MAS lacks conviction in informing the public of its efforts and is ambiguous.

[masgnoeL]

From the various press releases and responses, you would have noticed that MAS has been lacking in its conviction to be pro-active in informing the public of its efforts in administering the recent financial climate and is rather ambiguous in its press releases and responses.

Here are a few examples, for MAS to take note.

http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/letters_to_editors/2008/MAS_statement_on_AIA.html

In the above press release, note the sentence in bold.

MAS' Response to Queries on AIA:
"As a Singapore registered insurer, American International Assurance Company, Limited, Singapore Branch (AIA) is required under the Insurance Act and Regulations to maintain sufficient financial resources to meet all its liabilities to policyholders at all times. AIA currently meets these regulatory requirements. MAS will continue to monitor the financial position of AIA.
With regard to policy owners' protection fund (PPF), the legislative power for MAS to establish such a fund already exists in the Insurance Act.
The American International Group Inc. (AIG), the ultimate parent of AIA, is not regulated by MAS. We are therefore unable to comment on AIG's position."


MAS unable to comment on AIG's position. Why not? As the parent company's situation has a direct influence on the stability of the local entity here, as it is a wholly owned subsidiary, what is need is for MAS to publish its findings on its website on its analysis of the parent company's situation and as a regulator, it should be transparent in this regard so that the public knows what action and direction it is to take in such a violatile financial climate.


Now, having said this, again watch how ambiguous MAS is, in the light of a more serious fracture of the global financial situation affecting many countries. Read the following sentence in bold.

http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/let...Are_Foreign_Banks_in_Singapore_Regulated.html


Dear Editor
I refer to "How are foreign banks in Singapore regulated" (Mypaper, 26 September 2008).

2. MAS requires all banks in Singapore to comply with requirements on capital adequacy, asset maintenance, liquidity, and limits on credit and investment exposures. In addition to these regulatory requirements, MAS expects banks to have in place robust risk management practices, which include maintaining sufficient liquidity and setting prudent limits to ensure that their exposures are well diversified.

3. Our regulations also require foreign bank branches in Singapore to maintain a proportion of the assets of their Singapore branch in safe and liquid Singapore dollar denominated and Singapore-domiciled assets. Singapore’s banking sector continues to function normally. MAS has been in close contact with banks here, including the major retail banks, to assess the impact of the current financial turmoil. We are also maintaining contact with the respective head offices of foreign banks and their parent regulators to monitor developments at the home countries, where necessary.

4. Under the Banking Act, depositors are given priority claim over a bank’s assets, ahead of other unsecured liabilities, bond-holders and shareholders. In addition, an individual’s Singapore dollar current, savings and fixed deposit accounts with a retail bank or finance company in Singapore are insured up to S$20,000 per institution under the deposit insurance scheme administered by the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation. A deposit insurance payout could take place if a bank that is a member of the deposit insurance scheme is wound up, insolvent or unable to meet its obligations. This is regardless of whether the bank in question is a local or foreign bank.

Angelina Fernandez
Director (Communications)
Monetary Authority of Singapore


Well, in this separate press release, MAS says it is in close contact and monitoring all parent companies. So, which is which now, MAS? Do you or do you not comment on parent foreign companies that has operatives in Singapore, that are under your jurisdiction? If MAS does and since it said it is in close contact and monitoring the situation, should this also mean that it should publish its findings on its website to either assure, warn or calm investors who would finally rely on MAS for direction, especially in a financial crisis, since it is the regulator and administrator of the various financial acts in Singapore.

We would have expected MAS to be more action orientated and communicate clearly its objectives to the public as it is a regulator and administrator. Let's look at MAS function in Singapore.

One of its principal objectives is to:

- supervise the banking, insurance, securities and futures industries, and develop strategies in partnership with the private sector to promote Singapore as an international financial centre

- build a cohesive and integrated organisation of excellence.

It is responsible for administering the following Acts:

- Financial Advisors Act
- Insurance Act
- Banking Act
- Exchange (Demutualisation and Mergers) Act
- The Currency Act
- Government Securities Act
- Local Treasury Bills Act

We hope MAS will act when action is needed promptly and to communicate as well as it can, always noting that the public at large is looking to it for direction and advisory.

 

[mscitw]

MAS is the top 'Jiat Leow Bee' organization of the month, caught flat footed when they apparently allowed their chums to market toxic assets!

They have top fat cat issuing TCSS statements, twisted and vague to confound peasants, offering no solutions to greedy peasants, unlike the pro-active stance taken by HK regulators.

Only in peasantpore, woe woe woe!

 

[The_Latest_H]

MAS has to be taking the piss. I can't believe how these people, even after being caught flat-footed, are still willing to sit on their hands and wait for the worst.

 

[williamsF1]

the jialiaobee change hands very frequently, sometimes in a span of 2-3yrs. the fella sitting in the seat won't have a clear idea of how much shit is waiting to hit the fan. when things happen, of cos just sugar-coat their lies & hope sporns were born yesterday.

 

[masgnoeL]

Another statutory board guilty of NOT being prudent with the members' retirement funds is CPF. I bet my last dollar that many lost loads of CPF money in this financial crisis.

How come CPF is so quiet nowadays? I subscribe to CPF alerts but until now, I have not receive any alerts from CPF at all. If it has approved such toxic funds for its CPFIS and SRS, then it has set the stage for retirement funds to be wiped out.

Now, we hear of ministers like Lim Swee Say saying keeping money in CPF is the best thing to do BUT he is forgetting that because CPF allowed and approved such toxic funds to be marketed in its approved schemes, it gives the false sense of security to the investors. If the CPF as a statutory board is chartered for retirement fund building for the citizens, then CPF had failed in its role miserably.

 

[The_Latest_H]

CPF essentially was set up for good intentions and have since been skewered by the PAP for their own selfish purposes. The same way HDB is a public monopoly, as with CPF is, there must be regulations to ensure that there's little or no politicisation of the two national boards.

Unfortunately, the HDB is now run like Microsoft, a private monopoly, than a natural one, and like MS, if it had its way in the 90s with IE, we would be dissatisfied users of IE who will be pissed off with MS because of IE's massive faults- and we only use it because we paid way too much for Windows to get an inferior product.

So in public monopolies, there must be regulations, and independent bodies governing these companies and national boards, to ensure ethnicity. This happens in almost all countries because there's a huge chance of abuse if these companies/national boards were allowed to "self-regulate".

In any case, I do think HDB needs to be de-politicised inside out. They have to go back to the days when it was ran as a public monopoly, and not as Microsoft. As for CPF, it should also be de-politicised as well, but be reformed and re-assembled to a national scheme resembling the Social Security system that is now present in Australia and in the US, and perhaps in the UK as well.

 

[SIFU]

MAS is ambiguous becos like the general public, they dunno what the f**&K is happening..

 

[evisionary]

This uncle is suggesting that MAS and Banks may have some dealings behind the scene for allowing Mini-bonds to be sold here. MAS is slow to act and needed public pressure before starting their investigation. He calls for a third party, CPIB involvement.

 

[masgnoeL]

Site is banned? What happened?

 

[Einfield]

This uncle is suggesting that MAS and Banks may have some dealings behind the scene for allowing Mini-bonds to be sold here. MAS is slow to act and needed public pressure before starting their investigation. He calls for a third party, CPIB involvement.

CPIB??? Look at Taiwan now, their CPIB chief is under arrest for colluding with Ah Bian by supplying him with investigation material that concern his money laundering.

Ask yourself a simple question, if Nathan, Woody and Dirty harry is corrupted, do our CIPB dare to investigate? Do our PP dare to charge and do our judge dare to give a fair verdict??

That is how Toxic our system is.

 

[DIVISION1]

Since the establishment has continually been voted in almost unanimously, there is no need to explain incessantly. The ultimate benefits and results count.

 

[masgnoeL]

MAS is a regulator but it is behaving like a de-regulator in such times of financial crisis.
Look at this investor Yong Kiat. His portfolio is all red. Now, why didn't MAS do something to curtail such senseless participation if it had the wisdom to know it coming.
Obviously it did not. So, this begs the question....are those highly paid regulators just as clueless as the uncles and aunties on the streets? It looks like it is so.

Yong Kiat's portfolio:
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=7292

 

[DrPanacea]

They claim transparency in the system, but never practise it.
These people don't walk the talk?