<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Punishing illegal borrowers not a simple solution
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Sujin Thomas
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=330>
</TD><TD width=10>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->At first glance, it looks like a good idea. Lawyers and Members of Parliament say that making it a crime to borrow from loan sharks will nip the problem of illegal moneylending in the bud, especially given its growing menace in the economic downturn.
Mr Christopher de Souza, an MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, raised the issue in Parliament in February last year, saying the problem should be dealt with by the law in the same way it deals with controlled drugs.
<TABLE width=200 align=left valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD class=padr8><!-- Vodcast --><!-- Background Story --><STYLE type=text/css> #related .quote {background-color:#E7F7FF; padding:8px;margin:0px 0px 5px 0px;} #related .quote .headline {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:10px;font-weight:bold; border-bottom:3px double #007BFF; color:#036; text-transform:uppercase; padding-bottom:5px;} #related .quote .text {font-size:11px;color:#036;padding:5px 0px;} </STYLE>Desperate times, desperate measures
Criminalising borrowers would be an unpopular move in light of the current economic circumstances. After all, where can someone without a job or any income to speak of go to borrow money?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>A solution can be found only when both the supply and demand are curbed, he said. He had other reasons too.
Innocent parties are victimised when borrowers hand out false addresses to loan sharks. They end up having to deal with paint splashed on their doors, their grille gates locked up and the unmistakeable 'Owe $, Pay $' scribbled on walls.
More of such writing on the wall, so to speak, is expected.
In the first three months of this year, police had to deal with nearly 4,000 cases of loan shark harassment - double the number in the same period last year.
This problem worsens when borrowers themselves act as loan shark runners to harass other people as a way to pay off their own debts. This way, more people are drawn into the loan sharks' criminal syndicates.
But if the long arm of the law is extended to borrowers, how much will they have to pay for their crimes? They certainly won't have much money. So if a fine cannot be paid, is jail the answer? And is it appropriate to equate a loan shark's clients with drug abusers? There might be a reason to borrow money, legally or illegally. There is no reason to take drugs.
Some prosecutorial discretion needs to be exercised, says lawyer Chia Boon Teck. He believes that there might be those in exceptional circumstances who should be let off the hook or given lighter sentences. There is, after all, a difference between those who borrow to feed their families, and those who borrow to feed a gambling addiction.
Then there is the argument social workers make: that borrowers resort to loan sharks because there is no other way to get credit. Banks or companies such as GE Money which offer personal loan schemes require applicants to meet certain criteria such as having a minimum annual income of about $20,000.
To borrow from a loan shark, you need only to produce an identity card. That 20 per cent or so interest rate that loan sharks charge will rear its ugly head only some time in the future, so the logic goes. What is needed is money now.
Counsellors and charity organisations such as Credit Counselling Singapore, which helps people with money woes, say criminalising the act of borrowing from loan sharks only adds to the misery of borrowers. Legal action such as a jail term or a fine will spell more trouble for the innocent family of a borrower. If a fine is imposed, it is the family which will be pulled deeper into the financial hole. Nor would jailing a borrower deter loan sharks from harassing their families.
Worse still, in most cases, these families are not even aware that their loved ones are in the debt of unsavoury characters.
A 44-year-old woman told The Sunday Times she found out about her husband's dealings with loan sharks last September only after a runner approached her at the lift lobby of her Hougang flat.
She did not know that her husband had borrowed about $10,000 from four loan sharks to start a home renovation business a few months before. To escape harassment, which included paint thrown and eggs smashed on their front door, the couple moved to Sengkang - but the loan sharks still managed to track them down.
In another case, a family was forced to sell their semi-detached house in order to repay a debt of $100,000 to loan sharks, incurred by their 18-year-old son.
=> Live in sem-d, but don't even have $100k savings. Sg = Nation of Peasants and Hollow Shells (saved the Papayas themselves?)
The teen had chalked up the debt through online soccer betting. The mother of the teen said: 'They told me that if I don't pay up, they would chop up my son.' The loan shark, whom she negotiated with over the phone, even told her that making a police report would be useless as they would catch only his runners.
Criminalising borrowers would be an unpopular move in light of the current economic circumstances. After all, where can someone without a job or any income to speak of go to borrow money?
Pawnshops are one avenue: They are already reporting a rise in business. Then there are shops that give cash for goods. Even Louis Vuitton bags, they say, are being handed over by white-collar types.
There have also been suggestions to introduce micro-lending schemes - but who would take these on without some guarantee that the money will be returned?
=> Ho Jinx has no problem doing so in India what!
http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=186617
Some have also suggested slaughtering that sacred cow: Allow people to take out some money from their Central Provident Fund accounts for immediate use. That, however, has never found traction with the powers that be, given that the money is intended for retirement use.
=> Or cheep funds for Ho Jinx to lend to Indian FTrash?
Then there is that old fallback: family and friends.
Except that some people may not want others to know of their financial troubles. In the two cases above, the husband refused to let his wife worry and the son was too afraid to tell his mother.
What they forget is the bigger shame of having total strangers realise that they are in hock to loan sharks. A legitimate bailiff's notice to repossess furniture can be ripped off the door, but a loan shark's handiwork has to be painted over.
Ask Mr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Law and Home Affairs, for his views, and you get a firm answer: Loan-sharking is a crime and both borrower and lender should pay the price, whatever the circumstances. No exceptions.
If only it were so easy. [email protected]
I donch know lah! *chey*
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- Author --><TR><TD class="padlrt8 georgia11 darkgrey bold" colSpan=2>By Sujin Thomas
</TD></TR><!-- show image if available --><TR vAlign=bottom><TD width=330>
</TD><TD width=10>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->At first glance, it looks like a good idea. Lawyers and Members of Parliament say that making it a crime to borrow from loan sharks will nip the problem of illegal moneylending in the bud, especially given its growing menace in the economic downturn.
Mr Christopher de Souza, an MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, raised the issue in Parliament in February last year, saying the problem should be dealt with by the law in the same way it deals with controlled drugs.
<TABLE width=200 align=left valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD class=padr8><!-- Vodcast --><!-- Background Story --><STYLE type=text/css> #related .quote {background-color:#E7F7FF; padding:8px;margin:0px 0px 5px 0px;} #related .quote .headline {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:10px;font-weight:bold; border-bottom:3px double #007BFF; color:#036; text-transform:uppercase; padding-bottom:5px;} #related .quote .text {font-size:11px;color:#036;padding:5px 0px;} </STYLE>Desperate times, desperate measures
Criminalising borrowers would be an unpopular move in light of the current economic circumstances. After all, where can someone without a job or any income to speak of go to borrow money?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>A solution can be found only when both the supply and demand are curbed, he said. He had other reasons too.
Innocent parties are victimised when borrowers hand out false addresses to loan sharks. They end up having to deal with paint splashed on their doors, their grille gates locked up and the unmistakeable 'Owe $, Pay $' scribbled on walls.
More of such writing on the wall, so to speak, is expected.
In the first three months of this year, police had to deal with nearly 4,000 cases of loan shark harassment - double the number in the same period last year.
This problem worsens when borrowers themselves act as loan shark runners to harass other people as a way to pay off their own debts. This way, more people are drawn into the loan sharks' criminal syndicates.
But if the long arm of the law is extended to borrowers, how much will they have to pay for their crimes? They certainly won't have much money. So if a fine cannot be paid, is jail the answer? And is it appropriate to equate a loan shark's clients with drug abusers? There might be a reason to borrow money, legally or illegally. There is no reason to take drugs.
Some prosecutorial discretion needs to be exercised, says lawyer Chia Boon Teck. He believes that there might be those in exceptional circumstances who should be let off the hook or given lighter sentences. There is, after all, a difference between those who borrow to feed their families, and those who borrow to feed a gambling addiction.
Then there is the argument social workers make: that borrowers resort to loan sharks because there is no other way to get credit. Banks or companies such as GE Money which offer personal loan schemes require applicants to meet certain criteria such as having a minimum annual income of about $20,000.
To borrow from a loan shark, you need only to produce an identity card. That 20 per cent or so interest rate that loan sharks charge will rear its ugly head only some time in the future, so the logic goes. What is needed is money now.
Counsellors and charity organisations such as Credit Counselling Singapore, which helps people with money woes, say criminalising the act of borrowing from loan sharks only adds to the misery of borrowers. Legal action such as a jail term or a fine will spell more trouble for the innocent family of a borrower. If a fine is imposed, it is the family which will be pulled deeper into the financial hole. Nor would jailing a borrower deter loan sharks from harassing their families.
Worse still, in most cases, these families are not even aware that their loved ones are in the debt of unsavoury characters.
A 44-year-old woman told The Sunday Times she found out about her husband's dealings with loan sharks last September only after a runner approached her at the lift lobby of her Hougang flat.
She did not know that her husband had borrowed about $10,000 from four loan sharks to start a home renovation business a few months before. To escape harassment, which included paint thrown and eggs smashed on their front door, the couple moved to Sengkang - but the loan sharks still managed to track them down.
In another case, a family was forced to sell their semi-detached house in order to repay a debt of $100,000 to loan sharks, incurred by their 18-year-old son.
=> Live in sem-d, but don't even have $100k savings. Sg = Nation of Peasants and Hollow Shells (saved the Papayas themselves?)
The teen had chalked up the debt through online soccer betting. The mother of the teen said: 'They told me that if I don't pay up, they would chop up my son.' The loan shark, whom she negotiated with over the phone, even told her that making a police report would be useless as they would catch only his runners.
Criminalising borrowers would be an unpopular move in light of the current economic circumstances. After all, where can someone without a job or any income to speak of go to borrow money?
Pawnshops are one avenue: They are already reporting a rise in business. Then there are shops that give cash for goods. Even Louis Vuitton bags, they say, are being handed over by white-collar types.
There have also been suggestions to introduce micro-lending schemes - but who would take these on without some guarantee that the money will be returned?
=> Ho Jinx has no problem doing so in India what!
http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=186617
Some have also suggested slaughtering that sacred cow: Allow people to take out some money from their Central Provident Fund accounts for immediate use. That, however, has never found traction with the powers that be, given that the money is intended for retirement use.
=> Or cheep funds for Ho Jinx to lend to Indian FTrash?
Then there is that old fallback: family and friends.
Except that some people may not want others to know of their financial troubles. In the two cases above, the husband refused to let his wife worry and the son was too afraid to tell his mother.
What they forget is the bigger shame of having total strangers realise that they are in hock to loan sharks. A legitimate bailiff's notice to repossess furniture can be ripped off the door, but a loan shark's handiwork has to be painted over.
Ask Mr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Law and Home Affairs, for his views, and you get a firm answer: Loan-sharking is a crime and both borrower and lender should pay the price, whatever the circumstances. No exceptions.
If only it were so easy. [email protected]
I donch know lah! *chey*
