• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Tan Kin Lian and disgraced lawyer Leonard Loo

aurvandil

Alfrescian
Loyal
The sad part about the whole saga is that nothing much has changed since the collapse of the mini bonds. According to the latest MAS Mystery Shop mis-selling continues to be fairly widespread. The focus on commissions means that the RM's and other sales people are still more focused on earning commission that giving good advice. For those familiar with how the industry works, many will go to the extent to help retail investors "pass" MAS requirements so that they can sell the product to them. Seriously screwed up ...

MAS Releases Results of Mystery Shopping Survey Conducted on Financial Advisory Process of Banks and Insurers

http://www.mas.gov.sg/en/News-and-P...eases-Results-of-Mystery-Shopping-Survey.aspx

6 July 2012…The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has today, released the findings of its mystery shopping survey on the financial advisory process of banks and insurers (Annex).

2 The objective of the survey was to assess the financial industry’s implementation of MAS’ guidelines on fair dealing (Guidelines on Fair Dealing - Board and Senior Management Responsibilities for Delivering Fair Dealing Outcomes to Customers). These Guidelines set out five fair dealing outcomes, including providing adequate information in the advisory and sales process and ensuring that advice provided to customers is suitable. The Guidelines also emphasise the responsibilities of the Board and Senior Management of financial institutions in delivering these fair dealing outcomes when providing financial advisory services to customers.

3 The survey was conducted from October 2011 to December 2011, and focused on the financial industry’s implementation of Outcome 3 (relating to the quality and suitability of advice) and Outcome 4 (relating to adequacy of information disclosure) of the Guidelines. In total, 126 mystery shoppers made 500 visits to 11 licensed banks and 4 registered insurance companies seeking financial advice from their representatives. The products recommended by the representatives were reviewed for their suitability by a panel of industry practitioners based on the shoppers’ personal profile, their experience during the advisory and sales process, and sales materials obtained from the financial institutions.

4 The key findings of the mystery shopping survey are as follows:

(i) Fact-find1
Fact-find was carried out in the bulk of the visits but the extent of information collected from the shoppers was inadequate. Most representatives obtained information on the shoppers’ personal particulars and employment but other pertinent information such as the shoppers’ investment experience, financial objectives, risk preferences and financial situation were less frequently gathered. Failure to conduct a comprehensive fact-find impedes the ability of representatives to make suitable recommendations.

(ii) Product Disclosure
Most representatives disclosed basic information about the products recommended. These include explanation on whether the product is meant for protection, savings or investment. However, disclosures on risk factors, amount and frequency of fees and charges, warnings, exclusions and caveats, as well as the free-look period were omitted in a significant number of advisory sessions. Inadequate disclosures may result in consumers making poor investment decisions due to lack of understanding of the product’s features and risks.

(iii) Product Suitability
The top three categories of products recommended were endowment insurance policies, unit trusts and investment-linked life policies. Almost a third of the product recommendations were assessed by the industry panel as unsuitable. The main reasons cited were that the products recommended did not match the shoppers’ financial objective or their stated investment horizon.

5 Mystery shopping exercises are a useful complement to MAS’ other supervisory tools to raise market conduct standards. For the industry as a whole, the survey findings suggest that there is significant room for improvement. MAS will share the results of individual institutions with their respective senior management. In areas where they have fallen short of the fair dealing guidelines, the financial institutions are expected to take corrective actions.

6 The Association of Banks in Singapore and the Life Insurance Association have agreed to work with MAS to conduct more regular mystery shopping surveys on their members. The Financial Advisory Industry Review Panel2 will also consider the survey results in formulating their recommendations.
 

rover2sg

Alfrescian
Loyal
He might have appeared at the rally, fell down from the sky etc but that is besides the point. Tan Kin Lian subsequently went on to recommended him after he offered his services. He was associated with him. I raised this before in this forum. Lets not be clever by half.

The URL has been provided by TS for your convenice.

Common sense would have required some due diligence on the part of TKL.

You are right. I have doubts about Loo since I tried to contact him about the Minibond issue. His office was keen that I commit myself before going further. I then sensed something "fishy" and was greatly disappointed when TKL started "recommending" Loo! I then stopped all support for TKL and acted totally on my own and settled with the finance company. :rolleyes:
 

lockeliberal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Thick

I am flabbergasted at how TKL would even allow Leonard to be associated with him despite the protestations from GMS that he forced himself on TKL. Lets get the facts straight.


a. TKL with his years of contact extensive network should have been at worst been seen "recommend" or be " associated " with a decent lawyer who will do real work on behalf of his group of investors whose rights he is supposedly championing.

b. He championed their rights, spoke on their behalf and left them with a legal arsehole who screwed them a second time after the banks. I would add that he TKL probably screwed them a third by using them for his own ends.

c. I have nothing against politicians using people, but in a world of you scratch my back I scratch yours it would be better to have delivered real help even if it was pure BS as there are real lives at stake.



Locke




Lawyer Leonard Loo was struck off the rolls today after numerous complaints about his professional conduct.

He was the same lawyer than Tan Kin Lian roped in to help minibond investors explore the possibility of a class action lawsuit in 2008/2009.

Leonard Loo also spoke at TKL minibond rallies at Hong Lim Park.

______________________________________________________________

http://tankinlian.blogspot.sg/2008/11/collective-legal-action-leonard-loo.html

[h=3]Collective legal action - Leonard Loo[/h]
For investors who wish to consider collective legal action, you can attend a briefing by Leonard Loo.

Details below:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/lawyer-no-obligation-no-fee.html

Leonard Loo has proposed that the investors give their intent to take collective action and register their claim. He will explain the strategy to the investors at his briefing. The aim is that actual legal action will be taken only at the last resort and out-of-court settlement will be preferred, in the interest of all parties.

_________________________________________________________________


http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_825331.html

A lawyer with the dubious record of having the most number of complaints filed against him was struck off the rolls on Monday.


Mr Leonard Loo Peng Chee, 41, who has 15 years of experience, did not attend the hearing before a Court of Three Judges to defend himself against the Law Society's bid to disbar him for professional misconduct.


The society had received 14 complaints from his clients and the courts, covering at least 86 instances of misconduct, including dishonesty.


The litany of complaints filed against the partner of Leonard Loo LLP included his being ill-prepared to argue his case, being being late for court hearings or not showing up and not complying with court directions.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
As a general rule, I do have reservations against promoting any lawyer or law firms during the Minibond saga, not that I have any special information of any lawyer or law firm. Look, TKL has approached his various contacts and none of them want to get involved, most probably afraid of being seen as "anti-establishment". At the short end of things, any plausible help would be appreciated. TKL felt that since there are lawyers willing to come forward to offer their services, he would just provide the information to the Minibond victims.

I think as arm chair critics, it is easy to belittle or even discredit other people's hard work. Try doing it yourself, holding over 8 or 9 rallies burning every weekends, trying to help other people to seek justice without being paid anything. The little committee of volunteers have committed time, money, effort and resources without any other funds! Well, at least MPs are paid over $14K but they didn't help!

Well, I have been in contact with the Minibond victims' movement in HK as well and I can see that they are much better organized because the political party, Democratic Party, has put in effort to help the victims, both from the Legco side as well as the technical side outside the legislative framework. They have readily available lawyers who would help out to fight the cases if needed. We have nothing in Singapore in spit of the fact that we also have lawyers in the parliament!



Goh Meng Seng




He might have appeared at the rally, fell down from the sky etc but that is besides the point. Tan Kin Lian subsequently went on to recommended him after he offered his services. He was associated with him. I raised this before in this forum. Lets not be clever by half.

The URL has been provided by TS for your convenice.

Common sense would have required some due diligence on the part of TKL.

You are right. I have doubts about Loo since I tried to contact him about the Minibond issue. His office was keen that I commit myself before going further. I then sensed something "fishy" and was greatly disappointed when TKL started "recommending" Loo! I then stopped all support for TKL and acted totally on my own and settled with the finance company. :rolleyes:
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Dear Locke,

Don't be over-judgemental.

TKL won't look for me if his "well connected associates" are willing to help! They are afraid to be seen as "anti-establishment"! I guess Singaporeans are pretty ungrateful if they hold such views. Those who have stood up, overcome their entrenched FEAR factor. You should question instead why so many of these Highly Well-off connected people don't have the guts to move forward to work for social justice instead of questioning TKL! And of course, you should also question your very own party why nothing was done at all if the core value of social justice and rule of law are what they claim they believe in.

Goh Meng Seng




Dear Thick

I am flabbergasted at how TKL would even allow Leonard to be associated with him despite the protestations from GMS that he forced himself on TKL. Lets get the facts straight.


a. TKL with his years of contact extensive network should have been at worst been seen "recommend" or be " associated " with a decent lawyer who will do real work on behalf of his group of investors whose rights he is supposedly championing.

b. He championed their rights, spoke on their behalf and left them with a legal arsehole who screwed them a second time after the banks. I would add that he TKL probably screwed them a third by using them for his own ends.

c. I have nothing against politicians using people, but in a world of you scratch my back I scratch yours it would be better to have delivered real help even if it was pure BS as there are real lives at stake.



Locke
 

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
The truth is the majority of minibond victims did get back partial compensation and some even managed to get full refund. This cannot be achieved without the involvement of TKL and GMS who did mission impossible by taking on MAS and financial institutions.


jixiaolan,

This is probably an exaggeration. I have a nephew and a niece who invested heavily into minibonds. They were not in Tan Kin Lian's rally, just like the majority of minibond investors. They got a nice sum of money back (not all though) by working closely with their banks and giving important details on how they were mis-sold.

The experience of many minibond investors is that banks became more responsive when they saw what was happening in Hong Kong, and there's reputation at stake. Remember most banks in Singapore are quite engaged internationally and there's need to maintain reputation. As far as they are concerned Tan Kin Lian had very little to do with it. They didn't see the value of a class action lawsuit or the rallies, and in the end what they got back was on par with Hong Kong investors.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
If there is no pressure applied by the massive protest rallies, do you think your niece and nephew have any chance of getting back their monies? Come on, stop kidding yourself! If the question of "mis-selling" wasn't even raised, nobody would understand what it means. If no information on what the Mini-bond is all about, nobody won't even understand about the risks involved, least about the mis-selling part.

In short, your niece and nephew are just FREE RIDER on the amount of work done by TKL and his team but yet, you are just disregarding their efforts! I think that's very ungrateful indeed.


Goh Meng Seng


jixiaolan,

This is probably an exaggeration. I have a nephew and a niece who invested heavily into minibonds. They were not in Tan Kin Lian's rally, just like the majority of minibond investors. They got a nice sum of money back (not all though) by working closely with their banks and giving important details on how they were mis-sold.

The experience of many minibond investors is that banks became more responsive when they saw what was happening in Hong Kong, and there's reputation at stake. Remember most banks in Singapore are quite engaged internationally and there's need to maintain reputation. As far as they are concerned Tan Kin Lian had very little to do with it. They didn't see the value of a class action lawsuit or the rallies, and in the end what they got back was on par with Hong Kong investors.
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
At no time was Loo mentioned as the "preferred" lawyer or "official lawyer" for the Minibond saga. He was at that place offering his service and willing to give legal advice. Thus, he was introduced. However, later into the saga, another lawyer also shown interests in providing his service, he was too introduced to the victims. What's wrong with that?


Goh Meng Seng,

Mr Loo at the Tan Kin Lian rally brought along a small one-or-two year old child to carry in front of the cameras. He had two women folk beside him to take care of the child and pass it to him at the correct moment when cameras were snapping. Let's not be coy about it, he was there for the attention, the same was our oldie Goh Chok Tong was once famous for kissing babies near election time.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Yeah sure... you still can't understand what goes on in the whole saga!

The protest rallies provided the pressure front, not only for those who went to the protests but all those affected by the Minibond.

If that is easy to show off photo shoots and such, why not you try to do it next time? Or your party WP do it?

Let's face it, WP didn't even dare to get involved basically because they don't even know what the hell is going on, least about what Minibond is all about. They didn't even bother to do research about it.

I think all of you WP people are just "JEALOUS" of what other people have "GAINED" from their activism without really looking into why WP didn't even bother to uphold justice and rule of law.

Goh Meng Seng



Goh Meng Seng,

Mr Loo at the Tan Kin Lian rally brought along a small one-or-two year old child to carry in front of the cameras. He had two women folk beside him to take care of the child and pass it to him at the correct moment when cameras were snapping. Let's not be coy about it, he was there for the attention, the same was our oldie Goh Chok Tong was once famous for kissing babies near election time.
 

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Please read my post again. I am saying without any effort put in, the victims may not even get a penny back! This is due to the fact that the PAP govt has shown hardline attitude ("walk in with their eyes open") and the govt is the major shareholders of almost all the banks in Singapore.

Goh Meng Seng



Your reasoning is not right. Temasek is majority shareholder of the big banks, yes, but that does not mean anything in the minibond saga. Its unlikely Temasek used their shareholdings to influence banks not to compensate victims. The banks started to fear for their reputation after Hong Kong started to show positive results. There was a mad scramble to appease as they knew international reputation was at stake.

Nothing to do with govt or Temasek here.
 

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
If that is easy to show off photo shoots and such, why not you try to do it next time? Or your party WP do it?

Let's face it, WP didn't even dare to get involved basically because they don't even know what the hell is going on, least about what Minibond is all about. They didn't even bother to do research about it.

I think all of you WP people are just "JEALOUS" of what other people have "GAINED" from their activism without really looking into why WP didn't even bother to uphold justice and rule of law.

Goh Meng Seng



Hey up till now I have been polite to you. Why call me "WP people". Am I with WP? You know my real identity?

Good heavens!
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
I guess you are just living in Mary the Wonderland to say that!

The fundamental problems with Singapore's system is that the govt is involved in almost every big corporations that runs Singaporeans' lives. This is the fundamental conflict of interests lie. If you can't even understand that, please, don't get involved in politics.




Goh Meng Seng


Your reasoning is not right. Temasek is majority shareholder of the big banks, yes, but that does not mean anything in the minibond saga. Its unlikely Temasek used their shareholdings to influence banks not to compensate victims. The banks started to fear for their reputation after Hong Kong started to show positive results. There was a mad scramble to appease as they knew international reputation was at stake.

Nothing to do with govt or Temasek here.
 

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
If there is no pressure applied by the massive protest rallies, do you think your niece and nephew have any chance of getting back their monies? Come on, stop kidding yourself! If the question of "mis-selling" wasn't even raised, nobody would understand what it means. If no information on what the Mini-bond is all about, nobody won't even understand about the risks involved, least about the mis-selling part.

In short, your niece and nephew are just FREE RIDER on the amount of work done by TKL and his team but yet, you are just disregarding their efforts! I think that's very ungrateful indeed.


Goh Meng Seng



This is pure speculation on your part. I however have actual anecdotal stories from real life minibond holders who went through the whole process without Tan Kin Lian or Loo. Why don't you talk to people who were actually involved instead of trying to defend the indefensible.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
WP people don't really mean WP members, just refer to WP supporters and members. Aren't you one?

Goh Meng Seng


Hey up till now I have been polite to you. Why call me "WP people". Am I with WP? You know my real identity?

Good heavens!
 

Hawkeye1819

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
The sad part about the whole saga is that nothing much has changed since the collapse of the mini bonds. According to the latest MAS Mystery Shop mis-selling continues to be fairly widespread. The focus on commissions means that the RM's and other sales people are still more focused on earning commission that giving good advice. For those familiar with how the industry works, many will go to the extent to help retail investors "pass" MAS requirements so that they can sell the product to them. Seriously screwed up ...


aurvandil, agree with you on this. It is very pathetic, I have a friend who has 4 life insurance policies from the same female adviser. He most certainly does not need that much protection.

By the way, I believe you don't need to pass MAS investor checklist in order to buy products. Only when you invest money yourself or trade foreign shares or forex, then you need to pass the checklist. That's what advisers are for -- those who don't pass are allowed (in fact, supposed) to purchase products under advice of an FAR.

The whole industry has not changed one whit. Everything is still about the commissions and the life planning or fact finding process is just a smokescreen. How many people actually look at their financial life plan after they bought the product? I think most advisers just file it away and forget about it, until the next review!
 

jixiaolan

Alfrescian
Loyal
I would like to remind you of our massive CLOB losses. There was no honglim park then and no one came out to speak out for us. Singapore is an unique country. Even if you are conned, you still need to fill up questionair for the regulator to access whether you can be categorised as a misguided victim.

jixiaolan,

This is probably an exaggeration. I have a nephew and a niece who invested heavily into minibonds. They were not in Tan Kin Lian's rally, just like the majority of minibond investors. They got a nice sum of money back (not all though) by working closely with their banks and giving important details on how they were mis-sold.

The experience of many minibond investors is that banks became more responsive when they saw what was happening in Hong Kong, and there's reputation at stake. Remember most banks in Singapore are quite engaged internationally and there's need to maintain reputation. As far as they are concerned Tan Kin Lian had very little to do with it. They didn't see the value of a class action lawsuit or the rallies, and in the end what they got back was on par with Hong Kong investors.
 

jixiaolan

Alfrescian
Loyal
I wish I could agree with you. Sometimes, I wonder how nice if we can do away with opposition in the parliament. So few of them, so silent and even if they will to open their mouths, they are not going to change a thing anyway.

I am not so sure. All the jurisdictions around the world without exception (lets watch GMS google to prove otherwise) involved regulators forcing banks to buy-back the bonds for some value. My sense is that even if Tan Kin Lian and GMS were not born, the end result would be the same. Singapore despite run by greedy arseholes tend to toe the financial world in these thing as Singapore is a major financial hub.

The minibond saga however was a great opportunity for them to sell their political credentials and secure some votes.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
If you are not those ardent WP supporters who will defend WP and whack other parties, then my apologies to you.

I have been seeing lots of such people around for the past years and getting tired of them. I am all for social and political activism, even if some of these people have even scolded me vulgarity in public or private. I don't discount or brush aside their contributions, however little it may be.

But the arrogance of WP people really puts me off and I only put up the shortcomings of WP to show that there are things WP chose not to do (for whatever reasons they might have) while others pick it up. But to turn around and put down other people's contributions and hardwork, that is really totally uncalled for.

Frankly speaking, even for me, when I first know about Minibond, at first impression and sight when some bank tellers were trying to sell it to me, as finance and economics trained person, I also thought it was just a big piece of bonds (bonds are usually in the tens or hundreds of thousands ) being split into smaller sizes and sold as such. I didn't know much about the risk swap and such things. It was a very clever trick in using the misleading word "Minibond" to project a safe financial instrument. But I didn't fall for it because the so call 6% return looks very suspicious to me. Instinctively, my philosophy is no risk no gain.

Anyway, the point is, even if I am not too familiar with such things or issues, I could well do my own research and read up many other writings. Internet is such a wonder thing that you could practically get yourself educated in almost anything you want. If you have the heart to help out, the strong mind to uphold the most basic fundamental core principles and values, there are ways for you to do so by working hard on the research.

TKL and his team, walked into the Minibond activism with basically inadequate but basic knowledge and information. It is only later when we do a closer study on this monster Minibond and structured financial instruments that we found so much injustice in the whole thing....basically, investors have been totally fooled. It took us many man hours to figure out what the hell this monster is about. I have my more comprehensive understanding by reading the newspapers in HK which did a detailed and comprehensive dissection of Minibond.

Thus, I emphatize with investors like your niece and nephews for being fooled into this scam and we fought on. However, as I have said, if it is not through the team effort of putting up massive information and showing the truth and facts of the nature of this scam, there won't be any pressures on the govt and banks/financial institutions to own up and compensate.

The govt, particularly MAS, didn't make good of its accountability of letting such a scam to get into the financial system and harm unsuspecting investors. They kept quiet and distance themselves from any blame. Even in HK, which the Legco's report has just recently released, pointed out that the HK govt has to take up part of the responsibility for allowing this scam to past through their gatekeeping. Particularly, the previous head of financial regulation has been censured. This is only possible when the opposition in the Legco pressed for thorough investigations.

HK is a better free democracy than Singapore even though it doesn't have universal suffrage. But such freedom is not taken for granted. It took many people of many efforts and contributions to uphold its core values. But in Singapore, we have people who, for their own selfish interests, try to belittle other people's efforts and hardwork. This is a very sad thing to me. Basically, they don't understand that it takes all kinds of people to keep the Democratic movement to move on. WP alone, isn't going to be effective.


Goh Meng Seng




















Do a search on all my previous posts. My record speaks for itself, and this conversation in this thread speaks volumes about you.
 

aurvandil

Alfrescian
Loyal
By the way, I believe you don't need to pass MAS investor checklist in order to buy products. Only when you invest money yourself or trade foreign shares or forex, then you need to pass the checklist. That's what advisers are for -- those who don't pass are allowed (in fact, supposed) to purchase products under advice of an FAR.

I was using the term "pass" loosely. MAS has guidelines on the type of products that are supposed to be sold to people of different profiles. Instead of doing the fact finding objectively when doing up the profile, many RMs ask questions in a leading manner. Some even go as far as to provide the "correct answer" for the person to reply so that the investor can "pass". Even worse is that if we read the MAS report correctly, some RMs proceeded to sell inappropriate products when the person had "failed" based on the risk profile.

Given the way things are, no surprise if what happened with the mini bonds happens again.
 
Top