Quora Answer: Can a Financial Adviser be an Executor?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Can a financial adviser be an executor?”

In Singapore, a financial advisor may be an executor of an estate if there is no beneficial relationship arrangement, meaning that there is no conflict of interest.  However, this issue of conflict of interest is quite nebulous, and it would be best to have any potential legal entanglements resolved, documented and addressed.

Most recently, I was the executor of my mother’s estate.  We hired a lawyer for the probate process.  The rest of it is legal formality.

Tampines Changkat Advanced TMC as Language Evaluator, 27th August 2019

On the 27^th August 2019, I was at Tampines Changkat Advanced Toastmasters Club, as language evaluator.  This was my 43^rd club visit on the 58^th day of the Toastmaster year.

The Toastmaster of the Day was Tony Lim Tong Lee.  The timer was Craig Lim.  The ah counter was Jennifer Tan.  The table topics master was Desmond Sim.

In her opening address, the president, Koh Lee Siang, spoke about the importance of attitude, and how we shape our worldview by it.  She quoted Norman Vincent Peale: “Change your thoughts, and you change your world.”  She said our thoughts affect our emotions, and our emotions turn into our behaviour, and this determines whether we succeed or fail.

Sangeeta Ashish Deshpande spoke of her leadership journey in getting her young daughter’s book, “The Wishing Cat”, published.  It takes leadership to recognise talent, and to cultivate belief in those beneath us.  It takes leadership to manage a project, where no one else truly believed, until it is an obvious success.  It was an inspiration speech, full of teachable moments, and learning points.

Nui Thantong attempted a roast of her mentor, Michael Wee Sim Guan.  She brought us along on his Toastmaster journey, and how it was his wife who got him to join, years and years ago, proving the adage, “Behind every successful man is a woman.”

Kion Chuen Rong gave a complex speech, an expansive elaboration of the tortoise and the hare, and the series of races they undertook, and all the lessons we could learn from them.  The obvious lesson was slow and steady beats quick but inconsistent.  And then it evolved to quick and ready beats slow and steady, to choosing the race is as important as racing it, to understanding challenges and embracing change.  He ended off by explaining that teamwork is structured leadership.

Wendy Lee gave another morality tale, about a man who wanted to divorce his wife after years of marriage because the spark was gone, and how he eventually came to realise what she gave up to raise his children, and the cost of her own self.  In the end, she died in his arms, from cancer.  It was a poignant tale, with much to digest.

Finally, Das Ganamanas gave his first speech, his icebreaker, and he spoke of his journey from working in India, and almost failing, to finding love, moving to Singapore, and finally his act of love, in engaging a financial planner to ensure his family has a legacy.

The evaluators were Ethan Lee, Nur Amalina binte Ohrallayali, Thomas Chen Jun Ying, Chia Choon Kiat, and Michael Wee Sim Guan.

Best Speaker: Sangeeta Ashish Deshpande;

Best Evaluator: Thomas Chen Jun Ying; and

Best Table Topics Speaker: Michael Wee Sim Guan.

Quora Answer: Are Singaporeans Happy with the Extent of Freedom of Speech in Singapore?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Are Singaporeans happy with the extent to which freedom of speech is preserved in Singapore?”

What is there to be unhappy about?  A person can say or write whatever they want within the realms of civilised society.  There is the right to have an opinion, and the right to own’s own dignity, which means that the right to insult is balanced by the right of the one insulted to defend his integrity.  It is no different from the rest of the world.  Of course, I understand that there are Singaporeans who are unhappy, and they complain.  But they fail to see the irony that their constant complaints are, in themselves, examples of freedom of speech.

We have to be cognisant of the fact that freedom of speech must be balanced with the rights of others.  Unfettered freedom of speech does not benefit society.  Hate speech and slander should not be given free rein under the umbrella of freedom of speech.  Consider, for example, the American experience, where politicians, primarily of the current incarnation of the Republican Party, giving statements denigrating ethnic groups, world religions, and advocating violence and segregation.  And we have music artistes putting out songs filled with violence, misogyny, and racism.  Those would be unacceptable to our values.

In Singapore, there is that added emphasis on communal sensitivities, so it is against the law to insult another ethnicity or religion simply on the basis of prejudice.  For example, disagreeing with Muslims on certain issues is acceptable.  Claiming all Muslims are terrorists is against the law.  This works for other religions as well, and Singapore has banned hate preachers such as Ismail bin Musa Menk, and Zakir Naik, for their attacks on other religions, and their call for segregation of the Muslims.  Christian preachers have been deported for denigrating Muslims and Buddhists. 

In the same vein, in regard to our experience with racial riots fifty years ago, we pay attention to racial sensitivities, and even though there may be missteps, there are efforts to address them.  We have only to look at Sri Lanka, where a once promising nation devolved into civil war between the Sinhalese majority, and Tamil minority, which has set the nation back decades, and caused untold hundreds of thousands of losses, both dead and injured.  Any police case involving racial provocation is given the highest priority.  We keep the peace by having absolutely no tolerance for any form of such exceptionalism.

Another reasonable limit to freedom of speech is slander, of which fake new is a major perpetrator.  Whilst we have the freedom of fair criticism, we do not have the freedom of character assassination by perpetuating falsehoods specifically to attack the character and integrity of people.  Again, we have to consider the American experience, where decades of extreme antipathy between the Democrats and the Republicans have left a nation divided along class lines, and a political class unable to engage in dialogue across the aisle, meaning legislation is often deadlocked due to partisanship.  This has trickled down to the electorate, such that it has fractured communities and families.

Accordingly, in Singapore, it is the right of freedom of speech, that a person could conceivably state, that he thinks this or that person, even the person of the President of Singapore, is an idiot, a lackwit, or an imbecile, and that is legitimate criticism.  A person could conceivably state that you dislike his or her hairstyle, dressing or even the way he or she speaks; and this would be petty, but legitimate criticism.  However, should there be an allegation of impropriety, corruption, or ethical misbehavior, that is an attack on their integrity.  This will invite legal action, and severe repercussions.  Such allegations should be accompanied with proof.

Consider how it is across the Causeway, in Malaysia, with its ethnic-based political parties, and religious prejudice between various groups.  Singapore cannot afford that level of schism, and chaos.  In light of this, the average Singaporean has little reason to fault our freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech should always be balanced with responsibility of speech.  You can say whatever you want, as long as you are able to back it up.

Quora Answer: Can a Creditor Get a Levy against an Estate Bank Account for My Personal Debts?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Can a creditor get a levy against an estate bank account for my own personal debts?”

A bank levy is a specific legal action allowing creditors to take funds direct from your bank account to pay a debt.  During this process, the bank freezes funds in your account, and the bank is legally required to send that money to creditors to satisfy your debt against them.  However, for that to occur, creditors must furnish a legal judgement to the bank.

In this case, the funds in the bank account belong to the estate, which is a distinct legal entity from you.  As such, your creditors cannot touch those funds despite you being the executor of the estate.  They cannot even touch the funds even if you are the heir, unless those funds are in your possession.  They can only take a levy against funds that are proven to be yours.

However, even if the funds are in your account, you may still dispute the levy.  During the dispute process, the levy may not take place.  If you can provide proof that the funds are not yours, or that the funds are from subsidies and handouts from the government, the bank will not approve the levy.  It is important to understand that the bank charges for this.

Leng Kee Advanced TMC as Workshop Presenter, 24th August 2019

On the 24^th August 2019, I was at Leng Kee Advanced Toastmasters Club, as workshop presenter.  This was my 42^nd club visit on the 54^th day of the Toastmaster year.

The workshop advisor was Patrick Oei Kian Seng, the driving force behind the programme, and its inspiration.  Club president, Julie Ong P. S., was behind the publicity drive for it, and it was much of her hard work that filled the room to the brim.  The organising chair was Alex Ang.  Jennifer Lim handled the registration, including the many walk-in participants.  The IT support was Jenny Rachel Wan.  The photographer, and de facto sergeant-at-arms for the day, was Steven Choon.  Robert Ng was the Toastmaster of the Day.  Celine Goh was the other presenter.  I would like to thank Leng Kee Advanced Toastmasters Club, for this opportunity, and acknowledge their support.

In the first half of the workshop, Celine Goh introduced the audience to rhetorical devices, and how they are used.  She spoke about balancing fluency in language, with effective communication.  She had handouts that spelt it out clearly, and it was easy to follow for the audience.

In the second half, I spoke about rhetoric as a whole, and how it is used as a tool to move the audience to great deeds, and great wrongs.  I went into detail about the psychological tricks used by conmen, salesmen, great orators, to sell products and ideas.  In summary, rhetoric is not just about what is said, but how it is said.

Patrick Oei Kian Seng then gave a demonstration speech, off the cuff, incorporating much of the elements discussed in the workshop.  His was a display of oratorial skill, and quick thinking, as he weaved a narrative, incorporating a call to action, a coherent tale, and a plausible scenario, injecting humour, vulnerability, and gravitas.

Jurong Green English TMC as Project Evaluator, 23rd August 2019

On the 23^rd August 2019, I was at Jurong Green English Toastmasters Club, as project evaluator.  This was my 41^st club visit on the 54^th day of the Toastmaster year.

The Toastmaster of the Day was Tan Chor Wui.  The timer was Suganyabarani Napoleon.  The ah counter was Ong Yi Ling.  The table topics master was Tan Jia Yi.

In his opening address, the president, Owen Ter, emphasised the need to have a compelling narrative when giving a speech, because people remember stories, not data.

Gordon Liu spoke about growing up in Chongqing, China, which is sometimes called the spicy food capital of China, but he does not eat spicy food.  He told us about how he came to Singapore, and the challenges he had adapting to the culture, and learning English.

Chin Kok Leong gave a speech, detailing his take on the art of selling one’s ideas, and why it is important to be able to convince others.  This is why he joined Toastmasters, so that he could put these ideas into practice, and refine them.

Arun Prasanth spoke about the history of Indians in Singapore, from the pre-colonial period, the colonial period, the post-colonial period, and after independence.  He gave a tour de force of some Indian pioneers, and their contribution to Singapore, such as Narayana Pillai.  It was a comprehensive speech, well thought out, and with great depth.  Despite growing up in India, Arun Prasanth professed his desire to settle down here, and his admiration for what Singapore has achieved.

Sam Chou spoke about telling the truth.  He has an animated style of speaking that enlivens the audience, and brings the story to life.  He also has an understated sense of humour, that print does not do justice to.

Oon Sim Sim did an advanced project, on how to be a successful negotiator.  This is a difficult project, since it involves both explaining the concept and techniques of successful negotiation, and role playing it to demonstrate how it works.  It was a credible effort, and a learning experience for all concerned.

The evaluators were Jason Seet, Pei Yi Heng, Praba Vathi, Jacqueline Ng, myself, and Anand Ariyarathinam.

Best Speaker: Arun Prasath;

Best Evaluator: Jacqueline Ng; and

Best Table Topics Speaker: James Pang Jing Perng.