tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8081742307252789733.post117912421807915604..comments2024-02-14T04:53:18.295-08:00Comments on Singapore Dissident: Is Singapore's Law Minister just doing these things for the sake of it, or what!Gopalan Nairhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15399145588654603667noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8081742307252789733.post-39836234071109481152009-07-30T10:11:10.331-07:002009-07-30T10:11:10.331-07:00(repeat post - apologies)
I missed out the words &...(repeat post - apologies)<br />I missed out the words "let the predator banks do what they want.<br />" in my earlier post.<br /><br /><br />In US, there is a Law of suitability, in Australia, we call it "seller beware"<br /><br />....how a people "action" party became a people "abandon" party<br /><br />!!Voters beware!!<br /><br />....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.<br /><br />Hong Kong-Singapore<br />A study of differences<br />The same mini-bonds problem, but a different way of handling it - and Hong Kong emerges with the accolade. By Lucky Singaporean. <br />July 9, 2009<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The securities watchdog, SFC, is likely to reject the proposal by the 16 banks as they are demanding the banks pay investors in full. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Singapore<br />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. <br />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. <br /><br />Hong Kong<br />The Hong Kong authorities chose to handle the issue differently conducting thorough investigations and helping investors to get a collective settlement. <br />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. <br /><br />Singapore<br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The type of outcome they aim for says a lot about where their interests lie.<br /><br />http://www.littlespeck.com/content/economy/CTrendsEconomy-090709.htmjamestannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8081742307252789733.post-2592214659705332302009-07-30T10:07:09.680-07:002009-07-30T10:07:09.680-07:00In US, there is a Law of suitability, in Australia...In US, there is a Law of suitability, in Australia, we call it "seller beware"<br /><br />....how a people "action" party became a people "abandon" party<br /><br />!!Voters beware!!<br /><br />....as the burden of proof switch from sellers to buyers and the justice system washes its hands and let the predator banks <br /><br />Hong Kong-Singapore<br />A study of differences<br />The same mini-bonds problem, but a different way of handling it - and Hong Kong emerges with the accolade. By Lucky Singaporean. <br />July 9, 2009<br /><br />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. <br /><br />The securities watchdog, SFC, is likely to reject the proposal by the 16 banks as they are demanding the banks pay investors in full. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Singapore<br />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. <br />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. <br /><br />Hong Kong<br />The Hong Kong authorities chose to handle the issue differently conducting thorough investigations and helping investors to get a collective settlement. <br />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. <br /><br />Singapore<br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The type of outcome they aim for says a lot about where their interests lie.<br /><br />http://www.littlespeck.com/content/economy/CTrendsEconomy-090709.htmjamestannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8081742307252789733.post-46714274827512570202009-07-30T09:59:15.469-07:002009-07-30T09:59:15.469-07:00I like the reference to "falling off the chai...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.Gopalan Nairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15399145588654603667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8081742307252789733.post-56361773004913557992009-07-30T09:42:24.317-07:002009-07-30T09:42:24.317-07:00There has to be a justification for the kind of sa...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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com