Lazy Friday posts will be a weekly pictorial post befitting of well, Lazy Fridays. LOL.
At M’s (Gean’s friend) birthday party
Dancing in the fleet of time
Gean playing with my TCM doctor’s dog
Just chilling out
Gean’s impression of ‘hantu’. Tsk.
Lighter Locks
This article was first published in The Online Citizen.
In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing?
Recently, two incidents made me think about how much our average Singaporean cares about his or her country and fellow citizens. Is it the sense of superiority that makes one shy away from his less fortunate fellow men? Is it the comfort zone that we are cocooned in that makes one turn a blind eye to the plight of another? Or is it the relentless pursuit of materialism in our society?
Perceived Superiority
I met a young man in one of the recent events I attended. He had taken the initiative to introduce himself to me. He struck me as confident and well spoken. In the course of our conversation, the topic of the structured investments saga came up.
His take was that “you make your bed, you lie in it.” I agree with him – to an extent. Savvy investors who knew what they were buying into – mid to high risk structured investments – should bear the responsibility of their calculated risks and if I may say so, greed. However, I mentioned that there is a group of investors with whom my sympathies lie – these are the retirees who had invested most, if not all, of their life savings and folks who are lowly or not educated. These people had been reassured that the structured products were ‘just like fixed deposits’ and that they are “principle-guaranteed”. What did he think about that?
He smirked and uttered, “Darwinism“. Basically, he had little or no sympathy for uneducated or poor people. He said that there is a reason why some people will always be poor and that he identified with the wisdom of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s ‘eugenic beliefs’. I also got the feeling that he really doesn’t care about the ‘unglamourous’ things in life and that he was keener to talk about my previous experience in the fashion industry. ‘For the good of Singapore, there should really be only people just like you and I, young educated professionals who are sophisticated and intelligent’ and ‘it’s people like us who will shape the nation and make it competitive.’ He went on to say, “Anyway, the government will take care of people like that,” referring to the less fortunate, “That’s what we pay taxes for.”
I managed a polite smile and excused myself.
Does the problem lie in our education system, or in our urban culture that encourages the pursuit of materialism and creature comforts?
The Cocoon of the Comfort Zone
The second incident happened when I attended a wine tasting session. There were people from all walks of life – professionals, business people, engineers, housewives etc. Perhaps the wine did a good job of loosening some tongues, so I had people talking to me about everything under the sun – from business to the economy and even blogging and bloggers. As usual, I did not talk much as I preferred to hear what others had to say. I would offer words of agreement and encouragement to keep the conversation going.
I was surprised to learn that the general consensus towards socio-political bloggers was that they are a bunch of government-hating, flag-burning ‘activists’. When queried, a few names tossed up were a few of the “extremist anti-establishment blogs”. One of the ladies even said that the purpose of these blogs seemed to be ‘opposing for the sake of opposing’. Some were prejudiced to the extent that anyone who remotely questions what the government does are automatically branded government-haters.
These people have comfortable lives, are used to their comfortable lives and do not want anything to disrupt their comfortable lives. I can understand that. After all, humans are inherently selfish. But to deny that there is a group of people who has a very real need for government help ,is at best, ignorant. To sneer at others who are trying to reclaim the rights of their citizenship and who are consciously civic-minded is, at best, short-sighted.
However to play the devil’s advocate, they cannot be faulted for being aversive to extremist opposition or anti-establishment individuals or entities. A different point of view, the propaganda in the mainstream media, the behaviour of some activists and the precedent success of the ruling party – all contribute in varying degrees to the current ennui of the people.
In the course of that conversation, it was mentioned that the opposition is ‘good at pointing out where the PAP is lacking, but when I ask them what they can do for us, they have no concrete plans or abilities.”
Is this an indication that people are not necessarily pro-establishment but are left with no choice because of the calibre of the opposition? Are people apathetic because the ruling party is the ‘lesser of the evils’?
Perhaps the ruling party has also succeeded exceedingly well in this area – so much so that in keeping us well-fed and clothed, the need to question other intangibles ceased to be so important.
In order to make a difference in the climate of socio-political awareness, we do have to question ourselves too – are we opposing for the sake of opposing? Are we being moderate, reasonable and temperate in our criticism of government policies, or are we blindly criticizing the government for the sake of taking an anti-establishment stance?
Talk the talk or walk the walk?
Very often, socio-political bloggers are seen as armchair critics – in that we criticize but ‘fail to provide any real solutions’. Incidentally, the prevalent mood is that there is no point being socially or politically aware – that ‘there is nothing we can do anyway’.
I beg to differ. Here are some examples which would prove such assumptions wrong:
The reality is, all of us can do something in our own little ways. The question is whether there is enough perceived importance to warrant a reaction. Personally I find it better to be aware than to be ‘blissfully kept in the dark’.
After all, do we want a society where people who are socially or politically aware are branded as “radicals”, and people like Tan Kin Lian who step out to help (without monetary compensation) are sarcastically mocked as “heroes”?
I hope not.
CNA reports that ‘on a lighter note, the Minister Mentor touched on what he calls assortative mating, that is, finding a spouse at your level – something he strongly believes in.
He said: “I have explained this. I think I lost votes after I explained the awful truth. Nobody believed it, but slowly it dawned on them, especially the graduates, that yes, you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university.’
Our Minister Mentor is at it again. He had concerns about breeding a society of ‘the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic’ in 1967. He proclaimed ‘without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervene on very personal matters’ and that ‘we decide what is right. Never mind what people think’ in 1987.
Well, that supreme, almost egoistical confidence and absolute belief that he is never wrong seemed to be unjustified on at least two matters – eugenics/ assortative mating and population control.
He initiated the ‘Stop-at-Two’ population control campaign in the 60s. Couples were urged to undergo sterilisation after their second child. Children born after the second child were given lower priorities in education and such families received less economic rebates.
In 1983, his eugenic belief showed up when he encouraged Singapore men to choose women with high education as wives – sparking the ‘Great Marriage Debate’. He was concerned that a large number of graduate women were unmarried and thus not giving birth to babies. Incentives, such as tax rebates, schooling, and housing priorities, were reserved for graduate mothers who had three or four children, in a reversal of the over-successful ‘Stop-at-Two’ family planning campaign in the 1960s and 1970s. By the late-1990s, birth rates had become so low that Goh Chok Tong (then Prime Minister) extended these incentives to all married women, and gave even more incentives, such as the ‘baby bonus’ scheme.
We now have the benefit of hindsight. The ‘Stop at Two’ campaign and the ‘Great Marriage Debate’ were major flops. They have us clamouring madly to correct the population ratio by waving more monetary incentives and encouraging the influx of ‘foreign talent’. To bring up the idea of eugenics, social darwinism and selective breeding again is so surreal that it is anachronistic.
There also seems to be a dissonance between his stance on ‘assortative mating’ and education. In his recent speech at the Human Capital Summit, he said that talent and aptitude, and not grades should be the measuring yardstick in education systems. And yet this strange fascination with a degree, a form of certified grades, seem to have taken grip in him. A case of cognitive bias?
**
Elsewhere:
Benjamin wrote an excellent article from the socio-economic angle and Nelson asked aptly, “Is not the ability to effectively and efficiently use one’s available knowledge and resources, a better measure of success than academic achievements?”
It took quite a while for our Prime Minister to share his thoughts about the Lehman saga but finally – a month after the news broke, he granted an interview to who else but ST.
At this point in time, many of the concerns have already been addressed and not by the people who should, so really, any pertinent points raised are at best supplementary. The motivation to read, for some of us, is really the entertainment of chuckling while enjoying a hot cuppa coffee.
And so, our PM says
‘First of all, Government should not be making decisions for individuals; individuals should have the right to decide for themselves according to their circumstances, their preferences, their needs.
‘For example, last year we tightened up the CPFIS rules, so that the first $20,000 from your CPF Ordinary Account cannot be used for CPFIS investments. I know that some Singaporeans, particularly some better-educated younger people, felt unhappy at this restriction. They said: ‘I am a responsible adult, I know what I am doing, let me manage my savings myself.’
Mr Lee, you are very right and I fully agree with you. However it should always be a two way street. You are absolutely right that we should have the right to decide for ourselves according to our circumstances, preferences and needs. So why is the government needlessly and endlessly butting into issues where we do not welcome ‘decisions’ – internet regulation, media policing, film censorship, CPF investing interference, telling us two is enough and then a change of mind when the birth rate is falling, and oh so many more ‘decisions’ I can’t remember now. .To my readers, please comment here if you can remember any other unwelcome ‘decisions’ where the government fancies itself a feudal lord. My point is – make up your mind and stick to it. Be an authoritarian nanny state or a state where the individuals have the right to choose and bear the responsibility of those choices? Stop trying to take the good without the bad. This wishy washiness is irritating.
Given its propensity to stick its nose where it is not needed or wanted, it fails to deliver when it comes to the crunch – basic infrastructure of the country, in this case, the financial pillar. In a dubious product like the minibond product (should it be allowed to be named as such as it is nothing like a bond), one questions if MAS should have allowed its listing and distribution in Singapore. I am not ashamed to admit this, but I have read this, this, the prospectus and the Pricing Statement (thanks Adrian!) a few times and I am still clueless as to the financial mechanism it runs on.
Some might think that I am being so vocal because I have been burnt by the Lehman products. On the contrary, I did not invest in any structured products. My investment philosophy is that I will not invest in anything I do not understand and being rather old fashioned, I believe in tangibles like property and gold etc. So why am I (and so many other netizens) being so kaypoh and troublesome about this whole Lehman saga?
But ultimately, each person has to take responsibility for his or her own financial decisions. If you do not understand a product, do not invest in it. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. You may not be able to become an expert, but you still have to look after your own money.
In this case, the Lehman Minibond Notes or DBS High Notes or ML Jubilee Notes were clearly not low-risk products. I think the prospectus says ‘you could lose all or a substantial part of your investment in the Notes’ in bold print, on page 1 or 2.
This is why. Because, our leaders, our esteemed leaders who are so elite that they have been disconnected from the people, are being deliberately obtuse. Do we not know this? That each person has to take responsibility for his or her own financial decisions? We know this. What we do not know, is why we have such products being sold in the first place, why they are being sold as fixed deposits and even as government endorsed bonds to old people, retirees, lowly or even uneducated people. And you are still talking about bold print in prospectuses.
We know about prospectuses. What we want to know now is the responsibility of MAS towards appreciating the complexities of such a product and and financial institutions/ staff in its unethical marketing. Till now, there is no real answer.
Q: Would the two different approaches you mentioned earlier explain the difference in the way the Hong Kong and Singapore authorities handled the situation?
A: I would not like to comment on what other jurisdictions do. We do what is necessary in our circumstances. In Singapore, while dealing with specific complaints of individuals who feel that they were mis-sold the Lehman Minibonds Notes, High Notes or ML Jubilee Notes, we must also have in mind the right overall policy on the sale of financial products to retail investors.
While I have wrote here on the key differences in how Hong Kong and Singapore authorities handled this matter, the primary concern is in the response time and the manner in which the government reacted. On one hand, I detest it when people go “America (or insert name of 1st world or successful country) is doing this and so we should” and argue not on merits but by blind comparison. We are Singapore, a uniquely different country in terms of size, location, people, resources etc. So I agree that ‘we do what is necessary in our circumstances’. It makes sense and there is nothing to argue about that.
On the other hand, the lack of response when the news broke, the speed with which the government reacted, difference between the callous insensitive remark of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and the pledge by Chief Executive Donald Tsang – these are facts that cannot be ignored. They speak volumes about the passion and social responsibility of a leader and the disaffection of the government.
We are a major financial centre. In regulating and supervising financial institutions and activities, we must be fair, consistent and transparent. Set the right rules, and work by those rules. We should not act arbitrarily. If a bank breaches the rules, we will not hesitate to take action against it. But if a bank has acted properly within the right rules, the Government cannot, just because it is under political pressure, lean hard on it to do something convenient and get ourselves out of a jam.
This country is run like a tight ship – a corporation of which the bottomline is profits and branding. The leaders have lost sight of the line that separates the country in its social aspects and the country in its economic aspects. They have been dehumanized by the worship of the golden calf.
One approach is to say: Government knows best. You are consumers, you are not informed; you do not know how to judge for yourself, you should not be allowed to buy things that are risky. I, the Government, decide what is risky and what is not risky. If I allow you to buy, and I allow the banks to sell, that means it is safe, so if you buy, it is all right. You are protected by the Government. We decide for you, and you do not have to worry about it. Some people would say this is being paternalistic.
That is one way to manage. But in the long run, this is not sustainable.
The second approach is for the Government to adopt a freer, more flexible stance. We allow individuals to have choices, to make their own decisions, take responsibility for them, and accept the consequences. Whether it turns out well or badly, you have made the choice yourself, and you are prepared for the outcome, psychologically and financially.
I think this is the better approach. Let people make their own choices and decisions, but within a proper system, and with appropriate safeguards. We have progressively shifted towards this over the last decade.
I hope the day will come where we are truly free to make our own choices and decisions – in the things that matter. For that to happen, the government should stop all partisan meddling and manipulations, and focus on issues that really matter – like the building of a robust and sound system that have protocols in place to reach out to the citizens in times of crisis.
***
A practical and fair way to deal with the issue
ST
29 Oct 08Taken from Singapore Law Watch
Q: Could you comment on MAS’ approach to the issue of structured products linked to Lehman Brothers?
A: This is a most unfortunate event. When you invest in financial instruments, whether it is stocks, bonds, unit trusts, or in this case, structured products, there is always a risk. There is an upside and a downside. You hope for the upside, and also hope that the downside does not happen to you. If you know the downside can happen, and go in with your eyes open, that is alright. The problem comes when you did not know what you were going into and it catches you unawares, and you have taken out your life savings for retirement and put it into Lehman Minibond Notes or like products. Then you are in trouble because if something goes wrong, this is money that you cannot afford to lose.
We have to look at the circumstances of the people who have lost money, whether on Lehman Minibond Notes or DBS High Notes or ML Jubilee Notes. Where there has been mis-selling, it has to be put right. Where there has been less than professional behaviour by the relationship managers, or it does not measure up to the standards expected by MAS when they promote financial products or advise someone what to buy, then the banks have to do the right thing. Where there have been breaches of the law, MAS will take action.
MAS has worked with the banks to set up the mechanism to deal with these cases expeditiously. If you went to court one by one, it would cost you a lot of money and take a long time. The banks have appointed three very experienced, fair- minded and well-respected persons who will oversee the process – Gerard Ee, Law Song Keng and Hwang Soo Jin. They will help to resolve this problem, without the people affected having to pay a lot of money to hire a lawyer and go through a complicated process.
I hope that those affected will go through the process and try and sort it out this way. If it still cannot be resolved, there is still the Fidrec, (Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre), which MAS set up back in 2005.
Beyond Fidrec, if you still do not feel that the matter has been adequately settled, then you still have your legal rights, which are not compromised.
This is a practical and fair way to deal with the problem. The banks know it is in their interest to deal with the customers fairly, because there is ‘reputational risk’. In other words, if the banks do the right thing, their customers will remember them for a long time. If they do the wrong thing, customers and potential customers will also remember them for a long time. The banks know this and have every interest in sorting this out expeditiously and fairly.
Q. Why could the Government not take more responsibility for vetting products?
A: I think this is a very difficult and unsatisfactory approach in the long run. First of all, Government should not be making decisions for individuals; individuals should have the right to decide for themselves according to their circumstances, their preferences, their needs.
Secondly, the Government is not in a position to guarantee what is safe and what is not safe, because there is nothing which is 100 per cent safe. It is impossible. The higher the return, inevitably the higher the risk, because there is no free lunch in this world.
What is the safest? Singapore Government Securities – that means Government debt, followed by the deposits guaranteed by the Government, like CPF deposits. These are 100 per cent safe as long as the Singapore Government is safe. Make sure that there is a good Singapore Government, then the dollar is stable, and one Singapore dollar is really worth one dollar, and your money is safe.
Other than that, nobody can say. If you had put money into Lehman Brothers three years ago, which had a credit rating of ‘A’ then, it may have looked alright, but now it is a totally different situation. Even safe products have the possibility of going wrong and if something does go wrong, it is not possible for Government to say: I guaranteed that this would not happen, so I am taking responsibility.
Q. Surely with consumers deciding for themselves, the Government must set up safeguards?
A: Yes. The Government’s job is to make sure things progress fairly and properly, not to guarantee that you make money, but to ensure that investors know what they are doing. So if a bank wants to sell you something, first there must be a prospectus explaining what it is, and in as simple language as possible. In this case, the Lehman Minibond Notes or DBS High Notes or ML Jubilee Notes were clearly not low-risk products. I think the prospectus says ‘you could lose all or a substantial part of your investment in the Notes’ in bold print, on page 1 or 2.
Secondly, there must be a fact-finding process about you, unless you opt out. The bank must find out about your circumstances – what you need, what your risk tolerance is, whether you are a young man planning for 30 years of investment, or you are a middle-aged person with family responsibilities, or you are a retiree needing a steady stream of pension. Each person’s needs are different. What risk people can tolerate will be different. You may own a house and be looking to invest $10,000 of spare cash, or this may be your life savings taken out from CPF which you can ill afford to take risk with.
Then there must be advice from the financial advisers. Their duty is to look at it from your point of view, and not from the bank’s point of view or from the adviser’s own point of view hoping to earn a commission, to advise you what is the prudent way. If you do this, these are the risks. These are the options and the trade-offs, you make up your own mind.
So there is a proper process which if followed properly, should help people to make better financial decisions for themselves.
Then we have to educate the people. They may know how to follow rumours to buy and sell in stock market, and find it very exciting to see the prices of their shares going up and down. But they may not understand more complicated financial products, or the risks, or the consequences.
Financial education is important for you to have a sense of what the risk is and what your own limits should be; so that you can appreciate the advice you are given. So we have all sorts of programmes – Moneywise, Dollars and Sense, etc. The Community Clubs and Residents’ Committees organise financial education talks. The Sunday Times has lots of pages advising people how to manage their money. These are very basic, but at least people can begin to understand. Even if they do not know everything, they know what they do not know. And that is the most important, because when you think you know everything which you do not, you can get into trouble.
Even then, from time to time, things will go wrong and investors will feel aggrieved. Hence we need a process to deal with this when it happens. The process can investigate this properly, and not cause every aggrieved investor to go through a full court trial. It must be a fair and quick resolution. It cannot be that if I invested and it turned out well, then I am happy, but if I invested and it turned out badly, then I am entitled to compensation.
So these are all the pieces we have to put in, in order to have a system with more flexibility, to let people make their own choices.
Q. Can we somehow make sure that people do not lose their last dollar on risky investments?
A: We try to do this through HDB home ownership, and the CPF system. For example, last year we tightened up the CPFIS rules, so that the first $20,000 from your CPF Ordinary Account cannot be used for CPFIS investments. I know that some Singaporeans, particularly some better-educated younger people, felt unhappy at this restriction. They said: ‘I am a responsible adult, I know what I am doing, let me manage my savings myself.’ I know that some Singaporeans will be more than capable of looking after themselves, but as a national savings scheme, I think it is wiser that we keep this basic amount safe. If you have more savings beyond that, you can make freer choices, but do not take any chances with this base level.
But ultimately, each person has to take responsibility for his or her own financial decisions. If you do not understand a product, do not invest in it. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. You may not be able to become an expert, but you still have to look after your own money.
Q: Would the two different approaches you mentioned earlier explain the difference in the way the Hong Kong and Singapore authorities handled the situation?
A: I would not like to comment on what other jurisdictions do. We do what is necessary in our circumstances. In Singapore, while dealing with specific complaints of individuals who feel that they were mis-sold the Lehman Minibonds Notes, High Notes or ML Jubilee Notes, we must also have in mind the right overall policy on the sale of financial products to retail investors.
We are a major financial centre. In regulating and supervising financial institutions and activities, we must be fair, consistent and transparent. Set the right rules, and work by those rules. We should not act arbitrarily. If a bank breaches the rules, we will not hesitate to take action against it. But if a bank has acted properly within the right rules, the Government cannot, just because it is under political pressure, lean hard on it to do something convenient and get ourselves out of a jam.
We have to stand back and ask: What is the right way to resolve this? What are the right rules, the right policies? Then everybody will know that these are the rules of the game. Not just in this situation, but all the time. And that gives people the reassurance and confidence that the Singapore Government will do the right thing when problems arise again in future.
If people lose confidence in what we are doing, the damage to Singapore will be considerable. You may get out of the immediate jam but then what happens further down the road? The next time somebody sells a product, he will say: ‘Don’t worry. If this goes wrong, the Government will look after you.’ And then more problems will come. Because the good outcome is mine, the bad outcome somebody else will take care of. That is what ‘moral hazard’ means.
Two approaches Govt can adopt
Q: What is your take on the anxiety faced by the investors?
A: I think some emotional reaction when something like this happens is completely understandable. Nobody likes to lose money, and especially if it happens to you in a very sudden, drastic and unexpected way, that is a shock. Furthermore, if you feel that this possibility was not something that was explained to you, or if in fact you had been wrongly reassured that, do not worry, this is capital assured, you will get your money back, then you will be upset.
Let us stand back a little bit from dealing with the immediate problems, and think about how we should approach this whole issue of individuals investing their money, and banks and institutions selling financial products. There are two opposite approaches in dealing with this situation.
One approach is to say: Government knows best. You are consumers, you are not informed; you do not know how to judge for yourself, you should not be allowed to buy things that are risky. I, the Government, decide what is risky and what is not risky. If I allow you to buy, and I allow the banks to sell, that means it is safe, so if you buy, it is all right. You are protected by the Government. We decide for you, and you do not have to worry about it. Some people would say this is being paternalistic.
That is one way to manage. But in the long run, this is not sustainable.
The second approach is for the Government to adopt a freer, more flexible stance. We allow individuals to have choices, to make their own decisions, take responsibility for them, and accept the consequences. Whether it turns out well or badly, you have made the choice yourself, and you are prepared for the outcome, psychologically and financially.
I think this is the better approach. Let people make their own choices and decisions, but within a proper system, and with appropriate safeguards. We have progressively shifted towards this over the last decade.
I was so inspired by Walter’s self help tips “From Excess to Austerity” that I came up with my own little guide based on our own practices-
Mutton Stew with carrots and onions. Truly soul food.
Steamed Fish fillet – no fishy smell and the kids love it
Baked honey pork ribs – as good as it looks
Braised broccoli with prawn – he can’t take prawns but will cook for us because we do 
Miding fried with sambal belachan (Miding is not available in local markets – Big’s mum got it from Malaysia for us. It is very delicious but looking at it made me itch uncontrollably!)
Oven baked chicken thighs – this is as yummy as the fried version but much healthier
Apart from the luxury of being pampered with home cooked food, we also value the time that we spend eating together as a family. In this society where everyone is working late and having their own activities, not many families have the time to dine together.
You can also check out Wine Affaire at 73 Tras Street (6220 2493) - where you can have a free flow of wines at only $28.
Very cosy ambience
The two owners (local entrepreneurs) of Wine Affaire
Chilling out on the couch for movies with homemade popcorn and drinks
This is a wonder machine. It not only plays DVDs, VCDs and CDs, it is USB compatible – it plays stuff that you download to your USB device.
The benefits of carpooling are as follows:
1. You reduce transport expenses.
2. You save on travelling time (direct route, no stops etc).
3. There is no driving stress or fatigue if you are the passenger.
4. You could read/ check emails/ work etc if you are the passenger.
5. You enjoy co-savings on petrol costs if you are the driver.
6. It is environmentally friendly.
7. It reduces traffic congestion.
8. It reduces parking problems.
Vanilla Cupcakes
Cupcake decorated with hundreds and thousands and chocolate rice
Brownie (for my kids to decorate and have fun)
Raspberry and white Chocolate cheesecake
Oreo cheesecake
Crafts for kids (a packet of the wood powder costs only $5 and it can last you a very long time)
Bear shaped pen holder
Dog paperweight
visit museums,
rediscover your heritage by exploring different parts of Singapore eg. Arab Street, Little India, Chinatown etc.
It’s enriching to the mind and soul while allowing us to rediscover our inner selves. It’s also much cheaper than hanging out at the malls (retail therapy is so very tempting and expensive) – and we’d end up eating in restaurants most of the time. I like this site because it gives me ideas on where to explore next in Singapore.
Our basil plant
The recent media coverage on Generation Y set me thinking. Is there much difference in the values and urban culture between the Generation Y and Generation X (like myself)?
I have been independent since 16. I will shamefully admit that I experimented with Sonia Rykiel, Thomas Chantal and Jean Paul Gaultier in secondary school (ah lian!) but I never had the cheek to ask my parents to fund my frivolousities. After I moved out and rented my own pad, I was flying solo all the way. Whenever I hear of people in their 30s still reaching out their hands to their parents to pay for loan instalments or credit card bills, I’d get very bemused. I also cannot reconcile with the fact that some youngsters are being totally spoonfed by their parents – nurtured to be soft spoilt individuals.
Ms Agnes Lin seems to fit the profile of the soft spoilt Gen Y very well.
She thinks a friend of hers, who is left with $20 to last until the end of the month, is silly to consider taking up a part-time job to earn some extra cash.
‘I don’t understand why she cannot just ask her parents for money,’ sighed Miss Lin.
I thank my parents for bringing me up in a sensible ‘tough love’ manner. They provided us children with the necessities like food, clothing, education etc and we have never lacked. When I demonstrated a gift at music and playing the piano, my parents bought a piano for me and started me on lessons. My brother trained in martial arts because that was his interest. My point is, my parents never ever stinged on us but they also never spoilt us in the ridiculous manner some parents are guilty of. Most importantly, we grew up to be independent and tough adults who can survive on our own without handouts from anyone.
So what happens if her monetary source from her parents should get unexpectedly cut off one day? Would she turn to easy money, given her propensity for materialistic indulgence?
With her first pay packet, she will buy a $4,000 Chanel bag. ‘After that, I will probably get more bags and watches,’ she added.
There is nothing wrong with spending your own money. However, there is no mention of contributing towards the household expenses or any gestures to her parents. As a student, she is already wrapped up in materialism and shows much potential for credit debt (which her parents will no doubt pay for). Congratulations to her parents for raising a spoilt brat seemingly detached from the reality of the real world. I know my own mother would have given me two tight slaps (and rightfully so) if I had demonstrated such idiotic behaviour. Hell, I would give my daughter two tight slaps if she ever pulled such a stunt.
**
*Update* : This is Agnes Lin’s blog – where she stated that she was misquoted. If that is so, there is grounds for legal action because it is defamation, and not a simple case of mistake by omission.
I would like to reiterate that I do not know Ms Lin and do not dislike her per se. I dislike the behaviour as alleged in the report.
*Further update* : If this is true, ST would have stooped to a new low. I am very appalled. Makes me question if we can trust what we read these days.
Let’s see if Agnes Lin is going to sue. I would if I were in her shoes.
ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM
For 20-year-old undergraduate Agnes Lin, the recession could just be academic.
The Nanyang Technological University first-year student has never been in need: She carries a $2,000 Louis Vuitton handbag to school and uses only Shiseido cosmetic and skincare products.
She carries around the latest mobile phone and goes on overseas vacations with her friends where she would bust $1,000 on shopping alone.
Twice monthly, she shops at her favourite stores – Topshop, Zara and Forever21.
Mum, a private tutor, and Dad, a businessman selling polythene bags, pay for her expenses.
Miss Lin is aware that Singapore faces a recession but the news does not bother her.
She said: ‘I think it is okay for me to maintain my current lifestyle. I may be spending a little bit more than my friends but I don’t think I’m overspending.’
At the moment, she has her eyes on the latest mobile phone in the market, the HTC Touch Pro, which costs about $700.
Although her mother has said ‘no’ to her buying yet another mobile phone, Ms Lin has an inkling she will still get it.
‘I think my mum will still buy it for me. My birthday is coming up!’ she said with a giggle. She confessed that since young, she has never run out of cash. Her parents give her money whenever she asks.
Since she was 16, her monthly pocket money has been $500.
She has an older brother, also an undergraduate. The family live in a four-room flat in Marine Parade.
She thinks a friend of hers, who is left with $20 to last until the end of the month, is silly to consider taking up a part-time job to earn some extra cash.
‘I don’t understand why she cannot just ask her parents for money,’ sighed Miss Lin.
She will enter the working world only after three years but she is already planning ahead.
With her first pay packet, she will buy a $4,000 Chanel bag. ‘After that, I will probably get more bags and watches,’ she added.
I had written here about Chua Li Hoong’s article in the Straits Times about JB Jeyaretnam.
And now, her sister, Chua Mui Hoong has written an article on Friday about how the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) was not negligent in the Lehman saga, but that Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) is.
How wonderful.
Now let’s see how it is never the government’s fault, but always someone else’s fault.
Again, like her sister’s article, the title of the article seems innocuous enough. ‘Lehman saga shows need for consumer body’ – how sinister can that be?
‘Since the issue was reported on Sept 16, the state regulator MAS has been active on this issue, ordering banks involved to appoint a thrid party to investigate claims of mis-selling – although anxious investors dub its response tardy and subdued.
The truth is that there is a limit to what MAS can do, beyond using its moral authority.’
Look, I know they may not have taught this in Journalism 101, but surely after years in the workforce, Ms Chua would know that even if you are busting your ass and pulling out all the stops to get stuff done, but if your boss or client doesn’t know that, everything else is moot. So even if MAS had been active, the point is moot if the investors are not informed. If there was one thing MAS should have done, it was to stand out and assure the people that something will be done – right from the start. Don’t try to lay it on the people.
‘The main consumers’ group, the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE), was active in pushing for financial services and products to be included under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act enacted in 2004. The law was revised just two months ago to cover precisely this…Case’s silence on the Lehman saga, given its active interest in the financial industry, is thus deafening.’
Now, everything is clear. It is all Case’s fault for not addressing an issue in government jurisdiction . Thank you Ms Chua for the illumination!
It gets even better.
‘The Securities Investors Association of Singapore has spoken on the issue, but not played a leading role. It could justifiably say it represents securities investors, not purchasers of structured products. But then again, its stated objective includes educating investors on all types of investors.’
OK it’s not all Case’s fault now. SIAS and Case can share the blame.
‘Instead, the leaders in trying to resolve the issue have been the state – in the form of MAS – and individuals.’
Wow, once again the technique of weaving truth into something questionable to make it look credible! I swear they have it down pat.
What I really cannot stomach is the despicable pretense of praising Mr Tan Kin Lian as a ‘champion of investors seeking redress’ while taking a cheap shot under the cloak of ‘humour’ in a cartoon.
I guess it is hard to hide derisive scorn after all. In any case, it is in poor taste and definitely not what I expect from a state journalist.
More melamine products:
View previous list here
Bank’s effort to address investors
I received this from one of my readers – L (thanks!). It’s a questionnaire given to the affected investors by one of the banks as an investigative effort.
Now is not the time to do a freaking survey. They should not put people through hoops and circles when they had just been through a difficult time, which was brought on by the greed of banks and the absence of fiduciary duty.
It is painful even for me to look at it, much less fill up the whole freaking questionnaire.
**
1. Please provide a brief description of your complaint/feedback
2. How did you find out about the product? Please tick all that are relevant.
3. How did you come to know the FI representative / RM that you bought the product from?
4. Before you spoke to the FI representative / RM, were you planning to place your funds in another product? If so, what product did you have in mind? Why did you change your mind about buying that product?
5. During your meeting with the FI representative / RM, did you:
Please tick all that are relevant.
6. How long was your meeting with the FI representative / RM before you agreed to purchase the product? Approximately how much time did the FI representative / RM spend to explain the product to you?
7. How long did it take you to decide to purchase the product? Was it during the same visit or a subsequent visit to the FI?
8. What was the source of the funds invested in the product?
9. Did the FI representative / RM explain the product to you? If so, what did he/she say? If you have any records of written correspondences, please attach a copy for our reference.
10. What made you decide to purchase the product?
11. Please indicate which documents were given to you when you purchased the product.
Please tick all that are relevant.
12. Please indicate when the following documents were given to you.
· Base prospectus
Before or at the point of sale/ After the sale had been concluded
· Pricing statement
Before or at the point of sale/ After the sale had been concluded
· Marketing materials
Before or at the point of sale/ After the sale had been concluded
13. Please indicate the documents that you signed when you purchased the product.
Please tick all that are relevant.
14. If you were not given a Prospectus and Pricing Statement, were you told where you could get one? Did you proceed to get a copy before you applied for the product? Did you read the Prospectus and Pricing statement?
15. Are you aware whether you signed any statement that states that you are aware of and understood the risks associated with this product? Did the FI representative / RM explain what this means to you?
16. Are you aware whether you signed any document that states that you are not relying on advice provided by the FI representative / RM or FI in purchasing the product? Did the FI representative / RM explain the document to you?
Speaking to investors at Speakers’ Corner
Pictures below
It was an eye opener for me. To personally speak with old folks who can’t speak English – and to be told about promises of ‘guaranteed principal’, ‘interest at the end of tenure’, ‘low risk’ and even a case of the product sold as a government bond made me see red.
Every single investor I spoke with told me that they were reassured that the product they were buying was ‘very safe’ and ‘principal guaranteed’. Some even said that they were told it was like a fixed deposit – ‘interest will be paid at the end of tenure’. In every case, they had either wanted to re-invest in a fixed deposit product upon expiry of their previous deposit (which should tell you volumes about their risk appetite) or they had wanted to invest in a fixed deposit with their cash. Instead, they were waylaid into investing in mid – high risk structured products. In all the cases, the forms were either never mailed to them at all, or sent long after the cooling off period. Many of the relationship managers involved had either resigned or are refusing to return any calls. Class act.
Cases of outright cheating
One old lady teared up when she told me that the relationship manager assured that she was buying into a government guaranteed bond. Since when the minibond become a government bond is beyond my minuscule financial brain. She does not understand English and was told to ‘just sign here’ and that the ‘bank will not cheat old folks’. She was not given any copy of the forms she signed because the relationship manager told her that they had to be sent to the government for record keeping. She had lost $40,000 of her life savings – an amount which she had repeatedly told the bank staff was her ‘coffin fund’ and that it needed to be contained in a safe investment vehicle.
Another lady in her 50s was edgy when I first approached her if she needed help. She had already attended an interview and was waiting for a reply from the bank. She felt little hope of being vindicated in this matter. She angrily recounted to me how she was duped into investing ‘a minimum of $50,000′ when she could have chosen to invest a minimum of $5,000. The usual spiel of ‘guaranteed principal, interest, fixed deposit, very safe’ and even ‘low risk’ was applied.
The worst thing was – the sales representative deliberately left out two pages when he sent the document copies to her. She was not aware of the missing pages until recently – in the interview with her bank, the staff showed her the pages. She then realized why the two pages were not sent to her. Some written content was added after she had signed on the forms. Content like the financial mechanics had been explained to her by an accompanying relative (not true) and that she understood the product carried certain risks (she was told it was low risk and principal guaranteed).
Bristling with anger and indignation, she shared about how she was paid only a salary of $80 in the 60s and that she had been working for the last 40 years – scrimping and saving to have that amount of money. In her words (Cantonese) – ‘?????????????’ – at this point, she started to cry. I had difficulty fighting back the tears that threatened to well.
I was strangely reminded of my mum perhaps from the similarity of their saving habits, thriftiness and being Cantonese. I wonder how I would feel if my mum had been duped into buying ‘government bonds’?
Politicians like Mr Goh Chok Tong, who said ‘That’s life, if you want good rewards, you have to take risks. Otherwise, leave your money with the CPF‘ are extremely lucky that the political climate here is engineered to be tamer and definitely less feisty and confrontational than say, that of Hong Kong. If he had been in Mr Joseph Yam’s position, I have no doubt that he would have been taken apart.
Joseph Yam Chi Kwong, Chief Executive of HKMA, had stressed that HKMA ’sympathise[s] with investors who have been affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers. [Their] priority now, is to consider the complaints as quickly as possible. Within the authority of the HKMA, this is the action that will be most helpful to the aggrieved investors.’
Even so, Mr Yam, who earned more than S$2 million last year, was not exempted from a sharp criticism from Legislator Raymond Wong Yuk Man for “sitting still to wait for a salary”, while minibonds victims “sit still to wait for death”.
(In Cantonese)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Translations:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
“A salary for a national class treasure with an international class laziness.”
?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
“You sit waiting for your bi (?), which is the word for money! We sit waiting for our bi (?), which is the word for death!”
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
“This is your responsibility. It does not mean that you were unaware beforehand. You were hired at such a salary and you failed to even do this. You should go home and sleep!”
I am so grateful that I can understand and speak Cantonese well – because the beauty of the dialect often gets lost in translation.
Here’s the video (in Cantonese) [Thanks to Nelson and igp for sharing the video!]
Note 1.03 – 2.38 and 4.03 – 5.14
**
Mr Tan Kin Lian giving a volunteers’ briefing
While we were fresh at this volunteering stint, the enthusiasm and the can do spirit of the volunteers were really inspiring to me. It was inevitable that we felt a little lost and disoriented in the beginning but soon we were too busy to feel lost.
CNA crew working the grounds
Deputy editor of TOC, Mr Andrew Loh (left) with Mr Tan Kin Lian (right)
A member of the public giving a ‘certificate’ to Mr Tan that says
‘Thank you Mr Tan Kin Lian Champion of the underdog’
Expressing his anger with the authorities
Mr Goh Meng Seng translating Mr Tan’s speech in Mandarin
Board of grievances
An investor who invested $100,000. She will speak next Saturday and share about her experience.
ECL (in blue cap) helping out at event. I was too busy to even have time to speak with her as investors were taking up all my time but it was no issue for her – she very quickly took charge of the situation. Kudos!
Another reader of mine, Lilian, also came by to help out. Thanks Lilian!
A reader commented in my previous post -
How come you are not posting about your wonderful Mr Big anymore? I see you have gone political on your readers and I can’t say I like it. What are you trying to prove by suddenly changing your blogging style? Fame? Or to prove you are not a bimbo?
I am disappointed at this sudden 360 degree change of direction where you almost never talk about your own life, kids, Big anymore. Or is there something to hide?
Hope to see you reverting back to your old writing style and topics soon. Politics is just talk unless you can make a real difference. Otherwise, I don’t see why you should be dedicating your blog to something that can and is already being done at TOC website.
Hi reader
As my explanation is going to be rather losor, I thought it warrants a whole new entry of its own.
The direction of my blogging has taken on a socially and politically active angle. This is brought on by a few issues including the recent Olympics medal and the whole financial debacle and I acutely felt the need to write.
The family posts will still be here. Bimbotic adventures are covered here – where I write about fashion, lifestyle and beauty etc. I guess that answers your question about me being a bimbo – and I must admit that I am hopelessly one. Heck I look at numbers and my eyes glaze over. I am definitely more in affinity with price tags and nail polish numbers. LOL.
So, the personal posts are here to stay – along with the other social and political articles. Rather than a total change, I would say it’s an added on component. In that, I am somewhat different from the other mainstream socio-political bloggers out there.
What fame? I feel that there is hardly any ‘fame’ to be spoken of in the socio-political blogging circle. To be candidly honest, a more effective method of being ‘famous’ would be to splash pictures of me posing provocatively in cleavage baring outfits all over my blog or taking the opportunity to flash my curves wherever I can. But you are right in an aspect. I wish that people will stop seeing me as a ‘busty’ woman but as one who can think and write articulately.
As for ‘politics is just talk unless we can make a real difference’, I believe I am making a difference in my own small little ways. For example, I disagree with what is being taught in school about the Olympic medals, that our children are being taught to how to think. I always challenge my elder daughter, Germaine to think for herself and that she should not even take what I tell her for granted.
Take the recent financial saga where so many people did not know where to or who to turn to – Tan Kin Lian took the lead and then we went out there and helped those who need help. People who read my blog – like Lilian and ECL – were also there on the ground to help out. I’d like to think that yes, we did make a small little difference in our small little ways.
And to answer your question of Big, he is still the same wonderful man that he has always been, if not better. I have in my drafts, a post about his cooking, the article about Education and Germaine being in the top 15% of the schools, the article about dehumanization, the one about a birthday party Geanyne went to, along with 30 other drafts that indicate that I have so much to blog about but too little time.
While time is one factor, another reason is because I am happy. At this point, ours is the quiet steady kind of happiness that does not need constant reassurance and validation. Moreover, my frank opinion on constant horn-tooting or validations are merely shows of insecurity and lackof. Also, I find it rather vulgar and distasteful.
I guess I am happy, we are happy, I don’t feel the need to impress anyone and most importantly I don’t have anything to prove.
So, I am happy to report that all’s great and well in my life. But I must thank you for your little wake up call – that I should not be complacent about my happiness
Best wishes
Rachel
**
Note :
I approved the comment because I felt that the commentator was asking some genuine questions, as opposed to some others who had commented here with despicable agendas. Of course, these people have been promptly removed from my sphere. Yes I can tell who is being despicable, catty, malicious or plainly destructive, and who is giving genuine feedback even though both may consist of negative feedback or criticisms.
There is talk elsewhere that I am trying to project a ‘perfect image’ – the person(s) must be blind and stupid to have missed the biting acerbity in my writings. These people (or person) who are still hiding behind the screen and making cheap malicious little potshots – it’s your life, and it’s very sad. I have already moved on with my (very busy and fulfilling) life but there you are, still obsessing about my life and how perfect or imperfect I am. I wish you no ill because you are nothing to me but please live your own life already. Life is so short to go obsess about someone else all the time.
Anyway there is nothing ‘perfect’ about me. If you deliberately try to mess with me, I will tear you a new one.
The MP Chan Soo Sen had written to ST about this
I REFER to Wednesday’s report, ‘Fancy setting, worthless degrees’.
I was invited to the ceremony through one of my grassroots leaders who was a graduand. I checked the website of a West Coast University, an institution based in Los Angeles accredited for health-care subjects. I subsequently received an invitation printed on a West Coast University letterhead with a Los Angeles address. I have thus been misled into attending the ceremony on Monday.
I have not been associated with the West Coast University mentioned in the report. Nor was it my intention to lend credibility to its courses and degrees.
Chan Soo Sen
Member of Parliament
Joo Chiat Constituency
I was reading about the “big spenders” in the latest issue of the Female magazine. I pick up magazines every month to keep abreast of the local fashion coverage for my writing. This article about the ‘big spenders’ left me feeling a little, well, disconcerted.Don’t get me wrong, I am not against having money, living a luxurious lifestyle or being well groomed. I, for one, am a woman who likes my retail therapy, my grooming routines and my little indulgences. The distaste is towards those who put on a casual nonchalance about the $54,000 massage machine, flaunting the $10,000 hairdo but claiming ’stealth wealth’) and the $600 pedicure. Class and breeding are not commodities bought by the abundance of money. I find the arrogant flaunting of wealth extremely vulgar and ‘Beverly Hillbilly’.
This is also a reason why I am glad I am not officially working in magazines – for fear of offending with the truth of what I feel. I will not be able to say that I have a real distaste towards the vulgar materialism that some ‘taitais’ exhibit. I will not be able to express that some of the richest ‘taitais’ I know will not dream of strutting around in such obscene displays of vulgarity. For them, a dignified and luxurious elegance is paramount and loud displays of wealth is considered vulgar.
Most importantly, a glaring difference between the old money and nouveau rich is their attitudes towards charity. While old money is known to give millions away on the quiet, the nouveau rich glorifies in the opulence and extravagence of haute couture gowns, ostentatious jewellery and designer stylists. The logic that the money spent on showing off and one upping each other could have been better put to use if it had been directed to the objective of the ball – the charity cause itself.
Perhaps my distaste is furthermore brought on by the fact that I come from a family that advocates the importance of working hard, humility and a general aversion towards boastful extravagence. Perhaps I have found that the truly rich tend to be discreet and it’s those who are loud, arrogant or flashy tend to be well, somewhat lacking. Indeed, I cannot help explain my natural distaste of people flaunting how much they paid for anything and a comfortable acceptance of people with fortunes many many times of mine.
I leave you with this picture and a question:
Obama is obviously more wealthy than Palin. Why do the Americans not begrudge him his riches? Why then is he deemed more credible and able than Palin?
The answer is Substance.
Credit to ST – Cassandra Chew
I have never been an advocate of degrees or graduates. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t doubt or dismiss their ability or intelligence. Rather, I feel that the existence of a degree should not be the basis on which a person’s ability and proficiency should be solely judged on.
Indeed, the feedback that I get from some entrepreneurs and business people I spoke to is that they prefer to employ people who are diploma holders with more internship/ work experience and who tend to be more humble, more open to learning and proactive in finding solutions. In other words, they tend to have a higher EQ and possess more street smarts. Graduates, especially fresh graduates, tend to be cocky, unwilling to ‘get their hands dirty’ and have a know-it-all attitude. Again, this is their observation of common traits and not a prejudiced stereotyping.
I am not a graduate (yet), but I’ve been told by people from all walks of life including recently, a senior reporter, that I ‘write very well’. This is not to toot my own trumpet. It is to say that I believe a person is more driven by his or her interest and passion to excellence than a piece of paper who merely says that you have spent a certain amount of classroom hours. I have also met many people who are not graduates but you don’t mess with them because they definitely knew their stuff – I have personally seen a few ‘old gingers’ taking quite a few pegs off some young ‘hot shots’.
There are professions of course, like law, medicine, accountancy etc, where the clients need the reassurance of that paper (though I personally wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if David Marshall had a degree or not, he was that good), but I think you might agree with me that fields like music, art, writing, social work, advertising, PR etc call for a natural talent and passion more than a mere piece of paper.
Why then do I want to pursue a honors program reading English? The reason is achingly simple. This country is obsessed with degrees to the point of ostracizing people who do not have that piece of paper, regardless of their ability or experience. Essentially, a potential employer can look at all my work (here and here), the articles I did for government agencies like NCSS, newsletters, agencies, magazines etc but it will only be magically deemed good work if I simultaneously produce that piece of paper. Of course, I am referring to big players and not dodgy agencies or websites who don’t mind paying peanuts bananas for monkeys.
And so, you will have people who are willing to go through the wayang process of getting that paper, and those who just, well, want to take a short cut.
What I found extremely amusing was that one of our dear MPs actually agreed to be the guest of honor for the ceremony of an unaccredited university (aka degree mill) and even gave speeches in English and Mandarin. He said that he had not been given any information about it and that ‘if [his] presence there had given the university credibility, that was not [his] intention,’
And therein lies my dislike of the spoon-feeding habit in our culture. “Nobody told me”, “nobody showed me” and “I didn’t know” are all catch phrases of the spoon-feeding culture that is so prevalent in our society that the MP is not exempted.
After all, he had once ingeniously said, “What can I do? I’m only an MP!” So I guess now he will also be famous for “that was not my intention”.
(Article archived in case the above link does not work anymore)
*UPDATE: The MP Chan Soo Sen had written to ST
I REFER to Wednesday’s report, ‘Fancy setting, worthless degrees’.
I was invited to the ceremony through one of my grassroots leaders who was a graduand. I checked the website of a West Coast University, an institution based in Los Angeles accredited for health-care subjects. I subsequently received an invitation printed on a West Coast University letterhead with a Los Angeles address. I have thus been misled into attending the ceremony on Monday.
I have not been associated with the West Coast University mentioned in the report. Nor was it my intention to lend credibility to its courses and degrees.
Chan Soo Sen
Member of Parliament
Joo Chiat Constituency*****
Worthless degrees
By Sandra Davie and Cassandra ChewStudents of the unaccredited West Coast University, garbed in full academic regalia, celebrating after their graduation ceremony at Old Parliament house on Monday, which even came with an inspiring speech from the university’s honorary president. — ST PHOTO: CASSANDRA CHEW
THE ceremony in the Old Parliament House had all the pomp and circumstance associated with any graduation.The professors and graduands were in full academic regalia. Speeches flowed in English and Mandarin. And afterwards, a gala dinner at a hotel.
Cash for paper in some cases
THE term ‘degree mill’ is used widely to refer to institutions that offer degrees to students who do not have to do much work to graduate.Some operate with no more than a mailing address to which people send money in exchange for a piece of paper that looks like a degree. Others require some nominal work to be done but do not require college-level coursework.
… more
At the ceremony, the university’s honorary president, a Professor Bernard Cadet, delivered an inspiring speech, urging graduands to transform the world.‘Believe nothing is impossible. West Coast University (WCU) will be proud of you in the future,’ he told the 76 graduands from Singapore, Indonesia and China, before handing them their doctorates, master’s and bachelor’s degrees.
But this was a ceremony for an unaccredited university based in Panama, not Los Angeles, as its school in Singapore had claimed.
The Asia-Australia School of Management (AASM), a Case-certified school in Middle Road, offers West Coast University programmes here with a related company, Huanyu Training Expert.
At least two American states have outlawed degrees from WCU, describing it as a ‘degree supplier’ that offers ‘fraudulent or substandard degrees’.
The Texas State Higher Education Coordinating Board warns on its website that WCU ‘is used by multiple unaccredited entities. The extent to which they are related is unknown, but more than one operator is suspected.’
In some parts of the United States, it is a criminal offence to use degrees from unaccredited institutions.
‘Dr’ John Huang, one of the owners of AASM and Huanyu, insisted that the university is based in Los Angeles and faxed The Straits Times documents showing West Coast University International registered as a business in California.
But he confirmed that it was not the California-based West Coast University reputed for nursing and health science-related degrees. He admitted that WCU was unaccredited, but said his students had been given the facts.
His doctorate is from Ashwood University, the same degree mill that granted this reporter’s pet dog a doctorate for US$599 (S$886) just two months ago.
The guest of honour at Monday’s ceremony was MP for Joo Chiat Chan Soo Sen, who delivered a speech in Mandarin and English.
Contacted afterwards, he said he had been invited by a grassroots leader and accepted as he wanted to encourage the habit of life-long learning.
Told that WCU was unaccredited, he said he had not been given any information about it. ‘If my presence there had given the university credibility, that was not my intention,’ he said.
Several graduates interviewed after Monday’s ceremony believed the university was based in Los Angeles and that it was a proper institution.
They had paid between $13,000 and $19,000 in fees to take up bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate courses lasting one year to 15 months.
Those who took up the doctorate programme said they attended classes two days a month, from 9am to 5pm.
Several said they did not know a university can be registered and yet have no academic accreditation, where it is subject to quality checks by an independent body. It also means employers may not recognise the degrees.
An electronics factory quality controller who paid $13,000 in fees for her bachelor’s degree said: ‘I was hoping to get a better job in logistics with this degree, but now it may not be possible.’
Ms Ho Fee Men, director of a Chinese medical hall, said she had heard rumours that the university was unaccredited, but continued with her PhD programme anyway. To get her doctorate, she paid $19,000 in fees, attended classes twice a month over 15 months and wrote a 50,000-word thesis.
Two businessmen said they knew their doctorates were worthless but took up the programme to learn about business management.
Mr Chang Chia Sheng, 55, managing director of X.L. Handle, which makes industrial fasteners, said he gained from discussions with other businessmen.
At least 218 people here have been found with degrees from dubious universities such as Preston, Wisconsin International and Kennedy-Western.
Business owners make up one of three groups here who have degrees from unaccredited institutions and degree mills. For many of them, an honorary PhD has become a must-have symbol of success.
Another group comprises consultants and private school lecturers who may have a first degree and some expertise in a particular area, but seek a master’s degree or doctorate to bolster their credentials.
And lastly, there are those who pay for undergraduate degrees and transcripts – usually non-graduates who want qualifications to gain jobs or promotions.
This is good news. Singapore’s parliament voted yesterday to amend the constitution to allow the government more access to the returns on country’s reserves to cope with a faltering economy.
State broadcaster ChannelNewsAsia reported that the extra funds would be spent on research and development projects and medical care for the aged.
I hope that people who need help will get it without the usual bureaucratic red tape nonsense. I hope that there will be transparency in how much money is touched and the percentage of the money going to medical care for the aged. I hope that money from the reserves are not somehow funding the third phrase of ministerial salary increments. I hope that research projects will not be cutting edge projects like “Renaming the Marina Bay”. After all, hope springs eternal in the human heart.
I also found this little snippet by Reuters writer, Melanie Lee, rather amusing:
The changes to the constitution will allow the government to draw on more returns from investing the reserves, so that its income can keep pace with rising expenditure, reported the pro-government newspaper The Straits Times on its website.
Ooh, are they going to let it go or will they sue?
But wait a minute, it is true.
Mr Tan Kin Lian will be talking at Hong Lim Park this Saturday at 6pm. Prior to the talk at 5pm, some of us will be helping investors draft their statements of claim to their respective financial institutions. We are volunteers – any persons who might offer to help you for a sum of money (with the exception of lawyers preparing Statutory Declarations) are not from our team. In the meanwhile, you can also email me at me@rachel.sg
Please bring your relevant papers and the statement will be drafted on the following basis -
Mr Tan Kin Lian has a comprehensive help list here.
If you are keen to help out, please see Mr Goh’s post here and email him, or you could email your particulars (i.e. name, e-mail address, telephone number, and postal code, language) to kinlian@gmail.com. Thanks.
**
In the event that the banks do not handle your complaints satisfactorily, you can write to FIDReC.
Registered Address
112 Robinson Road #13-03
HB Robinson
Singapore 068902
Tel: (65) 63278878
Fax: (65) 63278488
Email: info@fidrec.com.sg
Opening Hours:
Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays 9.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m
Tuesdays, Thursdays 9.00 a.m to 7.30 p.m
(prior appointment required after 6.00 p.m)
1. When can I go to FIDReC?
A: If you have a dispute with your financial institution that you haven’t been able to resolve or that hasn’t been resolved to your satisfaction, you should approach FIDReC within 6 months after you received the final reply letter from the financial institution.
2. How much can I claim?
A: The jurisdiction of FIDReC in adjudicating disputes between consumers and financial institutions is as follows:
(1) For claims between insureds and insurance companies: up to S$100,000
(2) For disputes between banks and consumers, capital market disputes and all other disputes (including third party claims and market conduct claims): up to S$50,000
At present, FIDReC’s services are available to all consumers who are individuals or sole-proprietors.
3. How do I file a complaint?
A: Filing a complaint is simple and free of charge. You may lodge your complaint in person, or by fax, post or email. If you have any queries or difficulties in lodging the complaint, you may contact FIDReC at 6327 8878.
4. How much will it cost?
A: Filing a complaint is free of charge. Where a Case Manager takes your complaint up with the financial institution concerned and is unable to facilitate a resolution, you can then choose to refer your complaint to adjudication. If you choose to do so, you need to pay an adjudication case fee.
5. What if I am not happy with FIDReC’s ruling?
A: The decision of the Adjudicator or panel is final and binding on the financial institution, but not on you. If you are not happy with the decision, you are free to reject the decision and pursue your complaint through other avenues. This essentially means that there is no disadvantage at all for you if you choose to lodge your complaint with FIDReC.
6. How long will it take for FIDReC to resolve my dispute?
A: The length of time needed varies with the complexity of each case. FIDReC seeks to resolve all disputes as expeditiously as possible.
This is Part 1 of the dialogue session with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan about Globalization – Threat or Opportunity for the Ordinary Singaporean
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan came across as sincere and charming – and a master politican and storyteller during the recent Ministerial Forum at NUS. Before he started his speech, he sought to establish rapport and bonding – once he was a NUS student, once he was a medical student, part of the alumni etc. He sought to put everyone at ease, we were reassured that he was and is one of us and shared personal anecdotes with us.
He shared about the momentous moment when he watched planes crashing into World Trade Centre (WTC) on TV. He said that by inclination, it was “easier for him to stay outside, make nice speeches, write critical articles.” and that if blogging was popular in 2000, he “would have been part of that”. But watching what happened to WTC – something 12 time zones away – which can affect the security, safety, the cohesion and economic vitality of Singapore made him realize “life was not so straight forward”. “There are things to fight for and it’s not enough to just talk about it.”
That was the night he decided for sure to join politics.
In sharing about globalization, the theme of the dialogue session, he made three key points/ questions -
1. Globalization – can we as a country opt out? Do we have a choice?
2. What makes us special, keeps us competitive, what keeps us in the game?
3. What are the key threats and dangers to us?
The trend of computers and fibre optics propelled us to globalization 3.0. Because of technology and that the price of communication is trending towards zero , an economic unit is no longer just a country or a multi national company, it is about individuals or networks of individuals.
1. Do we in Singapore have a choice?
2. What is so special about Singapore? What is special about Singaporeans?
Dr Balakrishnan related an instance where MM Lee was taken on a cruise round St John’s island and Sentosa to look at potential sites for the future IR back then.
When returning to the city in the evening where the panorama of Marina Bay was displayed, he asked MM Lee about how he felt knowing that there was almost nothing when PAP first took over the reins.
“I was expecting some wonderful gem of wisdom or emotionally-moving, earth-shaking moment,” he said, to laughter from the audience. “But MM Lee is not like that. He looked at me gruffly and said, ‘the hardworking and disciplined people built all this.’”
Some people might say things like “go slow, take time to smell the roses for a less stressful and less competitive life” but the fact is that is the karma of Singapore. We are the hardest working people in the world whether you like it or not and that it is hard to change the culture of an indigenous and immigrant society. However in today’s society, we not only have to work hard, we have to work smart.
Our competitive strengths
**
Coming up next – Part 2 (The key threats and dangers to Singapore)
I did not want to write about this issue earlier because I did not want to pre judge how MAS and the government will handle this issue. But as it is, the silence, the position to distance itself, the local media blackout on HKMA decision and the eventual “breaking news speed” of the local media coverage had once again spoken louder than words could.
Media Coverage
I am disgusted with how sensational journalism is being lent to invoke cheap emotions when there was very real sorrow involved. These photos are splashed across the front page of ST just to show Mrs Ling “looking visibly less upset than last week..welcomed the Government’s move to help”.
‘Looking visibly less upset than last week (pictured below), Mrs Ling, who with her husband sank $100,000 into Minibonds, welcomed the Government’s move to help.’
– ST PHOTOS: CHEW SENG KIM, DESMOND FOO
I am also disgusted at how the government is depicted as a “hero” again. Well, get this straight. MAS only stepped out and issued a statement after Tan Kin Lian’s event to help the affected folks drew thousands. It took a citizen to do the duty of what government people should do. The alarm bells must have gone off in a few government sectors. The government only issued a guarantee of deposits after HKMA pressured their banks to buy back minibonds products.
This is to ensure Singapore’s competitive advantage in the banking and finance sector and I believe, not out of any real sympathy for the people. And have the ministers or MAS ever stopped to ponder about why the banks in Hong Kong would agree to buy back the products? Why did their government or HKMA not pander to the banks?
And please. The ST headline on 18 Oct 08 made me want to vomit. “MAS to Banks: Do the Right Thing”. It was Tan Kin Lian who first blogged and told MAS to do the right thing!
The accountability of MAS
A financial dodo like me might not know how to read a financial product sheet but any qualified and probably overpaid snazzy economist or finance expert in MAS should know and should have known that the product sheets for Minibonds were dodgy. Time for the blame game soon.
The government likes to proclaim that it has no power or control over Temasek Holdings – would it be another skit about how MAS has no jurisdiction or power over banks? In the bid to whore out to banks making their global presence here, are we prepared to screw our people over offending them?
Difference between Hong Kong and Singapore
While Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Donald Tsang “pledged to help those caught up in the Lehman Brothers minibond row get justice if any criminal or civil liability is identified“, our MAS chairman, Mr Goh Chok Tong says that “that’s life, if you want good rewards, you have to take risks. Otherwise, leave your money with the CPF.” and that “MAS is a very professional, rational institution” Oh yes, that I have no doubts about. The MAS is indeed extremely professional and rational towards banks. What is the stance of MAS towards the people?
MAS managing director, Mr Heng Swee Keat, says “We expect them to do the right thing” … “to be accessed on a case-by-case basis“. Am I the only person who feels that such a statement is not straightforward and can be interpreted in creative ways?
While Mr Joseph Yam, Chief Executive of the HKMA, said that the role of the HKMA is to investigate complaints of mis-selling against banks - “The HKMA is dealing with the complaints as quickly as possible. It is, of course, very important that we do this objectively and without pre-judging the issue. If, after investigation, we find cases of mis-selling, we will treat them very seriously“; our MAS says that it has “asked the chief executive officer of these [financial] institutions to personally chair internal review panels to look into these complaints.” I am sure these CEOs will be totally impartial and there will be no conflict of interest to consider.
Scorn versus sympathy
The feedback we have been getting is that mis-selling is rife. I have been getting calls from investors who say that their relationship managers told them it’s like a fixed deposit and that at the end of 5.5 years, they are getting 5% returns. Tell me that is not mis-selling.
Those people who are all smug and arrogant about how they “would not be cheated” or “would not buy something they do not understand” seem to have missed the point that the product was angled to be deceptive or dodgy in the place. Yes, at this point of time, we are all so interested to know your wisdom of diversified investments and how you are not so dumb like some old uneducated folks. Haven’t heard of saying the right thing at the right time?
Yes, I run the risk of sounding stupidly sentimental for objecting to such callousness, but look – gloat privately if you have to instead of rubbing salt in others’ wounds.
**************************************
Media Articles to archive for record
Oct 19, 2008
Look beyond retirees: SM
By Kor Kian Beng , Francis ChanWHILE financial institutions (FIs) ought to focus on the vulnerable group of retiree investors who sank money into Lehman-linked products, they should also look at less clear-cut cases, said Mr Goh Chok Tong yesterday.
The Senior Minister said these cases might involve heavily invested professionals or people who have invested only a part and not their entire savings.
‘For other, less clear-cut cases, the financial institutions may also want to think of ways to retain their customers’ trust and confidence,’ he said at a grassroots event.
‘Such gestures will go a long way to maintaining customer loyalty, and pay off in the long term.’
He noted how some 10,000 Singaporeans had invested over $500million in structured products linked to the collapsed US investment bank Lehman Brothers.
He said that at the time, investors of these products would not have thought the bank would collapse. ‘But this is no consolation. Those who have invested in these products stand to lose a large part of their investment.’
To help them, he said the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had been actively and quietly working with the FIs which sold these products to ensure that any complaints by investors are given a fair and independent hearing.
‘MAS is a very professional, rational institution,’ said Mr Goh, who is MAS chairman.
He reiterated what the authority said last Friday: that FIs ought to pay particular attention to those from the vulnerable group of investors, such as retirees with poor knowledge of investments in financial products, and who were investing significant sums in them for the first time.
If the investors had been mis-sold the product or where the product was clearly inappropriate to their circumstances, ‘MAS expects the FIs to take full responsibility and reach a fair settlement with them. This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis’. If an investor is still not satisfied, he can take the matter to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre.
But he also said everyone must see the losses in perspective. ‘The global financial crisis came without warning, like a tsunami,’ he said. ‘Banks have collapsed. Stock prices have plunged. Millions of people in the world, not just in Singapore, have lost money. So we must be realistic in our expectation of recovering all our losses.’
At a second gathering of investors at Speakers’ Corner yesterday, Mrs Ling Ah Moi, who is in her 70s, said in Teochew that she welcomed the Government’s latest move to help ‘older people’.
But her husband, retired shop owner Ling Jun Zhi, 78, felt it was important for the Government to be more proactive in its help, as it was difficult for retirees to know who to turn to.
The couple sank $100,000 into Minibonds in July when they visited a Hong Leong Finance branch. They were featured in The Straits Times when they showed up at a meeting between DBS High Notes5 investors and the bank last week.
Visibly less upset than last week, Mrs Ling added: ‘It’s good that the Government can help.’
**
Oct 18, 2008
Ready to help in bad times
By Kor Kian BengBAD times may lie ahead but the Government is ready to help, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on Saturday night.
He sent out this message of hope even while he gave a realistic sense of the possible fallout from the global financial crisis.
He named three reasons Singapore, as it prepares for a global downturn, can be confident of emerging from the crisis stronger than ever.
First, the Government is ready to provide help if bad times come, he said at a Marine Parade GRC celebration of Hari Raya Aidilfitri.
In fact, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has asked Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to start thinking of ways to help Singaporeans and companies in the Budget next year, he said.
‘We must do this in a way that not only eases the pain, but also positions ourselves to take advantage of the recovery later on,’ Mr Goh said.
Second, he reminded Singaporeans of past crises they had overcome – the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2003 Sars attack.
‘Those were the days when it seemed like the crisis would never end, but it did, and we bounced back,’ he said, and urged the nation to ’stick together’ to tackle the financial upheaval if it is prolonged.
And third, Singaporeans can take heart that economic fundamentals are strong. The nation will still draw ‘a healthy pipeline’ of investments through the Economic Development Board.
He cited a recent report by OCBC Bank that rated Singapore as the best-equipped among 50 global economies to overcome a serious economic crisis.
The Singapore economy is also more diversified compared to 10 years ago, he said, adding that the heavy national investment in education will help Singaporeans survive the downturn.
‘With education, skills, and a determination to work hard and succeed, we need never fear the future,’ he said.
‘We can survive the temporary difficulties.’
The bigger worry for the Government is whether there will be a global recession, he said. There are signs that this is impending, with the plunge in stock prices worldwide as one indication.
**
Oct 18, 2008
Do the right thing
MAS says priority will be given to lowly-educated retirees who lost money in its probe into mis-selling.
By Ignatius Low & Francis Chan
LOWLY-EDUCATED retiree investors who put their savings in structured products linked to the collapsed Lehman Brothers have been singled out by the Government for special attention.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) wants banks and financial institutions to give this group top priority when investigating complaints of mis-selling.
It also added that banks should not take an ‘overly legalistic’ approach in dealing with such cases.
And in situations where the product was mis-sold or was clearly inappropriate given the investor’s profile and circumstances, MAS wants the financial institutions to take full responsibility.
‘We expect them to do the right thing,’ declared MAS managing director Heng Swee Keat at a press conference yesterday.
Asked what he means by this, Mr Heng later told The Straits Times in an e-mail reply that ‘the financial institution should reach a fair settlement in full or in part’.
‘This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis,’ he added.
Calling them ‘vulnerable customers’, Mr Heng said at the press conference that this group of retirees would be typically be above 55 years of age and have minimal education.
They may also be blue-collar workers or unemployed. Some may not be proficient in English and may be unable to read the structured product’s prospectus, where the risks and mechanics of the investment are spelt out.
But he also added that not all investors fitting this profile would necessarily be inexperienced.
‘We are focusing on cases of mis-selling to vulnerable customers and on cases where the products were clearly inappropriate for them given the circumstances,’ said Mr Heng.
According to MAS, about 10,000 retail investors had pumped over $500 million into structured products linked to the US investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Lehman’s bankruptcy last month has meant that investors holding products such as Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 Linkearner Notes could lose most of their money.
On Wednesday, The Straits Times highlighted the plight of retiree investors who have stopped work and therefore have little hope of recouping their nest-eggs in their lifetime.
Yesterday, MAS reiterated that it will come down hard on anyone who has been found to have mis-sold these products to them. Many retirees say they did not fully understand the products and claim to have been wrongly assured that they would not lose their principal sums.
‘MAS confirms that we have been conducting formal inquiries into allegation of breaches of the law, inadequate internal controls by the financial institutions, or poor sales practices by their representatives,’ said Mr Heng.
‘We will make an announcement on any actions we are taking when our inquiries are completed.’
MAS also said that a ‘number of possible cases’ have already been found by independent parties overseeing the complaints process at each of the financial institutions that had sold the Lehman-linked products.
It added that it is following up on these cases, but gave no further details.
In the meantime, it is urging those affected who have a genuine claim that they were mis-sold their investments, to lodge their complaints with the financial institution they dealt with.
MAS said that it has asked the chief executive officers of these institutions to personally chair internal review panels to look into these complaints.
In each case, MAS wants the panel to decide what to do within four weeks and communicate its decision to the customer.
If investors are still not satisfied with the decision, they can take their case to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec).
Mr Heng emphasised that the Fidrec mediation process is free of charge and if the case goes to arbitration, the cost to the customer is just $50.
Fidrec normally deals with claims not exceeding $50,000. But in the case of structured products, the centre has agreed to hear all ‘deserving cases’.
Responding to the MAS’ statements yesterday, DBS Bank said it is ‘now reviewing all concerns raised on High Notes 5 in a prompt and comprehensive manner, and will not hesitate to take responsibility in instances where evidence of mis-selling is established’. The Straits Times understands that the bank has already given special attention to retirees.
Hong Leong Finance, which distributed Lehman Minibonds, said it ‘will focus special attention on those above 55 years old, less educated and first time investors in structured products’.
Maybank said that it has to date, contacted 50 per cent of customers with complaints to schedule interviews. It told The Straits Times that it is also dealing with ‘vulnerable customers’ first.
Investors and investor advocates applauded the MAS move, with Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, saying that it is ‘obvious that this group needs more help’.
But Aljunied GRC MP Cynthia Phua also added that while it is a ‘good step forward’, MAS still needs to address deficiencies at the bank level in selling these products.
**
THE Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has decided against following Hong Kong’s lead in requiring banks to buy back Lehman Brothers-linked Minibonds at market price from investors.
MAS managing director, Mr Heng Swee Keat, told reporters at a media conference yesterday that one of its key priorities now was to ensure that HSBC Trustee, the trustee for the Minibond programme, carefully considers all options and acts in the interests of investors.
He said that the trustee, which is now working on finding a new swap counterparty to replace collapsed Lehman in the programme, was already acting on the requests of investors who had submitted a petition to the MAS on Sept 24.
If a new swap counterparty is found, investors will be given the opportunity to vote on this option, he said.
Such an option raises the possibility that investors might eventually get some of their money back.
In the meantime, the MAS will also appoint an independent financial adviser to assist investors in making an ‘informed decision’.
‘Many individuals who purchased structured products linked to Lehman Brothers are worried about their investments,’ said Mr Heng.
‘MAS has been actively working to ensure a fair resolution for these investors…Our first priority has always been to help affected investors.’
Last week MAS disclosed that 8,000 retail investors had spent a total of $375 million on the Minibond programme.
Yesterday, Hong Kong Association of Banks chairman He Guangbei said that banks said they will buy back Minibonds from investors in the territory at ‘market value’ as proposed by the Hong Kong government.
An independent financial adviser was also appointed to handle the buyback process, including the valuation of toxic structured products that have been the bane of many disgruntled retail investors both in Hong Kong and Singapore where nine banks and financial institutions had distributed Minibonds.
Investors in the product in both markets have protested in recent weeks demanding compensation.
Many claimed they were told that Minibonds were a low-risk product when they were in fact complex derivatives which many did not fully understand.
Last week, the MAS had also announced that HSBC Trustee had informed the central bank that that ‘a few financial institutions are currently considering taking on (the) role’ of the swap counterparty and should there be a firm offer from an appropriate party, the trustee would seek the necessary approval from investors.
Mr Heng said the MAS expects the trustee to know whether options will be available to Minibond investors by the end of next week.
**
WHAT IS EXPECTED OF BANKS
‘Where a customer has been mis-sold the product or where the product was clearly inappropriate to his circumstances, the financial institution should reach a fair settlement in full or in part. This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.’
MAS managing director Heng Swee Keat in an e-mail reply to The Straits Times
A GOOD MOVE, BUT WILL IT BE ENOUGH?
‘This group obviously needs more help…as far as I know, during last Saturday’s rally, this was the group of people that came shouting or crying. I do not think it’s the right approach to deal with this on a case-by-case basis… But I like what MAS is saying that they are asking the banks and FIs to do the right thing.’
Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals
‘I think it is a good sign that the MAS is finally putting more emphasis on this particular group of investors, but I am 54 now and still working – so it is a grey area for me. Let’s hope they will examine each case by its merit.’
Mr L. Tan a DBS High Notes 5 investor. Yesterday, he lodged a case of mis-selling to DBS Bank
‘If you look at the words ?do the right thing’, I actually put in my blog to appeal to the MAS to do exactly that. Now that we all know that this issue is so serious – something we didn’t know before – we should now come in and say: ?Hey, we made a mistake, let’s all come together to solve this.’…I think this is a good step and of course we should help the vulnerable [investors] first. But the other people are also equally misled… although they too should have been more careful – so it’s a matter of the extent of compensation.’
Mr Tan Kin Lian, 60, the former chief executive officer of insurer NTUC Income
**
Oct 18, 2008
Swap counterparty for Minibonds programme?
By Francis ChanTHERE is good news for investors of Minibonds, a structured product linked to bankrupt US investment bank Lehman Brothers – A bank based in Hong Kong has expressed an interest to replace Lehman as the swap counterparty for all series of the Minibond programme.
Former chief executive officer of insurer NTUC Income, Mr Tan Kin Lian, shared the good news with about 600 investors who turned up at Speakers’ Corner again on Saturday to hear him speak.
Although he declined to reveal further details of the arrangement, he said the bank had approached him after learning about him from his blog.
He also said that he had already referred the Hong Kong bank to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and HSBC Trustee, which is the trustee for Minibonds.
Last week, the MAS announced that HSBC Trustee had informed the central bank that ‘a few financial institutions are currently considering taking on (the) role’ of the swap counterparty and should there be a firm offer from an appropriate party, the trustee would seek the necessary approval from investors.
On Friday, managing director of MAS, Mr Heng Swee Keat also said that the MAS expects the trustee to know whether options will be available to Minibond investors by the end of next week.
Singapore
See my earlier list here.
As of 9 October 2008, the AVA has detected melamine in three additional products imported from China. Two of the products contain milk as an ingredient while the third is meant for manufacturing use and is not available in the retail market. They are
i) Cadbury Choclairs – Blueberry Flavour;
ii) Cadbury Choclairs – Coffee Flavour; and
iii) Panda Dairy Whole Milk Powder (industrial pack).
This brings the total number of affected products to 13. All importers will be required to destroy the tainted products under AVA’s supervision. The other products that were earlier found to be contaminated with melamine are:
i) Yi Li Choice Dairy Fruit Bar Yogurt Flavoured Ice Confection;
ii) Dutch Lady Strawberry Flavoured Milk;
iii) White Rabbit Creamy Candy;
iv) Dutch Lady Banana Flavoured Milk;
v) Dutch Lady Honeydew Flavoured Milk;
vi) Silang – House of Steamed Potato – Potato Cracker;
vii) ??? Puffed Rice Rolls – Butter Corn Flavour;
viii) ??? Puffed Rice Rolls – Cheese Flavour;
ix) New Sshmallows Mallow Dippers – Strawberry Flavour; and
x) Silang – House of Steamed Potato – Potato & Tomato Cracker
Japan
With thanks to Mr Jeff Goh for the tips regarding Japan and Malaysia.
This article was first published in The Online Citizen.
I found it hauntingly apt that JB Jeyaretnam had said this in July earlier this year -
Cast off the slumber into which you have been led into for the last 10 years. Wake up to your rights as a human being, to your proper role as citizens of this country.
It was right about this time when I became politically and socially vocal again. I would like to say that Mr Jeyaretnam played a part in my citizenship exploration. As such, I would like to dedicate my first article in my TOC column to Mr Jeyaretnam and his family.
**
.jpg)
Recently, I had an opportunity to meet and speak with Minister Lim Swee Say in a dialogue session. As I am neither pro or anti PAP, I can honestly say that there is nothing to dislike about him as he seems affable and modest enough – save for the million dollar salary and the usual partisan pokes. As a minister, he comes across as being more approachable and genuine than his peers. The feedback from my conversations with my fellow dialogue participants is that he seems more sincere and honest than the likes of Wong Kan Seng or Mah Bow Tan.
I have tried to replicate his words as closely as possible in this article – to echo his ability to talk to people from all walks of life. He seldom uses big words and in fact, speaks simply to get his points across.
Background about Minister Lim Swee Say
Mr Lim Swee Say entered politics and joined the labour movement in 1996 to help the rank and file workers upgrade and remain employable. He served as Deputy Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress from 1997 to 1999 before he was appointed Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology and Minister of State for Trade and Industry in June 1999. He became Acting Minister for the Environment in October 2000 and Minister for the Environment in November 2001. In August 2004, Mr Lim was appointed Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for National Development. He served concurrently as Deputy Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress. He relinquished the appointment of Second Minister for National Development on 1 October 2005 to serve full time in the labour movement. From January 2007, Mr Lim serves as the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress.
On Country
Minister Lim said ,”China has Deng Xiao Ping, Singapore has Lee Kuan Yew and that’s why we have been growing as a nation”. While it is obvious that both leaders have been instrumental in the modernization of their countries, I felt slightly perturbed by the analogy. Here’s why.
Credits to Wikipedia
*The name is derived from “Prague Spring”, an political liberalization which occurred in Czechoslovakia in 5 Jan – 21 Aug 1968.
In comparing the Minister Mentor of Singapore to a communistic de facto leader of China who ruled with an iron fist, what was the sublimate message?
On Life
“Life is a total package – you cannot have the best of both worlds. There are always trade offs. Everything in life is neutral – anything can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it.”
MrLim then went on to illustrate the issues of foreign talent and the integrated resorts” as examples of how they can be viewed as “good” or “bad” depending on “the angle you look at things”.
I am generally wary of the play on semantics, especially from it comes from someone who seems extremely affable and likable. The likelihood of being lured into a false sense of security and agreement is sadly and frequently real.
A grassroots helper in her 40s once said to me, “Mr Lim is a ????. He won’t lie to us. If he says that CPF cut will help us, it must be true.”
Policies
“The government, in drafting policies, have to consider if it will have good or bad results in the future. Will it be sustainable? Any government can do right today. How about 5 – 10 years down the road?
We have to look at the long term perspective.”
With that, we will have to question the “Stop at 2″ initiative to curb birth rates in the 70s, which had led to the bleeding population rate today.
We also have to query the long term implication of a short term stop gap solution of importing foreign talent. While we are suffering from a frail replacement ratio here, with the sudden influx of adults presently, will it not lead to the problem of a predominantly ageing population in 20 – 30 years’ time?
The introduction of integrated resorts might signal economic gains but what of the social impact? We cannot be compared with the likes of Macau simply because Macau does not have the reputation of being a nanny state and babying its people. Are we as a people sophisticated enough to handle the problems the gambling industry will bring?
Gambling addiction, loansharking and family degeneration aside, what about the sex trade? How is the government going to handle the problem of increasing sex escorts and workers drawn to our shores because of big money playing at the tables? Do the CDCs have subsidies in place to help the family members of a gambling addict or a debt-ridden family?
I have many questions but no answers.
The connection between the Labour movement and the government
“The companies and businesses have to trust the government. There can be no trust without consistency. Imagine if the government says one thing today and another the next? How can investors trust in such a government?
There has to be a Tripartite relationship between the government, the union and the businesses.
So where does the People stand in such a tripartite relationship??
Questions put forth to Minister Lim Swee Say
In an interview with CNA’s S Ramesh, Mr Lim said,
“The worse thing that any country does at a time of high inflation would be for the unions and workers to push for wage inflation. Wage inflation is different from wage increment. Wage inflation means you are pushing up wages to fully offset the inflation,”
Using the above as a reference, I asked Mr Lim,
While we, as citizens, help the lower income group by volunteering and social enterprise, how does the government plan to reach out to the lower income group?
Also, I brought up the issue of socio-political bloggers and asked,
What is the official stand of the government towards bloggers?
He reply to me was
“You ask me, I ask who?”
He went on to say, “Find your own answers.”
Although how I am to find the answers to my questions, which basically required the information from the horse’s mouth, I do not know. It is almost like a vicious circle, a Catch 22 to which we can find no concrete tangible answers.
Once again, I have many questions but I get no answers.
He ended the session with the sharing of a quote that had impacted his life -
“People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.”
Perhaps the real question I should have asked Mr Lim was,
“How much do you care? How much does the government care?”
