Mr Goh Meng Seng exploit people misery

Mr Tan also urged the investors to sign a statutory declaration before lodging their complaints to the FIs or FIDReC and to seriously consider taking legal action now as the case may take a few months before it can be heard in court.

After Mr Tan and Mr Goh Meng Seng’s talk in Mandarin, a woman by the name of Madam Ng gave a short speech lampooning DBS for selling her products with such pathetic interest that it can’t even “feed a dog.”

madmansg said:

Mr Tan also urged the investors to sign a statutory declaration before lodging their complaints to the FIs or FIDReC and to seriously consider taking legal action now as the case may take a few months before it can be heard in court.

After Mr Tan and Mr Goh Meng Seng’s talk in Mandarin, a woman by the name of Madam Ng gave a short speech lampooning DBS for selling her products with such pathetic interest that it can’t even “feed a dog.”

Click to expand...

Dear Madmansg,

Err.. I was hoping to see some sharp criticism about how I "exploit" people misery here but I was disappointed.

There are already criticisms about Mr. Tan Kin Lian on his "ulterior political motives", speculating on whether he is going to stand for Presidential Elections or forming a new political party etc etc. These are the tactics of smearing the leader of the movement, to discredit his standing, damage his moral high ground etc etc. It is all too common.

For me, I would say, SO WHAT? Aren't people always complaining about Opposition politicians "USELESS", never seen to help the people, only come out once every 5 years....etc etc... but now, when somebody turn up to be the leader of a movement to help the people, you turn around and say he is exploiting the situation, opportunist, ulterior motive, hidden agenda.. whatever!

For me, its clear cut. I am ALREADY a KNOWN oppositoin entity. So I say, I was ASKED or INVITED by Mr. Tan Kin Lian to help him translates his speeches and deliver them on his behalf. I did hestitate for quite a while before I agree to his request, just because of people like you! LOL! Now I look back, its so silly. Help the people, I am damned as opportunist, exploiter or whatever. No Help the people, I am damned also, as an opportunist for standing for electoins every 5 years but when the people need help I am not there to help! LOL! Head you win, Tail I lose!

So after I see through that, I say damn it lah! Do also expected to be kena scolded, don't do also expected to be kena scolded later, to hell with it! My priority should not be about wondering what other people will talk about me; my top priority should be helping those people who really need help. So be it if there are people like you that would criticize me for that.

Goh Meng Seng

I sincerely hope GMS has a clear head and know what he is doing.

Sticking around with TKL is BAD news !! Donkey years ago, when TKL was the CEO of NTUC and at a gathering, he was walking around with Prataman. I didn't know that Prataman was behind me and when I turned around, I said hello to him. We had a small conversation or banter, and guess what, this idiot TKL was scanning me from head to toe. Probably, he was wondering who the hell am I ? TKL's unfriendly body language tells me that he was trying to dominate Prataman and "keep" Prataman for himself. This shows the character flaw in TKL !!

When he was out of NTUC, it gives me the feeling that TKL was f88ked !! Someone screwed his stinking arse.

madmansg said:

Mr Tan also urged the investors to sign a statutory declaration before lodging their complaints to the FIs or FIDReC and to seriously consider taking legal action now as the case may take a few months before it can be heard in court.

After Mr Tan and Mr Goh Meng Seng’s talk in Mandarin, a woman by the name of Madam Ng gave a short speech lampooning DBS for selling her products with such pathetic interest that it can’t even “feed a dog.”

Click to expand...

kuntakinte said:

I sincerely hope GMS has a clear head and know what he is doing.

Sticking around with TKL is BAD news !! Donkey years ago, when TKL was the CEO of NTUC and at a gathering, he was walking around with Prataman. I didn't know that Prataman was behind me and when I turned around, I said hello to him. We had a small conversation or banter, and guess what, this idiot TKL was scanning me from head to toe. Probably, he was wondering who the hell am I ? TKL's unfriendly body language tells me that he was trying to dominate Prataman and "keep" Prataman for himself. This shows the character flaw in TKL !!

When he was out of NTUC, it gives me the feeling that TKL was f88ked !! Someone screwed his stinking arse.

Click to expand...

Dear Kuntakinte,

You are entitled to your perception and views about individuals like Mr. Tan Kin Lian.

As far as I am concerned, its the cause that I am working for. So far, I would say that Mr. Tan may not be the nicest man in the world, but so far, I think he did appear to me as a person principled in certain beliefs.

Goh Meng Seng

makapaaa said:

Peesai would do well with some competition, regardless of whether the contender is an ex-Papaya. We're already seeing the benefit of such a competition, aren't we?

Click to expand...

Dear makapaaa,

Spot on!

Look at what happened after Mr. Tan steps right into the limelight and things start to move. First you have three banks offering a "gesture" of paying up for the most vulnerable group, then pressure applies, other FIs follow.

Now, under pressure, CASE came into picture, trying to dilute the effort.

The truth is, many investors on the ground has lost confidence in the "government-linked" establishment or entities. Especially so for today, I heard even more grievances and distrust of the "government-linked" entities.

There will be more to come when the process of class action lawsuit kicks off.

Goh Meng Seng

kuntakinte said:

I sincerely hope GMS has a clear head and know what he is doing.

Sticking around with TKL is BAD news !! Donkey years ago, when TKL was the CEO of NTUC and at a gathering, he was walking around with Prataman. I didn't know that Prataman was behind me and when I turned around, I said hello to him. We had a small conversation or banter, and guess what, this idiot TKL was scanning me from head to toe. Probably, he was wondering who the hell am I ? TKL's unfriendly body language tells me that he was trying to dominate Prataman and "keep" Prataman for himself. This shows the character flaw in TKL !!

When he was out of NTUC, it gives me the feeling that TKL was f88ked !! Someone screwed his stinking arse.

Click to expand...

In social circle gatherings, this sort of stuff happens. TKL is a dominant person, driven by his own principles and he is quite forward-looking in the management of his ex-company, yet he had always strived to deliver values back to the consumers and that has been his objective all along and that was perhaps his achilles heel in his corporate philosophy. Get to know his past in detail and you may just like the man. He is helpful by nature, sometimes to his own detriment.

He is alright if you get to know him better, trust me. In the corporate world, there are corporate politics. I do not need to elaborate further for those who know what I am talking about and for those who don't, no need to know also.

A great man or otherwise will still be judge by his past deeds and he should not need shouters to aggrandize his image. Time will tell and it will not be in the too far distant future. A man principled in certain beliefs? What is that? Not applicable in other beliefs?

myjohnson said:

A great man or otherwise will still be judge by his past deeds and he should not need shouters to aggrandize his image. Time will tell and it will not be in the too far distant future. A man principled in certain beliefs? What is that? Not applicable in other beliefs?

Click to expand...

Dear myjohnson,

Politically, I am VERY REALISTIC, THERE IS NO ANGEL.

And that's what Democracy is for and all about. If everyone is ANGEL, that means we would not need to have checks and balances! And this is precisely what PAP wants us to believe!

I just need a decent guy with a decent background.

As for your question, nobody believe in EVERYTHING. And different people will have different degree of commitments towards different beliefs that he holds. This is quite natural, actually.

Goh Meng Seng

Seems like you cut and copy from wayangparty blog, at least give some credit lah !

the video of GMS's speech can be watched here:

http://wayangparty.com/2008/11/02/mr-goh-meng-sengs-speech-at-hong-lim-park-on-1-nov-2008/

Did you read David Gerald's article in the Weekend Today on the issue of going down the legal route? Looks like the "non vulnerable" group may be brought down to reality unless they have sound evidence to prove their cases.

As for that disgruntled DBS investor lady who spoke at HL, she better becareful with her words unless she has sound evidence to back up her claims.

Goh Meng Seng said:

.

There will be more to come when the process of class action lawsuit kicks off.

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

Porfirio Rubirosa said:

Did you read David Gerald's article in the Weekend Today on the issue of going down the legal route? Looks like the "non vulnerable" group may be brought down to reality unless they have sound evidence to prove their cases.

As for that disgruntled DBS investor lady who spoke at HL, she better becareful with her words unless she has sound evidence to back up her claims.

Click to expand...

Dear Porfirio Rubirosa,

I am no legal expert and I will leave the legal technicalities to the lawyers.

So far, my judgment is that there is a SYSTEMATIC PROBLEMS with the selling. DBS sacking many of their RM is one indication that there is actually a systematic problem within the banks in marketing such products.

In my humble opinion, the investors may have a 50-50 chance in winning if its a class action lawsuit. If they act individually, they may not be able to convince the judge of the systematic problems in the marketing tactics of the various banks.

From some of the documents I have looked through, there is an obvious important omission of listing out ALL the risk factors which includes the High Risk nature of the underlying assets. This is why even the front line sales person mistake this product as "low risk" because they simply take the six reference entities as "safe".

Goh Meng Seng

Sacking of RM's may only relate to the claims that the bank is prepared to settle.

"Systemic problems", well this is what you are hearing from one side.

Class action suit may not be possible unless critical relevant facts of all claims are somewhat similar.

These are the relevant questions posed by David Gerald:

1.were you given the opportunity to read the terms and conditions? prospectus and the pricing statement?

2.before you made the decision to invest, were you advised on the investments' risks?

3.did you ask for time to seek professional advice?

4.what influenced you to invest - was it the representation by bank staff or the fact that the investment gave you a higher yield than the fixed deposit?

5. was it highlighted to you that you could lose all or any of your investment? If so under what circusmtances?

6.were you told that the principal was not guaranteed?

due to certain T&C, the investor has to prove that he was not shown the prospectus, and even if shown, did not understand the prospectus or pricing statement. T&C suggest clearly that theinvestment is a complex one, thus asking the investor to seek professional advice.

representations made outside a contract may be deemed implied terms.

however, it is no easy task as it is one person's word against the other.

Goh Meng Seng said:

Dear Porfirio Rubirosa,

I am no legal expert and I will leave the legal technicalities to the lawyers.

So far, my judgment is that there is a SYSTEMATIC PROBLEMS with the selling. DBS sacking many of their RM is one indication that there is actually a systematic problem within the banks in marketing such products.

In my humble opinion, the investors may have a 50-50 chance in winning if its a class action lawsuit. If they act individually, they may not be able to convince the judge of the systematic problems in the marketing tactics of the various banks.

From some of the documents I have looked through, there is an obvious important omission of listing out ALL the risk factors which includes the High Risk nature of the underlying assets. This is why even the front line sales person mistake this product as "low risk" because they simply take the six reference entities as "safe".

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

Dear Porfirio,

As a person from the ground, I think its only right to say that I gather information from the ground, from very different people with different background and digest it.

As I have said, have seen the document that stated the Risk factors. They advised the investors on the Risk factors according to that piece of paper, which OMIT the most critical High Risk of the underlying assets. This is one point.

Many of them were only shown the prospectus or mailed the prospectus, some even only got their prospectus 2 or more weeks AFTER they signed and bought the product. All they depended on was the pricing statement and marketing material which OMIT the main RISK in the underlying assets.

This is what the systematic problems I am talking about.

Goh Meng Seng

Porfirio Rubirosa said:

Sacking of RM's may only relate to the claims that the bank is prepared to settle.

"Systemic problems", well this is what you are hearing from one side.

Class action suit may not be possible unless critical relevant facts of all claims are somewhat similar.

These are the relevant questions posed by David Gerald:

1.were you given the opportunity to read the terms and conditions? prospectus and the pricing statement?

2.before you made the decision to invest, were you advised on the investments' risks?

3.did you ask for time to seek professional advice?

4.what influenced you to invest - was it the representation by bank staff or the fact that the investment gave you a higher yield than the fixed deposit?

5. was it highlighted to you that you could lose all or any of your investment? If so under what circusmtances?

6.were you told that the principal was not guaranteed?

due to certain T&C, the investor has to prove that he was not shown the prospectus, and even if shown, did not understand the prospectus or pricing statement. T&C suggest clearly that theinvestment is a complex one, thus asking the investor to seek professional advice.

representations made outside a contract may be deemed implied terms.

however, it is no easy task as it is one person's word against the other.

Click to expand...

Porfirio Rubirosa said:

As for that disgruntled DBS investor lady who spoke at HL, she better becareful with her words unless she has sound evidence to back up her claims.

Click to expand...

What sound evidence? She bought UNIT TRUST!!!!. It has nothing to do with credit-linked notes.

And she was making noises because she believed that she deserved more money in this fallen market.

Imagine the kind of people who put her up there to throw smoke?

Gerald's article was based on his reading of the minibond series 5 and 6 notes and the pricing statement dated 11 May 2007. On the issue of RISK as set out in the 'document', he appears to have taken a somewhat different view from your own. However Gerald does say

"It is clear that having considered the document in its totality, that the Structured Products in question are not suitable for ordinary small investors, especially for the "vulnerable group" unless they have sought professional advice or understood the prospectus and the document. The FAQs are anchored on the "Buyer Beware" purchasing principle." (Perhaps in line with what Prof. Lan Luh Luh has been saying).

He also said that although there is no present legal precedent in Singapore to rely on there is a recent English case involving precipice bonds where Lloyds TSB was handed a record 100m pounds fine and compensation by the City regulator FSA for mis-selling high-risk investment bonds. Out of the 100m pounds 98m pounds went to 2,250 customers.

Bottom line can ALL the investors that you talked to prove on a reasonable balance of probability that what they allege i.e. particulars of mis-selling/misrepresentation is true? If so, then I think MAS should intervene and sort this out, as it would more expeditious than going down the legal route.

Goh Meng Seng said:

Dear Porfirio,

As a person from the ground, I think its only right to say that I gather information from the ground, from very different people with different background and digest it.

As I have said, have seen the document that stated the Risk factors. They advised the investors on the Risk factors according to that piece of paper, which OMIT the most critical High Risk of the underlying assets. This is one point.

Many of them were only shown the prospectus or mailed the prospectus, some even only got their prospectus 2 or more weeks AFTER they signed and bought the product. All they depended on was the pricing statement and marketing material which OMIT the main RISK in the underlying assets.

This is what the systematic problems I am talking about.

Goh Meng Seng

Click to expand...

Porfirio Rubirosa said:

If so, then I think MAS should intervene and sort this out, as it would more expeditious than going down the legal route.

Click to expand...

For decades, MAS had made it clear to FIs that selling of sophisticated instruments to retail customers is a no no and all retail product packaging from the simple mortgage to car loans to buy a second suzuki was monitored.

In 2000 onwards, things began to change and I nearly fell over when Lee Kwok Mun from MAS issued a circular in 2002 to all FIs that auto loans will be de-regulated. The fox was let loose in the chicken run. It has been a downward slide. People who cannot cars are driving. More interstingly, people are paying car loans when their cars have been re-possessed months/years ago.

I still feel that except for the vulnerable groups the rest had no leg to stand on. But many Singaporeans still walk around this Island believing that anything that is for sale and that includes health supplements is beneficial if authorities have not banned it.

The buyers beware caveat cannot exist when no independent industry ombudsman exist, when CASE is run by the PAP, and GLCs cover 65% of the economy.

Zombie said:

What sound evidence? She bought UNIT TRUST!!!!. It has nothing to do with credit-linked notes.

And she was making noises because she believed that she deserved more money in this fallen market.

Imagine the kind of people who put her up there to throw smoke?

Click to expand...

I thought that woman was appalling.
Here you have people who have lost their capital and there she goes complaining about low positive returns.
If the crowd had a sense of right and wrong, they should have told her to keep quiet.

scroobal said:

For decades, MAS had made it clear to FIs that selling of sophisticated instruments to retail customers is a no no and all retail product packaging from the simple mortgage to car loans to buy a second suzuki was monitored.

In 2000 onwards, things began to change and I nearly fell over when Lee Kwok Mun from MAS issued a circular in 2002 to all FIs that auto loans will be de-regulated. The fox was let loose in the chicken run. It has been a downward slide. People who cannot cars are driving. More interstingly, people are paying car loans when their cars have been re-possessed months/years ago.

I still feel that except for the vulnerable groups the rest had no leg to stand on. But many Singaporeans still walk around this Island believing that anything that is for sale and that includes health supplements is beneficial if authorities have not banned it.

The buyers beware caveat cannot exist when no independent industry ombudsman exist, when CASE is run by the PAP, and GLCs cover 65% of the economy.

Click to expand...

Dear Scroobal,

Yes, I do feel that for the benefits of the WHOLE COUNTRY's vulnerable financial reputation, MAS should have intervened and settle these cases once and for all. Once this class action lawsuit goes to court, the whole world's focus will be targeted on us and inevitably, comparisons will be made between HK and Singapore. Whichever way the verdict is meted out, there will always be argument and doubts. Its not going to look good on us.

Ultimately, as you have said, doubts will be cast on MAS' deregulation process which in my opinion, is the biggest source of mistake made.

Goh Meng Seng

jw5 said:

I thought that woman was appalling.
Here you have people who have lost their capital and there she goes complaining about low positive returns.
If the crowd had a sense of right and wrong, they should have told her to keep quiet.

Click to expand...

She is just a tool to cause emotional upheaval. Nobody in the crowd would stand up, to point out her incompatibility to their cause.

The persons who put her up there, would know the purpose of her appearance. Then who are those masterminds?