Public Forum: Opposition - Where To?

Public Forum: Opposition - Where To?


Organised by SDP

Date: 7 Feb 09, Saturday
Time: 2-5 pm
Venue: Copthorne Orchid Hotel, 214 Dunearn Road
Admission: Free

We are honoured to have the following party and civil society leaders as panel speakers:
1. Desmond Lim, Secretary-General, Singapore Democratic Alliance
2. Ng Teck Siong, Chairman, Reform Party
3. Sin Kek Tong, Chariman, Singapore People's Party
4. Sebastian Teo, President, National Solidarity Party
5. Gandhi Ambalam, Chairman, Singapore Democratic Party

Representing civil society are:
1. Chia Ti Lik, blogger and activist
2. Mohd Jufrie, activist and former election candidate
3. Ng E-jay, blogger and activist
4. Tan Kin Lian, blogger and financial activist
5. Seelan Palay, blogger and activist

新年快乐 吉祥如意 HAPPY CHINESE NEW YEAR!

我恭祝大家：

新年快乐，

万事如意，

如意吉祥，

身体健康，

福气满堂，

合家平安，

囊中常满，

米盅常香！

我恭祝新加坡：

风调雨顺，

国泰民安。

吴明盛

国民团结党： 动用储备金决定有浓厚政治选举意味

财政预算案2009各界反应
国民团结党： 动用储备金决定有浓厚政治选举意味

（2009-01-24）

● 周殊钦

　　本届政府三年来从外汇储备投资回报及售地所得等多个渠道所累积的钱，完全可以资助新财政年的预算，为何还要破天荒向总统要求批准动用国家储备金呢？

　　反对党国民团结党认为，这当中就包含了一个政治阴谋，即政府要保留一些盈余，以在举行大选之前，向选民派大选红包争取民心。

　　团结党中委叶耀荣昨天在芳林公园演说角落针对政府前天发表的财政预算案发表看法时指出，他认为政府这次在财政上完全游刃有余的情况下，作出动用储备金的决定，带有浓厚的政治选举意味。

　　“我们觉得行动党政府是能够，也应该拿出超过205亿元来为国家经济纾困、做得更好，但它却没有这么做。因此我不排除可能在下半年或明年初，它会有更大的动作。它现在可能保留部分应该拿出来纾困的款额，到了快要大选的时候，才抛出来为大选服务。”

　　前非选区议员、党助理财政谢镜丰更抨击政府的这个做法，违背了它一直倡导应先依靠自己、再向他人求援的原则，“简直是因为嘴刁而罔顾放在一旁的鹅蛋，执意要切下金鹅的肉”。

　　团结党在芳林公园举行集会，安排张培源（党主席）、谢镜丰、叶耀荣和吴明盛，以及两名政治活跃分子黄亦杰和西兰帕莱，针对预算案进行公开讨论。

　　这个反对党引述联昌国际研究（CIMB-GK）经济师的数据，指政府这两年多来累积了至少600亿元，因此总值205亿元乍看之下政府似是慷慨，实际上手笔可以更大。

　　按吴明盛的说法，对国内生产总值约2400亿元的新加坡而言，预算案仅占8.5％，远远不足以在当前的经济情况下让人们安心；叶耀荣则表示预算案至少“400亿元还差不多”。

　　至于被许多企业赞为极具创意的雇用补贴（job credit），团结党认为这项计划的用意固然好，但执行上有待商榷。

雇用补贴计划是为协助受经济衰退影响的雇主支付本地员工的部分薪金，以达到保住新加坡人的工作的目的。补贴额达员工首2500元薪金的12％。

　　谢镜丰认为，政府应该利用这项计划区分公民和永久居民的待遇，例如公民的薪金限额可为3000元，永久居民为2000元；叶耀荣则提出为防雇主虚报薪金，政府可直接把12％算入雇主目前所需负责的14.5％公积金缴交利率，即雇主只需缴付其余的2.5％。

　　黄亦杰指出，一些援助计划例如工商房产的40％房地产税回扣，未必能让最需要帮助的中小企业获益。因为获得税务回扣的业主，不见得就一定会把好处转嫁到租户身上。

　　这场历时两小时的集会是团结党今年的首个公开活动，不过反应并非很理想，据记者在场所见，只有约20名公众旁听。原定下午6时半开讲的讨论会，也因听众有限而延至7时才开始。

NSP Hong Lim Park Rally on Budget 2009

The National Solidarity Party is holding a Budget Rally at Hong Lim Park today at 6.30pm.



DATE/TIME: Friday, 23 January 2009 @ 6.30-8.30PM
VENUE: The Speakers Corner
REFRESHMENT: Packaged drinks & Sandwiches
SPEAKERS: Most of the CEC members, including the President & the Sec-Gen, and a few non-members
TOPICS: NSP's impression of the 2009 Budget & Suggestions for the improvement of political space in Singapore

Hong Kong : 新鴻基投資回購雷曼迷債 II

This is the full report on the FULL REFUND by an institution in Hong Kong to their Minibond investors.

Goh Meng Seng


新鴻基投資回購雷曼迷債
(星島)1月23日 星期五 05:30

(綜合報道)

(星島日報 報道)迷債風波昨晚突傳喜訊，證監會 完成首宗就迷債銷售手法的調查，結果與新鴻基 金融旗下的新鴻基投資服務達成協議，新鴻基自願按最初投資本金，向該行合資格客戶悉數回購未到期的迷債，涉資八千五百萬元。

　　財經組記者：劉思敏

　　證監會行政總裁韋奕禮昨日傍晚臨時會見傳媒，公布該會與新鴻基投資服務達成協議的消息。他指出，這次處理方法所達致的成果，符合投資者的最佳利益，對這宗個案所達致的結果感到相當滿意。

　　涉310客戶 共8500萬

　　根據回購計畫，新鴻基將向該行合資格客戶回購未到期的迷債，但只限第一市場的零售客戶，不包括透過第二市場購買迷債的客戶，亦不包括被界定為專業投資者的客戶。至於已向新鴻基展開法律行動的客戶，以及達成和解並已收取一筆超逾投資本金的款項的客戶，亦不獲回購。

　　故這次回購涉及三百一十名新鴻基的迷債客戶，新鴻基以約八千五百萬元，賠償這批迷債客戶全部投資本金，並會在客戶接納回購建議後三十日內向客戶支付款項。

　　原額賠償 為銀行添壓

　　這是首次有迷債分銷機構即時按本金向客戶進行回購，可謂迷債苦主首場小勝仗。不過，這次受惠的苦主畢竟為數不多，絕大多數的苦主都是通過銀行購買迷債，但銀行的回購價格乃根據迷債資產的市值，而非按客戶當初的投資本金，所以客戶難以全數回本。何況迷債信託人面對雷曼清盤人的法律挑戰，亦延誤回購工作至今，依然未有解決出路，社會注視新鴻基原價賠償的做法，會否對銀行造成壓力。

　　銀行公會雷曼事件專責小組發言人稱，目前無法評論新鴻基原價賠償，會否對銀行構成壓力，相信要先了解證監會的調查結果及新鴻基的做法，並進行討論。

　　她又指，雖然回購迷債的法律問題還未解決，但小組工作未有停止，目前仍就銀行墊支的一億元基金的使用方法，與信託人滙豐進行磋商。

　　財經事務及庫務局 發言人表示，有關證監會的決定是經過嚴謹的過程和全面、有效率及公平的調查，該局有信心證監會及金管局 會繼續就收到投訴，公正、認真和迅速地進行調查。

　　不承認任何責任或過失

　　證監會經過調查後，就新鴻基自二○○二年起向客戶銷售雷曼迷債涉及的內部系統及監控措施，對該行作出譴責。新鴻基不承認任何責任或過失，但確認證監會關注事項的嚴重性，結果與證監會達成協議。

　　除了賠款外，根據協議，新鴻基投資服務須繼續全面協助及配合證監會的調查，並委任獨立的會計師行，檢討該行的內部監控及合規制度。

What is Lacking in Budget 2009?

Generally speaking, the Budget announced by Finance Minister Tharman is set on the right footing.

As I have mentioned in my the other post "Budget for Crisis of Confidence", the focus of this budget should address the fundamental problem of confidence. Tharman's budget has generally seeked to address this fundamental problem.

However, the size of the budget or even the "intended deficits" (well, you will never know how PAP government will turn it into surplus in the end!) is very small, comparing to the huge amount of money GIC and Temasek have thrown into foreign banks and lost. Besides, the kind of PAP accounting of budget does not include land sales as part of budget revenue and such small deficit of $4.6B is could well be covered by the surpluses that Singapore has gained from the past two years (which has been estimated to be $60B including land sales by some local economist).

$20.5B "Resilience Package" may sound big at first glance but it is just about 8.6% of GDP. Whether such package could negate the impact of a global melt down or re-ignite the engine of the economy is pretty doubtful. Whether it could maintain consumers' as well as investors/banks confidence is yet to be seen.

I was expecting a much bigger package. And interesting enough, we now know the full potential of the PAP government's fiscal strength. Even though with a relatively "big" additional budget of $20.5B, it only incurs a deficit of $4.9B which I believe is a very conservative estimate. The ultimate deficit may be much lesser or we may even end up with a balanced budget eventually. The total budget is about $66B (refer to budget estimate). A "normal" typical budget is about $33B which will normally give a surplus without even taking revenue from land sales into account. And yet, they are pretty stingy on Healthcare subsidies while spending the most on Defence ($3.7B in Health Ministry vs $11B in Defence) which is almost 3 times of Healthcare expenditure.

It means that the actual real surpluses from other years are very much higher than what is being reported. The potential fiscal strength of the whole government is more than $60B. This is a simple rough estimate from the fact that even with a total expenditure of $66B with an expected lower revenue, the deficit is still maintained at $4.9B! Thus it seems that the realized budget surpluses for past year could well be more than $30B per year in good time! Thus the estimate by the local economist that PAP government might have accumulated more than $60B for the past 2 years could well be true! And thus, a $4.9B deficit which is to be financed by drawing down from the reserve is really small in such comparison.

The PAP government could do more in times like this one. We are facing most probably the worst financial and economic crisis for the whole of last century up till now. But yet the PAP government refused to see the urgent need of implementing a more comprehensive social welfare system with unemployment benefits despite the fact that we are expecting an unemployment rate of more than 5% in the months ahead!

More could be done to help Singaporeans to face the imminent hardship ahead. While the idea of Job Credit is pretty close to what I have suggested as subsidizing employer's contribution to employee's CPF, but I don't know the reason why they put a cap of 12% of $2500. For those who could earn well above $2500 to $5000, they are most probably middle management level. Does it mean that they do not need help for companies to keep them on the job? This is why I feel that a 5% subsidized CPF contribution would be a fairer system. Furthermore, the proposed system of handling cash to employers will bound to be abused. Administratively, it is easier to manage to credit into CPF.

There are many redundant taxes like TV License should be removed as well. To maintain economic activities within the system, an additional $5B expenditure in infrastructure is really inadequate in times like this.

Although the increase of the expenditure of Ministry of Health looks impressive, with 34% increase, but from the details, we could still expect the cost of healthcare is going to stay at a very high level. Most of this increase in expenditure goes to direct development. Operating grants has in fact, dropped in this budget! Healthcare cost is always a big concern for Singaporeans and it will be especially so in such time of extraordinary difficulties.

Last but not least, the question of restoration of investors'confidence in the fund investment has not been tackled. The mis-selling of credit-linked financial products are not addressed at all in this budget. If this issue is not solved politically, it will really take decades for retail investors to regain their confidence in investing their hard earned money in any financial products.

In conclusion, although the specific steps taken by Minister Tharman have generally gone into the right direction (except for the tax cut and rebates) but I think the extend of the budgeted amount is not going to be big enough to withstand the onslaught of the crisis of confidence as well as the expected huge unemployment we are going to face in the short future.

Goh Meng Seng

Hong Kong: 新鴻基願回購雷曼迷債

One of the Hong Kong Investment Institution has agreed to buy back all Lehman Brothers Minibond at the original price after the investigation by the authority that it has a systematic problem in mis-selling Lehman Brothers Minibonds.

Goh Meng Seng:


新鴻基願回購雷曼迷債
(明報)1月22日 星期四 22:25

證監會 完成首宗雷曼迷你債券的調查，指新鴻基 投資的銷售手法有缺失，新鴻基已同意原價回購迷債。

證監會行政總裁韋奕禮晚上公布調查結果，指證監已經調查過約300宗個案，發現新鴻基投資服務公司銷售有缺失，缺乏內部監管。新鴻基目前已經同意，以原價向投資者回購，涉及款項約為8千5百萬元。

韋奕禮指，有關安排可以令投資者在短時間內可取回投資的金錢。

Budget for Crisis of Confidence

The PAP government will announce its annual budget for this "extraordinary" year tomorrow. I have read quite a few reports on how people wanted the budget to be. However, I feel that some of them are not very well thought of.

We are facing an EXTRAORDINARY crisis at the moment. It is not merely an economic crisis, not merely a financial crisis, not merely a currency crisis but as Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman has put it, the mother of all crisis. It is a crisis of confidence and economic irrationality prevails.

In a textbook assumption of "free market principles", Rationality of human beings is a paramount assumption. Paul Krugman himself has written about "Expected Rationality" in an economic system. But for this present crisis, it defies all economic theories of rationality basically because it involves an IRRATIONAL Crisis of Confidence.

Irrational behavior exists in stock markets during two extremes:

1) Boom Time where even money losing companies could have their stocks flying higher and higher. This is a sign of bubble forming.

2) Doom Time where even money making and fundamentally sound companies suffered drastic drop in their stock prices. This is due to a crisis of confidence brewing.

But as I have said, this mother of all economic, financial and currency crisis is more than merely stock digits moving up and down. It affects both savings/investment and consumption when all confidence of the world economic system collapse. While we need effort in building a NEW WORLD ECONOMIC-FINANCIAL-CURRENCY ORDER, for a small open economy like Singapore, we must maintain investment/savings (from Economics 101, Savings=Investment) and consumption confidence. This is the main paramount priority that this budget should be all about. It is not about "cost cutting", nor merely "giving money" out. The results of this crisis are credit crunch (which affect investment funding) and consumption confidence (which affect trades).

The most common policies that PAP government would melt out are the predictable few, though it may vary in the size of the budget. The following are the few perspectives that we have witnessed so far:

1) Cut Wages
2) Cut CPF
3) Cut Tax (along with GST increase?)
4) Rebates of all sorts
5) Simply give out money

In an extraordinary crisis like this one, an expansionary budget is unavoidable. But how far the budget is into REAL (well, we know that for many years, PAP may claim deficits but it turns out to be surplus in the end!) deficits is not the only consideration. The money pumped into the economy must be able to jumpstart the economy engine again.

If you take economic boom and bust as a motorcycle, you will understand the logic better. For a motorcycle, you could only keep it balance if and only if the engine keeps running. For economy, it is the same. To keep the engine running, the money (fuel) within the economy must keep moving around, from savings to investment to consumption to income and back again. What we are facing right now is a choked engine of the economy whereby credit crunch prevents the savings to become investment and the irrational fear hinder the consumption. This will ultimately cause loss of jobs and thus, no more money for savings and consumption.

It is a vicious cycle, in reverse of proper economic function. The worst thing is that with the credit crunch, a serious problem of "De-leveraging" will arise. In a proper economic functioning system, with every dollar of investment, it may create 5 dollars of economic worth of income. When the credit crunch comes, due to some irrational fear of banks and financial institutions over bad debts, the reverse of value creation will happen. For every dollar that the banks or financial institutions refused to lend, there will be a potential loss of 5 dollars of economic worth. This is what we call, "De-leveraging".

Thus for any country to counter this big economic-financial-currency (the currency system will ultimately fall into chaos due to the loss in confidence of world financial economy) tsunami crisis, it will have to address or at least PREVENT the further erosion in the confidence of investment and consumption.

Could the predictable PAP policies solve this crisis of confidence? I shall examine some of them here.

1) Cut Wages

The most common call from employers is to cut wages of workers. This is understandable because to them, cutting wages will help them lower business operation cost. However, cutting wages will only solve one part of the problem while creating or enhancing the other part of the problem.

Cutting wages will further erode consumers' confidence. Even when it is simply a mention of wage cut, workers will start to tighten their belt in expectation of a wage cut. This is simply a further erosion of consumption confidence and bringing down the economy as a whole. When there are less consumption, local business revenues will continue to suffer.

In Singapore's context, while we cannot control the global economy which we depended so much for our export-orientated industrial economy, further erosion of local consumption confidence will add salt to injury.

Of course, I will only support the cutting the bloated million dollar salary of ministers, permanent secretaries and high ranking civil servants. This is simply because their salaries are just too high.

(2) Cut CPF

Cutting CPF has the same effect of cutting wages, both in terms of lowering business cost as well as eroding consumption. Most Singaporeans finance their mortgage through CPF and when CPF is being cut, they may have to fork out extra money to pay their mortgages. This will force them to cut down on consumption in the economy.

Furthermore, cutting CPF will only push the problems to retirement financing. As we are now already at a point where we are already short of funds to sustain our people's retirement, further reduction of CPF contribution will only worsen this situation.

3) Cut Tax and Rebates

Most wealthy individuals and profit making companies will favor tax cut. However, such move has proven to be very ineffective in managing economic crisis, least a crisis of this scale. Tax cut may improve our nation's attractiveness in attracting foreign investment but we are now facing a big crisis of confidence, not fundamental problem of economic competitiveness.

Furthermore, tax cut could only benefit those who are paying tax. Those people who are poor don't pay tax. It is very unlikely for tax cut to transform into massive consumption if only a small percentage few benefits from it. Unless the PAP is going to cut GST PERMANENTLY, then that's worth the effort. Changing GST will incur huge administrative cost to businesses. An exercise of making adjustment to business system to cope with any adjustment of GST (be it lower or higher) will cost small and big business a huge sum of money. Unless the change is going to stay for a long while to come, else, the cost of such changes will erode the benefits.

For companies that are facing reds in their books, any tax cut will be meaningless simply because they are making a loss. Tax cut will not help them to stay afloat at all. If they go bust, more jobs will be lost.

Tax cut will not help to withhold confidence in business as well as consumption. It does not address the fundamental problem of confidence at all.

But there is one thing I think the PAP government should do away with. The Annual TV License fee of $110 and property taxes for HDB flats! HDB flats are basically overpriced public housing with 99 years lease which is packaged into a guise of "house ownership". In doing so, those who stay in HDB will have to pay property taxes.


4. Giving money

The most favorite vote-buying technique by the PAP government is giving money to everyone. This is populist move but it comes with a cost.

I would prefer the PAP government to direct such handouts to those who really need them. It should set up a formal system of social welfare for the unemployed. In Taiwan, they have such system whereby those who are jobless could seek unemployment social welfare for 6 months (now they are considering to increase to 9 months). This is to help those who cannot find any jobs to tie over this difficult period.

An all money giving exercise may make PAP looks good but it has little impact in saving those who are truly needy, those who are unemployed, regardless of what types of HDB flats they are staying in.


What are the more effective ways?

After looking at the flaws of the predictable PAP's policies, I will deal with what I think should be the more effective policies to address the present crisis of confidence.

1) Restoration of Confidence in Investment Funding

Hong Kong government has put up a policy of guarantee to loans to local small and medium enterprises (SME), up to a certain amount. Singapore government has some similar instruments but strange enough, it only targets at certain aspects like investment in technology, computerization and such. It does not provide guarantee to loans that cater to company cash flows in this difficult times for them to tie over the period.

PAP government must also come up with a solution to the mis-selling of Minibonds, DBS HIGH Notes are any structured-linked financial products. This is because if this problem is not solved, everybody including those who are unaffected by these investments, will hold back their investment decisions on other instruments.

The decline in investment in other unit trusts, funds and insurance-related instrument is an obvious effect of this Minibonds crisis.

In my view, the solution will include the allocation of responsibilities to each players, which include the Financial Institutions, Government (via MAS role) and investors.

The Financial Institutions that earned commissions by selling these products should bear the most responsibility. The government's lapses in its regulatory role via MAS must be held responsible as well. The Taiwanese government, via an independent Control Yuan, has found the administration guilty of lapses in its regulatory role. I cannot see how MAS can wash off its hands from its regulatory responsibility. Finally, I think investors have to bear their part of responsibility as well.

My allocation of responsibility is as follows:

1) 50% for Financial institutions as they are the immediate gainers from the sales of these products. And it seems that there is a systematic problem with their sales and marketing process which leads to wide mis-selling practices.

2) 20% for Government as they have failed in their role as regulators, to allow such complex products to be sold to retail investors or even retirees and fixed depositors.

3) 30% investors. No matter how, investors will have to bear some responsibility on their part for their imprudence.

Some other people may have other view of "fair solution" to this problem but that doesn't matter. I can live with different views but the fact is, whatever solutions there might be, it must solve this Minibond-related saga once and for all.

I cannot imagine what would become to the whole system when layman no longer trust the banks any more because there are instances of such Minibond mis-selling. This is the implicit crisis of confidence we are having right now. If even the banks cannot be trusted to safe keep your savings, help you to invest prudently, then who else could you trust with your money?


2) Subsidies to Employers' contribution to Employee's CPF account.

I feel that if we are to help ALL businesses, not just those who are making money and paying taxes, to cut cost without affecting consumers' confidence in consumption and affecting mortgage payment and future retirement financing, one way is for the Government to pay on behalf of Employers 3% or even 5% of CPF contributions they have made to their employees. But this should be done on one important condition that wage will not be cut, neither should there be massive retrenchment (maybe not more than 5% cut in total number of SINGAPORE employees).

This will enhance workers' confidence and expectation of no substantial wage cut and thus, not affecting their consumption behavior. This will also help companies, especially those who are facing bigger losses to effective cut cost without further eroding their employees' morale.

This is a FAIR scheme whereby rich and wealthy people who are already making great money will not benefit further from any tax cut, while those workers' anxiety of job loss would be addressed effectively.

This scheme should be set for one year and reviewed later. According to my rough estimate, such scheme will cost the PAP government about $4 to $5 billion dollars for a year.

3) Social Welfare scheme of Temporary Unemployment Benefits

As I have mentioned earlier, I favor a more specifically targeted means of distributing money to those who are really needy. For those (Singapore citizens only) who lost their jobs, we should help them to maintain their livelihood for this temporary hardship. A scheme like what Taiwan has, to provide a maximum 9 months of unemployment benefits would help to cushion hardship and maintain consumption level in local economy.

During this 9 months, any expenses on skills upgrading for these workers should heavily subsidized up to 90%. After 9 months, the government will have the right to review each individual case. If the unemployed regained employment, the data should be captured by the CPF contributions and the unemployment benefits would be automatically terminate.


4) Business seeding funds

Singapore under PAP, has long skewed towards dependency on foreign investment as well as their own Government Linked Companies (GLCs) which "monopolized" almost all aspect of industries in Singapore.

This model of economic development and growth is not sustainable for Singapore if a balance is not struck with grooming of local privately own companies. The crowding effect of GLCs are crippling local enterprises.

Due to the monopolistic nature of industrial and commercial land use by GLCs, rentals of all kinds have grown far beyond economic growth. If the economy grow by 5%, rental for commercial use (like retail shopping malls and such) have grown to a horrifying 30% or more.

This bubble is taking a great toll on local enterprises. It is amazing that while PAP government sees it fit to control wage increases during boom time, it does not see the need to control excessive rental increase due to its GLCs' monopoly power in this area. REITS have in fact, aggravated the excessive increase in rental many times.

It is about time to cut down on such excess and practice more prudence in rental increase, taking the same view that rents increase will affect business cost and consumer prices as well.

Beside controlling the rent as a means of business seeding for local enterprises, the government should setup a Local Small Enterprise Seeding Funds. This is to solve the problems of credit crunch during this period where new entrepreneurs could not find funding from any financial institutions at all.


5) Moderation of Credit control by Financial Institutions

Our financial institutions have stepped into another extreme of mortgage loans. During the boom time, all sorts of mortgage loans are being approved and refinancing done on mortgages to further lend the "excess value" of the properties to property owners. Such loose credits will naturally result in heavy losses when credit crunch and De-leveraging take place.

At this moment, I have gathered that banks and financial institutions have gone into another extreme of tightening credits. A small forgetfulness of paying your credit bill on time in the past may just deprive you of a mortgage loan eventually! Such over conservativeness in assessing credit loans at this moment will only aggravate the crisis as a whole.

The government must find a way to address this problem. Either the government provides certain percentage of guarantee to genuine, non-investment related loans (such as HDB loans to first time buyers) or it comes up with a plan or guidelines of moderation for the financial sector.

The above are some of my personal thoughts about what should be included in the coming budget. Unless we get the main theme and priorities right for tackling this mother of all crisis, we may just end up worsening the situation with some ineffective or even detrimental policies.

Goh Meng Seng

連動債爭議 監察院糾正金管會與財政部

A summary: In Taiwan, the Control Yuan has pointed out that the Executive Yuan has lapses in its role as setting the rules for Financial control.

This is a good sign as this is the FIRST government in the whole who dares to point out its administration's responsibility in the Lehman Brothers' Minibonds issue.

Goh Meng Seng

連動債爭議 監察院糾正金管會與財政部

* 2009-01-20
* 【中央社】

監察院調查發現，行政院金融監督管理委員會、財政部對於銀行銷售連動債相關業務，未積極訂定相關法令規定，嚴重影響投資人權益，今天通過對金管會、財政部的糾正案。

提案糾正為監察委員程仁宏、杜善良。程仁宏指出，截至去年10月31日為止，受雷曼兄弟連動債影響的投資人近5萬人，投資金額新台幣436億元，另外，受到非雷曼兄弟發行的連動債影響的投資人則有50多萬人，投資金額高達6335億元。

監察院調查發現，金管會、財政部處理銀行銷售連動債管理上，有三大違失，包括，未能積極訂定相關法令、未善盡監督管理之責、未能確實掌握銀行辦理信託業務之統計及相關資料。

糾正案認為，連動債爭議發生後，金管會遲遲無法改善，未能及時且維護民眾應有的權益，嚴重影響投資人權益。

至於未來是否提出彈劾？程仁宏表示，由於目前金管會還在進行後續善後，「留院觀察」，如果後續沒有妥善處理，不排除進一步提案懲處。980120

連動債三大違失 金管會、財政部遭糾正

【中廣新聞／張德厚】 雷曼兄弟連動債導致國內上萬投資人受害，監察院調查後指出，金管會與財政部在相關管理上有嚴重缺失，因此決定糾正，如果日後連動債善後不當，監察院也不排除對相關官員提出彈劾。

監察院20日通過對金管會及財政部的糾正案。監委程仁宏表示，雷曼兄弟破產後，其連動債影響國內上萬投資人，監察院調查後認為金管會及財政部有三大缺失，包括未積極訂定連動債的相關法令，讓銀行業者可以遵循，以及沒有善盡監督管理之責，導致連動債業務諸多缺失遲遲無法改善、爭議案件不斷。

程仁宏：『有銀行辦理受託連動式債券業務，惟全行理財專員中，竟有40.15﹪，也就是超過四成是尚未取得信託專業審定合格服務證，亂賣連動債，當然造很多的無辜的民眾受害，尤其是號稱保本但是卻血本無歸。』

另外，還有未能確實掌握銀行辦理信託業務之統計及相關資料，以為監督管理參考。程仁宏：『特別問金管會及財政部，我國是哪一家銀行最早開始辦理連動債業務，金管會及財政部居然說，沒有資料、不知道！』

程仁宏指出，連動債多項缺失，金管會及財政部難辭其咎，監察院提出糾正要求改善，而如果後續善後事宜未能妥當處理，監察院也不排除對相關官員提出彈劾。

早报选读：张雪忠－－中国特色，但并非社会主义

主题:早报选读：张雪忠－－中国特色，但并非社会主义


● 张雪忠（上海）

　　在中国的官方宣传语汇中，“中国特色社会主义”既是对经济、政治和社会结构的指称，也被视为是一种理论体系。

　　在二战之后，“科学”社会主义和民主社会主义是社会主义的两个重要的理论和实践流派，对这两个既有联系也有区别的流派加以考察，有助于人们看清中国到底算不算是社会主义国家。

科学社会主义带来贫困和奴役

　　在马克思主义者看来，剩余价值学说是科学社会主义理论的基石。剩余价值概念作为一种理论工具，确实可以较好地解释初期资本主义社会的周期性经济危机。这种经济危机源于社会财富的集中以及由此造成的生产的相对过剩。但作为一种社会经济事实，资本主义生产过程的增值以利润、工资和地租的形式在资本家、劳动者、地主之间的分配过程，早已在英国古典政治经济学中得到了极为充分的分析。

　　在马克思主义政治经济学中，最引人注目的与其说是理论分析上的贡献，不如说是一种强烈的社会道德和政治立场：资本主义经济过程中的收入分配后果在政治上和道义上是无法接受的。科学社会主义为此开出的药方就是摧毁资本主义的生产关系，并在生产资料公有制的基础上推行计划经济。

　　从改革开放之前中国的经济实践来看，公有制和计划经济尽管可以避免资本主义式的经济危机，但却带来更为可怕的匮乏。这其中既有技术因素，也有人性的因素。从技术上讲，任何个人或组织都不可能收集足够的信息，以制定真正合理的经济计划。从人性上讲，有权制定计划和分配物资的人，并不能总是做到公正无私。

　　科学社会主义的实践造成严重的物资短缺的同时，还带来令人窒息的等级秩序。和马克思设想的正好相反，它带给人们的不是繁荣和自由，而是贫困和奴役。

　　对于民主社会主义者而言，资本主义经济过程中的收入分配后果同样是不可接受的。但他们一般认为，在民主政治条件下，人数的优势也将成为劳工阶级的政治优势。社会主义的实现不再需要通过暴力革命来完成，更没有必要摧毁社会财富赖以产生的私有制和市场经济。劳工阶级只需通过议会代表争取更高的工资和更完善的社会福利，并因此获得更多的闲赋和超过劳动力在生产所必需的生活资料。

名不副实的社会主义

　　我们再来看看中国的现实。改革开放政策的举动，实际上标志着科学社会主义实践的终结。私有制和市场经济的复活不可避免地带来了资本主义的生产关系的复活。但由于以自由选举为必要条件的民主政治的缺失，劳工阶级在政治上仍无足轻重。

　　在中国，党政官僚体系不但垄断了政治权力，而且还控制了包括土地与自然资源在内的重要经济资源。在这种情况下，现代工商业必然对官僚阶层形成严重的依附，因此不可能作为一种独立的政治力量而发挥作用。牢固的官商结合体一方面可以通过畸形的经济市场过度开发自然和人力资源以聚敛财富，另一方面则利用不受约束的税费征收和政府支出来搜刮和瓜分社会财富。

　　在中国，社会主义的名号和社会经济、政治现实之间的反差，使心理素质最过硬的人都难免面红耳赤。一个所谓的社会主义国家，贫富差距已经超过了所有老牌资本主义国家。

　　财政数据也许最能说明问题。中国每年的财政收入增幅远高于国民经济的增幅，而在财政支出中，比重最大的是行政管理费，其次是经济建设费用，而直接民生领域的文教、科学、卫生、社会保障支出所占比重最小。行政管理费在国家财政支出中的比重比一般资本主义国家高5至6倍。

　　全国人大常委会办公厅研究室特约研究员王锡锌曾在央视节目中透露，中国公款吃喝、公费出国、公交车开支一年9000亿，占国家财政开支的30％。而每年的财政支出中，只有20％用于解决民生问题（美国是60％），并且极为有限的社会保障支出也主要留在官僚体系内部。

　　根据官方宣传，中国特色的社会主义是对科学社会主义的继承和发展，并且今后仍是社会发展的方向和道路。这种名不副实的状况也许还要持续很长时间。当然，只要愿意的话，人们也无妨将官僚或权贵资本主义称为有特色的社会主义。

作者任教于中国华东政法大学

Unnecessary Violence

I have been very busy lately, being tied down with lots of work, business trips as well as meetings with lots of people and writing an important article for Minibond-DBS High Note issue.

I have not made any comments of recent happenings all around the world in my blog lately due to all these commitments. Even though I have just stepped down from NSP CEC recently, it seems that time is never enough for me nowadays.

Two issues caught my eyes recently, apart from the rapid development of the Minibond issue in Hong Kong. The war in Gaza strip and the attack on PAP Yio Chu Kang MP Seng Han Tong. I am a Peace lover and I am against violence of any kind.

As a practicing Buddhist, I believe that violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred and violence creates hatred which in turn creates further violence. The vicious cycle will have no end. This is the basis of Karmic cycle.

For the present Israelis' attack on Gaza strip, it is not just a reaction to the sparse rocket attacks by Hamas. It is the jump start of past Karmic cycle of violence that existed between the two people. Of course, there will be many others who would want to see such violence to be restarted. The arms dealers will be the first to be smiling all the way to he banks. Politicians who send the sons and daughters of others to risk their lives would be the one who want to use such violence to use Nationalistic rhetoric to increase their own political capital.

Whatever sufferings bear by others are just digits of death figures. Apart of using the death of others to strengthen their own political position and safeguard their political career, these figures are just mere cold statistics. It is bloody cold murder in essence. Both the Israelis and Hamas politicians survive on the sacrifices of lives and blood of others. Else, they will no longer maintain their political importance among their people.

I believe many Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to get sick of mindless killings for all these years. Half a century of bloodshed will definitely take a serious toll on the psychological health of the people on both sides. But yet, politicians survive on such bloody conflicts. I would urge the people of both lands to assert their political wisdom in rejecting these politicians that feed on other people's bloodshed. A permanent solution to the Middle East problems could only happen if and only if the voters and people of this land reject violence in totality. Politicians that shout rhetoric about violence and hatred should be shunned or even ostracized in public shame.

Back to Singapore, we have a seventy year old man setting fire on a public elected representative. MP Seng Han Tong was quite badly burnt by the attack and my sympathy to him. I hope he will have a speedy recovery.

The attacker is said to have a known mental problem in the past. Why would he attack MR Seng is still a mystery up till now but whatever reason it may be, such violent act is totally unnecessary.

This is not the first time MP Seng has been attacked. Coincidentally, the last attacker is also a man of over 70 year old who gave MP Seng a punch when he was having his usual meet-the-people session. It is a tradition for Singapore politicians to hold Meet-the-People session where they would see voters who have come to seek their assistance for all sorts of things. Apparently the old man did not get what he asked for and thus, he punched MP Seng at that moment.

The case has been settled after MP Seng has withdrawn his charges against that old man with certain undisclosed conditions.

It would give people the impression that old people who are 70 years old or more are a violent lot in Singapore. But this is far from the truth. Singaporeans are generally a law-abiding lot. It would take a lot of agitation and frustration to ignite that fire in old people of 70 years old to make such violent act. After this incident, a special law has been added by the PAP dominated parliament to set the maximum punishment for hitting an elected MP to be 20 years of imprisonment. I do not really know why there is a need for such a "special law" to protect elected MPs from violence but apparently, now we know, it would not stop people from hurting an elected MP (in fact, the very same MP)if they are mad enough to do so.

This may have something to do with the stress and pressure suffered by our people who are supposed to be enjoying their retirement. But due to the fact that there is no social welfare in Singapore and that the supposedly retirement funds, CPF, has been depleted by various policies like housing and health care, living a happy and care-free retirement for Singaporeans is hardly possible nowadays.

While I would say such violence from these two elderly men are totally unnecessary, but such incidents actually reflects certain tensions existing in the failure of Singapore's system of retirement financing. Unlike the violence happening between the Israelis and Palestinians, these two elderly men have resorted to violence without any politicians instigating them to do so. To solve this unnecessary violence, we will need to go in depth of the social root cause of these violence against a public elected representative.

Just like the unnecessary violence happening in Middle East, we would need to look deeper down to the causes of such acts of violence. In Singapore's case, the answer may just lie in the "work till you die" mindset which the PAP government tries to cultivate in Singaporeans. This is the desperate move by PAP government because they simply know that due to the many ill-considered irrevocable policies made by them, Singaporeans no longer have sufficient funds to finance their retirement. This is really a cruel irony to a people that used to pride themselves as a nation with highest saving rate.

What we have seen is only a more serious case of violence done on others. The suicide rate in Singapore is very high and many of those who kill themselves are elderly people. This is in actual fact, unnecessary violence against themselves. It just happens that these two elderly men chose not to apply violence against themselves but rather putting their frustration and anger on their MP whom they assume would have the responsibility to help them out. This is really unfortunate but a reflection of an underlying social time bomb.

Singapore may need to do a total revamp on its policies on retirement financing as well as social welfare system in order to curb such unnecessary violence displayed by the harming of MP Seng as well as violence in suicide cases.

Goh Meng Seng

信报社评：检讨监管体制应交独立机构负责

主题:信报社评：检讨监管体制应交独立机构负责

检讨监管体制应交独立机构负责
(2009-01-09 13:44:33)

政府昨天公开金管局及证监会就雷曼迷你债券事件的调查报告，由于两份报告是由两个监管机构分头炮制，彼此对某几个重要问题的看法明显有异，而两份报告提出要求银行改善销售手法的建议甚多，值得政府仔细考虑采纳，以加强保障投资者利益。

两份报告篇幅甚长，只能摘其要者先作初步评析。首先，在监管的理念和现行监管架构上，两份报告都没有提出根本的质疑，金管局报告提出的十九项建议中，仍然认为未来应该维持“披露为本”的政策原则，而且报告“隐约”否认雷曼迷债事件的源起是由于“一业两管”，换言之，金管局报告认为现行监管模式并不是迷债风波的成因，目前也不是对监管架构动大手术的适当时机。至于证监会的报告，则同样建议维持现有的“披露为本”原则，在监管架构方面，证监会的报告没有定论，但提出可以考虑三个模式—单一监管、双峰模式和完善现有体制。

正如我们在周三的“社评”指出，目前迷债风波仍未平息，善后工作千头万绪，并不是着手改革监管制度的好时机，但到底迷债事件是否和监管制度的缺失有关，或未来本地金融业的监管架构是否需要进行改革，我们认为政府应该委任一个独立机构负责研究，因为金管局和证监会都是当前迷债风波的主角之一，而且曾经被立法会议员质询是否有失职之嫌，在这种情况下，要两个监管机构“自我评估”制度是否要改，肯定会予公众有利益冲突的嫌疑。

其次，在银行销售投资产品方面，证监和金管局的看法有明显分别。证监会的报告认为应该检讨银行利用一般存款渠道以协助销售投资产品的问题，隐隐然指银行未必适合销售投资产品；金管局的报告当然不会否认银行是销售投资产品的适当渠道，如果认为不适当，那么金管局当年赞成银行可以扩展业务至销售投资产品岂非犯了错误？为官者又岂会轻易认错，金管局不但没有否定自己的监管角色，反而建议认可机构零售证券业务的监管，应该由金管局一把抓，把所有认可机构业务都纳入其监管范围，政府应授权金管局向申请机构发牌，为相关证券业务制订标准，甚至可拥有制裁权力。简单而言，由银行销售投资产品的监管工作，应该统一归由金管局负责，以减少双重监管造成的混淆；金管局的报告直言，“假定只得金管局一个监管机构，可以避免同时面对多重监管的麻烦”。经历雷曼迷债风波之后，银行销售投资产品的业务如一潭死水，双重监管是否会出纰漏，现在没有多少人会深究，但未雨绸缪，现在两大机构对于监管银行推销投资产品有如此明显的分野，我们认为政府应在短期内就此作出决定，是否会把监管的权力集中在其中一个机构；如果保持现状，又有什么方法可以确保两个监管单位不会出现协调和权责不清等问题？

雷曼迷债暴露了银行对投资产品的销售手法是造成风波的主要原因，两份报告都针对有关问题，提出了大量改善建议，金管局的报告尤其详尽，但是，单靠银行内部以各种“防火墙”方式分隔存款和推销产品，是否就可避免滥用客户资料作推销用途？在现行守则内，银行在销售投资产品时已有不少指引，但为何发挥不了分隔存款和推销产品的作用？很明显，如果不在公司组织和业务架构上作出更动，银行滥用客户数据推销产品的现象难以杜绝，政府应该对此作更深入研究。

接受两份报告之后，政府表示现阶段会集中在完善现行规管及保障投资者的措施—“先易后难”，对安抚各方的指责也许暂时有用，但雷曼迷债牵出的问题涉及不少制度改革，如果不及早厘清及作出改革决定，有不少难题是无法彻底解决的。

香港金管局倡設金融投訴調解制

金管局倡設金融投訴調解制
(明報)1月8日 星期四 19:45

金管局向財政司長提交涉及雷曼迷債的報告，提出19項建議，包括建議成立投資者投訴調解機制。

財政司長曾俊華今日公布金管局的報告，金管局在報告書中提出19項改善建議。金管局在報告中表示，傾向保留披露為本的監管制度，以讓投資者有更多選擇，因這符合國際的標準。金管局指出，需加強現行架構的監管，以符合不斷演變的情況，其中包括加強投資者的教育。

金管局表示，金融產品的銷售說明書應簡化，提出主要內容聲明，不能有逾3張紙的內容，令投資者明白所購買的產品。

金管局稱，除主要內容聲明外，投資產品說明書亦可包括警告字句，如「此結構產品包含衍生工具，如你不完全明白及接受所承擔的風險，切勿投資」。

金管局稱，應考慮是否限制以禮物，作為銷售工具，並應檢討現時個人配售的做法。

至於監管方面，金管局表示，持牌機構中介人的證券業務，應在金管局的監管下，包括註冊、設定標準及調查等。金管局亦建議，與證監會加強合作，設定統一的監管標準。

至於銀行銷售證券業務方面，金管局認為，應讓持牌機構繼續有關業務，但要確保有清楚的分野，如銀行存款服務要與證券零售辦事處分開，銷售職員亦要分開。

金管局建議，要由非銷售人士為投資的客戶，進行風險評估，並要客戶簽名作實，強制要求錄音整個過程。

金管局亦建議，設立冷靜期，讓客戶可重新檢視其投資。而金管局亦會定期，派出人員，假扮成客戶，調查銷售人員的情況。

鑑於多國已成立專責處理投資投訴的組織，金管局最後建議，成立有關的金融調解機制。

（即時新聞）

Stepping down from NSP CEC

I have finally submitted my resignation from NSP CEC and the party leadership has accepted my departure.

I have been too busy with many other things that I feel that I no longer could contribute effectively to the party any more. I do not believe in holding to positions within any organization that I could no longer contribute effectively.

It has been an exciting year of engagement in NSP CEC and we did make quite a number of changes to the party's framework together as a team. There are still challenges ahead for the party to move on to a higher level of transformation but unfortunately, I will not be able to continue to contribute to the next phase of development for the party.

My departure from the NSP CEC will also allow me to focus more effectively on my other social-political activism without having to put due consideration to the party's positions at many times, in fear of compromising the party's official stand.

It has been a fruitful participation in NSP CEC and I want to wish them all the best in the coming months and years ahead.

Goh Meng Seng

在香港会晤雷曼苦主和民主党领袖

从右至左：陈光誉先生、甘乃威先生、我和龙子权先生
(Photo by ：Hong Kong Economic Journal 照片自：香港信报)

在2008年元旦，我和雷曼苦主组织代表龙子权先生到香港民主党立法会议员办公室去会晤香港民主党主席何俊仁先生、甘乃威先生、和香港雷曼苦主大联盟召集人陈光誉先生。 这一次会晤原本只想向香港方面探讨他们准备在美国进行集体诉讼的事宜和我们两边的苦主是否有合作的空间，没想到我们经过彼此的交流却意外的令我方对他们个别的法律诉讼的过程有更深的了解。我们相信这将对新加坡苦主往后的法律诉讼会有所帮助。

(Photo by: Oriental Daily News 照片自：东方日报)

香港雷曼苦主大联盟非常有组织。虽然他们也是资源有限，但是麻雀虽小，五脏俱全。相对来说，香港比新加坡在政治、言论自由和社会意识都较强。个人的发挥空间也相对的大，也造就了个人对事情的反应非常的快而敏锐。他们甚至能以不同角度去思考如何制定 解决方案而后进谏政府采取他们的建议。

(Photo by: Sing Pao  照片自：成报）

 我们会晤香港方面了以后，民主党安排了一个记者招待会。会上我们发表各自的心得，还有关于我们将建立更紧密联系的消息。我们还希望能与台湾方面的雷曼苦主联系，加强交流以便能更好配合和互相交换经验。这方面的工作就由香港方面去执行。至于合作到美国进行集体法律诉讼的事宜，新加坡的雷曼债券的信托人与香港方面不一样，所以我们初步判断这合作事项无法实现。但对于星展的结构产品的苦主，我们也许会有合作的空间。

信报新闻报道

今天香港方面的报纸都有报道我们这一次与香港方面的会晤。香港政府也刚好在同时接到了他们金管局与证监会对雷曼事件的调查报告。所以我们会面的报道就跟这则新闻一起报道了。看来香港政府对这雷曼事件非常关注，而且以透明的方法去处理此事件，务必找出问题的所在而做出相对的政策调整。

东方日报新闻报道

香港的新闻自由真是令人大开眼界。在我们会晤香港民主党和陈光誉的前一天，我们就接到了两份报纸的记者打电话给我们做采访。在会晤的当天，这两份报纸就已经刊登了有关我们这次到来的任务。他们那种拼新闻的态度与新加坡的新闻工作者形成了强烈的对比。这基本上是 因为新加坡的主流媒体都被控制在一党专制之下。当上头说不要再报道此雷曼事件后，大家就很有默契的完全不用再跟进了。反正每一份报纸都是在同一屋檐下，并没有害怕谁会抢新闻的！

信报新闻报道

今天龙子权先生已经回新加坡了。我将继续留在香港以便参加他们在来临星期天举行的大会。这次会议是关于美国集体法律诉讼的事宜。虽然这次我们新加坡方面并不能参与其诉讼过程，但我想看看他们是如何进行这召集和整合的过程，以便往后我们也可能用得着。

以下是其他香港相关的报道：

文匯報

兩銀行職員願揭「賣債」招數

【本報訊】（記者　徐海煒）香港銀行在銷售雷曼相關金融產品過程中，是否涉及不良銷售手法，一直是社會關注的焦點。據協助香港雷曼相關投資者的政黨透露，有2名銀行前線職員已表明願意講解香港銀行的相關銷售手法，故會考慮安排他們到立法會專責小組上作證。

　新加坡雷曼苦主聯盟代表龍子權及新加坡國民團結黨中委吳明盛昨日到港，與香港雷曼苦主大聯盟發言人陳光譽探討，聯合到美國就雷曼迷債事宜提出集體訴訟的可能性。龍子權稱，新加坡現有約8千名雷曼苦主，涉及約25億港元。新加坡雷曼苦主聯盟現已成立一律師團，研究向銀行提出訴訟的方法，並對前往美國控訴迷債託管人的詳情感興趣。

　龍子權稱，現時先要找到與香港雷曼苦主的共通點，再研究如何利用集體訴訟方式，與香港一起處理雷曼迷債問題。他們稍後亦會進一步聯絡台灣的雷曼苦主，尋求合作。

港星聯手興訟不可行

　不過，與會的香港民主黨立法會議員甘乃威稱，香港的雷曼迷債信託人屬於美國匯豐銀行，而新加坡的迷債信託人則屬於當地的匯豐銀行，故雙方聯合提出訴訟基本上是不可行的。

　另外，針對銀行是否涉及不良銷售的問題，吳明盛透露，他們已找到一新加坡的銀行前線經理，承認在銷售迷債時有誤導手法，並願出庭作證。出席會面的民主黨立法會議員甘乃威也稱，香港有2名銀行前線職員願意講解銀行的相關銷售手法，希望未來會有更多銀行職員願意出來作證。

星島日報

港星迷債苦主擬聯手告美汇豐
記者梁愚瀚

銀行回購雷曼迷債程序遲緩，有香港及新加坡兩地苦主擬聯合到美國提出集體訴訟。協助苦主的立法會議員指出，雖然現時已知集體向豐提出訴訟不可行，但亦已準備法律諮詢工作，期望能與新加坡苦主，研究一同向星展銀行追討。此外，日內會將兩地苦主網站連結，方便他們互相更新追討資訊。

研向「星展」追討

立法會議員甘乃威及何俊仁，昨午與兩名來自新加坡的苦主代表，以及本港雷曼苦主大聯盟召集人陳光譽進行會面交流，了解兩地在現有法律制度下，就雷曼事件向美國豐提出集體訴訟的可行性。

會後甘乃威表示，經了解香港的迷債信託人屬於美國豐銀行，而新加坡的迷債信託人則屬於當地豐銀行，即使兩地迷債投資者決意向美國豐提出集體訴訟，基本上並不可行。
不過，甘續指，他們正研究香港與新加坡投資產品的共通點，如星展銀行的Constellation票據，由於兩地的信託人相同，現正尋求美國律師的意見，若經考慮後認為情況許可，將有機會聯合入稟美國法院，以進行集體訴訟。

專程來港「取經」

新加坡雷曼苦主大聯盟的代表龍子權及吳明盛表示，新加坡有八千人購買雷曼迷你債券，另有約一萬人購買了與雷曼相關的結構產品，涉及約為二十五億港元。

龍子權指，是次到港是了解苦主的追討情況，由於新加坡銀行並無向投資者提出回購方案，大部分苦主仍正設法追討賠償，包括向當地銀行或通過調解會追討，但進度緩慢，故專程來港「取經」。他們期望，集結兩地力量，提高政府監管金融衍生工具的意識。

連結兩地網站交流

兩地苦主現正準備將他們的網上討論平台相互連結，望藉此互相提供最新資訊，以及進行意見交流。甘乃威指，現正希望能與台灣的雷曼苦主取得聯絡，期望能再次舉行「港‧星‧台」的交流會，形成區域討論。

他又指，暫時本港有兩名銀行前職員，願意講述銀行的銷售實況，不排除安排他們到立法會向議員表述。

太陽報

雷曼事件報告倡完善監管

【本報訊】因應雷曼迷債事件，金管局與證監會昨日向署理財政司司長陳家強提交報告，提出完善現行監管制度的建議，以及加強對投資者的保障和教育。有立法會議員認為報告涉及改善監管制度的建議，應盡快公開。財經事務及庫務局發言人則指出，須處理好可能影響執法工作的報告內容才能公開。

新加坡苦主代表來港交流

財政司司長於去年九月底要求金管局及證監會，在三個月內就調查雷曼事件投訴期間的觀察、所吸取的教訓及發現的問題提交報告。金管局及證監會於○八年的最後一天，提交了報告。

證監會指出，報告就完善監管制度及加強對投資者的保障和教育作出建議，亦識別了迷你債券及其他結構產品具體監管，證監會亦繼續對所有迷債分銷商的銷售手法進行調查。

另外，新加坡兩名購買了雷曼相關產品的法律代表，昨日與本港雷曼苦主大聯盟發言人及立法會議員開會，了解兩地雷曼相關產品的共同點，並會尋求美國律師的意見，研究能否利用集體訴訟方式，入稟美國法院，代表稍後可能會與台灣苦主聯繫。

其中一名新加坡代表吳明盛於會後表示，今次交流獲益不淺，當中包括在如何進行法律訴訟上得到了啟示。現時新加坡苦主約有一萬名，其中雷曼迷債持有人佔八千名，涉款約二十五億港元。
立法會議員甘乃威表示，雙方主要就組織行動及法律觀點兩方面進行交流。至於訴訟方面，甘指出，由於本港迷債的信託人是美國豐銀行，而新加坡的迷債信託人則為當地的豐銀行，所以新加坡的苦主未必可以與本港苦主進行集體訴訟。甘乃威續稱，但能否在結構性零售債券找出共通點進行訴訟，仍要尋求美國律師的意見才可決定。

南華早報
South China Morning Post

Finance chief given report on minibonds saga

The banking and securities regulators handed a report on the minibonds saga to the financial secretary yesterday, three months after investors started complaining.
The Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission filed the report, on the lessons learned and issues they identified during an investigation into complaints about the Lehman Brothers-issued minibonds, to acting Financial Secretary Chan Ka-keung.

Although there has been speculation that the report would pinpoint a few banks, sources at the regulatory bodies said the securities commission's investigation had highlighted more than 20 distributors that sold minibonds, including banks and brokers.

The report focused on the mis-selling of the investment product.
Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk credit-linked derivatives. They are marketed as proxy investments in well-known companies.
Although the Monetary Authority regulates banks, it has referred all the cases to the commission for further investigation, the sources said.

The government would keep an open mind on any review of the regulatory system and on whether the city needed a single regulator for all investment products, a spokesman for the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau said.

He said the government would probably publish the report but that the regulators who submitted it had expressed concern that doing so would affect the ongoing investigation and any improvements to the system.

The Monetary Authority and the commission declined to comment on the report.
Meanwhile, two leaders of Singapore's Lehman investors flew to meet their Hong Kong counterparts yesterday in the hope of finding common ground for a class action in the US.

Both the Singaporeans and Hongkongers said they were considering inviting leaders for similar investors from Taiwan to form a Southeast Asian group to mount the suit on US turf. They would probably meet again soon in Hong Kong, which had greater political freedom than Singapore, they said.

Lung Tze Kuen, a Minibond Victims Group committee member, and Goh Meng Seng, a National Solidarity Party executive council member, met Hong Kong's Kam Nai-wai - a Democratic Party member - and Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of the Allied Victims of Lehman Products.

The four investors' leaders hope to go to the US because the legal system there provides for class action, which Hong Kong's does not.

Mr Lung added that the jury system and contingent fee - where clients do not pay lawyers if they lose their cases - would work in the favour of investors who decided to join the suit.

They attempted to identify commonalities in the products sold in the two cities that would allow them to unite for a class action in the United States.
Mr Chan said: "The Lehman products are very similar in their basic structures, in issuer, trustee, and even the law firms that drew up their documents."

In Singapore, about 10,000 people invested S$500 million (HK$2.69 billion) in Lehman-related investment products, of whom 8,000 purchased minibonds, Mr Lung said.