Ms. Angelina Fernandez
Monetary Authority of Singapore
I refer to your reply that is published in the Straits Times today (24 August). I need to follow up with a few clarifications:
1. Can you confirm that the insurance company has specified an asset share for each individual participating policy
2. That the total of these individual liabilities equal to the total assets of the participating fund?
3. Is the insurance company required to pay out the full individual liability on the termination of a policy?
4. If the insurance company is allowed to pay less than the asset share, how is the money allocated to the remaining policyholders?
In my earlier letter, I stated that if the total of the individual liability is $13 billion and the total assets is $15 billion, the difference of $2 billion is "orphaned money". I do not get a clear explanation from your latest reply to this point.
Please call me at 81685485 if you wish to seek clarification to my question.
Tan Kin Lian
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A Sense of Duty
We need to re-install in each person a sense of duty.
If you are a doctor, it is your duty to treat and cure the patient. If you are a teacher, it is your duty to teach the students well. You receive a salary or fee for your service. When you accept the job, you accept the terms of your engagement and undertake to carry out your duty to the best of your ability.
In a corrupt society, government officials need to be bribed to do their duty. They may be bribed to break the rules in favour of the briber or just to carry out their duty according to the rules or what is expected of them.
Singapore is fortunate to have stayed clear of corruption and to have a public administration that is largely free of bribery. The few cases of bribery are prosecuted.
However, in recent years, there is a worrying trend. The sense of duty seems to have been eroded. Many people now expect to be incentivised to do a job well.
Corporate executives, who already earn a high remuneration, are now given incentives (through profit sharing or stock options) to increase their company’s profits. If they want to, they can increase the profits in unethical ways, such as over-charging or cheating the customers, delivering a lower quality of product or exploiting the workers.
Financial advisers rush to sell financial products to earn an attractive commission. Many forget that it is their duty to understand the product and ensure its suitability for customers. The lure of earning the attractive commission overcomes the sense of duty. Many neglected their duty and unknowingly mis-represented the product. Some knew but joined the bandwagon anyway. A similar situation applies to the property market.
There has been a serious decline in the standard of protection for consumers and workers. The government authorities are now less active in prosecuting cases of public interest and prefer to leave these matters to be sorted out by free market.
Consumers are asked to take legal action to seek redress. But consumers do not have the financial means to take legal action against large businesses who have access to the best lawyers anyway.
Local workers are also affected by depressed wages due to the influx of foreign workers and are not protected by a minimum wage policy. Many have to accept wage rates that are inadequate to provide a decent standard of living and have to work long hours to make up.
In this pro-business environment, where consumers and workers are not adequately protected, it is not surprising that businesses can rake up high profits, giving million dollar income to their top executives. Successful professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, can also earn million dollar incomes.
It is rather sad that the remunerations of our government leaders are now benchmark against the earnings of these top business executives and professionals. If the leaders are chasing the top dollars, who will look after the interest of the ordinary workers, the consumers and the other weak people in our society?
Tan Kin Lian
If you are a doctor, it is your duty to treat and cure the patient. If you are a teacher, it is your duty to teach the students well. You receive a salary or fee for your service. When you accept the job, you accept the terms of your engagement and undertake to carry out your duty to the best of your ability.
In a corrupt society, government officials need to be bribed to do their duty. They may be bribed to break the rules in favour of the briber or just to carry out their duty according to the rules or what is expected of them.
Singapore is fortunate to have stayed clear of corruption and to have a public administration that is largely free of bribery. The few cases of bribery are prosecuted.
However, in recent years, there is a worrying trend. The sense of duty seems to have been eroded. Many people now expect to be incentivised to do a job well.
Corporate executives, who already earn a high remuneration, are now given incentives (through profit sharing or stock options) to increase their company’s profits. If they want to, they can increase the profits in unethical ways, such as over-charging or cheating the customers, delivering a lower quality of product or exploiting the workers.
Financial advisers rush to sell financial products to earn an attractive commission. Many forget that it is their duty to understand the product and ensure its suitability for customers. The lure of earning the attractive commission overcomes the sense of duty. Many neglected their duty and unknowingly mis-represented the product. Some knew but joined the bandwagon anyway. A similar situation applies to the property market.
There has been a serious decline in the standard of protection for consumers and workers. The government authorities are now less active in prosecuting cases of public interest and prefer to leave these matters to be sorted out by free market.
Consumers are asked to take legal action to seek redress. But consumers do not have the financial means to take legal action against large businesses who have access to the best lawyers anyway.
Local workers are also affected by depressed wages due to the influx of foreign workers and are not protected by a minimum wage policy. Many have to accept wage rates that are inadequate to provide a decent standard of living and have to work long hours to make up.
In this pro-business environment, where consumers and workers are not adequately protected, it is not surprising that businesses can rake up high profits, giving million dollar income to their top executives. Successful professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, can also earn million dollar incomes.
It is rather sad that the remunerations of our government leaders are now benchmark against the earnings of these top business executives and professionals. If the leaders are chasing the top dollars, who will look after the interest of the ordinary workers, the consumers and the other weak people in our society?
Tan Kin Lian
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Protecting citizens
Mr Tan, I signed the online petition and was there yestderday. I want to thank you for taking your time and lead in our cause.
The Government can continue to ignore us and pay lip-service. But I am sure that a big group of people who vote otherwise in the next general election.
This whole saga has open my eyes - a hard-core supporter of the current government. I am no longer convince that the current government is best when it comes to protecting citizens.
Though my financial position has improve tremendously compare to the lowest point in the crisis, I will never forget how our elected establishment chose to side-step and ignore the very fact that the FIs had indeed sold some very complicated/toxic product that few, perhaps including the FIs, could understand.
The very fact that HK and Taiwan FIs settle the toxic products is a clear testimony and yet our financial regulator continues the wayang!
Let the coming General Election do the talking.
The Government can continue to ignore us and pay lip-service. But I am sure that a big group of people who vote otherwise in the next general election.
This whole saga has open my eyes - a hard-core supporter of the current government. I am no longer convince that the current government is best when it comes to protecting citizens.
Though my financial position has improve tremendously compare to the lowest point in the crisis, I will never forget how our elected establishment chose to side-step and ignore the very fact that the FIs had indeed sold some very complicated/toxic product that few, perhaps including the FIs, could understand.
The very fact that HK and Taiwan FIs settle the toxic products is a clear testimony and yet our financial regulator continues the wayang!
Let the coming General Election do the talking.
Burden of National Service
Someone expressed surprise that Tan Kin Lian considers National Service to be a burden. Lest I be accused of being disloyal to Singapore, I wish to state my position.
A burden is defined as a heavy weight that is difficult to carry. It is a burden when a task is made compulsory; it is not a burden when it is performed voluntarily. Similarly, it is a burden to pay taxes. Like taxes, compulsory military service may be necessary, but it is still a burden anyway.
Any burden has to be shouldered fairly and equally by all parties who benefit from the outcome. It should not be shouldered only by only a segment of the population (i.e. male citizens) while other segments (i.e. females and non-citizens) are exempted. The burden becomes heavier when the burdened people (who are set back by two years or more) have to compete against the exempted people for the same jobs.
The burden can be lightened by reducing the period of compulsory military service or by giving the NS men an adequate pay, allowance or grant (call it what you will) for the duration that they have spent on National Service. Alternatively, the exempted parties can be required to carry out non-combat or community service for the same duration.
The disadvantage suffered by our male citizens have been aggravated in recent years through the large influx of foreign workers and professionals, who are allowed to work in Singapore to compete against them.
National defence is important for the security and prosperity of Singapore. This responsibility has to be shared fairly by all residents. By imposing this responsibility on only on some people and putting them at a disadvantage compared with other people, we face the risk that the people whom we rely to defend our nation will not carry out their duty (due to their feeling of injustice) at the time of need.
A recent survey carried out by me among people who had completed National Service indicated that 72% would not volunteer for this duty, 91% were unhappy with the current arrangement and that 57% would not fight to defend Singapore at the time of war. This are worrying findings, even though the survey may not reflect a representative sample.
I have been writing on this matter for more than twenty years. I have asked for the burden of National Service to be shared more equally or fairly. My suggestions had been rebutted and ignored. I will continue to voice them. I hope that they will be heard and heeded one day.
Tan Kin Lian
A burden is defined as a heavy weight that is difficult to carry. It is a burden when a task is made compulsory; it is not a burden when it is performed voluntarily. Similarly, it is a burden to pay taxes. Like taxes, compulsory military service may be necessary, but it is still a burden anyway.
Any burden has to be shouldered fairly and equally by all parties who benefit from the outcome. It should not be shouldered only by only a segment of the population (i.e. male citizens) while other segments (i.e. females and non-citizens) are exempted. The burden becomes heavier when the burdened people (who are set back by two years or more) have to compete against the exempted people for the same jobs.
The burden can be lightened by reducing the period of compulsory military service or by giving the NS men an adequate pay, allowance or grant (call it what you will) for the duration that they have spent on National Service. Alternatively, the exempted parties can be required to carry out non-combat or community service for the same duration.
The disadvantage suffered by our male citizens have been aggravated in recent years through the large influx of foreign workers and professionals, who are allowed to work in Singapore to compete against them.
National defence is important for the security and prosperity of Singapore. This responsibility has to be shared fairly by all residents. By imposing this responsibility on only on some people and putting them at a disadvantage compared with other people, we face the risk that the people whom we rely to defend our nation will not carry out their duty (due to their feeling of injustice) at the time of need.
A recent survey carried out by me among people who had completed National Service indicated that 72% would not volunteer for this duty, 91% were unhappy with the current arrangement and that 57% would not fight to defend Singapore at the time of war. This are worrying findings, even though the survey may not reflect a representative sample.
I have been writing on this matter for more than twenty years. I have asked for the burden of National Service to be shared more equally or fairly. My suggestions had been rebutted and ignored. I will continue to voice them. I hope that they will be heard and heeded one day.
Tan Kin Lian
Turnout at 22 August Gathering
An estimated 200 people turned up at the Gathering in Hong Lim Park. This was somewhat smaller that I had expected. Someone observed that the camera at Hong Lim Park was responsible for the low attendance.
We were blessed with good weather. BBC and CNBC were present. The major newspapers and Channel NewsAsia did not cover the event, in spite of two letters of invitation.
Petition to PM on credit linked notes (9)
Petition.
Signatures as at 15 August: 734
This is the countdown to the Gathering on 22 August.
I hope that all those who signed the Petition will attend the Gathering, and encourage other people to attend as well.
Date of Gathering: 22 August 2009
Place: Speaker's Corner, Hong Lim Park
Signatures as at 15 August: 734
This is the countdown to the Gathering on 22 August.
I hope that all those who signed the Petition will attend the Gathering, and encourage other people to attend as well.
Date of Gathering: 22 August 2009
Place: Speaker's Corner, Hong Lim Park
Time: 5.00 pm
Activities:
Activities:
1. Recital of National Pledge
2. Speech by Tan Kin Lian
3. Hold placards with messages
4. Sign Petition (for those who did not sign online)
5. Talk to other investors at the Gathering
2. Speech by Tan Kin Lian
3. Hold placards with messages
4. Sign Petition (for those who did not sign online)
5. Talk to other investors at the Gathering
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)