Our MSM has reported on 17 Feb that bankrupts have been discharged at record rate in 2016 attributing to reasons which are not entirely true. In fact the article appears to have hidden agenda putting feathers in the cap of Official Assignee office when they are really cowgrass blades or torns – the situation there is in fact in a mess and chaotic. Like many fake news we are bombarded with, news are scrubbed to give unsuspecting shine and glow to the audience locally and globally - fake news?
Why and how so?
1.OA Staffing: over the decades while bankruptcy cases grew, manpower at Insolvency Office remained static. Worse, the quality of operatives deteriorated from bad to worse with weak supervision and control plus unmotivated attitudes. They are under qualified and unskilled. A visit to the office will give impression of the people and atmosphere there. It is therefore not surprising that when highest level edicted to forcefully increase bankruptcy discharges, the criteria are geometricall relaxed with the floodgates opened wide letting escaped the undeserving and diehard cheats cum bankrupts… resulting in recent years of many undeserved get discharged in gross unfairness to judgement creditors; unfortunately in the process discrediting the standing of Singapore as a trusted Financial Hub with proclaimed strong protections for lenders and creditors. Now it is another Caveat Emptor!
2.OA office is supposed to be neutral and fair-handed to both bankrupts and creditors. But in practice it is not the case. For all intent and purpose, OA champions the sole interest the bankrupts while all creditors (except govt. agencies) are the adversaries. To get bankrupt’s declaration and particulars, creditor has to pay >$1 per page (incl, blank page!) even though the judgement debt may be to the tune of hundred or thousands of dollars. One still has to pay and pay this fee, that levy etc...
3.More often than not bankrupts are treated extremely leniently. There are cases of contribution to creditors’ fund of $50 monthly even when bankrupt may be earning $3000 OR $150 when earning $7500. Upon questioning, the bankrupt will claim they now have to support their parents and parents in law ( most of whom are rich or at least asset rich and have other offsprings who are capable of supporting them) whereas past claims/deductions were due to financial support to his children now grown and married with good paying jobs BUT do not contribution to match the bankrupt’s fund hijacked from his judgement creditors. OA does not see it fit to question the sanity of such revolving door gimmick clearly designed to deny paying creditors a single cent. And when there are some money in the bankrupt estate fund, IRAS, CPF, OA take their creamoff before judgement creditors. IS this fair? More often than not after govt agencies get fully paid, OA for champion the bankrupt’s application for a discharge even though the judgement debt is 99% unpaid! There is proof that our bankruptcy laws are not serving judgement creditor but the bankrupt and govt. What sort of law is that? They must be changed to protect and truly serve the judgement creditors who are bona fide stalkholders of our Financial Hub system.
4.Further it is not uncommon to see bankrupts discharged even though they have violated OA rule of approval prior to travel. Many travelled in excess of 20times without OA approval per insolvency record and yet gethappily discharged – which maily depends on co operation given by the bankrupts: who sort of co operation is that? What signal are we sending to the bankrupts? There are also cases of bankrupts lying in their affidavits under oath which are published and OA office is fully aware of the perjury and yet the perjurer gets a discharge without being charged for criminal offence committed. Again what sort of message are we sending to our bankrupts?? That they are above the law or it is okay to perjure OR go ahead and game the system?? Very often upon bankruptcy the bankrupts disposed assets like gold, jewelleries and unrecorded assets including biz inventories etc… these are never pursued even thought the sums are huge and can pay off some creditors.
5.OA’s Field Enforcement unit was mysteriously shuttered. Information given about bankrupt’s infractions and illegal activities are always bounced back with demand that proof be furnished even to the extent that whistle blower paying PI to get them and serve the particulars on a platter to the OA office. In most cases creditors have lost millions but they are dragged thru the m&d by the staff in OA cosy airconditioned office. Why is this important avenue sealed off with the yoike squarely on creditor's shoulder……. Just because it does not answer to the public esp creditors? OA office is ISO certified, what sort of certification is that when it is not even discharging its basic function of ensuring bankruptcy is managed in a fair and balanced manner? Shouldn’t it be re-named Bankrupts Protection Office?
OTHERS
Straits Times, below-captioned article, wrote about the matter. While some are factual, the accompanying factors are either mis-interpreted or tweaked to make or govt/agency look greater than it actually is. Even when foreign banks having lost millions in loans to the bankrupt will have its objection to bankruptcy discharge denied………. Even when bankrupt is a repeat bankrupt; guilty of perjury and having been non-cooperative to bankruptcy management.
DO we need these bankruptcy laws? Or are they decorative in intent?Hence, Investors/Lenders esp in the Financial Hub in Singapore must be made aware that our investor protection laws are not what you assume to be.
Extracts from Shit Times.....
Straits Times FEB 17-BANKRUPTS HERE DISCHARGED AT RECORD RATE IN 2016
More bankrupts were discharged last year than at any time in a single year as the Insolvency Office upped its efforts to help deserving cases. This happened before a new framework kicked in last August which, among other things, raised the minimum debt that needs to be owed before a person may be made bankrupt, from $10,000 to $15,000.
Last year, some 4,359 individuals were released from their debts, up from 3,499 in 2015.
Responding to queries from The Straits Times, the Law Ministry (MinLaw) said the record number was the result of the Insolvency Office increasing its efforts to discharge deserving cases from bankruptcy before the implementation of the Differentiated Discharge Framework.
Besides the new minimum debt level, the framework creates a more rehabilitative regime and sets out fixed exit points for bankrupts to be discharged. If prescribed conditions are satisfied, first-time bankrupts can generally be discharged between five and seven years.
"These clear timeframes will give bankrupts an incentive to adhere to their payment plan, their conditions of bankruptcy, and seek gainful employment as a means of achieving their discharge," said the Insolvency Office we…
Number of individuals who were released from their debts last yearRepeat bankrupts will generally be eligible for discharge within seven to nine years. For applications made from Aug 1 last year, bankrupts are discharged either by the High Court, which has to be satisfied by the grounds presented during the hearing, or by the Official Assignee (OA). The OA has to certify that the bankrupt has met the relevant term in bankruptcy and paid the total contributions in full, among other things>>>> this is on paper but no practised
Around 1,800 people fall into bankruptcy a year, said MinLaw.
"The OA will manage the cases to ensure a certain level of parity in the treatment of existing and new bankrupts, while balancing the interests of the creditors and the bankrupts. Cases most likely to get discharged would be those where the bankrupts have been cooperative and where all administrative matters have been concluded," it added. >>>>>>>>Again this is hardly the case. The edict is reduce that backlog of bankrupt cases at all cost!!
The main reasons for bankruptcies include overspending, business failure and unemployment, said MinLaw.
In addition to moves by the OA to rehabilitate bankrupts, the Community Justice Centre (CJC) set up a satellite office - launched last month - at the Supreme Court.
Volunteer lawyers are available there on Thursdays for a start, as many bankruptcy cases are heard on that day, said CJC executive director Leonard Lee. The move comes as more people are seeking legal advice from the CJC - an independent charity - on bankruptcy issues.
There were 2,704 bankruptcy applications made by individuals last year, up from 2,587 in 2014, according to MinLaw statistics.
CJC saw 61 such cases in the second half of last year at the State Courts, under its on-site legal advice scheme. This is an increase from the 49 cases it saw from January to June that year.
In one instance, a man's company was sued by his creditor after his employee leased a car in his firm's name for $61,000, said Mr Lee. The employee, who was also his friend, signed the agreement without the company's official stamp while the owner was away for more than two months. The employee then went missing.
In visiting the CJC, the business owner sought advice on whether his bank loans would be affected by the bankruptcy claim and his next course of legal action. A lawyer advised him accordingly.
Lawyer Rajan Chettiar, who has been volunteering with the CJC at least once a month for three years, said the new centre is helpful as individuals filing for bankruptcy likely cannot afford a lawyer.
He said demand for such legal advice may continue to increase.
"Times are bad, and many people cannot pay off their debts," he added. "Filing for bankruptcy can be one of the better ways out so they don't have to deal with creditors, but the challenge is the consequences. In a month, we receive at least five new callers at our law firm enquiring about bankruptcy and this has been consistent in recent years.".........
Why and how so?
1.OA Staffing: over the decades while bankruptcy cases grew, manpower at Insolvency Office remained static. Worse, the quality of operatives deteriorated from bad to worse with weak supervision and control plus unmotivated attitudes. They are under qualified and unskilled. A visit to the office will give impression of the people and atmosphere there. It is therefore not surprising that when highest level edicted to forcefully increase bankruptcy discharges, the criteria are geometricall relaxed with the floodgates opened wide letting escaped the undeserving and diehard cheats cum bankrupts… resulting in recent years of many undeserved get discharged in gross unfairness to judgement creditors; unfortunately in the process discrediting the standing of Singapore as a trusted Financial Hub with proclaimed strong protections for lenders and creditors. Now it is another Caveat Emptor!
2.OA office is supposed to be neutral and fair-handed to both bankrupts and creditors. But in practice it is not the case. For all intent and purpose, OA champions the sole interest the bankrupts while all creditors (except govt. agencies) are the adversaries. To get bankrupt’s declaration and particulars, creditor has to pay >$1 per page (incl, blank page!) even though the judgement debt may be to the tune of hundred or thousands of dollars. One still has to pay and pay this fee, that levy etc...
3.More often than not bankrupts are treated extremely leniently. There are cases of contribution to creditors’ fund of $50 monthly even when bankrupt may be earning $3000 OR $150 when earning $7500. Upon questioning, the bankrupt will claim they now have to support their parents and parents in law ( most of whom are rich or at least asset rich and have other offsprings who are capable of supporting them) whereas past claims/deductions were due to financial support to his children now grown and married with good paying jobs BUT do not contribution to match the bankrupt’s fund hijacked from his judgement creditors. OA does not see it fit to question the sanity of such revolving door gimmick clearly designed to deny paying creditors a single cent. And when there are some money in the bankrupt estate fund, IRAS, CPF, OA take their creamoff before judgement creditors. IS this fair? More often than not after govt agencies get fully paid, OA for champion the bankrupt’s application for a discharge even though the judgement debt is 99% unpaid! There is proof that our bankruptcy laws are not serving judgement creditor but the bankrupt and govt. What sort of law is that? They must be changed to protect and truly serve the judgement creditors who are bona fide stalkholders of our Financial Hub system.
4.Further it is not uncommon to see bankrupts discharged even though they have violated OA rule of approval prior to travel. Many travelled in excess of 20times without OA approval per insolvency record and yet gethappily discharged – which maily depends on co operation given by the bankrupts: who sort of co operation is that? What signal are we sending to the bankrupts? There are also cases of bankrupts lying in their affidavits under oath which are published and OA office is fully aware of the perjury and yet the perjurer gets a discharge without being charged for criminal offence committed. Again what sort of message are we sending to our bankrupts?? That they are above the law or it is okay to perjure OR go ahead and game the system?? Very often upon bankruptcy the bankrupts disposed assets like gold, jewelleries and unrecorded assets including biz inventories etc… these are never pursued even thought the sums are huge and can pay off some creditors.
5.OA’s Field Enforcement unit was mysteriously shuttered. Information given about bankrupt’s infractions and illegal activities are always bounced back with demand that proof be furnished even to the extent that whistle blower paying PI to get them and serve the particulars on a platter to the OA office. In most cases creditors have lost millions but they are dragged thru the m&d by the staff in OA cosy airconditioned office. Why is this important avenue sealed off with the yoike squarely on creditor's shoulder……. Just because it does not answer to the public esp creditors? OA office is ISO certified, what sort of certification is that when it is not even discharging its basic function of ensuring bankruptcy is managed in a fair and balanced manner? Shouldn’t it be re-named Bankrupts Protection Office?
OTHERS
Straits Times, below-captioned article, wrote about the matter. While some are factual, the accompanying factors are either mis-interpreted or tweaked to make or govt/agency look greater than it actually is. Even when foreign banks having lost millions in loans to the bankrupt will have its objection to bankruptcy discharge denied………. Even when bankrupt is a repeat bankrupt; guilty of perjury and having been non-cooperative to bankruptcy management.
DO we need these bankruptcy laws? Or are they decorative in intent?Hence, Investors/Lenders esp in the Financial Hub in Singapore must be made aware that our investor protection laws are not what you assume to be.
Extracts from Shit Times.....
Straits Times FEB 17-BANKRUPTS HERE DISCHARGED AT RECORD RATE IN 2016
More bankrupts were discharged last year than at any time in a single year as the Insolvency Office upped its efforts to help deserving cases. This happened before a new framework kicked in last August which, among other things, raised the minimum debt that needs to be owed before a person may be made bankrupt, from $10,000 to $15,000.
Last year, some 4,359 individuals were released from their debts, up from 3,499 in 2015.
Responding to queries from The Straits Times, the Law Ministry (MinLaw) said the record number was the result of the Insolvency Office increasing its efforts to discharge deserving cases from bankruptcy before the implementation of the Differentiated Discharge Framework.
Besides the new minimum debt level, the framework creates a more rehabilitative regime and sets out fixed exit points for bankrupts to be discharged. If prescribed conditions are satisfied, first-time bankrupts can generally be discharged between five and seven years.
"These clear timeframes will give bankrupts an incentive to adhere to their payment plan, their conditions of bankruptcy, and seek gainful employment as a means of achieving their discharge," said the Insolvency Office we…
Number of individuals who were released from their debts last yearRepeat bankrupts will generally be eligible for discharge within seven to nine years. For applications made from Aug 1 last year, bankrupts are discharged either by the High Court, which has to be satisfied by the grounds presented during the hearing, or by the Official Assignee (OA). The OA has to certify that the bankrupt has met the relevant term in bankruptcy and paid the total contributions in full, among other things>>>> this is on paper but no practised
Around 1,800 people fall into bankruptcy a year, said MinLaw.
"The OA will manage the cases to ensure a certain level of parity in the treatment of existing and new bankrupts, while balancing the interests of the creditors and the bankrupts. Cases most likely to get discharged would be those where the bankrupts have been cooperative and where all administrative matters have been concluded," it added. >>>>>>>>Again this is hardly the case. The edict is reduce that backlog of bankrupt cases at all cost!!
The main reasons for bankruptcies include overspending, business failure and unemployment, said MinLaw.
In addition to moves by the OA to rehabilitate bankrupts, the Community Justice Centre (CJC) set up a satellite office - launched last month - at the Supreme Court.
Volunteer lawyers are available there on Thursdays for a start, as many bankruptcy cases are heard on that day, said CJC executive director Leonard Lee. The move comes as more people are seeking legal advice from the CJC - an independent charity - on bankruptcy issues.
There were 2,704 bankruptcy applications made by individuals last year, up from 2,587 in 2014, according to MinLaw statistics.
CJC saw 61 such cases in the second half of last year at the State Courts, under its on-site legal advice scheme. This is an increase from the 49 cases it saw from January to June that year.
In one instance, a man's company was sued by his creditor after his employee leased a car in his firm's name for $61,000, said Mr Lee. The employee, who was also his friend, signed the agreement without the company's official stamp while the owner was away for more than two months. The employee then went missing.
In visiting the CJC, the business owner sought advice on whether his bank loans would be affected by the bankruptcy claim and his next course of legal action. A lawyer advised him accordingly.
Lawyer Rajan Chettiar, who has been volunteering with the CJC at least once a month for three years, said the new centre is helpful as individuals filing for bankruptcy likely cannot afford a lawyer.
He said demand for such legal advice may continue to increase.
"Times are bad, and many people cannot pay off their debts," he added. "Filing for bankruptcy can be one of the better ways out so they don't have to deal with creditors, but the challenge is the consequences. In a month, we receive at least five new callers at our law firm enquiring about bankruptcy and this has been consistent in recent years.".........
Last edited:
