Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Petition to Town Council

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh

Hi Friends

There are widespread unhappiness on the way our town councils have invested into toxic instruments. This is not helped by some wayward reporting by our authorities.

I have just posted an online petition for more transparency with regard to our town councils' investment.

http://www.petitiononline.com/tc0502/petition.html

Please support this petition for more transparency with town councils' investment so that we can participate fully together in our nation building.

Please also help to spread this online petition movement if you feel inclined to.

Regds
Gilbert Goh

11 comments:

Anonymous said...: Thank you for your support.

Gilbert Goh; December 10, 2008 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I think that recently the straits times is already poking fun at this idea of using petitions .. they used the term "petition nation" cheekily.
To avoid overuse of petitions and hence causing PAP to react adversely, why not just request the authorities exactly what you want ie. just ask them the 3 questions directly:
a. Please provide the P&L for the investments for other years, e.g. 20xx,19xx etc
b. Please explain how the 35% limit for investments is derived, and please consider opening to public debate espectially amongst non-political economists or experts in the fields.
(the 3rd question on sinking fund is overlapped and redundnat, it is covered in the 2nd question).

I think these questions should be given to the opposition MPs to ask in parliament, alternatively write to the straits times to respond to Dr Teo's recent response. Alternatively if all else fails, we need to make the opposition MPs wake up. It is their job to ask these questions. They can be considered as the correct vehicle to ask policy questions, not the citizen's individual signed petitions... it is nordering on childishness, an overkill and I don't think it is going to be effective at all.
REX; December 10, 2008 9:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Can it be done in Singapore that a collective(citizen) lawsuit be brought against the town councils for the loss of funds mismanaged as the NKF did against its ex chairman and CEO for compensation. Can any learned lawyers or solicitor enlighten the people.; December 10, 2008 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Petition is not unique to S'pore. Strait times Journalist can poke fun at it becos they do not know how the rest of world operates.
Take no notice of detractors.

BY; December 10, 2008 10:07 PM
Unknown said...: I wonder whats the response to this Petition

After those last few rounds to a supposed 'Higher Authorities' on 'Greater Issues'; December 10, 2008 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...: How the rest of the world operates? Well when citizens see unhappy things, they stage a protest gathering. In Singapore it is not legal. Today's paper, theres news that even in China the workers staged a sit-in protest against some happenings. Communist country can do that too, but not in Singapore! Firstly the govt dont allow, secondly the citizens are too well fed they fear losing their jobs if they talk too much. In other countries there are poor but educated people with nothing to lose if they voice their opinion. In singapore this is not the case, so we're just a sissy, petition nation as straits times implicated.
Regarding a query about sueing the govt for the loss of the TC money, this is ridiculous. You can't sue if no law is broken or no one is implicated, this is basic Law. The TC acted correctly within the 35% limit of the law. The only defendant worth suing is the banks which created the toxic products, but of course the TC deliberately dont want to sue them to demonstrate to the 10000 losers that it is ok to lose some money "that's life, high risk high reward" to quote a PAP politician at high level.
REX; December 11, 2008 8:59 AM
Anonymous said...: So far we have not heard openly from the Prime Minister or minister-in-charge or MP of those town councils whether the investments in the toxic structured products were properly done and legal in all respects according to the town council's constitution or against the constitution. And also no one has questioned how the investments were come about, such as: who approved the investments, were there any records of meetings and who were the signatories to the minutes; all these must be disclosed to the residents/public and papers for inspection.; December 11, 2008 3:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I do not agree with Anonymous Rex that town councils cannot be sued because no law was broken. Let me ask him the NKF case. No laws were broken, but the ex chairman & CEO were sued and compensations were awarded. Please explain.
TanKapok; December 11, 2008 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Tan Kapok
The NKF case was entirely different. Law was broken in that Durai used his power to secure favours or some kind of misappropriation which was clearly breach of trust, i can't remember the details. The Town council case is different. The use of the money was in accordance with the investment criteria of 35%. You cannot sue just because the TC lost money! You cannot sue if you don't like the number "35". IT was a judgement the government empowered the TC to use, so how can you sue the TC?
The only valid suit in court would be for TC to sue the investment banks or else the TC's investment advisers because it was a deceptive product. TC's are just like the 10000 investors who bought the stuffs, they are victims as well despite the high eductaion level of the TC management and government bosses!

REX; December 12, 2008 8:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you Rex. Please elucidate whether the 35% criteria was within the TC constitution. Were the procedural processes carried through before the investments undertaken. Durai was sued for misuse of power, but not for misappropriation or breach of trust.
TanKapok; December 12, 2008 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Hello tan kapok
Whether the 35% was within the Constitution I don't know, but according to the Parliament's mention of this figure, it is probably safe to assume so. If it is not in the consitution, you still can't sue the TC because in the first place the investment in the toxic products by TC was 6% well within 35%. So whatever the case it is IMPOSSIBLE to sue TC, I don't think at all that TC breached any procedure.

Again i would state that TC is just a victim like the 10000 investors. We shouldn't be focussing at all on suing the TC!!!
We should be focussing on making the TC sue the Distributers/Sellers/ and or RMs for cheating!! But this is the problem because the govt i think intentionaly wants to encourage the victims not to sue but rather, accept the losses as investment risk and not cheating case.

In my view, the govt has to protect DBS at all costs. Collapse of DBS will have deeper implications to Singapore than the misery of 10000 investors, let us try to see their point of view (which cannot be written down of course).
REX; December 14, 2008 10:21 AM