- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Fake stamps: Wake-up call for SingPost
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE counterfeit stamps ('Fake stamp ring exposed', Sept 12) are from the fish definitive set issued in 2001 and 2002. For the scam to have gone on undetected for more than a year reveals the inadequacy of SingPost's security features. High quality off-set lithography printing technology, once the domain of security printers, is now easily available in commercial printing.
Only on close scrutiny is one able to discern the real stamps from fake ones. There are other security features in the stamps that SingPost declined to reveal.
The paper used in printing all the stamps is phosphor coated and emits yellow-green phosphorescence under short-wave ultraviolet light.
The dollar denomination stamps have two additional security features. A second lion icon is printed in fluorescent ink just above the value indicator. This is best seen under the same ultraviolet light. A fine black line comprising microscopic wording, SINGAPORE, is printed below a fish.
The principal setback of these three security features is that they are not readily visible to the naked eye. Indeed, SingPost has admitted that it would be hard for most people to tell whether the stamps are genuine.
Why incorporate these inconspicuous security features when even trained SingPost staff cannot detect them? SingPost must have visible security features on its stamps to prevent further counterfeiting. Some examples used by the postal authorities overseas include optical variable ink, metallic ink and holograms. The exact monetary loss suffered by SingPost in this fake stamp scam is not known, but it is high time that it updates its security management to prevent another one.
Lim Chong Teck
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->THE counterfeit stamps ('Fake stamp ring exposed', Sept 12) are from the fish definitive set issued in 2001 and 2002. For the scam to have gone on undetected for more than a year reveals the inadequacy of SingPost's security features. High quality off-set lithography printing technology, once the domain of security printers, is now easily available in commercial printing.
Only on close scrutiny is one able to discern the real stamps from fake ones. There are other security features in the stamps that SingPost declined to reveal.
The paper used in printing all the stamps is phosphor coated and emits yellow-green phosphorescence under short-wave ultraviolet light.
The dollar denomination stamps have two additional security features. A second lion icon is printed in fluorescent ink just above the value indicator. This is best seen under the same ultraviolet light. A fine black line comprising microscopic wording, SINGAPORE, is printed below a fish.
The principal setback of these three security features is that they are not readily visible to the naked eye. Indeed, SingPost has admitted that it would be hard for most people to tell whether the stamps are genuine.
Why incorporate these inconspicuous security features when even trained SingPost staff cannot detect them? SingPost must have visible security features on its stamps to prevent further counterfeiting. Some examples used by the postal authorities overseas include optical variable ink, metallic ink and holograms. The exact monetary loss suffered by SingPost in this fake stamp scam is not known, but it is high time that it updates its security management to prevent another one.
Lim Chong Teck
