TR EMERITUS

Video produced by The Enquirer TV, The Singapore Enquirer Part 1  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaoR5gezGJg&hl=en&fs=1] Part 2 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlMDaXMbnmo&hl=en&fs=1] Excerpts from Mr Tan Kin Lian's speech: "The petitions were to ask the government if the banks who marketed the products have broken two laws.....I presented the signatures with 983 signatures and a letter to MAS.... MAS receive the petition and after that I follow up to ask  if they have conducted an independent investigation. They never answer. They only say whatever we do we will announce through the media release. All of you receive the media release, did you receive any news whether there was any investigations, No." "When the laws are broken, we have the government, we have the police, we have the Attorney-General, it is their duty to investigate whether laws are broken, so far we have not heard any news. I myself tried to call MAS and ask if we can have a discussion. They say 'no, they cannot discuss with individual investors." "I wanted to submit the petition in person to MAS Chairman Mr Goh Chok Tong, but he is traveling, so I say can you give me a senior person to talk to, they give me a junior person, so I say I might as well send by email. They acknowledge my email, of course I want to meet with them, but again they refuse. Did they investigate how the RMs were trained. We don't know, no news." "I think by now, many of us are very disappointed, how can after so many months, this kind of outcome. Of course MAS says investors should lodge a complaint with the bank and the bank must give you an answer within 4 weeks and if the answer is no, you should go to FIDReC." "According to the complaint process, you get an answer within 4 weeks. Many people after 4 weeks got no answer, so they come to me. Honestly I don't know as I am not the person in charge. MAS is in charge." "I do a survey in my blog and 17 people replied.....the 17 people represent what is happening roughly to everybody. Actually there are 16 replies, one of them only submit complaint 2 weeks ago. Of the 16 replies, 10 of them say they receive an answer from the bank, 6 say never receive. The 10 who receive an answer, the average is six and a half weeks, so MAS 4 weeks mostly exceeded, more than 4 weeks, so it is between 4 and 10 weeks. Of the 10, 9 were rejected, which means no case. 1 say got compensation.....he never give particulars, I don't know true or not true." "Another 6 submitted and still no news. How long did they wait ? Between 5 to 9 weeks, no news. So a lot of cases are still no news. Next question is: 'do you intend to complain to FIDReC.' Many say they will complain though honestly they think complain also no use. There are alot of people who are discouraged. But three say they will not complain, they don't want to waste their time." EDITORS’ NOTE: The Singapore Enquirer will be burning the speeches of Mr Tan Kin Lian on 29 Nov 2008, 6 Dec 2008, 13 Dec 2008 and 27 Dec 2008 on DVD. If you are interested in getting a copy of the DVD, please email us at [email protected] and we will post it to you by mail completely F.O.C.  Read More →

By Eugene Yeo, reporting on site from Hong Lim Park, 6.10pm Over 300 investors turned up at Hong Lim Park to attend Mr Tan Kin Lian's last minibond rally.  Subsequent meetings will be organized by the group leaders for the various notes. Mr Tan began by presenting a summary of the minibond rallies he had held so far since October. He had sent 3 petitions to MAS and no reply was heard. Letters sent to MAS to investigate the banks for possible breaches of law under the Financial and Securities Act were also not given a reply. After following the authorities' advice to follow the complaint process in Singapore, there is still no resolution in sight for the minibond investors. In a survey done on Mr Tan's blog participated by 16 people, most receive a reply from the banks after the mandatory 4 week period set by MAS. Out of 10 who did hear from the bank, 9 cases were rejected.  Few investors have expressed their willingness to lodge a second complaint to the arbitrary authority FIDReC, claiming that they lack "confidence" in the process. In a rather blunt criticism of the authorities, Mr Tan castigates them for not giving a reply to him and the investors. Using himself as an example, he said he would make an effort to reply to every email investors sent to him even though he is not paid to do so. On the contrary, the officials who are earning a regular salary to do the job should be more proactive in attending to this matter. He said Singapore has now become a place where there is neither accountability or transparency to the cheers of the crowd. Mr Tan told the crowd he has consulted a few Senior Counsels, some of whom were his friends for many years and none of them are keen to take up the case as they are connected with the banks. Even for those who are not, they do not want to spend time to study the prospectus unless they are paid a fee to do so. In the end, only one lawyer, Mr Leonard Loo has agreed to study the case without charging a fee. Mr Tan urged the investors to join the collective legal action as it offers the only hope for them to reclaim some  of their loss from the banks. He feels there is a good chance that the banks will settle the cases out of court as there will be alot of negative publicity should the suit goes all the way to High Court. Even the government may be compelled to intervene by pressurizing the banks to compensate the investors since a protracted messy legal wrangle will tarnish Singapore's reputation as a legal hub. Mr Leonard Loo, who was carrying his 2 year old child, also gave a brief speech to the investors of his plans for them. He will be giving a more detailed briefing next Tuesday at a seminar organized by the newly set up "Minibond Victims group". Mr Tan ended the day by giving the participants a small memento of a pocket calender to commemorate the rallies he had organized. Though there is still no resolution in sight after 8 rallies, Mr Tan has been instrumental in bringing the investors together. EDITORS' NOTE: The Singapore Enquirer team will be uploading the speeches of Mr Tan and Mr Loo in a short while. Stay tuned here for more updates.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Chief Editor The legalization of outdoor protests at Hong Lim Park and the possible relaxation of laws governing political discourse in cyberspace was welcomed by some overly optimistic observers (read CNA  article) who predict it will herald in an era of greater openness and liberalization of political space in Singapore. Unfortunately, this latest political development in Singapore will prove to be another false dawn as the autocratic PAP is unlikely to yield more ground than is warranted in order to preserve their hegemony. In the first place, the initiatives rolled out by the government are meant to serve their own vested interests rather than to expand the political space when there was never any pressure exerted on them to do so by Singaporeans. The large turnout at the minibond rallies comprising mostly of silver-haired retirees who are desperate to recoup their investment losses can hardly be construed as a political awakening for Singaporeans. Allowing outdoor protests at Hong Lim Park is a tactical move to deflect international criticisms of Singapore's draconian laws prohibiting freedom of assembly following the World Bank fiasco last year and to circumvent SDP's strategy of discrediting its laws through civil disobedience. Now that protests have been permitted albeit in a limited way, it will certainly slow down the momentum of SDP's push for greater liberalization. As for the widely anticipated change in laws governing cyberspace such as decriminalizing the production of political podcasts, it is more of removing an obsolete law which is impossible to enforce which has proven to be embarrassing to the regime than a calculated move to promote greater political debate amongst the nation's net-savvy younger generation. Looking at things from this perspective, it is clear that the PAP has no desire or motivation to further expand the political space beyond mere tokenism for purposes of political contingency. In fact, the state-controlled media has added a spin to it to make it appear that the PAP is an enlightened and liberal government which understands the aspirations of Singaporeans so as to appeal to the P65 generation of voters. While the easing of rules have added vibrancy to the country's dour political landscape, its core remain essentially unchanged - the PAP system. As long the PAP system is not challenged directly, the PAP is quite contented to allow ordinary citizens to question and dispute its policies. Yes, we can throw whatever brickbats we have at them, but at the end of the day, they still call the shots. The latest moves are no more than PR exercises to revamp its patriarchal image in order to win the hearts of the young voters who may be put off by its repressive laws. The PAP is still the same old PAP. It will never allow an alternative center of power to emerge in Singapore simply because it cannot afford to. After enjoying uninterrupted power for over four decades, the concept and practice of "parliamentary democracy" has become a foreign word to the PAP. Any moves which threaten the status quo will not be tolerated as evident in its relentless prosecution of opposition politicians who advocate reform of their system of governance such as the late Jeyaretnam and Dr Chee. And Singaporeans are still the same apathetic Singaporeans. In an increasingly difficult economic climate, most are  more concerned about their pockets rather than political space. Unless we see a thousand Singaporeans gathering at Hong Lim Park to call for greater political openness, we are unlikely to progress beyond this present infantile stage of political maturity.  Read More →