"TOC is anti-gov..."

[leetahbar]

written in ST FORUM 18-11-08 by a CHUA SHENG YANG.

 

[guavatree]

written in ST FORUM 18-11-08 by a CHUA SHENG YANG.:

bapok PAP dog when is your next cock sucking session with your PAP prostitutes?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

written in ST FORUM 18-11-08 by a CHUA SHENG YANG.

Dear leetahbar,

Can you provide the link?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Questions on investment products rally

Mr Tan (right) speaking to investors at a rally on flawed investment products at Speakers' Corner last month. He organised a fifth rally there last Saturday. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

MR TAN Kin Lian organised yet another rally last Saturday, this time to assist investors to redress their injustices over the collapse of the Pinnacle Notes 9 and 10 series by Morgan Stanley. Too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment.
For example, last Sunday's report about Mr Tan's Saturday rally, ('Angry investors seek action') featured a quote by Ms Lilian Tan, a manager, and Mr Chang Foo Choon, a businessman who had invested $500,000 in the Notes.

Surely, Mr Tan cannot argue that these two people, who are neither elderly nor uneducated, should be entitled to their money back. I assume that someone who has been in management and someone who has run his own business and can afford to invest half a million dollars are aware of the risks of investment. Is Mr Tan organising the rallies at Speakers' Corner for purely altruistic reasons, or is he organising them to help his colleagues in his position as a writer of The Online Citizen, a website which is well known to have an anti-government stance?

It was not too long ago that Mr Tan was the chief executive officer of NTUC Income and his own agents adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous.

Why did Mr Tan not tell his agents to practise more ethics then, when he was CEO?

And why is he protesting against local banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and not taking his fight to Morgan Stanley? Is it also aimed at politicising the matter? I urge the Government and the banks not to cave in to the political solution of reimbursing all investors.

Chua Sheng Yang

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Thanks Por,

This writer is apparently losing touch with the ground. The returns does not match the amount of risks embedded in the products and there is a great deal written on on how such structural risks have not been explained in full to investors. In fact, in most cases, the ratings of the reference entities were used to hoodwink investors into thinking that that's all the risks that are involved and the risks in the underlying assets have been conveniently covered up.

Such people are really talking without much understanding of the whole context of the issue. He is assuming that businessman or young educated people cannot be hoodwinked! The structure of these products were so complex but it was sold with the marketing front of good replacement to fixed deposits!

Why not target Morgan Stanley? It was financial institutions on Singapore shores that sold these products to Singapore investors. Just as simple as that. Mis-selling occurs when the sales is closed.

Goh Meng Seng

Questions on investment products rally

Mr Tan (right) speaking to investors at a rally on flawed investment products at Speakers' Corner last month. He organised a fifth rally there last Saturday. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

MR TAN Kin Lian organised yet another rally last Saturday, this time to assist investors to redress their injustices over the collapse of the Pinnacle Notes 9 and 10 series by Morgan Stanley. Too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment.
For example, last Sunday's report about Mr Tan's Saturday rally, ('Angry investors seek action') featured a quote by Ms Lilian Tan, a manager, and Mr Chang Foo Choon, a businessman who had invested $500,000 in the Notes.

Surely, Mr Tan cannot argue that these two people, who are neither elderly nor uneducated, should be entitled to their money back. I assume that someone who has been in management and someone who has run his own business and can afford to invest half a million dollars are aware of the risks of investment. Is Mr Tan organising the rallies at Speakers' Corner for purely altruistic reasons, or is he organising them to help his colleagues in his position as a writer of The Online Citizen, a website which is well known to have an anti-government stance?

It was not too long ago that Mr Tan was the chief executive officer of NTUC Income and his own agents adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous.

Why did Mr Tan not tell his agents to practise more ethics then, when he was CEO?

And why is he protesting against local banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and not taking his fight to Morgan Stanley? Is it also aimed at politicising the matter? I urge the Government and the banks not to cave in to the political solution of reimbursing all investors.

Chua Sheng Yang

 

[leetahbar]

Dear leetahbar,

Can you provide the link?

Goh Meng Seng

MR TAN Kin Lian organised yet another rally last Saturday, this time to assist investors to redress their injustices over the collapse of the Pinnacle Notes 9 and 10 series by Morgan Stanley. Too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment.

For example, last Sunday's report about Mr Tan's Saturday rally, ('Angry investors seek action') featured a quote by Ms Lilian Tan, a manager, and Mr Chang Foo Choon, a businessman who had invested $500,000 in the Notes.

Surely, Mr Tan cannot argue that these two people, who are neither elderly nor uneducated, should be entitled to their money back. I assume that someone who has been in management and someone who has run his own business and can afford to invest half a million dollars are aware of the risks of investment. Is Mr Tan organising the rallies at Speakers' Corner for purely altruistic reasons, or is he organising them to help his colleagues in his position as a writer of The Online Citizen, a website which is well known to have an anti-government stance?

It was not too long ago that Mr Tan was the chief executive officer of NTUC Income and his own agents adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous.

Why did Mr Tan not tell his agents to practise more ethics then, when he was CEO?

And why is he protesting against local banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and not taking his fight to Morgan Stanley? Is it also aimed at politicising the matter? I urge the Government and the banks not to cave in to the political solution of reimbursing all investors.


Chua Sheng Yang
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_303479.html

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Goh Meng Seng,

I get the impression that this Chua Sheng Yang may be an "agent provacatuer" of sorts.

Perhaps this Lehman Minibonds debacle may attract more intrigue because of the PAP TownCouncils investing millions of residents $$$ in these now failed structured financial products. Who were their financial advisers and what was the specific advice?

Thread carefully on this one mate!

Thanks Por,

This writer is apparently losing touch with the ground. The returns does not match the amount of risks embedded in the products and there is a great deal written on on how such structural risks have not been explained in full to investors. In fact, in most cases, the ratings of the reference entities were used to hoodwink investors into thinking that that's all the risks that are involved and the risks in the underlying assets have been conveniently covered up.

Such people are really talking without much understanding of the whole context of the issue. He is assuming that businessman or young educated people cannot be hoodwinked! The structure of these products were so complex but it was sold with the marketing front of good replacement to fixed deposits!

Why not target Morgan Stanley? It was financial institutions on Singapore shores that sold these products to Singapore investors. Just as simple as that. Mis-selling occurs when the sales is closed.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[leetahbar]

there are 82 MPs but like none mentioned about this big time goof-ups.

another question in mind: who in DBS approved and promo this? was it during jackson tai's tenure or after? he was the ex-ceo of DBS who abruptly resigned. was there already troubles brewing then but was all kept hushed up?

usually when troubles were brewing in big organisation, everything possible would be applied to smother it. when it's made known publicly, all hell would have broken loose!!

next on life: our CPF. how safe are they? history of LEHMAN BROTHERS is many time older than our CPF.

 

[leetahbar]

Goh Meng Seng,

I get the impression that this Chua Sheng Yang may be an "agent provacatuer" of sorts.

Perhaps this Lehman Minibonds debacle may attract more intrigue because of the PAP TownCouncils investing millions of residents $$$ in these now failed structured financial products. Who were their financial advisers and what was the specific advice?

Thread carefully on this one mate!

seemingly, it looks like the gabramen were motivators then. if not, TC won't be so bold to invest. this means that our gabramen isn't really that accurate and sharp with investment....and our cpf - how??

if we recall the CLOB SAGA, it wasn't really fairly resolved. all the CLOB investors had had it. it left a sour after-taste of betrayal they felt from gabramen.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Leetahbar,

In another thread you claimed that

"We are now living in peace, prosperity and security"


You also appear to be against the following values and principles

Are you against political pluralism in Singapore?

Are you against transparency and accountability in Singapore?

Are you against a more level playing field in the Singapore electoral system?

Are you against the right to peaceful assembly?

Are you against a reasonably independent free media?

So please spare us your false talk, insincerity and hypocrisy. Thank you very much.

 

[leetahbar]

it's still peace, prosperity and security.

just check your own bank account. it's still there, isn't it? if everything must be posted according to your whims, what makes u?

this minibond affects only about 10K investors. the CLOB SAGA affected the entire nation of investors.

run back history there wasn't a real solution to that. many investors were CLOBbered real bad!

lehman's minibond is chicken feed compare to that. (referring to local context.)

PS. u don't ve to respond to my posting if it pisses u off. just conitnue to believe those who could be instigating you

 

[kakowi]

Unless we know the inner workings of TKL's heart, it is not fair to question TKL if he has high-minded motives and imply that he does not.

It is fairer to look at the results:

if he can do the work of an opposition candidate, in voicing issues when there is a need for such a voice;

if he has raised the standard of opposition politics, even though he is yet to be a politician;

​

and ask ourselves:

if he can continue such work in Parliament.
​

Character assassination seems to be the weapon of choice for some. We should also asked if these people are doing this out of altruism?


Note 1: even if he is part of a PAP ploy (as some suggested), there are still plenty of seats to go around

Note 2: even if he is part of a PAP ploy to take over Hougang or Potong Pasir (as one suggested), it will be good because it brings home the message - that politics is all about getting votes; it may well result in value-driven opposition parties

Note 3: there are some permutations where such a ploy (if it is true) can cripple the chances of the opposition from coming in; still he has GMS on board (?); still he has to prove some value in Parliament; and there will be more wayang on non-essential matters which whilst not good, is no different from the present in terms of effectiveness. It might even be better than the present.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Sorry if the truths hurts, oh and again kindly spare us your false talk, insincerity and hypocrisy

Btw regardless of whether it is the Lehman Minibonds debacle or the Clob saga or any other issue that concens Singapore society, the abovementioned 4 values/principles which you appear to be against, would have at least provided more independent reasonable fair checks and balances for Singaporeans.

PS. u don't ve to respond to my posting if it pisses u off. just conitnue to believe those who could be instigating you

 

[leetahbar]

it's simply very very difficult to find opp candidate with a "clean slate". tkl attended RP dinner. if he were to be paps' material, he could ve been a pap mp now or maybe later.

tkl sudden departure as CEO from NTUC insurance arm was quite dubious. there was once a brief clash and "conflict of interests" between their insurance agents and NTUC. maybe some could shed more light on this.

 

[tomoko]

It was not too long ago that Mr Tan was the chief executive officer of NTUC Income and his own agents adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous.

What practices is the writer talking about?

 

[tomoko]

And why is he protesting against local banks and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and not taking his fight to Morgan Stanley?

Mr Tan is not taking his fight to Morgan Stanley? I thought he is fighting all the banks and MAS.

 

[leetahbar]

Sorry if the truths hurts, oh and again kindly spare us your false talk, insincerity and hypocrisy

Btw regardless of whether it is the Lehman Minibonds debacle or the Clob saga or any other issue that concens Singapore society, the abovementioned 4 values/principles which you appear to be against, would have at least provided more independent reasonable fair checks and balances for Singaporeans.

your truth, not mine your postings are also ambiguous opinions about chee. there are so many angle to look at a situation. if u r obssessed with your own "truth", then so be it.

i voice my own opinion. i never force it down your throat.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Obviously not "yours" since you appear to talk falsely, with insincerity and are a hypocrite

As for Dr Chee/SDP, my views on the same are not "ambiguous". Unlike you the insincere hypocrite Leetahbar, I call it like I see it. I have all along said that I generally agree with the values/principles that Dr Chee/SDP stand for.

However where I part company with Dr Chee/SDP is with regards his/its political strategies and tactics and some policy issues.

your truth, not mine your postings are also ambiguous opinions about chee. there are so many angle to look at a situation. i voice my own opinion. i never force it down your throat.

 

[Avantas]

Hi Meng Seng,

Be careful, the PAP is striking back.

This Chua chap is obviously being ordered by somebody above to write this letter.

Thanks Por,

This writer is apparently losing touch with the ground. The returns does not match the amount of risks embedded in the products and there is a great deal written on on how such structural risks have not been explained in full to investors. In fact, in most cases, the ratings of the reference entities were used to hoodwink investors into thinking that that's all the risks that are involved and the risks in the underlying assets have been conveniently covered up.

Such people are really talking without much understanding of the whole context of the issue. He is assuming that businessman or young educated people cannot be hoodwinked! The structure of these products were so complex but it was sold with the marketing front of good replacement to fixed deposits!

Why not target Morgan Stanley? It was financial institutions on Singapore shores that sold these products to Singapore investors. Just as simple as that. Mis-selling occurs when the sales is closed.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Avantas]

if TOC is ant-govt, then what places wayang party ???

this chua chap obviously haven't been surfing the net. TOC is quite mild compared to other blogs.