<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>July 17, 2009
CREDIT CARDS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Room for better consumer protection
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I AM dismayed by the reported responses of financial institutions to the plight of credit card theft victim Tan Shock Ling ('Thieves use her credit cards to charge $17k', Monday).
It seems that there is little difference in how banks and credit card firms push their products from the way financial institutions drive clients to buy their structured products.
In both instances, risks and liabilities are conveyed microscopically compared with the big sell prospective clients are flooded with.
Only after checking did I realise that the various banks have differing policies regarding lost-card liability. For example, an American bank's charge card limits a card holder's liability to $100 even before a report of the lost credit card is made, while a local bank slams a 100 per cent liability regardless of whether unauthorised card transactions were done before or after the report was made.
While one may argue that banks have the right to market their products in whichever way they want, the worry is whether consumers are adequately apprised of the risks and liabilities.
In China, card holders must key in a personal identification number after signing for a purchase, while the Malaysian government regulates maximum liability for a lost card to RM200 (S$80), regardless of the timing of one's report of the lost card.
I hope the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Association of Banks in Singapore can shed light on why less financially advanced countries have consumer protection rules that are superior to Singapore's.
Also, why are the banks involved - Royal Bank of Scotland, Citibank and United Overseas Bank - silent on considering a waiver of the amounts run up on Ms Tan's cards?
Ng Tze Jin
CREDIT CARDS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Room for better consumer protection
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I AM dismayed by the reported responses of financial institutions to the plight of credit card theft victim Tan Shock Ling ('Thieves use her credit cards to charge $17k', Monday).
It seems that there is little difference in how banks and credit card firms push their products from the way financial institutions drive clients to buy their structured products.
In both instances, risks and liabilities are conveyed microscopically compared with the big sell prospective clients are flooded with.
Only after checking did I realise that the various banks have differing policies regarding lost-card liability. For example, an American bank's charge card limits a card holder's liability to $100 even before a report of the lost credit card is made, while a local bank slams a 100 per cent liability regardless of whether unauthorised card transactions were done before or after the report was made.
While one may argue that banks have the right to market their products in whichever way they want, the worry is whether consumers are adequately apprised of the risks and liabilities.
In China, card holders must key in a personal identification number after signing for a purchase, while the Malaysian government regulates maximum liability for a lost card to RM200 (S$80), regardless of the timing of one's report of the lost card.
I hope the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Association of Banks in Singapore can shed light on why less financially advanced countries have consumer protection rules that are superior to Singapore's.
Also, why are the banks involved - Royal Bank of Scotland, Citibank and United Overseas Bank - silent on considering a waiver of the amounts run up on Ms Tan's cards?
Ng Tze Jin
