Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Why is the law in S'pore not protecting the interest of S'poreans who have lost $160m of savings after being sold bad financial protections?" - Re: Minibonds/HN5 etc: "Only Singapore stands alone in not getting a fair settlement for many investors"

Expand Messages
  • Kaye Poh
    13 Dec 2011 Is it true that ..... the law in Singapore (is) not protecting the interest of Singaporeans who have lost $160 million of savings after being
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 13, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      13 Dec 2011

      Is it true that " ..... the law in Singapore (is) not protecting the interest of Singaporeans who have lost $160 million of savings after being sold bad financial protections?" (see article below)


      http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2011/12/morgan-stanley-ordered-to-halt-lawsuit.html

      Morgan Stanley ordered to halt lawsuit in Singapore

      TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011

      It is strange that the US courts are looking after the Singapore investors by ordering Morgan Stanley not to take action in Singapore court to thwart the class action taken by Singapore investors in US courts. Why is the law in Singapore not protecting the interest of Singaporeans who have lost $160 million of savings after being sold bad financial protections?

      http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2011/12/pinnacle-notes-morgan-stanley-ordered.html 

      ================================
      From: Kaye Poh <kayepoh@...>
      To: goh_chok_tong@...
      Cc: Kuan Yew Lee <lee_kuan_yew@...>; Hsien Loong Lee <lee_hsien_loong@...>; Thia Kiang Low <ltk@...>; agd_mailbox@...; Sylvia Lim <sylvia_sl_lim@...>; See Tong Chiam <chiamst@...>; NMP Thio Li-Ann <lawtla@...>; NMP Siew Kum Hong <siewkumhong@...>; Straits Times - Letters <stforum@...>; Today <news@...>; "Amy@MEWR Khor" <amy_khor@...>; "Amy@PA Khor" <amy_khor@...>; "sg_review@yahoogroups.com" <sg_review@yahoogroups.com>; REACH <reach@...>; Goh Chok Tong <goh_chok_tong@...>; TNP <tnp@...>; letters@...; Asia Times - Letters <letters@...>; IHT- International Herald Tribune <letters@...>; BBC - News <newsonline@...>; BBC <worldservice@...>; "Letters@ New Straits Times" <mailed@...>; News Corp <mregan@...>; scmp <scmplet@...>; "Sunanda@ Datta-Ray@Rediff News" <sunanda.dattaray@...>; help@...; JBJ <jbjeya@...>; cnseah05@...; shpeh@...; chinlian@...; aaronl@...; "Sue-Ann@ST Chia" <sueann@...>; Soon Juan CHEE Dr <sdp2000@...>; cheowxinyi@...; johnsonchoo@...; Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Perdana BADAWI <ppm@...>; val@...; tharman@...; Robert HO <ic019@...>; Robert HO <robert.ic019@...>; Siok Chin CHEE <cheesiokchin@...>; Steve CHIA [NCMP] <steve_ckh@...>; Tong Ming SEE Martyn <singapore_rebel@...>; Uncle YAP <uncleyap2001@...>; speakup@...; news.desk@...; wayangparty@...; kinlian@...; balji@...
      Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:01 AM
      Subject: Minibonds/HN5 etc: "Only Singapore stands alone in not getting a fair settlement for many investors"

      8 Sep 2009

      To: MAS Chairman - SM Goh Chok Tong
      cc: MM Lee/PM Lee & others

      Dear SM Goh,

      As Chairman of MAS with regulatory oversight of the banks in Singapore as well as a senior cabinet member of the government, what are your comments to such accusations?

      Rgds

      =========================================================
      http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/09/singapore-now-stands-alone.html

      Tuesday, September 08, 2009

      Singapore now stands alone

      In early 2006, when the housing bubble in the USA was slowing down, the investment banks were saddled with the mortgage loans and corporate debts that were turning bad. They had to get rid of these assets.

      They looked for countries with weak protection of consumers, which were convinced about the merits of using "the light touch" to regulate the financial sector and encourage financial innovation. They found Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan.

      The investment banks created complex financial products involving credit default swaps and collaterised debt obligations. They wrote the prospectus in legal language that even financial experts could not understand. They marketed these products with misleading advertisements, highlighted the high interest rate paid by these structured products but misrepresented and understated the nature of the risks.

      Over 30,000 retail investors were enticed to invest more than USD 1 billion of their hard earned savings in these complex products. Most of these savings were previously placed in secure bank deposits.

      These structured products collapsed during the global credit crisis. Looking back at the events, there was no doubt that the underlying assets would certainly fail - it was only a matter of time.

      Taiwan acted early to get the financial institutions to compensate the investors.

      Singapore acted next to implement a settlement for certain "vulnerable investors" - people who were elderly and uneducated. Investors of small amounts were compensated partially or in full. The total amount compensated was less than 20% of the investment, but the mainstream media gave the misleading impression that the majority had been compensated.

      Many investors accepted inadequate offers as they had no other recourse, and pittance is better than nothing. Even "vulnerable investors" who had invested large sums were not compensated, as the offers were made entirely at the discretion of the financial institution.

      Hong Kong took almost a year to negotiate a general settlement for investors of the Lehman Mini-bonds (but did not cover the other structured products). The views of these investors, made through their representatives, were taken into account in the final settlement.

      Now, only Singapore stands alone in not getting a fair settlement for many investors. A petition signed by 777 investors was lodged with the Prime Minister, who declined to meet the investors or to delegate his officials for this task. Many Singapore investors would be delighted to get a similar Hong Kong settlement.

      How can justice be seen to be done, when the people affected do not have any say to influence the outcome? Is this the pinnacle of arrogance in a democratic country?

      Tan Kin Lian




    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.