Sunday, October 19, 2008
Interview at Bloomberg TV
I will be interviewed live at Bloomberg TV at 9.30 am on Tuesday 21 October. I shall be careful, polite and frank.
Continue your good work for ordinary citizens
Hi Mr Tan,
Just dropping you a note to tell you that I have been touched by your efforts so far, although I have not been a victim of the minibond mess. I felt it is really important that you see this through.
1) Your words and action carry more weight than mere civic citizens/anon bloggers like us - I think you have lived by your conscience quite unlike most of the establishment.
2) None of our MPs had actually spoken out in support of the people who lost their retirement savings - when most people believe that there are predatory selling and mis-representation on part of the banks RMs.
3) MAS, like most govt agencies, have actually distanced themselves and tried to outsource the work to a "independent 3rd party".
I hope my little note can provide you some encouragement to continue your good work for ordinary citizens like us.
YTP
Just dropping you a note to tell you that I have been touched by your efforts so far, although I have not been a victim of the minibond mess. I felt it is really important that you see this through.
1) Your words and action carry more weight than mere civic citizens/anon bloggers like us - I think you have lived by your conscience quite unlike most of the establishment.
2) None of our MPs had actually spoken out in support of the people who lost their retirement savings - when most people believe that there are predatory selling and mis-representation on part of the banks RMs.
3) MAS, like most govt agencies, have actually distanced themselves and tried to outsource the work to a "independent 3rd party".
I hope my little note can provide you some encouragement to continue your good work for ordinary citizens like us.
YTP
HKMA refers Lehman-Brothers-related cases to the SFC
This is the press release by Hong Kong Monetary Authority, October 20, 2008
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has today (Friday) referred to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) 24 cases involving complaints of alleged misconduct in respect of investment products related to Lehman Brothers for further action. The 24 cases, which are the first batch of Lehman-Brothers-related cases referred in this way, involve alleged mis-selling by two licensed banks in Hong Kong.
A HKMA spokesperson said that the cases had been reviewed by the HKMA, which had determined that there were sufficient grounds for referring them to the SFC in accordance with the mechanism established under the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the HKMA and the SFC. "The HKMA is satisfied that there are adequate justifications for referring them immediately to the SFC, which is the authority ultimately responsible for deciding whether a bank has been guilty of misconduct," the spokesperson said. "The SFC will review the evidence and will consult with the HKMA in determining what sanction, if any, is to be imposed," the spokesperson added. Sanctions that the SFC may impose on a bank include suspension or revocation of registration, reprimands, fines or prohibition orders.
The spokesperson said that the HKMA had, up to 16 October 2008, received 12,091 complaints concerning Lehman-Brothers-related products. Apart from the 24 cases referred to the SFC today, the HKMA had formally opened investigations on a further 95 complaints and was currently seeking further information on 783 complaints. A further 21 complaints had been found to lack sufficient prima facie evidence to support further action (A table summarising the complaints received so far is attached).
"The HKMA will continue to work on the large number of complaints that still remain to be assessed as quickly as possible in a systematic and objective way, using the considerable staff resources it has mobilised and in accordance with its powers under relevant legislation," the spokesperson said.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has today (Friday) referred to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) 24 cases involving complaints of alleged misconduct in respect of investment products related to Lehman Brothers for further action. The 24 cases, which are the first batch of Lehman-Brothers-related cases referred in this way, involve alleged mis-selling by two licensed banks in Hong Kong.
A HKMA spokesperson said that the cases had been reviewed by the HKMA, which had determined that there were sufficient grounds for referring them to the SFC in accordance with the mechanism established under the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the HKMA and the SFC. "The HKMA is satisfied that there are adequate justifications for referring them immediately to the SFC, which is the authority ultimately responsible for deciding whether a bank has been guilty of misconduct," the spokesperson said. "The SFC will review the evidence and will consult with the HKMA in determining what sanction, if any, is to be imposed," the spokesperson added. Sanctions that the SFC may impose on a bank include suspension or revocation of registration, reprimands, fines or prohibition orders.
The spokesperson said that the HKMA had, up to 16 October 2008, received 12,091 complaints concerning Lehman-Brothers-related products. Apart from the 24 cases referred to the SFC today, the HKMA had formally opened investigations on a further 95 complaints and was currently seeking further information on 783 complaints. A further 21 complaints had been found to lack sufficient prima facie evidence to support further action (A table summarising the complaints received so far is attached).
"The HKMA will continue to work on the large number of complaints that still remain to be assessed as quickly as possible in a systematic and objective way, using the considerable staff resources it has mobilised and in accordance with its powers under relevant legislation," the spokesperson said.
Positive or negative?
Which group do you belong to?
Group 1- Positive
I wish to thank you for your tireless efforts in helping the investors to voice their anguish. Although, I am not optimistic about recovering my savings, given the lack of support from the authority, I nevertheless appreciate what you and your team is doing. Regardles of the outcome, you have my deepest appreciation.
Group 2 - Negative
You advised us to recover the investment from the financial institution. In my opinion, its a not a useful way to do it. It will only sapped our energy and hope and once we make a mistake, we can end up in jail for defamation or for lying. You said be truthful, so be truthful. Please do not give false hope! There is nothing we can do.
Which group do you belong to?
Group 1- Positive
I wish to thank you for your tireless efforts in helping the investors to voice their anguish. Although, I am not optimistic about recovering my savings, given the lack of support from the authority, I nevertheless appreciate what you and your team is doing. Regardles of the outcome, you have my deepest appreciation.
Group 2 - Negative
You advised us to recover the investment from the financial institution. In my opinion, its a not a useful way to do it. It will only sapped our energy and hope and once we make a mistake, we can end up in jail for defamation or for lying. You said be truthful, so be truthful. Please do not give false hope! There is nothing we can do.
Which group do you belong to?
Petition #3 (To Mrs Lim Hwee Hua)
This Petition has been sent to Mr. Albert Tan to forward to Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua. It contains 127 signatures (collected within 12 hours).
20 October 2008
PETITION
Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua
Senior Minister of State
Ministry of Finance
Dear Mrs. Lim,
Give Fair and Equal Treatment to All Buyers
As you are aware, a large number of us investors have been wrongly led to part with our life long savings for structured products eg Minibond, High Note and others which are not suitable for our class of investors. By the standard of professional investment managers, not more than 10% of a person's saving should be invested in high risk products.
In this saga, banks have persuaded most investors to part with a large part, if not all, of their life savings. The true nature of their products covered up by diverting attention to reference entities of large reputable banks when infact such products viability is hinged on swapped CDOs (collatoral debt obligations) details for which are not allowed to be released even after a default has happened.
How can banks be allowed to sell financial products without revealing the specifications of the underlying securities? How can they be allowed to refuse investors from knowing the true underlying securities even after the product has failed? It is more than a "mis-representation". It is a deliberate attempt to fool even the most savy investor including possibly MAS as otherwise MAS would not have registered the products. How can a structured product be called a bond? The word "Minibond" itself is inappropriate.
Now MAS has openly stated that those above 55 years and non-English speaking gets priority in compensation. The FIs will jump onto this and interprete it to mean something akin to modern day Robin Hood: take from A and pay to B. Those outside the "favored category" will suffer a double injustice.
Mrs. Lim, on our behalf, please advise MAS to re-state their position to ensure that the FIs grant fair and equal compensation to all the buyers of these toxic products irrespective of age or education level. Education only becomes a factor if language is the problem. In this case, even a university graduate will not be able to discover the true nature of the products.
Sincerely,
(Particulars of 127 signatories)
UPDATE
The Petition is drafted by Albert Tan. He will organise a group of signatories to meet with Mrs Kim Hwee Hua. If you are willing to join him, please send an email to him at tan4tell@yahoo.com.
20 October 2008
PETITION
Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua
Senior Minister of State
Ministry of Finance
Dear Mrs. Lim,
Give Fair and Equal Treatment to All Buyers
As you are aware, a large number of us investors have been wrongly led to part with our life long savings for structured products eg Minibond, High Note and others which are not suitable for our class of investors. By the standard of professional investment managers, not more than 10% of a person's saving should be invested in high risk products.
In this saga, banks have persuaded most investors to part with a large part, if not all, of their life savings. The true nature of their products covered up by diverting attention to reference entities of large reputable banks when infact such products viability is hinged on swapped CDOs (collatoral debt obligations) details for which are not allowed to be released even after a default has happened.
How can banks be allowed to sell financial products without revealing the specifications of the underlying securities? How can they be allowed to refuse investors from knowing the true underlying securities even after the product has failed? It is more than a "mis-representation". It is a deliberate attempt to fool even the most savy investor including possibly MAS as otherwise MAS would not have registered the products. How can a structured product be called a bond? The word "Minibond" itself is inappropriate.
Now MAS has openly stated that those above 55 years and non-English speaking gets priority in compensation. The FIs will jump onto this and interprete it to mean something akin to modern day Robin Hood: take from A and pay to B. Those outside the "favored category" will suffer a double injustice.
Mrs. Lim, on our behalf, please advise MAS to re-state their position to ensure that the FIs grant fair and equal compensation to all the buyers of these toxic products irrespective of age or education level. Education only becomes a factor if language is the problem. In this case, even a university graduate will not be able to discover the true nature of the products.
Sincerely,
(Particulars of 127 signatories)
UPDATE
The Petition is drafted by Albert Tan. He will organise a group of signatories to meet with Mrs Kim Hwee Hua. If you are willing to join him, please send an email to him at tan4tell@yahoo.com.
Fraudalent misrepresentation and clear mis-selling
Extrcted from:
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=14234&page=3
I am a medical doctor and have been a specialist cardiologist for 18 years. As an educated, mature and risk adverse investor, I purchased $130,000 of Lehman Brother’s Minibond Series 5 from Maybank Singapore last year.
Events over the last few weeks have shown that there has been fraudulent misrepresentation and clear mis-selling of the Minibond for the following reasons:
1) The product is not at all a bond, but calling it a Minibond, marketing it as a low risk product and offering a modest return of 5% yearly was clearly intended to mislead the purchaser into thinking that it ranks as a bond in default risk.
2) By associating the product with 5 well known banks, by highlighting the good credit ratings of these banks and by linking the default of the product with a default of any of these banks, the purchaser is made to believe that the bonds are instruments supported by these banks. In fact, the banks have nothing to do with the Minibond which is created solely for the profit of Lehman Brothers and its agent Maybank Singapore.
3) By constantly referring to the ratings of the reference banks, the impression is given that the Minibond is of similar low risk and high grade, with holders protected as would any holder of bonds issued by these banks. It is only now apparent that the Minibond is an unrated structured product; purchasers are NOT holders of bonds issued by these reference banks, and are not even considered to be holders of bonds issued by Lehman Brothers.
4) The impression is given that funds invested in the Minibond will be used to purchase high quality securities that could easily be sold to safely redeem its value if the need arises. In actual fact, even the officers of Maybank do not know what the underlying securities are and an article in the Sunday Times of 19th October reported that the value of the securities in Minibond 5 have been determined to be zero.
I write in the hope that the Monetary Authority of Singapore will take the necessary action to ensure that those dishonestly misrepresenting financial products face the consequences of their action. It is in the long term interest of Singapore as a trusted financial centre that those who behave like unscrupulous traders, mis-selling and cheating purchasers be made to fully face the music. Thank You.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Ong Hean Teik
20th October 2008
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=14234&page=3
I am a medical doctor and have been a specialist cardiologist for 18 years. As an educated, mature and risk adverse investor, I purchased $130,000 of Lehman Brother’s Minibond Series 5 from Maybank Singapore last year.
Events over the last few weeks have shown that there has been fraudulent misrepresentation and clear mis-selling of the Minibond for the following reasons:
1) The product is not at all a bond, but calling it a Minibond, marketing it as a low risk product and offering a modest return of 5% yearly was clearly intended to mislead the purchaser into thinking that it ranks as a bond in default risk.
2) By associating the product with 5 well known banks, by highlighting the good credit ratings of these banks and by linking the default of the product with a default of any of these banks, the purchaser is made to believe that the bonds are instruments supported by these banks. In fact, the banks have nothing to do with the Minibond which is created solely for the profit of Lehman Brothers and its agent Maybank Singapore.
3) By constantly referring to the ratings of the reference banks, the impression is given that the Minibond is of similar low risk and high grade, with holders protected as would any holder of bonds issued by these banks. It is only now apparent that the Minibond is an unrated structured product; purchasers are NOT holders of bonds issued by these reference banks, and are not even considered to be holders of bonds issued by Lehman Brothers.
4) The impression is given that funds invested in the Minibond will be used to purchase high quality securities that could easily be sold to safely redeem its value if the need arises. In actual fact, even the officers of Maybank do not know what the underlying securities are and an article in the Sunday Times of 19th October reported that the value of the securities in Minibond 5 have been determined to be zero.
I write in the hope that the Monetary Authority of Singapore will take the necessary action to ensure that those dishonestly misrepresenting financial products face the consequences of their action. It is in the long term interest of Singapore as a trusted financial centre that those who behave like unscrupulous traders, mis-selling and cheating purchasers be made to fully face the music. Thank You.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Ong Hean Teik
20th October 2008
Be careful of your relationship manager
Here are a few frightening stories ....
1. A customer deposited $800,000 into a fixed deposit. He was not aware that the relationship manager placed it in a leverage account which caused a loss of $400,000. The customer was asked to top up the account. The customer is making a Police report. Details are also given to a journalist.
2. Two weeks ago, someone sent an e-mail to me. Her mother lost the entire sum of $500,000 in a dual currency investment. She does not know how it happened. I asked her to get the bank to send a statement to her. I have not heard from her yet. My guess is that the money went into a leveraged account. It is probably leveraged 3 times or more. A 30% drop in the currency, with this type of leverage, could wipe out the entire deposit.
3. A neighbour's relative saw me last night. He was advised by the relationship manager to invest SGD $250,000 in Lehman Brother bonds in April 2008 to earn 4.2%. The bonds are now worthless. Previously, the same RM advised him to invest in a bond, which turned out to be a hedge fund. He has liquidated the investment at a big loss.
I wish to send this message to warn bank customers about the relationship managers. It seems that they have to meet high sales quota and are recommeding risky financial products to their customers, without giving proper advice. As there are so many cases of dishonest acts, we now have to worry about the integrity of the financial institutions and the relationship managers.
If you are a victim, you must lodge a Police report for dishonesty and also a complaint against the relationship manager. We have to act to clean up these dishonesty.
1. A customer deposited $800,000 into a fixed deposit. He was not aware that the relationship manager placed it in a leverage account which caused a loss of $400,000. The customer was asked to top up the account. The customer is making a Police report. Details are also given to a journalist.
2. Two weeks ago, someone sent an e-mail to me. Her mother lost the entire sum of $500,000 in a dual currency investment. She does not know how it happened. I asked her to get the bank to send a statement to her. I have not heard from her yet. My guess is that the money went into a leveraged account. It is probably leveraged 3 times or more. A 30% drop in the currency, with this type of leverage, could wipe out the entire deposit.
3. A neighbour's relative saw me last night. He was advised by the relationship manager to invest SGD $250,000 in Lehman Brother bonds in April 2008 to earn 4.2%. The bonds are now worthless. Previously, the same RM advised him to invest in a bond, which turned out to be a hedge fund. He has liquidated the investment at a big loss.
I wish to send this message to warn bank customers about the relationship managers. It seems that they have to meet high sales quota and are recommeding risky financial products to their customers, without giving proper advice. As there are so many cases of dishonest acts, we now have to worry about the integrity of the financial institutions and the relationship managers.
If you are a victim, you must lodge a Police report for dishonesty and also a complaint against the relationship manager. We have to act to clean up these dishonesty.
Tips from an ex-financial adviser
Dear Mr. Tan,
I used to work as an independent Financial Advisor. I wish to share my views on Insurance and Investment. I have now left the industry.
Protection Coverage
1) I believe that a person should buy some limited life insurance coverage for $100 k.
2) The rest should be based on group term insurance.
3) I was being taught the cover for critical illness, disability and death should be 10 times of your annual income, or at least $ 400k.
Investment
1) I believe that the best kind of investment is still unit trust, which allows good diversification. It is best to buy through an online portal and to avoid any financial advisor, thus saving on the commission.
3) It is better to have a regular saving plan and cost averaging.
M
I used to work as an independent Financial Advisor. I wish to share my views on Insurance and Investment. I have now left the industry.
Protection Coverage
1) I believe that a person should buy some limited life insurance coverage for $100 k.
2) The rest should be based on group term insurance.
3) I was being taught the cover for critical illness, disability and death should be 10 times of your annual income, or at least $ 400k.
Investment
1) I believe that the best kind of investment is still unit trust, which allows good diversification. It is best to buy through an online portal and to avoid any financial advisor, thus saving on the commission.
3) It is better to have a regular saving plan and cost averaging.
M
Be truthful, not fearful
Comment posted in my blog
I don't see anything untoward with Dr Balakrishnan's comment/opinion to The Online Citizen. (Mr Tan) argues for a calm, accountable and high-trust environment in Singapore. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you think about it, these are the exact attributes that should help us seek redress in our case with the banks. If the FIs are made to be accountable for their ill-advised sales technique/process, isn't that we want?
Mr Tan is providing valuable leadership in this matter when all of us seem to be headless chickens running from pillar to post over our predicament. So, I am thankful for what he is doing and especially so when I understand he has no personal funds at stake since he has not invested in these toxic products.
Mr Tan's friend who advised him comes from the political arena, and so I can understand why he said to be careful. However, IMO the situation is not exactly translatable here - our investments are commercial transactions, between banks and customers. Singapore's very economic lifeblood depends on similar transactions each and every day.
There has now been allegations of mis-selling and mis-representations on the part of the banks. As long as we keep our demands for remedial actions, whether individually or collectively at an apolitical level, why should there be anything to fear?
If you were robbed on the street one dark night, do you fear to report to the police. The robber should be the one who should be fearful, not you!
We are the aggrieved parties in the current situation. Like Mr Tan said on Saturday, just state our own case honestly and in a straightforward manner. There is no need to politicise the situation. Neither is there a necessity to fling untruths and half-truths about - it may help you to rant and beat your chest, but why run the risk of legal action.
The important thing is, when the need arises, we must speak up. The simple inescapable fact is that if we do not, then we cannot complain that the remedies we sought are not given us.
Betsybug
I don't see anything untoward with Dr Balakrishnan's comment/opinion to The Online Citizen. (Mr Tan) argues for a calm, accountable and high-trust environment in Singapore. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you think about it, these are the exact attributes that should help us seek redress in our case with the banks. If the FIs are made to be accountable for their ill-advised sales technique/process, isn't that we want?
Mr Tan is providing valuable leadership in this matter when all of us seem to be headless chickens running from pillar to post over our predicament. So, I am thankful for what he is doing and especially so when I understand he has no personal funds at stake since he has not invested in these toxic products.
Mr Tan's friend who advised him comes from the political arena, and so I can understand why he said to be careful. However, IMO the situation is not exactly translatable here - our investments are commercial transactions, between banks and customers. Singapore's very economic lifeblood depends on similar transactions each and every day.
There has now been allegations of mis-selling and mis-representations on the part of the banks. As long as we keep our demands for remedial actions, whether individually or collectively at an apolitical level, why should there be anything to fear?
If you were robbed on the street one dark night, do you fear to report to the police. The robber should be the one who should be fearful, not you!
We are the aggrieved parties in the current situation. Like Mr Tan said on Saturday, just state our own case honestly and in a straightforward manner. There is no need to politicise the situation. Neither is there a necessity to fling untruths and half-truths about - it may help you to rant and beat your chest, but why run the risk of legal action.
The important thing is, when the need arises, we must speak up. The simple inescapable fact is that if we do not, then we cannot complain that the remedies we sought are not given us.
Betsybug
Petition #3 - Fair and equal compensation to all buyers
This Petiton is authored by Albert Tan (tan4tell@yahoo.com). It is addressed to Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua and ask her to get MAS to give fair and equal compensation to be given to all investors, regardless of age and language.
If you agree, please sign the Petition urgently, to be presented to Mrs. Lim for the Parliamentary debate this week.
http://www.petitiononline.com/FECTAB1/petition.html
If you agree, please sign the Petition urgently, to be presented to Mrs. Lim for the Parliamentary debate this week.
http://www.petitiononline.com/FECTAB1/petition.html
Onus of proof
An investor spoke to me at Speaker's Corner last night. He said that under the "Insider Trading Act", the onus of proof is now required for the accused to prove his innocence. (Note: I am not clear if this is actually the legal situation. I hope that a legal expert can confirm the situation).
He suggested that the same approach should be adopted for the mis-representation. It is clear that the credit linked notes are not suitable for the risk averse investors. He suggested that the financial insitution should be required to produce the evidence, from their records, that they have carried out the proper assessment. The financial insitution and/or its representatives cannot rely on the signed forms and disclaimers to justify their action.
I wonder if this approach can be adopted by MAS? It will help many of the vulnerable investors from the difficult task of lodging their complaint.
He suggested that the same approach should be adopted for the mis-representation. It is clear that the credit linked notes are not suitable for the risk averse investors. He suggested that the financial insitution should be required to produce the evidence, from their records, that they have carried out the proper assessment. The financial insitution and/or its representatives cannot rely on the signed forms and disclaimers to justify their action.
I wonder if this approach can be adopted by MAS? It will help many of the vulnerable investors from the difficult task of lodging their complaint.
Volunteers to write statement of claim
I wish to look for volunteers to help the investors write their statement of claim. There are a few thousand statements to be written. Some may see a lawyer, but the lawyers may not be able to cope with the volume of requests.
The statement will be based on the questions contained in section 1 of this paper:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/general-advice-to-investors-of.html
If you volunteer, please send your particulars (i.e. name, e-mail address, telephone number, and postal code, language) to kinlian@gmail.com. I will put your particulars for the investors to contact you. I will also arrange a briefing to the volunteers on how to write the statement.
Please come forward to help.
UPDATE
Here are the volunteers
Soh Poh Huat, davidsph@singnet.com.sg, 96826130, PD 520341, English, Hokkien
Rachel Chung, rae.chung@gmail.com, 9846 6598
Yong Shan Chie, yongcons@singnet.com.sg, 96931951, PD 128712
APPROACH YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
A few people have suggested that y ou can approach your MP and ask for his or her help to prepare your statement. You can follow the guidelines to make sure that the relevant points are covered.
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/general-advice-to-investors-of.html
The statement will be based on the questions contained in section 1 of this paper:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/general-advice-to-investors-of.html
If you volunteer, please send your particulars (i.e. name, e-mail address, telephone number, and postal code, language) to kinlian@gmail.com. I will put your particulars for the investors to contact you. I will also arrange a briefing to the volunteers on how to write the statement.
Please come forward to help.
UPDATE
Here are the volunteers
Soh Poh Huat, davidsph@singnet.com.sg, 96826130, PD 520341, English, Hokkien
Rachel Chung, rae.chung@gmail.com, 9846 6598
Yong Shan Chie, yongcons@singnet.com.sg, 96931951, PD 128712
APPROACH YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
A few people have suggested that y ou can approach your MP and ask for his or her help to prepare your statement. You can follow the guidelines to make sure that the relevant points are covered.
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/general-advice-to-investors-of.html
Jubilee Notes
Dear Mr. Tan Kin Lian
I am concerned about the lack of action or discussion about the Jubilee Notes that Merrill Lynch put together, allowed to default on the excuse that a single of the six highly regarded reference entities went broke, and left all investors with zero compensation.
Here we have a large Financial Institution that is still alive and sound, yet they seem to be getting away with doing everything wrong. They apparently sold off the instruments in question for next to nothing as there is no market at this time.
Yet, MAS seems to not even mention them, much less going after them. I would not be surprised, if the buyers of these instruments were able to sell them for good value to the US Government and pocket a handsome profit while we, the investors, get nothing.
Again, where is Singapore's regulation and supervision to ensure the good name of Singapore as a safe and well regulated Financial Hub is not placed in disrepute?
BM
REPLY
Please write to the trustee. Use this template:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/jubilee-series-3-linkearner-notes.html
I am concerned about the lack of action or discussion about the Jubilee Notes that Merrill Lynch put together, allowed to default on the excuse that a single of the six highly regarded reference entities went broke, and left all investors with zero compensation.
Here we have a large Financial Institution that is still alive and sound, yet they seem to be getting away with doing everything wrong. They apparently sold off the instruments in question for next to nothing as there is no market at this time.
Yet, MAS seems to not even mention them, much less going after them. I would not be surprised, if the buyers of these instruments were able to sell them for good value to the US Government and pocket a handsome profit while we, the investors, get nothing.
Again, where is Singapore's regulation and supervision to ensure the good name of Singapore as a safe and well regulated Financial Hub is not placed in disrepute?
BM
REPLY
Please write to the trustee. Use this template:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/jubilee-series-3-linkearner-notes.html
Suing for defamatory remarks
From www.theonlinecitizen.com
Even though Singapore is set to become a more open society in the future, the government is making no apologies when it comes to suing politicians for defamatory remarks, said Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports.
Speaking to the The Online Citizen (TOC) after the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum held yesterday at the National University of Singapore (NUS), Dr Balakrishnan added that the government takes attacks on accuracy and integrity very seriously, because “establishing a high trust environment” is an advantage that gives Singapore an edge in a competitive global economy.
He said: “We don’t mind political openness, but we don’t want too much of the excitement. To the outsider, when they look at Singapore, they know that politics here is serious, it’s accurate, it’s real and accountable. It’s not a situation you get in other countries. We’re an outlier, but we are outlying because we want to keep our politics honest.”
MY COMMENT
When I announced that I would be speaking on the minibond issue at Speaker’s Corner (Hong Lim Green), a friend (who previously contested in the election under the Workers’ Party) sent an e-mail to me from Hong Kong. He advised me to be careful and not be say anything that is defamatory that could get me sued to bankrupcy.
He quoted incidences of candidates that were sued for statements that appear to be questioning something that is wrong. A few other people, including a lawyer, also warned me to “be careful”.
If I listened to their advice, I would not be saying anything. It is so dangerous to speak in Singapore. People are so fearful of saying something that can lead to being sued, even if they do not have any bad intent.
I had to look for someone to interprete my speech into Chinese. I asked many people to come forward. Some agreed first, and later declined. They cited “pressure from family members”. It was so diffiicult to get someone, even to interprete for me.
Is this the kind of society that our minister is so proud about? A society where people are fearful to speak up, in case they make a slip and get be sued till bankrupt? We should be ashamed of this sad state of affairs in Singapore.
Even though Singapore is set to become a more open society in the future, the government is making no apologies when it comes to suing politicians for defamatory remarks, said Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports.
Speaking to the The Online Citizen (TOC) after the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum held yesterday at the National University of Singapore (NUS), Dr Balakrishnan added that the government takes attacks on accuracy and integrity very seriously, because “establishing a high trust environment” is an advantage that gives Singapore an edge in a competitive global economy.
He said: “We don’t mind political openness, but we don’t want too much of the excitement. To the outsider, when they look at Singapore, they know that politics here is serious, it’s accurate, it’s real and accountable. It’s not a situation you get in other countries. We’re an outlier, but we are outlying because we want to keep our politics honest.”
MY COMMENT
When I announced that I would be speaking on the minibond issue at Speaker’s Corner (Hong Lim Green), a friend (who previously contested in the election under the Workers’ Party) sent an e-mail to me from Hong Kong. He advised me to be careful and not be say anything that is defamatory that could get me sued to bankrupcy.
He quoted incidences of candidates that were sued for statements that appear to be questioning something that is wrong. A few other people, including a lawyer, also warned me to “be careful”.
If I listened to their advice, I would not be saying anything. It is so dangerous to speak in Singapore. People are so fearful of saying something that can lead to being sued, even if they do not have any bad intent.
I had to look for someone to interprete my speech into Chinese. I asked many people to come forward. Some agreed first, and later declined. They cited “pressure from family members”. It was so diffiicult to get someone, even to interprete for me.
Is this the kind of society that our minister is so proud about? A society where people are fearful to speak up, in case they make a slip and get be sued till bankrupt? We should be ashamed of this sad state of affairs in Singapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)