Z
Zombie
Guest
You are making assumptions.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Disgruntled SG investors receive warning not to protest outside DBS HQ
- Thread starter Avantas
- Start date
You are making assumptions.
Some mysterious member of the public complained about the disturbance caused.
can't see leh?
If you are alleging instructions by the bank to their staff to mislead, then it is very unlikely.
It is not worth their license.
From their sales manager, it is not so certain. "Ethical salesmen" is, speaking generally, a oxymoron.
Like most politicians, most do not adhere to a rigid definition of 'ethical'.
Last edited:
They should reserve riot police battalion to crush those stupid PDMMs or study mamas from China whenever they protest. Kicked their fucking butts out of Spore & back to China!
Bloody hell Spore gahment always torturing their own citizens & giving preferential treatment to foreign trash imports here!
Pedra Branca
Which lock-up are they going to jail the hundreds or thousands of unhappy people?
Protests do not lead to anarchy
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1266-protests-do-not-lead-to-anarchy
Protests do not lead to anarchy
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Singapore Democrats
For decades freedom of assembly, aka protests, have been taboo in Singapore. Any call for demonstrations is met with words like "chaos" and "destruction" being thrown about will-nilly.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the ultimate scare-monger, said that when people are allowed to protest in public, there'll be “pandemonium” and insists that “we are not that kind of society.” Really? What kind of a society are we then?
The kind that says not a word when the Government lacerates us with hike after excruciating hike in prices?
The kind that keeps heads bowed when millionaire ministers like Mr Lim Swee Say demonstrate their idiocy by taunting that he “feels so rich” whenever he looks at his CPF account even as free-food lines lengthen?
The kind that pretends that nothing untoward is happening when the the Government increases the GST, public transport fares, and electricity rates (and by a whopping 22 percent) even as the economy dives into a recession?
It is most unfortunate that former NTUC chief, Mr Tan Kin Lian (Protest outside DBS headquarters), has decided to join in such scare-mongering by saying that protests planned by investors outside the DBS' office are designed by people out to expand their “anarchical ranks”. He was referring to calls by DBS investors to stage a sit-in outside the bank's headquarters.
Why must closed minds conjure images of pandemonium and anarchy when we talk about protests? Why can't protests be civil, disciplined, and peaceful as demonstrated by peoples all over the democratic world? Why must people who call for protests and challenge unjust laws be always demonised?
Ironically, DBS promptly agreed to fully compensate their Hong Kong investors over the purchase of Lehman's financial products. But this happened only when the investors descended upon the bank's office in the Chinese city. Without the freedom to protest, would DBS have moved so quickly, if at all, to right the wrong?
Hong Kongers know what it's like to run a competitive economy with a dynamism and energy that the world admires. And yet, protests are a regular and necessary feature of Hong Kong life. Has the Hong Kong society been thrown into pandemonium or have the anarchists taken over the city because of the protests?
For goodness sakes let us stop thinking like children. Laws against protests in Singapore were not handed down through some heavenly edict. They were introduced by white men to subjugate brown, yellow, and black ones during their colonial rule.
Now it is the men-in-white who continue to wield such laws to ensure that their rule is not challenged. The regimes may have changed but the oppression remains.
Think about it. Just weeks ago, protests were illegal and frowned upon in Singapore. The “pandemonium” argument held sway. There was a moral tinge to the Minister Mentor's line. After all, aren't chaos and turmoil undesirable happenings?
But after September 2008, protests are now legal, albeit in a very circumscribed way. Have protests suddenly become morally acceptable? The truth is that freedom of assembly has never been morally undesirable. It is dictators that, for obvious reasons, outlaw them and give the convenient excuse that protests are bad for society.
Defying the oppressive colonial-cum-PAP laws has played a part in the establishment of the Speakers' Corner and the change in rules to allow protests there. Where would Mr Tan Kin Lian have asked DBS investors to protest last Saturday if activists had not campaigned for freedom of assembly?
But instead of keeping up the pressure on the Government to open up society including the right to protest in any public area, it is sad that some people would turn around and criticise those who have worked to make public protests possible.
Let us not continue to decry civil disobedience and to demonise those who work for the political and civil rights of Singaporeans. These rights may just come in very handy in future.
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1266-protests-do-not-lead-to-anarchy
Protests do not lead to anarchy
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Singapore Democrats
For decades freedom of assembly, aka protests, have been taboo in Singapore. Any call for demonstrations is met with words like "chaos" and "destruction" being thrown about will-nilly.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the ultimate scare-monger, said that when people are allowed to protest in public, there'll be “pandemonium” and insists that “we are not that kind of society.” Really? What kind of a society are we then?
The kind that says not a word when the Government lacerates us with hike after excruciating hike in prices?
The kind that keeps heads bowed when millionaire ministers like Mr Lim Swee Say demonstrate their idiocy by taunting that he “feels so rich” whenever he looks at his CPF account even as free-food lines lengthen?
The kind that pretends that nothing untoward is happening when the the Government increases the GST, public transport fares, and electricity rates (and by a whopping 22 percent) even as the economy dives into a recession?
It is most unfortunate that former NTUC chief, Mr Tan Kin Lian (Protest outside DBS headquarters), has decided to join in such scare-mongering by saying that protests planned by investors outside the DBS' office are designed by people out to expand their “anarchical ranks”. He was referring to calls by DBS investors to stage a sit-in outside the bank's headquarters.
Why must closed minds conjure images of pandemonium and anarchy when we talk about protests? Why can't protests be civil, disciplined, and peaceful as demonstrated by peoples all over the democratic world? Why must people who call for protests and challenge unjust laws be always demonised?
Ironically, DBS promptly agreed to fully compensate their Hong Kong investors over the purchase of Lehman's financial products. But this happened only when the investors descended upon the bank's office in the Chinese city. Without the freedom to protest, would DBS have moved so quickly, if at all, to right the wrong?
Hong Kongers know what it's like to run a competitive economy with a dynamism and energy that the world admires. And yet, protests are a regular and necessary feature of Hong Kong life. Has the Hong Kong society been thrown into pandemonium or have the anarchists taken over the city because of the protests?
For goodness sakes let us stop thinking like children. Laws against protests in Singapore were not handed down through some heavenly edict. They were introduced by white men to subjugate brown, yellow, and black ones during their colonial rule.
Now it is the men-in-white who continue to wield such laws to ensure that their rule is not challenged. The regimes may have changed but the oppression remains.
Think about it. Just weeks ago, protests were illegal and frowned upon in Singapore. The “pandemonium” argument held sway. There was a moral tinge to the Minister Mentor's line. After all, aren't chaos and turmoil undesirable happenings?
But after September 2008, protests are now legal, albeit in a very circumscribed way. Have protests suddenly become morally acceptable? The truth is that freedom of assembly has never been morally undesirable. It is dictators that, for obvious reasons, outlaw them and give the convenient excuse that protests are bad for society.
Defying the oppressive colonial-cum-PAP laws has played a part in the establishment of the Speakers' Corner and the change in rules to allow protests there. Where would Mr Tan Kin Lian have asked DBS investors to protest last Saturday if activists had not campaigned for freedom of assembly?
But instead of keeping up the pressure on the Government to open up society including the right to protest in any public area, it is sad that some people would turn around and criticise those who have worked to make public protests possible.
Let us not continue to decry civil disobedience and to demonise those who work for the political and civil rights of Singaporeans. These rights may just come in very handy in future.
Police urge public to air grievances in lawful manner
By Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 October 2008 0118 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
Some 100 people turn up at the Speakers' Corner to hear a debate on the public transport system
SINGAPORE: Singapore police have advised the public to air their grievances in a lawful manner such as at Speakers' Corner or to apply for an assembly permit if they want to use an indoor venue.
In a statement, police reminded the public that a demonstration in a public place without prior approval from the authorities may be deemed to be an illegal assembly.
The police advisory was in response to media queries following a DBS statement on Monday about its High Notes 5 and Constellation Series restructured products.
Over the weekend, hundreds turned up at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park to voice their concerns over the current financial turmoil. - CNA/de
By Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 October 2008 0118 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
Some 100 people turn up at the Speakers' Corner to hear a debate on the public transport system
SINGAPORE: Singapore police have advised the public to air their grievances in a lawful manner such as at Speakers' Corner or to apply for an assembly permit if they want to use an indoor venue.
In a statement, police reminded the public that a demonstration in a public place without prior approval from the authorities may be deemed to be an illegal assembly.
The police advisory was in response to media queries following a DBS statement on Monday about its High Notes 5 and Constellation Series restructured products.
Over the weekend, hundreds turned up at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park to voice their concerns over the current financial turmoil. - CNA/de
Police urge public to air grievances in lawful manner
By Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 October 2008 0118 hrs
sad isn't it? when discussion stuffs like democracy and freedom, few people turn up.
when discussion money stuffs, so many people turn up..
no wonder Ofart still has a grip on the populace.
It would be a joke for the whole world to see if old pp kanna rounded up. Anyway,i think these uncles and aunities will protest. Having lost so much money and not many years left in their journey..protest also die..don't protest also die, worst still.Just let them protest lah.. wtf is wrong with this govt (or in this case, I believe, over-zealous civil servants overreacting to protect their masters). Peaceful protest by probably majority are middle- to old-age folks also scared. It's not like they're extremists or activists. Sibei tulan this type of kia-si attitude
willing buyer willing seller.
but how the heck did the police get invovled in this??
but how the heck did the police get invovled in this??
When your pastor talks about "Goat" stuffs, hundreds and thousands of chrikukustians 'mutton-eaters' all will turn up for his talks also
If just 1000 of the 10k kena conned by the Papaya cronies have the guts to fight for their rights, the Papayas would be scared shitting and peeing in their pants.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acAgoLqESQAU&refer=home
Lehman Bond Losers Protest in Hong Kong, Seek Refund (Update1)
By Wendy Leung and Theresa Tang
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Nicole Chan says her mother's savings were in Hong Kong investments linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and she's too scared to tell her.
``I can't sleep,'' said Chan, a 30-year-old shipping clerk. About HK$500,000 ($64,367) was invested in the products via Citic Ka Wah Bank Ltd. ``I am facing a lot of pressures. I don't know how to explain it to her.''
Hundreds of Hong Kong investors protested in the streets last week, chanted at the city's parliament and crowded outside banks, demanding compensation. Chan's predicament illustrates how ripples of Lehman's collapse are spreading around the world, causing losses for investors and challenging governments to review regulations.
Thousands of Hong Kong individuals bought the so-called minibonds: investments guaranteed by Lehman and linked to the debt of the biggest Hong Kong companies including Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd.
Minibonds was the brand name for one series of products, designed for individuals. As little as $5,000 had to be invested in the bonds, prospectuses show, compared with $100,000 for most bonds sold to institutional investors.
Matthew Russell, spokesman for Lehman in Hong Kong, declined to comment, referring only to a regulator press release.
Some of the bonds, arranged by Lehman and sold through local banks, have defaulted. It's unclear how much, if anything, investors will get back. New York-based Lehman, once the fourth- largest U.S. securities firm, filed for bankruptcy protection Sept. 15. Assets were frozen by the proceedings.
`Disaster'
``It's a disaster,'' Peter Chan, coordinator of the Lehman minibond investors, who formed a protest group, said outside Hong Kong's Legislative Council. Chan said his wife invested HK$470,000 in bonds at Bank of China Ltd.
Bank of China said Oct. 7 it set up a special inquiries unit and vowed help on individual cases. It also was studying a Hong Kong government proposal to ask banks to buy back some of the bonds.
Regulators set up hotlines to handle complaints and Hong Kong authorities formed a task force and pledged a ``systemic review'' of regulations.
Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission said individual investors in the city had HK$15.6 billion of structured notes arranged by or linked to Lehman, including HK$12.57 billion of the minibonds.
Missed Payments
The bonds, which offered better returns than deposits, were sold in Hong Kong and Singapore. Lehman missed interest payments on some of the minibonds, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said Oct. 7.
Some minibonds issued in the last two years had maturities of three to seven years and annual fixed returns of between 5 percent and 8 percent. Hong Kong deposits currently earn as little as 0.01 percent.
The minibonds were secured by collateralized debt obligations, a type of structured security backed by debt. The bonds arranged by Lehman were linked to corporate debt, according to sale documents on the regulator's Web Site.
There are more than 40,000 minibond investors, Chan said. He said investors may get about 50 cents on the dollar under the plan.
``More than half of the victims are aged over 50,'' he said. ``They're almost losing what they've earned their whole life. The government should press the banks to take up more responsibilities. We want our money back.''
Task Force
Singapore will review marketing practices after complaints by customers they were misled into buying Lehman-linked products. It may impose fines and admonish banks, though won't ask them to compensate investors, Singapore's regulator said.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has received 7,730 complaints, and plans to investigate nine banks selling the bonds.
Legislators criticized HKMA, the city's de facto central bank, as well as the SFC in parliament yesterday for failing to monitor financial institutions selling the bonds, according to local media.
Joseph Yam, HKMA chief, was described by legislator Raymond Wong as having failed in his duty, the Standard reported today. Yam promised to announce the result of the first investigation this week, the paper reported.
Financial Secretary John Tsang met with officials of banks who acted as distributors, brokers and trustees for Lehman. Twenty-one banks and three brokers sold investors minibonds and related derivatives issued or guaranteed by Lehman. Tsang proposed the buyback plan Oct. 7.
``The teller never mentioned Lehman's name and the risks that I might lose every cent,'' said a 57-year-old retired woman identifying herself by her surname, Wong. ``It's my mother's money. She's handicapped and old, I just want to get a better return for her.''
Legal Action
Wong, in tears outside parliament, said she invested HK$500,000 in notes guaranteed by Lehman at Citic Ka Wah.
The bank has been working with affected customers to update them and address concerns, and is cooperating with regulators, Citic Ka Wah spokeswoman Kwok Pui King said.
Hong Kong investors are considering taking legal action against Lehman, and may seek help from the Consumer Council, which has a fund that can support lawsuits, Albert Ho, Hong Kong's Democratic Party Chairman, said Sept. 23.
Hong Kong rules on structured products may also be overhauled after a three-month review.
Creditors of Hong Kong companies received compensation in the past. Clients of failed brokerage C.A. Pacific Securities got back as much as HK$600 million from the stock exchange and the SFC in 1998. Creditors of Peregrine Investments Holdings Ltd., which collapsed in 1998, recovered HK$4.9 billion.
``I previously thought the bank is somewhere you can trust to put your money,'' said Chan, the shipping clerk. ``I have been asking the bank about my mother's money, they only keep replying to me `we will assist you as much as we can' without telling me if the money is all gone.''
To contact the reporter for this story: Theresa Tang in Hong Kong at [email protected]; Wendy Leung in Hong Kong at [email protected]
Last Updated: October 13, 2008 22:16 EDT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acAgoLqESQAU&refer=home
Lehman Bond Losers Protest in Hong Kong, Seek Refund (Update1)
By Wendy Leung and Theresa Tang
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Nicole Chan says her mother's savings were in Hong Kong investments linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and she's too scared to tell her.
``I can't sleep,'' said Chan, a 30-year-old shipping clerk. About HK$500,000 ($64,367) was invested in the products via Citic Ka Wah Bank Ltd. ``I am facing a lot of pressures. I don't know how to explain it to her.''
Hundreds of Hong Kong investors protested in the streets last week, chanted at the city's parliament and crowded outside banks, demanding compensation. Chan's predicament illustrates how ripples of Lehman's collapse are spreading around the world, causing losses for investors and challenging governments to review regulations.
Thousands of Hong Kong individuals bought the so-called minibonds: investments guaranteed by Lehman and linked to the debt of the biggest Hong Kong companies including Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd.
Minibonds was the brand name for one series of products, designed for individuals. As little as $5,000 had to be invested in the bonds, prospectuses show, compared with $100,000 for most bonds sold to institutional investors.
Matthew Russell, spokesman for Lehman in Hong Kong, declined to comment, referring only to a regulator press release.
Some of the bonds, arranged by Lehman and sold through local banks, have defaulted. It's unclear how much, if anything, investors will get back. New York-based Lehman, once the fourth- largest U.S. securities firm, filed for bankruptcy protection Sept. 15. Assets were frozen by the proceedings.
`Disaster'
``It's a disaster,'' Peter Chan, coordinator of the Lehman minibond investors, who formed a protest group, said outside Hong Kong's Legislative Council. Chan said his wife invested HK$470,000 in bonds at Bank of China Ltd.
Bank of China said Oct. 7 it set up a special inquiries unit and vowed help on individual cases. It also was studying a Hong Kong government proposal to ask banks to buy back some of the bonds.
Regulators set up hotlines to handle complaints and Hong Kong authorities formed a task force and pledged a ``systemic review'' of regulations.
Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission said individual investors in the city had HK$15.6 billion of structured notes arranged by or linked to Lehman, including HK$12.57 billion of the minibonds.
Missed Payments
The bonds, which offered better returns than deposits, were sold in Hong Kong and Singapore. Lehman missed interest payments on some of the minibonds, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said Oct. 7.
Some minibonds issued in the last two years had maturities of three to seven years and annual fixed returns of between 5 percent and 8 percent. Hong Kong deposits currently earn as little as 0.01 percent.
The minibonds were secured by collateralized debt obligations, a type of structured security backed by debt. The bonds arranged by Lehman were linked to corporate debt, according to sale documents on the regulator's Web Site.
There are more than 40,000 minibond investors, Chan said. He said investors may get about 50 cents on the dollar under the plan.
``More than half of the victims are aged over 50,'' he said. ``They're almost losing what they've earned their whole life. The government should press the banks to take up more responsibilities. We want our money back.''
Task Force
Singapore will review marketing practices after complaints by customers they were misled into buying Lehman-linked products. It may impose fines and admonish banks, though won't ask them to compensate investors, Singapore's regulator said.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has received 7,730 complaints, and plans to investigate nine banks selling the bonds.
Legislators criticized HKMA, the city's de facto central bank, as well as the SFC in parliament yesterday for failing to monitor financial institutions selling the bonds, according to local media.
Joseph Yam, HKMA chief, was described by legislator Raymond Wong as having failed in his duty, the Standard reported today. Yam promised to announce the result of the first investigation this week, the paper reported.
Financial Secretary John Tsang met with officials of banks who acted as distributors, brokers and trustees for Lehman. Twenty-one banks and three brokers sold investors minibonds and related derivatives issued or guaranteed by Lehman. Tsang proposed the buyback plan Oct. 7.
``The teller never mentioned Lehman's name and the risks that I might lose every cent,'' said a 57-year-old retired woman identifying herself by her surname, Wong. ``It's my mother's money. She's handicapped and old, I just want to get a better return for her.''
Legal Action
Wong, in tears outside parliament, said she invested HK$500,000 in notes guaranteed by Lehman at Citic Ka Wah.
The bank has been working with affected customers to update them and address concerns, and is cooperating with regulators, Citic Ka Wah spokeswoman Kwok Pui King said.
Hong Kong investors are considering taking legal action against Lehman, and may seek help from the Consumer Council, which has a fund that can support lawsuits, Albert Ho, Hong Kong's Democratic Party Chairman, said Sept. 23.
Hong Kong rules on structured products may also be overhauled after a three-month review.
Creditors of Hong Kong companies received compensation in the past. Clients of failed brokerage C.A. Pacific Securities got back as much as HK$600 million from the stock exchange and the SFC in 1998. Creditors of Peregrine Investments Holdings Ltd., which collapsed in 1998, recovered HK$4.9 billion.
``I previously thought the bank is somewhere you can trust to put your money,'' said Chan, the shipping clerk. ``I have been asking the bank about my mother's money, they only keep replying to me `we will assist you as much as we can' without telling me if the money is all gone.''
To contact the reporter for this story: Theresa Tang in Hong Kong at [email protected]; Wendy Leung in Hong Kong at [email protected]
Last Updated: October 13, 2008 22:16 EDT
Almost everyone is a salesman these days, right?
Not really. It all depends on your perspective.
From my perspective,
There are some politicians who sincerely have a message beyond money.
There are some salesmen who sincerely believe that their product will benefit you.
The danger comes when the politician and salesmen wanted the money behind the post.
When money takes over ideals, ethics fail.
There are some salesmen who sincerely believe that their product will benefit you.
The danger comes when the politician and salesmen wanted the money behind the post.
When money takes over ideals, ethics fail.
Similar threads
