Clap! Clap! Clap!
Letter from Heng Zhao Weng Jan 03, 2012
www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC120103-000...ed-banking-contracts
,,,
BANKS in Singapore seem to have a free hand to make demanding and one-sided contracts at the expense of consumers.
While the general principle is to let the market decide the rules, should there not be some basic consumer rights rather than a take-it-or-leave-it situation?
For online banking, customers are asked to agree to a long list of what their bank is entitled to do, not obliged to do and not responsible for, failing which they cannot proceed.
For example, UOB's terms and conditions say customers must agree not to hold it liable if their username, password and device fail to reach them. If they suspect or know that security has been compromised, it is their responsibility to notify the bank.
But instructions given under the username and passwords are irrevocable and binding, notwithstanding that they may be unauthorised, given in error, forged or are fraudulent, and UOB is not obliged to investigate the authenticity or accuracy of any instructions.
Such terms and conditions are lengthy, 20 pages in UOB's case.
Ultimately, it is unreasonable for customers to indemnify "UOB, its directors, employees, nominees, agents and independent contractors ... against all actions, liabilities, costs, claims, losses, damages, proceedings and/or expenses".
The United States may be more litigious, but I have noticed that commercial agreements are fair. From their contracts, one almost feels that businesses bend backward for customers.
Their big corporations have powerful lawyers, but there are equally powerful consumer organisations to keep businesses in check.
When can we have it the same in Singapore?