负了,被公司欺骗了,也别想讨回公道了?因为好的律师都被有钱有地位的人或者公司请去了。能代表穷人的或者一般人的都只能是次等的了。

看官们,是不是这样解读呢?


Suing banks not that easy

It's a complicated legal path if investors choose to go to court

By Lee Su Shyan, Assistant Money Editor 26-11-08

WHEN investors lose money after buying ill-fated investment products, they often contemplate taking the bank or perhaps a financial adviser to court.

They want redress; they want justice; most of all, they want their money back.

They may be inspired by popular television courtroom shows which often depict the victory of the small man over the big guns.

Sadly, real life is a bit different. It is more complicated, costs a lot and takes a heck of a lot more time to get a result.

Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, reports have emerged that investors overseas are gearing up to sue the banks which sold Lehman-linked products.

So far, these cases have yet to go to court in the United States so the likelihood of success is hard to assess.

In Singapore, it is not known if any disgruntled investor has actually filed a lawsuit yet. Unhappy customers have been making a beeline for lawyer Leonard Loo, who has been holding sessions to advise investors on their legal options.

He told The Straits Times that with 'unity in numbers', legal costs are shared, and that it may be possible to identify a certain pattern of selling behaviour among the banks.

Such a lawsuit requires only a 'bit more effort' than a normal civil action taken out by one individual, he says.

But other lawyers are less sanguine. If investors think proving they were misled and getting their money back will be a walk in the park, think again, they say.

In Singapore, there is no legal procedure to conduct a so-called 'class action' lawsuit, as is the case in the US.

However, it is possible that one or several litigants may proceed as a test case.

This was seen in the Raffles Town Club saga where some 5,000 members banded together, after discovering that the 'exclusive' club they had joined had a whopping 19,000 members.

But in their case, their circumstances were roughly similar, which made it easier to take out a combined lawsuit. They had received the same marketing material touting the privilege of belonging to an exclusive club.

With Lehman Minibonds and other structured products, the selling process varies from investor to investor rather than being a standard selling pitch via a pamphlet.

One relationship manager could have said: 'Don't worry. It is capital-guaranteed.' Another might have warned: 'It's safe, but of course it depends on how much confidence you have in xyz company.'

Equally, the investor's circumstances range from the elderly widow who is illiterate, to the sophisticated investor who is familiar with other structured products.

Each investor would be willing to live with different degrees of risk.

So, clubbing together to sue is going to be complicated. On the other hand, going it alone entails substantial costs.

The opposition is stiff. The banks in Singapore all employ the top legal eagles to advise them.

If these top legal firms are excluded from the equation, how far will the litigant get, with the help, for example, of the one-man firm Tan Ah Kow who has only limited resources?

Aside from these practicalities, supposing the lone investor is determined to take on the bank, are the legal merits in his favour?

Since such investments are based on a written contract, the investor could try to set aside the contract by claiming misrepresentation or something known as non est factum, which simply put means 'I did not understand what I was signing or 'what I signed is radically different from what I believed it was'.

Alleging misrepresentation could mean, for example, that the relationship manager promised it was a capital-guaranteed product when in fact it was not.

Or it could be that the investor thought for some other reason that it was a capital-guaranteed product - when it wasn't - and signed the contract.

Many of these contracts contain reams of fine print. The investor is asked to acknowledge that he has read and understood the terms and conditions. This is likely to exclude any oral representations made - verbal claims made by the relationship manager, for example - once the written contract is signed.

To succeed in these circumstances, it is likely that only the elderly folk and the illiterate will be able to argue that they did not understand what they were buying and were misled.

The prospects look poor for sophisticated investors, say lawyers.

Another legal hurdle to cross is that much of the evidence is likely to be oral, whereas written evidence would produce a much stronger case.

But not many investors would be able to produce written or taped evidence of conversations with their relationship manager. Such legal hurdles are the reason that the authorities are recommending investors try to settle with the banks rather than resorting to the courts.

If investors cannot resolve their differences with the bank, the next step for them is to head for the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) for another go at resolving the case out of court.

At Fidrec, the bank is bound by the findings of the dispute resolution body but investors are not.

This three-step dispute resolution process has been put in place by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to handle complaints over mis-selling. Only if all these routes fail should investors go to the courts, MAS advises.

But look at the Raffles Town Club legal saga which spanned some four years.

One would think it was hardly worth the effort. But one of those club members involved said: 'I would do it all again. We persevered and we got justice.'

So don't bet on investors taking their losses lying down. Even though the chances of winning may be low, and even though a legal battle is draining both emotionally and financially, many investors may still sue, just to make their point.

It won't always be reason and good sense that wins, when it comes to irate investors determined for their day in court.

Anonymous said...

这个编辑说对的部分:

They may be inspired by popular television courtroom shows which often depict the victory of the small man over the big guns.

Sadly, real life is a bit different. It is more complicated, costs a lot and takes a heck of a lot more time to get a result. (打官司要花钱花时间,这些都对)

还有这部分:

Many of these contracts contain reams of fine print. The investor is asked to acknowledge that he has read and understood the terms and conditions. This is likely to exclude any oral representations made - verbal claims made by the relationship manager, for example - once the written contract is signed.

To succeed in these circumstances, it is likely that only the elderly folk and the illiterate will be able to argue that they did not understand what they were buying and were misled.

The prospects look poor for sophisticated investors, say lawyers.(但要注意的是,除了illiterate 文盲和 sophisticated investors,还有第三种类型,就是受过教育的人但不懂投资的人)

Another legal hurdle to cross is that much of the evidence is likely to be oral, whereas written evidence would produce a much stronger case.

But not many investors would be able to produce written or taped evidence of conversations with their relationship manager. Such legal hurdles are the reason that the authorities are recommending investors try to settle with the banks rather than resorting to the courts.

可是问题不在看那些fine prints, 而在于苦主们在当时的情况下是否可以合理的认为,苦主们是相信了
RM的说法而不去看这些fine prints. 所以从纯粹的法律角度来说当然不会容易,但法庭可以从合理化的角度来判定苦主们是被误导。

所谓 “合理”reasonableness, 在法律上可以成立的。就是一般情况下,在苦主相信银行的情况下,在苦主们历来和银行打交道的情况下,都不会去看这些fine prints.

本来打官司本来就没有“包赢”的事。海峡时报的编辑至少说得比早报的客观,最后这一段话:

So don't bet on investors taking their losses lying down. Even though the chances of winning may be low, and even though a legal battle is draining both emotionally and financially, many investors may still sue, just to make their point.

It won't always be reason and good sense that wins, when it comes to irate investors determined for their day in court.

还算有点良心。。。

Anonymous said...

The opposition is stiff. The banks in Singapore all employ the top legal eagles to advise them.

If these top legal firms are excluded from the equation, how far will the litigant get, with the help, for example, of the one-man firm Tan Ah Kow who has only limited resources?

(所以个人和银行打官司就没机会了?因为好的律师都被这些银行雇佣了,只有次等的律师才能帮个人打官司?)

Anonymous said...

Since such investments are based on a written contract, the investor could try to set aside the contract by claiming misrepresentation or something known as non est factum, which simply put means 'I did not understand what I was signing or 'what I signed is radically different from what I believed it was'.

Alleging misrepresentation could mean, for example, that the relationship manager promised it was a capital-guaranteed product when in fact it was not.

Or it could be that the investor thought for some other reason that it was a capital-guaranteed product - when it wasn't - and signed the contract.

(这就是苦主们有case 的地方。如果能够证明银行这么做,那就是“误导性”销售)

Anonymous said...

Many of these contracts contain reams of fine print. The investor is asked to acknowledge that he has read and understood the terms and conditions. This is likely to exclude any oral representations made - verbal claims made by the relationship manager, for example - once the written contract is signed.

(这时就需要法庭来决定,在合理的情况下是不是该相信苦主们的说法,也就是,口头上他们是被误导了,而且由于他们相信口头的承诺,所以他们没有,也看不懂,那些文字的合同)

Anonymous said...

To succeed in these circumstances, it is likely that only the elderly folk and the illiterate will be able to argue that they did not understand what they were buying and were misled.

The prospects look poor for sophisticated investors, say lawyers.

(如果不是文盲,又不是那种资深的投资家,该怎么办?这些人才是大多数吧。到底sophisticated investors该怎么定义?念过书就算?还是要有大学文凭,还是需要MBA,还是说是那种有好几百万身价的?)

Anonymous said...

我很疑惑,为什么第一流的律师都被银行雇佣去了?而让另一方一开始就处于劣势,我们是否要质疑律师这个行业的规则?

律师公会是受律政部(ministry of law) 管理的,是否可以从政治上要求这个部做得更好?

Anonymous said...

The 2 who voiced out are NMP / Opposition. The rest just cover their ass by keeping their mouth shut. This is the so called democracy we have. Make mistakes, no apology still can tell you off with both eyes big open. Very disappointed.

Anonymous said...

Contrary to what the govt has advised about not seeking legal action, actually its is realtively simple case. Every investor would say they did not know of the following:(a) that ibn each of the Notes- be it Pinnacle or Minibond etc- they did not know anything about the second layer of 100 or 125 or 150 entities over and aove the 6 or 7 named ones; (b) they did not know and were not told at all that only 5 or 6 or 7 of the second layer of entities need tp fail and the rest goes bust also; (b) they were never told even up to this date what is the amount that the entities are being "insured" (ie the credit default amount) It is a huge number - and no investor was ever told of it. Had ivnestors been told of these , NO one would have invested ibn the Notes. There is no need to say more is there ??

It is a simple case of false and misleading statements inthe Propsectus for which the arranger or whoever was responsible for the prospectus have to compensate fully.

Anonymous said...

The victims here aka en bloc minority. The law does not protect them initially and it was minority vs property giants. But their perseverence paid off finally. We must be strong.

Anonymous said...

To be fair, focuses shouldn't be just on FIs alone. MAS has been sidelining themselves by directing all investigations on misled selling by FIs. Clear strategy to distance itself from their share of responsibility. Shouldn't MAS explain why such high risk financial products are suitable allowed into the country or original investors. The root of all evil started as soon as MAS gave its approval to these notes.

Anonymous said...

I found this in youtube.com :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgRVYwHfzq4

Can anyone translate or summarize it into English ?

I think it says something like, banks in Hong Kong is going to "buy/back" the minibond to "settle" the whole issue amicably.
I think I saw DBS(HK)'s name , featured in the newspaper in the video clip.
Pls correct me if I am wrong.

World Peace !

Anonymous said...

What's gonna happened to Minibond Series 2. The quarterly payout is tomorrow Nov 29. Can anyone shed some light on it?

Very concerned investor

Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

Item 6, class action, if it ever happen will surely make legal history here!

Hope it will happen, as there is no other choice.

Anonymous said...

youtube video clip (Hong Kong) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnwJSw2xvUM

Anonymous said...

立法會權力及特權法調查雷曼事件:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fswzjAKzGG4

Chan J C said...

I watched the clip. It says something like the HK parliament has approved the HK Monetary Authority to access all necessary information to investigate into Lehman's toxic product now. This investigation will be conducted on all FI who has distributed the structured product from Lehman.

Need someone to verify my understanding please.

Anonymous said...

Latest news from Hong Kong about their Minibond....

HSBC seeks US legal advice on minibonds
Benjamin Scent and Alfred Liu
Friday, November 28, 2008

HSBC, which acts as the trustee for Lehman Brothers minibonds sold in Hong Kong, is seeking advice from its US legal counsel after The Standard revealed local banks' plan to buy back minibonds from their beleaguered customers may fall foul of US bankruptcy laws.
HSBC spokesman Gareth Hewett said complex issues of US bankruptcy law have been raised.

"We are seeking legal advice from our US lawyers," he said. "We are liaising with all the concerned parties to identify a solution."

HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore), the trustee for minibonds sold in Singapore, received legal notice from Lehman Brothers attorneys on Wednesday that any termination of swap agreements underlying the Singapore minibonds would be deemed illegal, a Hong Kong banker involved in minibond discussions said.

The Hong Kong banks were then informed of the situation, the banker said. So far, the trustee for the Hong Kong minibonds - also a trustee unit of HSBC - has not received any legal notice, he said.

"We are seeking legal opinion as to the validity of the potential challenge ... before we can proceed on to the next stage," the banker explained. "We're going to clear the legal opinion as soon as possible."

A spokeswoman for the Hong Kong Association of Banks' Lehman task force said the group is still seeking legal opinions.

Lehman Brothers is seeking US court authority to assume and sell off derivative contracts it entered into before its bankruptcy. The motion, if granted, would make it illegal for Hong Kong banks to terminate credit-default swaps that underly minibonds sold in the SAR.

Hong Kong banks' plan to compensate minibond investors requires them to terminate any swap arrangements involving the minibonds and then sell off the minibonds' underlying assets.

The US Bankruptcy Court in New York will hear the motion on Wednesday.

Lehman Brothers wants to be able to sell any derivative contracts on to third parties, without further court approval, so it can use the money to pay back its creditors. Such court orders were granted in US bankruptcy cases, including after the collapses of Enron and NRG Energy.

Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah said the buyback plan remains the best plan and added the government hopes investors can get back money at the current market value.

Democratic Party legislator Kam Nai-wai said he thinks the legal challenge is an excuse local banks are using to halt their buyback plans.

Anonymous said...

This article from The Standard (Hong Kong)

Lack of law fueled banks' greed

Wilfred Ho

Monday, November 24, 2008

The Lehman minibonds issue has been dragging on for quite a while, grabbing headlines and causing uproar over a host of issues ranging from sales pitches by local banks to a lack of legislation governing the sale of high-risk financial products.
Tales of bank employees sweet- talking elderly customers into switching their life savings to the likes of Lehman minibonds are not unheard of. Not even frontline bank employees are to blame, though.

It is no secret that quite a lot of them have been made to double as salesmen, forever under tremendous pressure to reach a certain sales figure to keep their jobs. There is no telling when the local banks embarked upon such an ambitious expansion of their sales teams, but this move signaled a potentially dangerous departure from the traditional role of a bank.

Then the banks became increasingly aggressive in boosting their profits, whipping their sales teams into a powerful drive to lure more customers into various high-risk products, some of them appearing harmless enough.

The absence of legislation banning the sale of such products to non- institutional investors simply spurred the bankers on, constantly fueling and fanning the flames that finally consumed virtually all that the investors had contributed.

Anonymous said...

Why MAS discourages investors to take legal action? Give some thought to it.

Anonymous said...

All PAP MP just keep quiet about their minibond losses.
It is clear, vote them out!

Anonymous said...

Latest information of LB Minibond all series:
http://www.hsbc.com.sg/1/2/miscellaneous/minibond-notes-frequently-asked-questions

Kevin

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tan might want to share some of his experience handling mis-representation complaints. He came across many complaints of mis-representation by agents/income staff, how he has handled them.

Anonymous said...

SGDIvidend at 5:40 PM

Agree with you that we cannot blame too much on TCs to buy such products. Therefore, the focus is whether TCs are misled. FIs and TCs should come out together to explain how to asess the risk level of TCs and based on what FIs advised TCs to buy such product.

According to current media reports, TCs are misled. because
(1). TCs are low to midium risk investors, while DBS said HN5 is high risk (8-9 out of 10)
(2). Some TC said to invest,required their fund manager to make sure the principal can be gooten back, while the fact is the total principal is gone;
(3). until today, the TC people are still saying that when such products was launched, they seemed safe. The risk level of a finacial product is determined by the invested products and mechanism under it, it has nothing to do with the market. Therefore, Their saying indicated that until today, the TC people still do not know that such products are of high-risk form the beginning.

all these are evidence that TCs are misled and should be compensated.

One FIs conpensate the TCs, they also need to comepnsate common people as TC also signed the application form and the Need Analysis form.

XH

joe said...

A small note:
There is another event at Hong Lim Park.

http://www.templeoffinearts.org/sg/newweb/html/diti-home.htm

Due considerations should be taken when co-existing with other users of the park. Would not want to create opportunities for others.

Anonymous said...

got saurce

compensation is not even on the cards

Anonymous said...

How to vote them out, if there is not even a Ah Beng or Ah Lian to contest them?

But seriously I doubt I will vote for a Ah Beng or Ah Lian. Therein lies the Sinkaporean voters dilemma and PAP arrogance arising from it.

Anonymous said...

As a final resort, in most Singaporeans embarked to withdraw all their monies from the banks involved in the fiasco. In this particular instance the DBS which is the biggest culprit. Withdraw the monies and see what happens to DBS..

Anonymous said...

How about inviting some PAP MPs, Opposition MPs, NMPs, grassroot leaders, etc. to the meeting. Let them see & feel the verve & feelings on the ground.

Anonymous said...

I am very sure that Sgp govt wont follow suit. Our world's most highest paid MPs are not doing their job. We should be angry and should not simply keep quiet, I am gonna tell my MP in face I would not vote for him anymore!

Anonymous said...

Temasek lost almost US$2 billion of a badly-timed US$3 billion in Shin Corp at a peak of 49.25 baht(Shin shares are now trading at around 15 baht) in 2006.

It's CEO, Ho Ching committed S$401 million in ASX -listed ABC Learning Centres at near the peak price of A$7.30 and then averaged down at between A$1.20 and A$4.00, bringing it's commitment to over S$500 million. That investment is now essentially worthless although Temasek has yet to write
it down.

The company also bought 19% of LSE- listed Standard Chartered in 2006 only to see the market value of that stake melt 55% by November 21st.

More fiascos include a 975 million pound stake in Barclays Bank bought atthe peak of 740 pence(with a further 100 million to subscribe for a rights issue at 282 pence), which have now sunk over 70% at 138 pence.

Most heinous of all is its US$6.88 billion stake in Citigroup bought with a minimum conversion price of $31.34. Citigroup has since plunged 88% to $3.71, singlehandedly delivering S$9.11 billion of red ink to Temasek's
books.

Overall, the paper loss on these investments has exceeded S$35 billion as of October 21st.

They are draining away tax payer money. They are going to collect more ERP, collect more GST, phone bills, electricity bills..etc whatever they can think off..so as to pay off stupid investments. Is this fair??

Anonymous said...

FACT is FACT.
Figure is FACT.
Thought I could do some simple maths but shockingly I couldn't find excuse for the loss.

$16m is lost.
$16m is reasonably pressumed to be the capital which is wiped out without recovery.
Risky structured product CLN is presumed to have a history of 2 yrs.
The 5% return is 3% more than the return from FD or ED equivalent about 2%, hence
The gain over the 2 years = $16m x 3% x 2 = $1m

Add to the 2-yr gain another 4-yr gain presumably another LB Minibond type CLN, the figure = $1m + $2m = $3m

The loss over the 6 years:
$16m - $3m = $13m

Unless otherwise there were other investments (must be a very large sum) that could yield a return of more than $13m, how could the $13m be recouped?

Is the figure wrong or my maths wrong?

Anonymous said...

Anon 6.46 pm

Our wise old man said these are for the long term 20 to 30 years, so short term big losses doesn't matter. But even if it matters, what can we folks do, right? They will still win the next elections by default. They really have a free hand to do what they think is right, not what you folks think is right.

Johnson said...

Hi All,

Minibond invester from HLF, please note, i have receive my complain respond from HLF, even i have written evidence that the RM say the statement is approved by mas, HLF has told me THERE WILL BE NO REFUND. Those invester who is waiting for the respond on your complain and think HLF will give you back your money, think twice.

Anonymous said...

actually it is not authorizing the MAS of HK to conduct the investigation. My understanding is, given that the executive branch of the govt and MAS of HK has failed to regulate the sales of lehman minibonds in the first place, and now, fail to act to commission a credible and independent enquiry to investigate possible wrong doings of the banks, the lego of hk is invoking a parliamentary privilege to set up its commission of enquiry to dig into the matter.

in other word, the lego (parliament) of HK is bypassing the executive branch of the HK govt to step in to take the investigation into its own hands.

drawing a parallel to singapore, it will mean that:

(1) the govt and MAS failed to regulate the sales of minibonds in the first place

(2) not only does the govt refuse to set up an independent and credible commision of inquiry to investigate possible wrong doings of the banks, instead, it is telling the minibond holders to allow the banks to investigate themselves for any possible wrong doings.

(3) having the banks investigating themselves, amid with a so-called independent investigator in the body of gererd ee, can hardly be construed as independent and credible, given that (a) gered ee is a bank employee (b) he is a one man show and cannot be conducting the actual investigation himself without any resources, and (3) he has no formal authority to penalize the banks for any wrong doings even if he is able to conduct the investigations himself.

(4) exacerbating the problem further is the apparent side taking of the govt discouraging investors to seek legal redress, and various statements made by public officials stating that the investors purchased those toxic products "with their eyes open", implying that they deserve the outcome.

Hence, if the singapore parliament is truly reflecting the sentiment of the singapore people, it will model after the HK parliament, and set up a parliamentary commission of inquiry invoking parliamentary privilege. This is not unsual. the US congress has often invoked such privilege to conduct investigations on its own when it feels that the adminstrative branch of the govt is not doing an adequate job.

the news also reflect the actions of the HK executive branch taking side with the banks attempting to discourage lego memebers to veto this bill to set up a parliamentary enquiry. Such attempt failed in the face of overwhelming public sentiment and with lego members still upholding the principle of social justice

but of course, under our current parliament, it is an unlikely event.

Anonymous said...

Hi Johnson,

What to you intend to do next. I hope legal acion is on your mind now. Sue the hell out of HLF!!

Anonymous said...

TC's have qualified professional people to advise them on investment. How can one say that they were mis-led? It is the ordinary people on the street , eg retiree, Joe the plumber etc, were mis-led!!!

Blog Archive