TR EMERITUS

By Dato from Malaysiakini I refer to the letter 'Singapore not as bad as portrayed'. It looks like the writer is certainly a Singaporean and needs, like all people of every country, to protect their nation's image. Granted what he says about every country not being perfect, but he should not, like the better or rather more affluent Singaporean, push under the carpet what is very obvious that poverty and trying to earn a living in Singapore for a lot of people is difficult. It is this need to ignore, explain and turn their heads away arrogantly that allows this group of people living in poverty to continue to suffer. Let's not kid around, all countries of any repute provides basic medical attention, and Singapore is not different, but when it comes to expensive treatment or special treatment, I think he should get his facts right, because the hospital will not dish this out for free. Instead I know of many folks who have been turned away just because one member of the family earns SGD1,500 and this disqualifies them from many social services help, like disabled needs, autistic people getting treatment and so on. There are also many poverty-stricken blocks of apartments, notorious for their people who live in abject poverty in rat holes they call apartments. Two, maybe three small rooms, and when we say small, trust me, it is small. I now ask the writer to explain the existence of the 'Karang Guni' people and the location they operate in near Sim Lim tower. Maybe he can explain to us Malaysians what is 'Karang Guni'. To me their existence only means that poverty exists and openly, as otherwise the government should ban this shocking culture. In many countries they are known as "scavengers" who get their stuff from dumps, throwaways and so on, and then sell them. So tell us, the 'Mahathir Malaysians', a little more about Singapore. Tell us how Lee Kuan Yew bankrupts the opposition, rather then throw them in jail. Tell us why one person protesting is considered an assembly? Tell us about the famous JB Jeyaratnam who died practically in poverty, a few months after settling his bankruptcy payments. Admit your country's shortcomings. Just go to some of the Mcdonald's outlets and you will wonder why Singaporeans, in their 60s and 70s, working there, doing cleaning jobs. I was told it was to keep them busy, but in reality, they need the job to survive. In Malaysia, we are turning things around with regards to poverty. Our poverty eradication programmes, NGOs and many organisations are doing a good job. Source: Malaysiakini  Read More →

From the Newsroom Team In a stunning development of the ongoing PothePanda (Gary Tan) case, Gary's medical report from IMH in 2006 confirmed that he has "no mental illness." (read Chia Ti Lik's account here) On 3rd June, DPP John Loo had instructions to apply for Gary to be remanded in the IMH for 3 weeks on the basis that he is delusional in his blog postings and that he had been allegedly remanded in IMH before in 2006. (read article here) Gary would have been thrown into IMH if not from strong objections from his lawyer Chia Ti Lik who was representing him. Nevertheless, this does not dissuade the DPP again from attempting to apply for Gary to be thrown into IMH for his "own good". According to a post on pothepanda's blog: "DJ Soh rejected the application and stated that since IMH medical report found me NO MENTAL ILLNESS, he does not see any reason for me to be thrown into IMH. However, DJ Soh apparently advised Mr Chia to get me to self-admit into IMH or be an outpatient there,to cover myself. DJ Soh then made a very strange offer to Mr Chia. According to Mr Chia, DJ Soh told Mr Chia,"Mr Chia, if your client has no money, he can apply for me to put him into IMH for free." [Source: PothePanda] The arbitariness and readiness displayed by non medical professionals to commit a suspect to IMH on very flimsy grounds is a travesty of his rights as a citizen of the state. What if Gary was really sent to IMH back in June then? Will he be compensated by the state now that it is revealed that there are no medical grounds for his admission in the first place? IMH has a strict set of criteria for admission. The few instances when admission is seriously considered are: 1. Patient is at high risk of suicide or deliberate self-harm if not admitted. 2. Acute psychosis where the patient is deemed to be a threat to the lives of himself and others. 3. Severe depression in which the patient refuses any food or drinks. [Source: http://wayangparty.com/?p=10078] Since Gary has been diagnosed as not having mental illness at all by the IMH psychiatrist in 2006 and he was never on follow up with any psychiatrists, any aspersions cast deliberately on his mental capacity to stand for trial can be considered defamatory in nature. Gary's case bears uncanny similarities to the pending Anwar Sodomy II case in Malaysia. Medical reports obtained from two hospitals show that Anwar's accuser Saiful was not sodomized at all and yet the state still proceed to prosecute Anwar for sodomy. The strong presence of the alternative media in Malaysia has ensured a certain degree of transparency and accountability in Anwar's trial. PothePanda's case was not even warranted a mention in the local newspapers. The truth behind the PothePanda saga may never be out because it is not in the "interest" of the public to know more about the "modus operandi" of the Singapore's legal service.  Read More →

本金退六成 事主再分抵押品四成 2009年7月10日   【香港明報專訊】雷曼迷你債券16家分銷銀行與證監會一度膠覑的和解談判，出現新發展。消息人士透露，證監會已根據早前中銀香港(2388) (Hong Kong Securities) 的六成回購方案(簡稱「中銀方案」)為基礎，向銀行界提出反建議，要求銀行在投資本金的六成之上，再把日後收回抵押品剩餘價值的40％，也歸還客戶所有。 按此計算，大部分迷債持有人可取回近90％的本金，這批迷債以金額計已佔總數逾八成。而分銷銀行須承擔的損失將高於「中銀方案」，對於如何回應證監方案，銀行未有任何共識。證監對有關消息不予置評。 自分銷銀行上月底主動與證監會談判以來，雙方一直就「中銀方案」——以本金六成回購，65歲以上長者獲七成回購的建議，討價還價。證監會認為回購價太低，又指部分抵押品剩餘價值高過六成；銀行則認為證監假設的抵押品價值過高。 證監對方案不置評 惟 消息透露，近日談判進度加快，證監會以六成「中銀方案」為基礎，接受六至七成的回購底價，但條件是銀行在抵押品解凍後，將剩餘價值的40％給予客戶，其餘 60％價值為銀行所有。根據此方案，剩餘價值較高的迷債系列，客戶最終取回的價值，與「中銀方案」有明顯分別。假設有關抵押品剩餘價值為70％，客戶除了 取回六成的回購底價外，更可取回剩餘價值的40％，即28％，總共收回本金的88％。若抵押品價值已跌至接近0％，客戶最終只能取回六成的回購價。 按 安永會計師事務所去年11月的估值，除了系列5至9價值跌至0.82％，及系列15至18價值較低(少於13％)外，大部分系列的剩餘價值，均達到約 64％。在證監會方案下，後者最終可取回幾近本金90％，較「中銀方案」取得的六成多金額高(見表)。按政府去年公布的資料，這些系列的投資金額達102 億元，佔總體迷債125億元的82％。 事主最高可取回90%本金 不過，這只是證監會對銀行提出的建議，銀行將 會如何回應，仍待商討。據悉，昨日16家分銷銀行再次開會，但尚未深入討論證監會的建議，因為各銀行仍就六成和解要付出的成本，等候公司董事會的同意。據 了解，銀行曾經向證監會提出，在「中銀方案」之下，額外付出抵押品剩餘價值的5％予客戶，與證監會方案的要求有很大距離。 據悉，證監會認為新方案較「中銀方案」可取，因為在「中銀方案」下，若抵押品剩餘價值高於本金六成，銀行根本毋須作額外賠償，不能反映銀行要為不當銷售而應承擔的責任。在「證監方案」下，銀行則須承受額外的損失，而且高於客戶的虧損，證監認為這樣才較為「合理」。 本報以未償還迷債金額125億元計算，銀行首先要付出六成(即75億元)的和解底價，即使銀行有權取回所有抵押品的價值(按安永估值為67億元)，仍要將當中四成(26.8億元)支付予客戶，最終損失達34.8億元。較「中銀方案」損失15.6億元，要多付出近20億元。 (明報記者羅羽庭、姜靜嫻報道)  Read More →