Tweet
Source: http://wayangparty.com/?p=10527
An online article on the ST “Breaking News” section under “Top story” on 22 July 2009 had mysteriously disappeared.
Entitled “HK banks agrees to compensate minibond investors up to 70% of their losses”, it was an adaption of an original reuters article. (read article here)
However, the article was not found anywhere in the same section. Instead, a shorter article from AFP was published in an obscure corner of the “Business’ section.
The news about the HK authorities pressurizing the HK FIs to compensate the investors surfaced as early as the beginning of July in the South China Morning Post. Nothing was reported in the local papers.
The Straits Times published Minister of Trade and Industry Mr Lim Hng Kiang’s statement defedning MAS’s decision to impose a sales ban of credit-linked products on the FIs.
Below are excerpts of Mr Lim’s speech in Parliament:
“I have previously set out in this House the regulatory regime for the offer and distribution of financial products in some detail and explained that our regime is in line with practices in other jurisdictions. So I will not set this out at length again. However, let me respond on the specific issues raised.”
“However, MAS’ reviews are not intended to, and cannot, replace the primary role of the Board and senior management of financial institutions to ensure that the controls and processes put in place to meet regulatory requirements are implemented robustly by all staff in all their dealings with customers, at all locations. MAS does not, and cannot, micro-manage financial institutions in their operations, including the sale of structured products. ”
[Source: MAS]
If MAS’s regime is indeed in line with other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, how can one explain the discrepancy in the way the two countries have handled the fiasco?
In the absence of reports on Hong Kong’s developments by the mainstream media, Singaporeans will not be able to make a fair and unbiased comparison and judge for themselves the adequacy of MAS’s measures.
Many will be misled to accept Mr Lim’s assertation that MAS has done whatever it could within its jurisdiction short of forcing the FIs to compensate the investors.
The deliberate news blackout on the HK buy-back scheme is another example of how state control of the media has enabled the ruling party to continue to masquerade itself as a “good” government in the eyes of the people.
This piece of important news should have been highlighted and publicized by the Straits Times on the frontpage to attract the immediate attention of readers,
Without any alternative voices in the country, the truth will never be known and Singaporeans will forever be blinded by the propaganda churned out daily by the state media to preserve the interests of the ruling party.
Singaporeans should know about HK’s compensation of their minibond holders which will inevitably lead them to ask why the Singapore FIs are given only a slap on their wrists by MAS.
An online article on the ST “Breaking News” section under “Top story” on 22 July 2009 had mysteriously disappeared.
Entitled “HK banks agrees to compensate minibond investors up to 70% of their losses”, it was an adaption of an original reuters article. (read article here)
However, the article was not found anywhere in the same section. Instead, a shorter article from AFP was published in an obscure corner of the “Business’ section.
The news about the HK authorities pressurizing the HK FIs to compensate the investors surfaced as early as the beginning of July in the South China Morning Post. Nothing was reported in the local papers.
The Straits Times published Minister of Trade and Industry Mr Lim Hng Kiang’s statement defedning MAS’s decision to impose a sales ban of credit-linked products on the FIs.
Below are excerpts of Mr Lim’s speech in Parliament:
“I have previously set out in this House the regulatory regime for the offer and distribution of financial products in some detail and explained that our regime is in line with practices in other jurisdictions. So I will not set this out at length again. However, let me respond on the specific issues raised.”
“However, MAS’ reviews are not intended to, and cannot, replace the primary role of the Board and senior management of financial institutions to ensure that the controls and processes put in place to meet regulatory requirements are implemented robustly by all staff in all their dealings with customers, at all locations. MAS does not, and cannot, micro-manage financial institutions in their operations, including the sale of structured products. ”
[Source: MAS]
If MAS’s regime is indeed in line with other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, how can one explain the discrepancy in the way the two countries have handled the fiasco?
In the absence of reports on Hong Kong’s developments by the mainstream media, Singaporeans will not be able to make a fair and unbiased comparison and judge for themselves the adequacy of MAS’s measures.
Many will be misled to accept Mr Lim’s assertation that MAS has done whatever it could within its jurisdiction short of forcing the FIs to compensate the investors.
The deliberate news blackout on the HK buy-back scheme is another example of how state control of the media has enabled the ruling party to continue to masquerade itself as a “good” government in the eyes of the people.
This piece of important news should have been highlighted and publicized by the Straits Times on the frontpage to attract the immediate attention of readers,
Without any alternative voices in the country, the truth will never be known and Singaporeans will forever be blinded by the propaganda churned out daily by the state media to preserve the interests of the ruling party.
Singaporeans should know about HK’s compensation of their minibond holders which will inevitably lead them to ask why the Singapore FIs are given only a slap on their wrists by MAS.
