Meeting at Speaker's Corner 18 Oct, 6-7 pm

[Ah Hai]

Letter from the grave

Thursday, January 29, 2009
Letter from the grave
Read this letter from an assassinated journalist
Letter from the grave
People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted.
An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niemoller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view.
Niemoller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niemoller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:30 PM
2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It reminds me of what Dr. Lee Wei Ling when she wrote about omission of guilt. If we see wrong doings and do not condemn them we are actually abetting in the commission of the wrongs.We are as guilty as they who committed.
I take my hats off to you, Mr. Tan, for championing the weak and bullied. I guess you don't want to speak from the grave. In the grave should be the insurance agents , the RMs and FIs who pilfered the poor of their hard earned saving. It is this lot of conscieceless , greedy salespeople whom we must expose their crime even we put our life in danger.
Mr. Tan , I hope the FISCA that you wish to form will soon take shape so that we can expose the insurance agents, the RMs and the insurance companies and the banks.
January 29, 2009 10:48 PM
Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans said...

Hi Mr Tan:

Lasantha Wickramatunga’s editorial before his assassination was posted on Singapore Kopitiam half a month before this entry:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=19056.1

Just to share with you.

Regards,
Victor Sun
Singapore Kopitiam - Voices of Singaporeans
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam
January 30, 2009 8:55 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Budget 2009 is not pro-people

Friday, January 30, 2009
Budget 2009 is not pro-people
Comment by SB on the survey results for Budget 2009

Lim Swee Say as head of the workers movement must robustly champion the workers' interest within the tripartite. In what is supposed to be a rescue package ultimately for the benefit of workers and the people of Singapore, it turns out that companies turn out to be the main direct beneficiary getting the lion's share of the $20.5 billion help package. As sure as the sun rises, companies will still fold, workers will still lose jobs or suffer pay cuts. To these workers, the money which will go to the companies will have no benefit to them.

Not by any measure is he, as supposedly the workers' champion, justified to declare full satisfaction with the direct allocation to workers and to those who will be retrenched. Why didn't he tell the public that he had fought for a bigger direct share for the workers, even if he failed to get his bosses, oops I mean the other members of the tripartite, to change their minds.

Do you notice that with all the distractions of the recession and the help budget, the govt. has opportunistically sneaked in an increase of almost $1000 million to the security (defence and home affairs) budgets, bringing the Defence and Home Affairs Budgets to historical highs of over $11.4 billion and $3 billion respectively. This is one of the real reasons (quietly though) why our past reserves have to be used for this year's budget.

The Defence spendings tower above every other budgetary spendings. This, despite the gloomy outlook for the next 24 months or more. Money should be conserved (and channeled to fund more direct people-help programs, say, for retrenchment benefits). Some military spendings could surely be postponed or paced out until better days come back. It is not as though we are under-invested in defence. After years and decades of heavy military spendings, we have as of now already the most invested and equipped armed forces than the rest of ASEAN combined. That betrays the under-emphasis on real care and focus this govt has on people-related needs vs. growth and power.

The rating of “best” for this Budget is I think mainly based on the huge total amount of help programs. But if you look at the measurable benefits that will land in the hands of Singaporeans, then “best” is somewhat an overstatement. Let me say why:

1. The direct help for individuals & households amount to less than 13% ($2.6 billion) of the total. 66% ($13.5 billion) is given directly to companies. Past reserves are accumulated savings and wealth of the nation and hence of its citizens. If the reserve vault is to be opened, the direct benefits should be skewed for more to go to them instead of to companies. The $2.6 billion allocated represent only a modest increase over similar (such as GST refund, Workfare) 2008’s pre-recession and pre-hyperinflation help-budget. The stated justification for the huge allocation to companies is that individuals will be the beneficiaries of the help programs through jobs saved. The problem is the extent of leakages in this flow-down effect to individuals as huge number of jobs in aggregate is still projected to be lost despite these help programs.

2. Citizens are subject to various forms of means testing for programs such as the hospitalisation subsidies and share of workfare payouts. On the other hand the Job Credit program gives money from our reserves to all employers, regardless of whether they are financially strong or weak, big or small, earning big profits or suffering losses. If we citizens are subject to means testing, why is the govt. so generous without setting criteria to pre-qualify companies to be entitled to this particular. Banks, large property developers, large GLCs, most MNCs and govt ministries do not deserve nor need this financial subsidy to continue to be viable. Public reserves should not be used to enrich private enterprises, particularly the healthy ones. Mind you, these companies have logged in bonaza profits in the past years, and even if they will performance not as well in the near future, they will still make reasonable profits without Job Credit program.

Companies drawing on wage subsidies are not obligated to refrain from cutting jobs, cut pay or put employees on no-pay leave, if down-sizing is needed to ensure survival. So reserve money will drawn down and many workers will still get fired as the recession spreads and intensifies. If there is some form of means testing on companies, money saved can be used instead for another program to help individuals directly, say, for the retrenched whose jobs are not saved or the retired/aged with little income or have fixed income and are weighed down by the increased cost of living from last year’s inflation.

3. Even without the benefit of the Job Credit program for these healthy companies, the other numerous programs, taxes cuts/rebates and training subsidies/allowances, are still available to them and all other companies.

4. The bottom line is that although the help programs are declared to be ultimately to help the citizens by saving jobs, individuals will actually be getting the much shorter end of the $20.5 billion. More could also be done to help ease their cash-flow tightness, for example waiving or reducing GST on essential goods and services at least during these hard times or allow a small portion of a retrenched worker’s CPF savings to be withdrawn to tide him over while he seeks for new employment (by the way CPF is the worker’s own money and not even a subsidy).

That’s why I think this pro-company help-budget falls short of being BEST because it under-performs for the individuals.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:29 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Survey: An active Parliament

Saturday, January 31, 2009
Survey: An active Parliament
Is it good for Singapore to have an active Parliament where policies are actively debated? Give your views in this Survey
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:30 PM
Labels: Survey

 

[Ah Hai]

RBS targeted by class action suit in US

WASHINGTON : A New York law firm announced Saturday it had filed a class action complaint in US court against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for allegedly issuing false statements that exposed shareholders to risky sub-prime loans.

The law firm Murray, Frank & Sailer said it was acting on behalf of shareholders over two separate public offerings made in May 2006 and September 2007.

The shares closed at 5.00 and 5.70 dollars Friday, a fraction of their original offering price of 25 dollars.

The lawyers said RBS "failed to disclose risks that RBS's exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market was understated," that "RBS would be forced to take write-downs" that "would substantially decrease RBS's capital levels," which "would force RBS to accept a bailout by the British government."

RBS is now 70 percent owned by the British government. The bank has forecast it would make a British corporate record annual loss of up to 28 billion pounds (41 billion dollars).

- AFP /ls

 

[Ah Hai]

Distribution cost of life insurance policy

Sunday, February 01, 2009
Distribution cost of life insurance policy
Dear Mr. Tan,
I read your survey about "life insurance policy". I bought a policy a few months ago, and the agent did not tell me about the distribution cost. I am now aware about it, after reading the survey results. I feel cheated that such a high cost (representing nearly two years of my savings) was not brough to my attention, although it is printed in the many pages of the benefit illustration. Can I seek a recourse now?

REPLY
It is the duty of the insurance agent to disclose to you about the distribution cost of the life insurance policy that you have bought.

If it is not brought to your attention, I suggest that you should make a complaint to the insurance company and request that the policy be cancelled for a full refund. If the company does not agree, you can lodge a complaint with FIDReC (www.fidrec.org.sg).

You should look at the amount of the distribution cost. If it is a few hundred dollars, it is a fair remuneration to the insurance agents, in which case, you should not make the complaint. However, if it is $1,000 or more, you can make the complaint.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 5:48 PM
Labels: Insurance
5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Concealment of facts is mis-selling intended to mislead you into buying and therefore it has breached the FAA law. You are entitled to full refund.
Buyers should also ask for the return of the cash value in term of rate of return and the protection on dollar per $1000 sum assured, the commission the agent earns from selling you the product.
All buyers should take note of this fact below.
All whole life products in the market give very poor return and protection. Reason is the cost of the product has gone up enormously . This includes the CEO's high salary and the senior management and the insurance agents' commission. High cost means low return and protection. If there are any frills or supplementary benefits they are thrown in to hide and cover up the poor core benefits which actually you should be looking at.So, don't be fooled by the many benefits which are cheap 'riders' to bullshit you and to distract you from the main core issue.
Be careful.
February 01, 2009 7:13 PM
Anonymous said...

Another fact buyers of whole life must take note is the increased risk of whole life product. The recent restructuring of the bonus by NTUC is an example of cutting of annual bonus to free up more money for investing or gambling whichever you want to look at. The insurance company is gambling with your money in the 'hope' of giving you more return which may or may not happen. This uncertainty is called RISK.
How do the insurance agents explain to you? Do they mention that risk is increased? or They still say it is the same and guaranteed. If they don't reveal that risk has gone up it is suppressing material fact which is important to you. If they tell you no risk they are lying and misrepresenting the product. All this is cheating you into buying and it is breaching section 27 of the FAA and it is a crime punishable by fine and jail.
Remember your consumers' right of fair dealing and beware of insurance agents pushing products using such ruse. Trust no one and ask as many questions and be prepared to report them to authority.
February 01, 2009 7:49 PM
Anonymous said...

Ask for a refund from the company and same time complain to MAS otherwise it thinks everything is going well in this sector. No complaint doesn't mean no victims, no aggrieved policyholders or the insurance agents are well behaved.
In fact, the fact is every insurance agent commits mis-selling one time or another and it is almost the norm to commit misconduct.
February 01, 2009 10:22 PM
Anonymous said...

NTUC recently launched a new endowment/annuity product called the SAIL. The review in the Sunday Times by Lorna has been too generous.It is understandable. It only mentioned the risk without elaborating how risky it is ; the truth is the longer the lock in period the riskier it is.
Be careful. It is a very risky product. Please make the agent disclose the risk to you during the accumulation period and the payout period.
Please note that there is no minimum guarantee after the 10 years. In other words, it is completely uncertain and it is left to the insurer to declare anyhting they want.All figures are projected and if there is a guaranteed like in the first 10 years it is ONLY 1.6% and the rest of the return is uncertain.
The projected return for 10 years is 4.1; 1.6% guaranteed and 2.5% non guaranteed or more correctly 60% of the return is non guaranteed.
So , what is the riskiness of this product in the accumulation period?
The longer the accumulation period the riskier it is.
What about the payout period?
The riskiness is lower but it is about 45% of the return or more.In other words the payouts can vary drastically or roller coastering.
All these have to be disclosed by the agents.
Another downside of the product is
, it makes no sense at all for a 35 year old person or younger to take so much risk to earn so little as 4.5%. With a time horizon of 20 to 30 years earning 6% and above is so easy as ABC and with similar risk or lower.
Of course, you should engage a qualified adviser or planner and not insurance agents or product pushing agents disguised as consultants.
Remember, don't be fooled or else you hand up like the minibomb saga alleging mis-selling.

pro consumer product reviewer
February 02, 2009 12:31 AM
Anonymous said...

Report them to authority? Hundreds of thousands of policyholders are now hurting because NTUC Income changed the rules of the game decades after policyholders have bought their policies. All those projections are no longer valid since they unilaterally cut the annual bonus in the name of giving you better returns. Even fools know that cannot be true. All the NTUC ministers are aware of the many complaints. Fidrec have also received complaints. MAS have also received complaints. What did they do? When Mr Tan KL attended the AGM last year, they unleashed the NTUC ministers to speak to him and he backed down. Complain to which authority?
February 02, 2009 2:23 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Forum, Sat 7 Feb 2009

Sunday, February 01, 2009
Forum, Sat 7 Feb 2009
I have agreed to speak at the following forum on the topic "Challenges that alternative/opposition parties have to face".

Date: 7 Feb 2009, Saturday
Time: 2-5 pm
Place: Copthorne Orchid Hotel, Dunearn Road, Radius Room

I hope that the regular visitors of my blog will attend this forum.

More details here:
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1799-opposition-where-to-

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Forum, Sat 7 Feb 2009

19 Comments

Anonymous Wilson said...

Mr. Tan, could you eleborate what "alternative parties" means? And how long is your speech going to last?

January 25, 2009 1:28 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Mr. Tan,

What is meant by "alternative parties"? Are you refering to political parties, counterparties?

January 25, 2009 3:01 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan
Do you want the minibond investors to be there?

January 26, 2009 12:54 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Mr.Tan is seriously considering to join the fray into polictical arena now.Good try,I shall vote for you,please come to my Jurong GRC,thanks

a retiree

January 26, 2009 9:07 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

Are you going to form an alernative party? You have the numbers already? You have the solutions to deal with the challenges already?

If yes to all, then very good. You have my one vote.

January 27, 2009 12:34 AM
Anonymous A Tan said...

Who else is speaking?

January 27, 2009 7:57 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leadership around the world, including Sillypore, has been real lousy for the past decade. We'll need changes! Huat ar!

January 27, 2009 9:26 AM
Blogger Yan said...

Best, now ppl are vying for Mr Tan's Presence (GRC)

Come to CCK. i m here.

Will support you. =)

January 27, 2009 10:31 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi,
Another voice is always better than one voice. We need to have this kind of vibrant and synergised discussion to make Singapore a better place. At least I see that our neighbouring country, Malaysia, is forced to change because of a stronger opposition.

January 28, 2009 10:42 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Friends
While I am politically NEUTRAL, the structured notes saga has taught me a HARD LESSON that we badly need a VOICE for commoners.

We do need an ALTERNATIVE VOICE. This is not so much to ensure the survival of opposition, but to have policy and decision DEBATED & VOTED INTELLIGENTLY. Otherwise, our policies and decisions are one-tracked and COULD result in bad investments, wrong emphasis in charting the future of Singapore etc. Decision is both an OUTCOME and a PROCESS, and hence leveraging on common grounds is important.

The world is getting more complicated and competitive, hence, our policy and decisions should also be tested RIGOROUSLY. The current embarrassment by MPs show the result of working under shelter. If they make a slip of behavior, they pay for the mistakes themselves. If they make a mistake in policy and decision, we Singaporeans pay for it. This is no joke, really.

Yours truly. "Be my Voice"

January 28, 2009 8:52 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To : a retiree January 26, 2009 9:07 PM

Hi,

You are from Jurong GRC? I learnt from some of the residents of Boon Lay saying that the current MP and her team did not do her job well. They dislike the MP and her team.
But, the MP at Jurong East is doing well.
People even say that the opposition party may have chance to win at Boon Lay.

What is your view?

a housewife

January 29, 2009 11:26 AM
Anonymous tokselehon said...

Kin Lian

Good that you are one of the speakers in the coming Public Forum.

I may not know you personnaly but I heard of you lately, thru Teck Siong.

Anyway, I can understand that your contact is wide and I can see that you can leverage on getting many civil servants to come by,have a look on what to expect of them and the Opposition and how can they(civil servant)play a role on the Great Singaporeans' interest in local politics.How can they bridge that tri-contact.

This is one of the many challenges that could never happen yesteryear but I have confident that you can make it happen any time soon.

Really CONFIDENT in you - that's really something telling me.





CHANGE WE NEED, YES,
tokselehon.

January 29, 2009 6:01 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr.Tan should seriously think of forming or joining a polictical party now.Start preparing for the coming election and constibute to a single ward or join hands in a GRC.
Jurong GRC will certainly welcome Mr.Tan to lead them.We need a caring MP who can constibute to the well-being of the constituent.We need a man or a woman who can works for the benefits of the poor,retirees and under-privileges for a resonable lifestyle.

~another retiree~

January 30, 2009 11:24 AM
Blogger george said...

Mr Tan
Read from newspapers and news that you have intentions to go into politics again if there are enough people who support you.
I have admired your willingness to stand out for those who are affected by Lehman Brothers'fiasco and your perserverence towards getting the matter closure.
How do I get to attend the public forum? Is registration required? Thank you.

February 01, 2009 3:14 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To another retiree~:

I remember that there was one time that PAP nearly lost Jurong East by only won of 2000 votes. The opposition party was a young girl. A very young girl.

a housewife

February 01, 2009 3:44 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

I will be there to show my support.

YES, WE CAN !

February 01, 2009 4:03 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

suggest u form a team to contest in Jurong east GRC or Aljunied or Eunos GRC, or Bukit Batok/Gombak single seat. PAP always face challenge in these area. If we can take 1 GRC from PAP, ho sei liao. That will be the START of CHANGE

February 01, 2009 5:23 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I stay in Yishun. We need you here too.

February 01, 2009 5:26 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good for you Mr Tan. I will be there and look forward to hearing the views of various political parties and you.

February 01, 2009 11:01 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Insurance company reject claim due to non-cooperation

Monday, February 02, 2009
Insurance company reject claim due to non-cooperation
Dear Mr Tan,
I had an accident on 2005 and had pleaded guilty at the court's hearing. My mother was the one who informed the insurance agent of this accident as the insurance was under her name.

Last year, I received first law letter from the insurance company that they will severe ties with me as I have bleached their contract of not cooperating with them on this case. I had once received a called from them but have told them that i was busy and would return call back which I had told my mother to. Since then, I had not received any further contact from them until this first lawyer letter.

Now I received a second letter to attend to court hearing between the plaintiff (the one whose car I knocked onto), the insurance company as co-applicant, and I as the defendant. Could you advice me?

REPLY
You should reply to the lawyer's letter to explain that you have been willing to cooperate, and you are waiting for their communication.

As to the letter to attend the court hearing, you should bring it to your insurance company's attention. They have to deal with this matter. As they are more experienced, they will know what they have to do.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:25 AM
Labels: Insurance

 

[Ah Hai]

Attend the interview with the bank now

Monday, February 02, 2009
Attend the interview with the bank now
Dear Mr. Tan,
I bought minibonds series. When I heard about the lehman brothers bankruptcy in last September, I went to the bank and asked them what would be the next step. They told me to wait.

I didn't hear anything specific for a couple of months so I went back to see the rep who sold me the product. He told me that I should meet his colleague for an interview. I was skeptical given what I read in newspaper about categorizing graduates and non graduates. But he managed to persuade me that it doesn't hurt and someone would call me the next working day.

Someone just called me to have an appointment. Can you advise whether going to meet this manager would help or hurt my chances of getting my money back?

REPLY
It is all right to attend the meeting. You should tell the truth, and focus on the questions listed here.

If you have been truly misled, you should expect a fair offer of compensation. If you do not get a fair offer, you can escalate the complaint to FIDREC.

Please read my blog in detail for the other information that you need. I am not able to advice you individually on this matter. I hope you understand my limitation.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:10 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Ten of the worst ... scams to avoid

Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Ten of the worst ... scams to avoid
Dear Mr Tan
Please find an updated list of top ten scams from the UK Guardian Feb 2 2009 . Land Banking is listed at number 4 and continues to be a problem. Is there any chance some action will be taken on this in Singapore
-------

Ten of the worst ... scams to avoid
More than 3 million consumers fall victim to scams each year, but you don't have to be one of them. Tony Levene picks the main ones to avoid
Tony Levene
Monday February 2 2009
guardian.co.uk

Scams cost UK consumers at least GBP3.5bn last year, according to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). And the older you are, the more likely you are to lose money: older folk tend to have cash as well as being more trusting.

The OFT estimates 3 million UK consumers a year fall victim to scams sent by post, email, text or over the phone. But the real figure could be much higher. Many victims fail to report losses, often due to embarrassment.

Today is the first day of the OFT's scams awareness month designed to raise awareness of mass marketed scams. The consumer watchdog is setting up a nationwide "Scamnesty" scheme, which calls on consumers to drop scam mailings into scamnesty bins or boxes at local libraries and public areas across the country. The OFT says the information collected will help identify and develop strategies to combat the worst criminals.

So what are the scams most likely to catch people out? Here is our top 10.

1. Homeworking scams
Credit-crunched people turning to part-time work to help balance budgets need to watch out. Homeworking scamsters advertise "easy earnings" in return for cash. But all they send out is a leaflet telling people to advertise "easy earnings" schemes. Others promise big rewards for packing goods ? they take the money upfront and victims never see any earnings, even if they are conned into packing goods.

2. Racing tipsters
Many tipsters try to find winners, but some offer "guaranteed" tips which turn into a regular income in return for a fee. Except they don't. Others ask you to put money on horses for them in return for a 50% share of winnings, while promising to recompense losing bets. The only safe bet is that you won't see your money again.

3. Bogus foreign lotteries
You receive a letter from Spain saying you have won a million euros in a lottery you have never heard of, let alone entered. The fraudsters demand you send some money to "unlock the cash". And then some more. There is no prize ? victims can lose tens of thousands of pounds.

4. Landbanking
Fraudsters buy a field, divide it into tiny slices and sell each one for big money ? usually ?10,000 ? by convincing victims the land will soon get planning permission. The land never gets planning consent and the landbankers disappear with your money, leaving you with valueless land.

5. Pyramid schemes
A classic pyramid scheme involves getting lots of people to invest small amounts of money and offering them a reward for every new recruit they sign up. For example, you might be invited to invest ?3,000 of your own money and asked to recruit seven other investors who will pay you ?3,000 each. You now have ?21,000. The incentive for your friends is that they are "allowed" to go out and each recruit seven other investors so they get ?21,000 as well. It is illegal and people soon run out of friends to con.

6. Business opportunity scams
Here you are offered a "franchise" or other business idea in return for thousands of pounds in fees. The attraction is along the lines of "thousands of pounds a month without leaving the comfort of your armchair." The idea is usually rubbish and the originator runs off with your money.

7. Phoney jobs
Another credit crunch special. Websites promise jobs with high pay for an hour's work a day for those with no experience or skills. The first snag is you have to send substantial cash sums for the application form upfront. The second snag is that the job does not exist.

8. Bouncing cheques
Advertise your car or motorbike in a legitimate website or publication and you could get someone offering you more than you ask for. They will back this up by sending you a "certified cheque" or "banker's draft" for the cash. By the time you discover the cheque is a forgery your vehicle is halfway across Europe. Many insurers will not pay out for "theft by deception".

9. Boiler room investment frauds
Very persuasive salespeople call you up ? usually from abroad ? to offer you sure-fire share investments. The shares, if they exist at all, are overpriced by up to 100 times. And it is impossible to sell them. It is easy to lose ?20,000 or more.

10. Phishing
This is nothing to do with angling! Fraudsters send emails purporting to come from your bank's security department, asking you for your log-in, password and other personal details. Once they have these they loot your account. No legitimate bank ever asks for these details. And banks are getting tougher with victims, telling some they will not be recompensed for their losses because, by now, everyone should know about this racket.

Tony Levene is the author of How to avoid scams (Age Concern ?9.99)
Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:22 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Ten of the worst ... scams to avoid

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are still MLM companies running in Spore selling so-called health products. Are these entities legal?
February 03, 2009 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...

Another scam products to include are all the cashback anticipated endowments in the market.. They are worst because consumers are slowly but surely sucked of their money. Consumers think they receive money or yearly interest which actually is half of their own money. Consumers never ask what happened to the rest of their money. The insurance companies make use of their cheap money to generate more money, keep the profit but return a paltry interest to the consumers which is actually a loss if you factor in the inflation rate over a very long period.One product even claims that it is a retirement saving plan.This is grossly misleading and misrepresenting. These products are worst than the other scam because they steal without the consumers knowing it.
No wonder consumers or Singaporeans cannot retire because of such products in the market.Also with collaboration of the greedy insurance agents who have lost their conscience like the animals both the companies and them colluded to suck off the consumers.
February 03, 2009 11:24 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

SCMP:Lawmakers want brokerage's role in Lehman products saga revealed

Tuesday, February 03, 2009
SCMP:Lawmakers want brokerage's role in Lehman products saga revealed
Source

3 Feb 2009
Paggie Leung

Legislators have urged the Securities and Futures Commission to publish in full the details of its investigation into Sun Hung Kai Investment Services’ sales of Lehman Brothers investment products.

“Why don’t you release the investigation report to let us decide whether your penalty is a fair one?” financial affairs panel legislator Albert Ho Chun-yan asked SFC chief executive Martin Wheatley yesterday at a meeting to discuss reports on the minibond saga prepared by the commission and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

The question came 11 days after the SFC reprimanded the company over its sales of minibonds.

The firm immediately announced it would repay about 300 investors HK$85 million and review its internal systems. It did not acknowledge any liability or wrongdoing.

“No one knows what Sun Hung Kai did … we are all in the dark,” Mr Ho said. He said he would have preferred it if the SFC had just fined the firm and used that to repay the investors. “The message would be clearer and fairer,” he said.

Civic Party legislator Ronny Tong Ka-wah said disclosure would let firms know the “things [the SFC] is going to do to the institutions to make them realise that in future, they have to adhere to regulations faithfully”.

However, the commission said it had achieved the best outcome in the case, given that it did not have the power to order the company to pay compensation.

“Getting compensation back to its investors is the most important part of this investigation process and imposing a fine would not achieve that,” Mr Wheatley told lawmakers.

“I think you have to realise that it would make any negotiation we have with any of the banks concerned more difficult if we couldn’t achieve any agreement [with Sun Hung Kai].”

Hong Kong investors lost billions of dollars on minibonds guaranteed by Lehman Brothers when the US investment bank went bankrupt in September 2008. Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of highrisk credit-linked derivatives. They are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:25 AM
Labels: Credit linked notes

 

[Ah Hai]

SCMP:Minibond settlement may start new troubles

Tuesday, February 03, 2009
SCMP:Minibond settlement may start new troubles
Source

3 Feb 2009
Enoch Yiu

The city’s corporate police seem to be getting smarter and faster – at least when it comes to such high-profile cases as the minibond issue.

While in the past insider dealing cases needed seven or eight years to reach a final verdict, the Securities and Futures Commission has made history by taking only four months to reach settlement with Sun Hung Kai Investment Services on the minibond refund.

The brokerage has agreed to voluntarily pay back all HK$85 million to 310 investors in minibonds issued or guaranteed by collapsed Lehman Brothers Holdings. The landmark settlement shows the commission can move mountains when it wants to.

It also appears to be a smart choice. While the broker insisted it had done nothing wrong, it agreed to give a full refund to investors. Had the SFC opted to take the case to the Market Misconduct Tribunal, it might have waited many years for a ruling and investors might not have got their money back in the end.

Our regulatory friends have assured White Collar that Sun Hung Kai is not the only one in the SFC’s sights. It is checking other minibond distributors – understood to include two brokers and 21banks – and will demand a full refund to clients if it is confirmed they had misled investors into buying the products without explaining the risks.

Once the SFC reached an agreement with an institution, all of the firm’s clients would receive the compensation.

White Collar is concerned investors may now ignore the moral hazard of investing in such dubious products. The 310 Sun Hung Kai investors who bought the Lehman minibonds did not need to bear any investment losses at all.

The SFC considered they should be fully repaid as they would never have been lured into buying the products if brokers and banks had clearly explained the risks involved.

But Sun Hung Kai has been a broker in Hong Kong for 40 years and has many sophisticated clients. Were all these clients so naive as to be misled by the brokerage staff? If some investors bought the products with their eyes open, they should bear at least some responsibility.

Has a precedent been set where investors use high-profile complaints and street protests to pressure the SFC to force intermediaries to accept liability for the investors’ own wrong investment decisions?

The other problem created by the Sun Hung Kai settlement is the expectation gap. Other minibond investors may not accept lower compensation levels from their banks or brokerages. It will certainly add pressure to other banks and brokers to follow suit, but neither the SFC nor the Hong Kong Monetary Authority can force them to offer the same settlement.

It is easy to understand why Sun Hung Kai was willing to pay up – the money involved was not large, at less than 1per cent of all minibonds sold. Also, if it said no to the SFC, it would have risked losing its licence.

For the banks, some of which have sold several billion dollars worth of minibonds, a full settlement may be less attractive. Although the SFC can mete out disciplinary action, it is the HKMA that supervises their daily operations and issues their licences.

As this column has mentioned before, the government should seriously consider a single financial regulator for banks and brokers.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:29 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Advice on lodging complaint on FIDREC

Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Advice on lodging complaint on FIDREC
Mr Wang Says So http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/is writing a series of articles on possible lines of arguments that investors could use when they use the FIDREC adjudication process. I urge you to read the articles.

The first two articles.
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2009/02/saga-of-structured-notes-what-next-for.html
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2009/02/saga-of-structured-notes-what-next-for_03.html

He may be writing other articles.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:38 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Advice on lodging complaint on FIDREC

4 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan

this was shown on the news yesterday. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/406428/1/.html

Just want to know, what about DBS High Notes??

February 03, 2009 11:12 AM
Blogger C H Yak said...

We like to imagine the Legal Process and those who administer and practise it as being fair, equitable and honourable people.

Unfortunately, the process itself in reality is far from being fair and equiptable as we would want it to be. This is inspite of the fact that civil servants in Singapore are paid million-dollar salaries to administer justice and high legal fees are chargeable in the profession.

Next, the legal profession may not be really fair and equitable to the layman. It is a profession where "paper" slurs and lies are granted exclusive privilege to exist, without any professional regrets, in a process to so call extract what is meant as "truth" only to these honourable souls. Truths in the verbal form could never be readily admitted, even with statutory procedural provisions, and are easily deemed to be not the real truths by those adminsitering justice.

I would consider equity in law as only an ideal principle which can never be purely administered and / or practised equitably by these destined "Honourable" souls. In later stage of their destiny, they would probably need to be more soul-searching.

It is a not process to have good experience. But if you have to experience it, fight it hard; or even cunning. If not, the honest may suffer and the cunning may be taken as truthful.

February 03, 2009 12:32 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to DBS website, 3 more companies within the 100 entities list have filed for bankruptcy. This means all together 5 companies have become bankrupt and it is very likely that holders of HN2 and maybe some other series of HNs will be badly affected. This is surely going to stir another round of protest to the bank. There is however no new posting on the blog maintained by the High Notes Investors Group. What happens to this group?

February 03, 2009 1:44 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing interesting and nothing new in Mrwangsaysso.

February 03, 2009 1:48 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Bonus restructure badly affected by the global crisis

Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Bonus restructure badly affected by the global crisis
Dear Mr, Tan Kin Lian,

I have two concerns about NTUC Income's bonus restructure enforced on policy holders effective last year, 2008.

First Concern
I have been paying about 11 years for an Income endowment policy. If I am not mistaken, my payout from NTUC Income at maturity date, 2011, will probably be badly affected by the recession. Had the bonus not been restructured in 2008, I would have a larger amount locked-in last year because the economy was bouyant in 2007 and the bonus for 2007 is distributed in 2008.

Second Concern
I think policyholders like me should have been allowed an opt out option last year when Income decided to restructure the bonus. This is because when I signed for my policy it was based on a different understanding of the bonus distribution. I have only two years more to pay my premiums so if I understood how my policy is affected by the bonus restructure, I should be allowed to opt out with no penalty. I find I cannot opt out now because of the financial penalty incurred, I have to continue my premium payments for this year and the next.

In conclusion, I expect my worst fears will be realised when I receive notification of downward revision on Income endowment policy after the end of Income's financial year.

I would like to hear from you. Thank you very much, your insights into these concerns I'm sure will be absolutely helpful.

REPLY
I agree with your views. I believe that NTUC Income should have allowed policyholders to make a choice to stay with the old bonus structure.

But the management and board was adament about their right to change the bonus structure and not to give this option. The chairman made a promise at last year's Annual General Meeting about the future bonuses. At that time, the promise was quite reasonable.

Subsequently, the global financial crisis came, and made the situation worse for policyholders - especially with the restructured bonus.

I suggest that you write to the chairman of the board of NTUC Income to express your views. You can also write to MAS.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:31 PM
Labels: Insurance
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think your advice makes sense after Income policyholders receive their letters from Income. Then there is hard evidence. Policyholders should receive their letters sometime in April 2009 because the financial year closes on 31st March 2009.
February 03, 2009 3:42 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

HK Lehman investors to sue

HONG KONG - A group of Hong Kong investors in Lehman Brothers-backed financial products plans to sue in US court after the Wall Street firm's collapse left their investments possibly worthless, a lawyer said.

The lawsuit is expected to be filed this month in New York against European lender HSBC for its role in distributing the Lehman-tied investments, Patrick Daniels, an American attorney representing the investors, said late on Tuesday.

Investors - among them retirees who sank their life savings into the products - have faced billions of dollars in potential losses since the storied Wall Street firm filed for bankruptcy in September, leading to widespread anger, demonstrations and government probes.

More than 40,000 Hong Kongers bought Lehman-backed investment products through banks and brokerages, with the total outstanding value of the products estimated at HK$20.2 billion (S$3.9 billion), according to government estimates.

The majority of the investments were labeled 'mini-bonds,' though they weren't straightforward corporate bonds but rather complex derivative products.

For its part, London-headquartered HSBC provided the directors for the special investment company set up to issue the mini-bonds and served as a trustee that was supposed to hold the collateral backing the investment products. Other Hong Kong banks, not HSBC, sold the mini-bonds to retail investors.

Mr Daniels said HSBC was obligated to protect and represent the interests of investors.

'They failed in that obligation, and that's the case we are going to hold them responsible for,' he said Tuesday following a meeting of Lehman investors in Hong Kong.

An HSBC spokeswoman noted the bank did not directly sell the mini-bonds to investors.

'Will we defend ourselves vigorously,' said bank spokeswoman Vinh Tran.

The federal lawsuit will seek class-action status for the some 33,000 mini-bond investors, said Peter Chan, head of an investor group involved in the case. -- AP

 

[Ah Hai]

Measures to stimulate the economy

Measures to stimulate the economy
First posted on 22 Nov 2008

Most countries adopt the following measures to stimulate a slowing economy:
> capital spending, e.g. build infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc
> reduce tax, i.e. consumption, income or profit tax
> give cash cheques to consumers to spend

Which method is better? I believe that a combination of measures are necessary. A lower rate of consumption tax (e.g. GST) will encourage people to spend and will stimulate the economy. Cash cheques for consumers may results in some of the money being saved, and not used for spending. But it can help the cash flow of the lower income people.

So far, no country has adopted the following measure (which is my preference):
> give a credit line to consumers at a low rate of interest - subject to a cap.

This credit line, which is given to someone who has lost a job, can help to pay the mortgages and meet the monthly expenses. It reduces borrowing on credit cards or other sources that can add to the interest burden. This credit line will encourage the people with jobs to continue their normal spending (as they do not need to increase their savings in case of retrenchment). More details in this article.

In many countries, there is no need for this relief loan as the retrenched workers can get unemployment benefit. This scheme is important for many Asian countries that do not have unemployment insurance.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:04 PM

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"18 Nov: MR TAN Kin Lian organised yet another rally last Saturday, this time to assist investors to redress their injustices over the collapse of the Pinnacle Notes 9 and 10 series by Morgan Stanley. Too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment....

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_303479.html

Dear Chua Sheng Yang,

We do not know you but we cannot standby and watch while you go lambasting Mr Tan Kin Lian as if you have a sword to grind with him.

Now, if Mr Tan is as bad as you make him out to be when he was CEO of NTUC, how about showing the same level of disdain toward PAP’s Mr Tharman Shamugaratnan?

Mr Tharman was a convict, convicted under the official secrets act while he was director of MAS. The PAP was able to ‘move on’ with his conviction, ignore it, gave him a place in PAP, and mind you a very high place at that, got back his job at MAS with very a much improved package with autonomous authority over the same institution that charged him for revealing secret information and being made the Minister for Finance that looks after our national reserves."---i received this partial article from friends.

I really don't understand why is that such a thing happening??Why is he getting all the credits for doing bad things(correct me if i am wrong, i am just curious)?
sorry but i dunno y u r attacked but some people get scotfree..
November 22, 2008 9:18 PM
Anonymous said...

Apease folks

Theres a reason theres a Chua Sheng Yang

if one pause to think, maybe for a while or so, one will realise the REASON behind his existence.

Then theres nothing to be angry about anymore.

Isnt that rite Blog OWner
November 22, 2008 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Tan, thinking further about your suggestion to extend credit to unemployed people, do you think such a scheme would encourage people to stay unemployed? one incentive to go for a job search is because of lack of money and if that is partly resolved by the loan, would that lead to complacency? also, if such a credit line would to be extend limitlessly...would it add on to the debt burden of individuals no matter how low the interest rates? of course i'm sure with some tweaking perhaps we can overcome these issues but these are just my two cents thoughts.
November 23, 2008 9:52 AM
Loh Hon Chun said...

I also hope to see the current S$8,000 limit for combined household income eligible to buy a HDB flat to be increased. This rule is there for donkey years! Singapore government should move with the current standard of living and increase this limit like how they have increased utilities bills so easily.

Cheers
hongjun
November 23, 2008 6:13 PM
Anonymous said...

The Hong Kong Legislative Council subcommittee was expected to start its investigation into the Lehman minibond debacle in late January, its chairman said on Monday. ...
November 24, 2008 6:40 PM
Donaldson Tan said...

Anonymous (9.18pm),

It is true that our Minister of Finance is an ex-convict. The crime was committed in 1992, when Tharman was director of the economic department of the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/10/22/sing_0.php
November 24, 2008 8:59 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Suggestion to stimulate the Singapore economy - Money multiplier

Friday, February 06, 2009
Suggestion to stimulate the Singapore economy - Money multiplier
Dear Mr Tan,
I wish to submit the following suggestion to stimulate the Singapore economy

1) First, the government to issue cash voucher with mutiple nomination of $100 with expiry of 1 year. This voucher would be sent out to all Singaporean.

2) With this voucher, the catch is that it must be spend with any SG establishment with minimum purchase of $150 in a single receipt.

3) So, it would have the immediate desired money mutiplier effect for demand within the expiry.

4) SG establishment receiving these $100 voucher through customer payment can be creative by paying part of their employee pay package with these $100 voucher based on $80 employee wage (opt in basis by individual employee depending on their need for these voucher). This would be implied improvement of the firm cashflow as the more voucher which the firm collects mean his sales turnover has improved. And, by paying voucher to employee at employee option, it free up some cash particularly the profit make when the voucher has to be spend with additional $50 cash.

5) The next catch is that this $100 voucher has a depreciating effect that by end of the expiry date, the remaining value which could be converted to cash through SG bank is $80. The reasoning for this approach is to further stimulate those SG industries particularly those with high profit margin such as retail store, high end products and capacity measured establishments such as Concert, Cinema and exhibition space which having 20% discount (based on proceed of $80) would not be an issue rather than the actual sales volume.

6)Inevitably, I believe that with these $100 voucher, demand and supply would create a secondary trading market for this voucher during the expiry date which would further spur up comsumption and believe the government through their various agencies could also snap up these vouchers to stimulate further.

Simpl
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:25 AM
7 comments:

Anonymous said...

To the relevant authorities,

If this is not a brilliant idea, I don't know what else is. Please, would someone kindly act on it fast to save all the suffering citizens. Thank you and God bless.

A Concerned Citizen
February 06, 2009 4:39 AM
Anonymous said...

I prefer a "keep it simple" method. I cannot understand it. Can simplify your explanation? Thanks.
February 06, 2009 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...

This is similar to the idea of increase supply of money which theoretically leads to increase in consumption. The voucher idea is innovative because it has an expiry date and so the money has to be spent within a period of time.

Unfortunately I don't think it will work just as many of the Job Credit Scheme etc are not likely going to be of much help. In Singapore, our economy main contributor of GDP is not consumption. Remember, GDP = C + I + G + X - M.
February 06, 2009 8:14 AM
ym said...

i am speechless... i dont want to be rude but this by far is one of the stupidiest idea i have ever heard..

btw, zimbabwe's currency also has an expiry date, see the similarities?!?..

just some basic laws about the economy...
- printing money out of thin air will not help the economy recover, it is merely just couterfeiting (monetary economist calls this inflation)..

- counterfeiting, exchanging something for nothing, only destroys real wealth..

- theory of spend yourself out of recession is simply wrong and illogical


are you a banker Simpl?.. only bankers think wealth can be created from nothing...
February 06, 2009 9:17 AM
Anonymous said...

i also think that this is a stupid idea. not innovative at all.
February 06, 2009 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...

I think it's YM's understanding of economics which is somewhat lacking, even though I too dount the efficacy of Simpl's plan for the reason cited by an earlier annonymous commenter: consumption does not actually make much difference to Singapore's GDP.

When banks cut and raise interest rates (though not in Singapore's case since we use exchange rates), there is an immediate impact on money supply and creation, which either increases or lowers the amount of money in circulation. So central banks actually do print/ destroy money all the time. So while YM can certainly disagree with the proposal to raise money supply in these times, it's not clear that YM understands the money tranmission mechnism, nor does he have any alternative solution (explicit or implicit) to offer in his diatribe either, other than boldly declaring that it is "not logical" to spend your way out of recession.
February 06, 2009 11:34 AM
Concerned said...

As expected the cries from many quarters for the reduction in the GST is ignored by the FM. From his reasoning, it goes against the proverbial logic of two heads is better than one. In this case, it is 1 head is better than 10 heads, as he argued against the reduction of GST. What FM does not understand and felt is that since the increase in the GST from 5% to 7% (a 2% increase), the prices of of many goods (particularly in hawker centres) increase by 8% to 20%, as the 2% has a multiplier effect in the sales chain when the goods passed from one seller to the next.
That is the reason why people prefer the reduction in the GST than further GST credits, hoping that GST reduction will be lead to a reduction in the prices before the GST increase. FM is a busy man and is renumerated in S$ millions, so he does not felt the price increase personally does not mean that there is no price increase and also no pain for the man in the street.
February 06, 2009 12:14 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Local transport within a town

Friday, February 06, 2009
Local transport within a town
Is there a need to create a local transport service (using light bus or private cars) to serve a town? Give your views in this survey.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:31 AM
Labels: Survey
1 comments: