Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore's state controlled newspaper has in it's online edition of July 28, 2008this report "Views on arbitration act sought". It seems, Lee Kuan Yew's recently handpicked Singapore Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, has even more grandiose ideas. This time, he wants public feedback on internationalizing the Singapore Arbitration Act with a view to making Singapore an international arbitration center.
It is quite obvious he has run out any real ideas. Now it seems he goes through the motion of doing something or the other, just for the sake of pleasing his master, Lee Kuan Yew.
This is not the first time this man has come up with such high sounding ideas for an island such as this where there is no free press whatsoever; where there is no freedom of speech expression or assembly at all even though the Constitution guarantees it; where any critic of Lee Kuan Yew or his family members is always sued and sent to prison; where it is very clear by anyone with eyes or ears that this is another Burma or North Korea. Yet, ladies and gentlemen, believe it or not, this man persists in telling us that he intends to make it a world class arbitration center!
As a lawyer, being Minister for Law, does he not know that parties will avoid places perceived to lack the rule of law, to resolve disputes, since obviously they cannot trust the impartiality of the tribunal? Is he not aware that the International Bar Association put out a 72 page report lambasting Singapore for it's complete lack of judicial impartiality or the rule of law? Is he not aware that the same article of the respected Association reported the Singapore judiciary systematically abuses the rule of law and denies fundamental human rights to Lee Kuan Yew's critics? Is he not aware that that the same Association clearly stated the judges of Singapore, one example being Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean, permit themselves to be used by Lee Kuan Yew and his government to further their own interest and that of their master Lee Kuan Yew? Is he not aware that all human rights organizations including Amnesty International have equated Singapore with North Korea in areas of human rights and self determination of the people? In other words, is he not aware that Singapore citizens are just slaves of Lee Kuan Yew?
Yet this man, almost like clockwork, periodically comes up again and again claiming this small dictatorial island republic, devoid of human rights or human dignity is a world class arbitration center!
Someone should wake up this man from his reverie and remind him of the naked bitter truth. Which is this. For a start there are insufficient lawyers there. No one wants to be a lawyer and practice Lee Kuan Yew's law, that is, laws which pleases him and his interest. That is why there are no more than 3,000 lawyers in that island of 4.5 million people, in jam packed conditions living one on top of the other in skyscrapers. That is why the Singapore Law Society refuses to tell me how many lawyers there are out of embarrassment (see my earlier blog).
K Shanmugam, the Singapore Law Minister, whose head appears to have been misplaced, should not be spending taxpayers money and newsprint by coming up with total nonsense time and time again about his place claiming to make it into an international arbitration center. The perception of Singapore is so bad now that people elsewhere think that anyone found chewing gum anywhere in the island is instantly whipped by any policeman who has seen it! It is viewed as a clown show with clowns such as Lee Kuan Yew and this Minister.
There is a sentence in the report which is particularly insulting to the great and proud cities of Paris London, Geneva and Zurich. It claims International Chamber of Commerce has equated Singapore with these cities as a possible international arbitration center. I have my doubts when something completely false like this is printed in a state controlled newspaper like the Straits Times. Either the International Chamber of Commerce has got it completely wrong or Singapore's state controlled newspaper has put out a statement which is blatantly false.
It should be clear to anyone who knows Singapore's Alice in Wonderland legal system. It can never aspire to be like any of these great cities. For a start France, England or Switzerland does not own and control the press, they do not prohibit free speech and expression, they do not throw government critics in jail and they do not rig parliamentary elections like Singapore does. These are great cities in respected countries. Singapore on the other hand, is nothing but a small overcrowded island with a tin pot dictator strutting around like a prize rooster, paying himself and his family members millions of tax payers money, where everyone including all lawyers live in fear of this small time bully.
And it is one country where this handpicked Lee Kuan Yew's Law Minister K Shanmugam can continue to publish any amount of nonsense he wants in the state controlled press, simply because there is no one to question him. You will be put in jail if you did.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall!
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There has to be a justification for the kind of salary that Minister for Law, K Shanmugam is getting. Having a grand plan helps so long any blame on the plan's failure fall on some scapegoat later.
Well, I stopped falling off my chair at the grandeur plans from the Singapore government, because nothing has really work for that country for many years now.
I like the reference to "falling off the chair". That is the same story that was made up by Singapore's state controlled Straits Times when they reported that this Minister had nearly "fallen off the chair" when told by Jayakumar that he is to be made an MP. A whole lot of bull. The Straits Times, it appears, don't care whether you believe them or not, anymore.
In US, there is a Law of suitability, in Australia, we call it "seller beware"
....how a people "action" party became a people "abandon" party
!!Voters beware!!
....as the burden of proof switch from sellers to buyers and the justice system washes its hands and let the predator banks
Hong Kong-Singapore
A study of differences
The same mini-bonds problem, but a different way of handling it - and Hong Kong emerges with the accolade. By Lucky Singaporean.
July 9, 2009
Two financial institutions, Sun Hung Kai and KGI Asia, have compensated their customers in full and 16 banks have offered to repay between 60-70% of the principal invested.
The securities watchdog, SFC, is likely to reject the proposal by the 16 banks as they are demanding the banks pay investors in full.
The Hong Kong authorities have found misconduct among the banks in the selling of these products. I believe Hong Kong banks will eventually compensate investors in full.
Singapore
In Singapore, 5,350 out of 10,000 investors filed complaints. Of the 5,350, 66% or roughly 3,500 received offers of compensation on a no-admission-of-liability-basis, 25% or roughly 1,300 received full compensation.
From what I heard, many were offered about 10% in compensation. MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) response when these structured products imploded was to send investors back to the banks to file complaints as individuals. This shifted the burden of proof to individuals and allowed banks to choose who they want to compensate.
Hong Kong
The Hong Kong authorities chose to handle the issue differently conducting thorough investigations and helping investors to get a collective settlement.
In the initial part of the saga, Hong Kong authorities met up with representatives of investors to decide on an approach to will result in the best outcome for investors.
Singapore
In Singapore, MAS met up with the banks and came up with the complaints resolution process that sent individuals back to the banks to seek compensation. Banks decided who they want to compensate.
This divide and conquer approach means that those who feel they were not offered fair compensation are unlikely to succeed in a class action lawsuit because those who can offer the strongest evidence of systemic mis-selling will not participate in such a suit because they have already been compensated.
Catastrophic events such as the mini-bond saga that occurs in Singapore and somewhere else at the same time are rare but they allow us to compare the behaviour of our leaders and the authorities with those of other countries.
The type of outcome they aim for says a lot about where their interests lie.
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/economy/CTrendsEconomy-090709.htm
(repeat post - apologies)
I missed out the words "let the predator banks do what they want.
" in my earlier post.
In US, there is a Law of suitability, in Australia, we call it "seller beware"
....how a people "action" party became a people "abandon" party
!!Voters beware!!
....as the burden of proof switch from sellers to buyers and the justice system washes its hands and let the predator banks do what they want.
Hong Kong-Singapore
A study of differences
The same mini-bonds problem, but a different way of handling it - and Hong Kong emerges with the accolade. By Lucky Singaporean.
July 9, 2009
Two financial institutions, Sun Hung Kai and KGI Asia, have compensated their customers in full and 16 banks have offered to repay between 60-70% of the principal invested.
The securities watchdog, SFC, is likely to reject the proposal by the 16 banks as they are demanding the banks pay investors in full.
The Hong Kong authorities have found misconduct among the banks in the selling of these products. I believe Hong Kong banks will eventually compensate investors in full.
Singapore
In Singapore, 5,350 out of 10,000 investors filed complaints. Of the 5,350, 66% or roughly 3,500 received offers of compensation on a no-admission-of-liability-basis, 25% or roughly 1,300 received full compensation.
From what I heard, many were offered about 10% in compensation. MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) response when these structured products imploded was to send investors back to the banks to file complaints as individuals. This shifted the burden of proof to individuals and allowed banks to choose who they want to compensate.
Hong Kong
The Hong Kong authorities chose to handle the issue differently conducting thorough investigations and helping investors to get a collective settlement.
In the initial part of the saga, Hong Kong authorities met up with representatives of investors to decide on an approach to will result in the best outcome for investors.
Singapore
In Singapore, MAS met up with the banks and came up with the complaints resolution process that sent individuals back to the banks to seek compensation. Banks decided who they want to compensate.
This divide and conquer approach means that those who feel they were not offered fair compensation are unlikely to succeed in a class action lawsuit because those who can offer the strongest evidence of systemic mis-selling will not participate in such a suit because they have already been compensated.
Catastrophic events such as the mini-bond saga that occurs in Singapore and somewhere else at the same time are rare but they allow us to compare the behaviour of our leaders and the authorities with those of other countries.
The type of outcome they aim for says a lot about where their interests lie.
http://www.littlespeck.com/content/economy/CTrendsEconomy-090709.htm
Post a Comment