TR EMERITUS

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Chief Editor Since we publish the video recording of Mr Goh Meng Seng's speech at Hong Lim Park yesterday, some readers have written to us expressing their concern that we are "politicizing" an issue which should be kept strictly 'financial' in nature. How do we actually define "politicizing" ? In the context of the minibond fiasco, it probably mean making use of it to promote a political personage or cause without truly having the real interests of the investors at heart. Since Mr Tan Kin Lian started organizing the minibond rallies at Hong Lim Park to speak on behalf of the investors to MAS and the financial institutions, his motives were questioned by various quarters, from his friends, ex-colleagues, the media and the investors themselves if he is doing so because he harbors any ambition of running for a political office in the future such as the Presidency. Mr Tan had made his clarfications known on his blog here : "I am already 60 years old and have more than enought savings to take care of my future needs and my family. I do not need to have "political ambitions" for my personal benefit. I will continue my efforts until the mis-selling of the structured products is resolved satisfactorily." Mr Tan Kin Lian has offered his kind assistance to the investors willingly purely out of compassion for the many vulnerable investors who lost their entire life-savings from the purchase of the structure-linked products. Without him to organize and advise them, they will have to resign to their fates and accept whatever settlements the FIs give them which probably means zero compensation. Even if Mr Tan has an iota of political motive behind his actions, what's wrong with that ? Don't we need more courageous and selfless individuals like Mr Tan in Singapore to provide a voice for the "small" people like you or me ? The Wayangparty Club has been actively reporting and publicizing the minibond fiasco because we felt strongly that the general public should be given a fair opportunity to look at the issue from a different perspective instead of the one-sided propaganda churned out by the state media daily in support of the government and banks. None of us in the editorial team are known to the public. What 'political' ambitions can we possibly have ? And our blog has no ads, what economic benefits can we get out of this ? We empathize with the plight of those old uncles and aunties who have lost their everything they have and we felt this is the least we can do for them - to allow their voices to be heard. Mr Goh Meng Seng has been criticized by some netizens for being a 'political opportunist' by 'tapping on' Mr Tan Kin Lian to promote himself. In all fairness, Mr Goh was invited by Mr Tan Kin Lian to translate his speech into Mandarin for those Chinese-educated investors. He did not come knocking on his doors to volunteer his service. During the last three rallies, Mr Goh had stuck faithfully to his given task of giving a Chinese rendition of Mr Tan Kin Lian's speech. There was no time in which he made use of the opportunity to promote himself as an opposition politician or his party - the National Solidarity Party. Did he publicize NSP events to the audience or distribute NSP flyers around ? Were there other NSP members present at the scene ? Even if he were to do so, we cannot fault him for that because as a politician, he has the responsibility to raise his party's profile and visibility. Mr Goh only gave a short speech expressing his views yesterday because according to him in mandarin, he was so peeved by MM Lee's remarks that he felt he has to say something. What did Mr Goh say exactly that is 'politicizing' the minibond issue ? He simply asked the investors to "open their eyes" and vote for the opposition in the next election. We must be able to differentiate between making use of the minibond saga to promote opposition politics or anti-PAP propaganda to instigate hatred against the government which is 'politicizing' from learning a lesson from this matter which is not. What lessons have we learnt from this ? A government dominated by one single party without a strong opposition to keep it in check places too much power in the hands of a few leaders who will have the tendency to make arbitrary decisions for its own convenience without adequately considering the impact of others because there is nobody to question them. In Hong Kong, where there are two main political parties of roughly equal seats in its Legislative Council, political pressure brought upon them by the Hong Kong minibond investors had forced the government to launch a probe into allegations of mis-selling by the bank. There is no effective opposition in Singapore to exert a similar pressure on the PAP government and therefore it can well afford to pussyfoot and shift its fiduciary duties to the FIs when it should be stepping forward to assist the investors on their behalfs. This is our opinion which happens to be Mr Goh's and perhaps Mr Tan's opinions too. We do not expect everybody to agree with us. Sharing one's views on politics should not be misconstrued as tantamount to politicizing which is both erronenous and regrettable.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan and Eugene Yeo It has been almost 2 months since the eruption of the minibond fiasco with an amicable solution acceptable to all parties becoming increasingly remote with each passing day. The troubled investors, some of whom have lost their entire savings from the purchase of these structure-linked products are demanding a full or partial compensation by the financial institutions who sold them the products in the first place. However, the FIs are unwilling to offer compensation to the investors other than those belonging to the vulnerable group. MAS has so far chosen to stay above the fray and have urged the investors repeatedly to lodge their complaints to the FIs and subsequently FIDReC if they feel they are unable to obtain a satisfactory settlement from the FIs. The only recourse left to the investors is either to give up the fight or take their case to court through a collective class action suit. Is this the only way to break out of the current impasse ? Even Mr Tan Kin Lian, who has been most vocal and active in helping the investors seek redress, admits that this will be the last resort only if all else fails. Going through a protracted, onerus and potentially nasty legal battle in the courts will not benefit any party at all. The already traumatized investors will be further drained, the banks' reputation will be affected and the governent's efforts to project Singapore as a business-friendly international financial centre will go to waste. The best hope the investors have is for the government to intervene directly on their behalfs through either of these two ways: 1. Follow the example of the Hong Kong Legislative Council to set up an independent select parliamentary committee vested with special powers to conduct a thorough investigation into the banks. If the banks are found guilty of mis-selling and misrepresention, the government can impose penalties on them and use it to compensate the investors. 2. The government exert direct pressure on the banks behind closed-doors to broaden their coverage of the "vulnerable" group so that more investors can qualify for the compensation. For example, to those investors who are retired and have lost their entire life-savings regardless of age and education level. Mr Tan Kin Lian had called on the investors to continue their struggle by protesting every fortnightly at Hong Lim Park to exert pressure on the government to take action. Will adopting such a head-on approach be effective ? There is a brilliant strategem in Sun Tzu's Art of War which says: "Knowing oneself and one's enemy is a sure way of winning a hundred battles." To stand even half a chance of persuading the government to act, we must first understand the PAP's psyche: 1. Contrary to the general perception, the PAP is a very sensitive government with eyes and ears on the ground almost everywhere. It does care a lot about its image and reputation. 2. The PAP is a very proud government which does not want to "lose face" and succumb to external pressure in any circumstances. When U.S President Bill Clinton wrote a letter pleading with then PM Goh Chok Tong not to cane vandal Michael Fay, he was caned. When Australian Prime Minister John Howard implored Singapore not to hang its citizen, an ethnic Vietnamese for drug trafficking, he was hung anyway. 3. The PAP regards itself as having the popular mandate of the people to govern Singapore and therefore only it has the right and power to dispense "help". It is incredibly intolerant of an alternative center of power competing with it for the love, respect and regard of Singaporeans. In short, it wants to claim all credits on everything to itself and nobody else. While we continue to exert pressure on the PAP, we should also give it some "face", stroke its ego a bit and provide our leaders a ladder to "walk down". Confronting the PAP directly will not do either party any good. Though the government had said explicitly so far that they will not intervene in the minibond fiasco, we can be sure that they are wise enough to realize the repercussions should the saga be dragged on which will have an adverse effect on both their prestige and the nation's reputation as an island of tranquility in a sea of chaos. At some point in time, the PAP may decide enough is enough and exert quiet pressure on the FIs to compensate more investors. However, if they were to do so now, it will appear they have given in to pressure by Mr Tan Kin Lian and the investors which will amount to a loss of 'face', with the inevitable result of making Mr Tan a hero of the people, thereby exposing their own ineptitude. Such a scenario will be a nightmare to the PAP. At this point in time, there are still no clear signs that the PAP will soften their initial stance and therefore the fortnightly protests at Hong Lim Park must continue. The new media should publicize the event widely and disseminate it throughout Singapore's blogosphere. The more Singaporeans know about the truth, the more the government will be put in a tight spot. Now, pushing the PAP into a corner without providing them an escape route will only force them to retaliate. We must provide them a face-saving measure so that it appear that they are now helping the investors out of compassion and kindness and not because of the pressure we have heaped on them. The investors should exert political pressure on the PAP directly by urging their MPs (most of which will be PAP anyway) to bring up the issue in Parliament for debate. Mr Tan can invite a PAP MP, an opposition MP and a NMP to speak together at Hong Lim Park the next time thereby allowing the PAP to share some of his credit for rendering timely assistance to the investors. He is currently taking too much firepower on his own. There's an urgent need to prepare "fire insurance" and share the blame all around so that should anything happen, he will not be made an easy scapegoat. If the PAP acquiesce in this mode of settlement, they may appoint one MP to speak on the behalf of the investors and "fight" for their rights in Parliament. Of course we know this is just a wayang, but let us keep quiet and allow this PAP MP, whoever he or she may be, to replace Mr Tan as the "people's hero". At the end of the day, we must always remember to express our heartfelt "gratitude" and "appreciation" to the PAP which loves to ingratiate itself with such adoration from the people. The mainstream media can then spin a story that the government is moved by the plight of the investors to step in to help them. Though not all investors will receive compensation eventually, at least more will receive needy compensation for their losses. For the PAP, it will not only salvage their battered reputation, but provide a timely boost to their claims as the people's protector, a win-win situation for both parties. We have to face up to reality that we can never resolve the minibond fiasco without allowing the PAP to partake in claiming some credit. Whether it is deserved or not, the ends justify the means. And the end result here means achieving an acceptable albeit imperfect solution to all three parties concerned so that every one of us can move on to more pressing tasks ahead.  Read More →

Video produced and edited by Jeremy Yau from The Singapore Enquirer   Part 1  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-2dAO1tFj0&hl=en&fs=1]   Part 2  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPLlZxAOl2Q&hl=en&fs=1]   Part 3  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBm083MM7Jc&hl=en&fs=1]    Part 4  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIheOcsoqyA&hl=en&fs=1] Excerpts from Mr Goh Meng Seng's speech: "Both Hong Kong and Singapore Monetary Authorities, in the fight to be THE Financial HUB of Asia, have both foolishly gone into "financial deregulation" mode at the beginning of this century. This is why both Hong Kong and Singapore Monetary Authorities allowed such complex and high risk products to be sold by banks to fixed depositors and retail investors openly. However, if we observe carefully, the two governments have very different attitudes and approach to the same whole issue. It is really ironic sometimes. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is not popularly elected in the way of universal suffrage but yet, the approach by his government is PEOPLE FIRST principle. PAP government is "popularly" (well some may dispute this) elected in a General Elections but yet, so far, what we have seen is that this government has sided with the Financial Institutions without even making the effort of conducting a transparent, thorough investigation into the whole thing!" Read Mr Goh's full speech in both English and Chinese at his blog here    Read More →