Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Waive legal fees of $45,000

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Waive legal fees of $45,000

COMMENT POSTED IN MY BLOG:

It is indeed commendable and magnanimous of NTUC Income CEO to waive the $45K against a Mr. Lock. (I am confident that Mr. Tan Kin Lian would have done that too. He did it many times during his tenor).

It is an act of compassion. It is far more power than all the marketing efforts and money spent in the recent months to repackage Income's image. It has demonstrated that it cares for the people, the policyholders. Indeed it is well capitalised and kudos to the CEO.

I am sure the consuming public will be touched by this. It will be deeply etched in the their mind. This is a new positioning and revolutionary. I am one who has been critical of Income is also touched.

MY COMMENTS:

I am not familiar with the facts of this case, so my comments may be out of context.

I read from the newspaper report that it was Mr Lock who took the case against NTUC Income. He was represented by his lawyer.

I do not know why it was necessary for his lawyer to take this case to this extent and incur high legal fees for both parties. It was reported that Mr Lock still has to settle a legal bill of $80,000 from his lawyer.

The legal fees is clearly out of proportion to the amount of a few hundred dollars that was being claimed.

Many people were not aware about the high cost of legal fees. They engage a lawyer without thinking about the cost, in the belief that it will always be borne by the insurance company.

I hope that the waiver of the legal fees does not encourage people to continue with the old habit.

Lesson: Do not engage a lawyer for a small claim. If the matter gets complicated, the legal fees can cost a lot of money. Try to settle any dispute directly with the insurance company.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...: The lawyers of NTUC Income would not have frozen Mr. Lock's assets without the prior knowledge of the CEO. Any court action must have the approval of the CEO. Now that the CEO has backtrack and waive the fee as well as give another 25,000 dollars,( all from the funds of the company which ultimately affects the bonuses of policyholders) I see it as a PR damage control tactic. Did it come from the heart? If under Mr Tan Kin Lian tenure, this would never have happened. Perhaps the news of Mr. Lock's misfortune being published in the newspapers and a week or two later, then NTUC Income decide to be "kind" to him probably came from the NTUC top bosses who is beginning to see the damage being done to the NTUC brand name by a commercial CEO. It should have been avoided in the first place. Well, the new CEO can still do damage control by announcing that the 45K plus 25K should come from his own pocket instead of now blaming his staff for not understanding the situation.; September 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes , if the CEO is magnanimous he should use his own money instead of using money from the life fund. How is he going to answer to the policyholders. The money belongs to the policyholders.
The whole matter should have been known to him. Someone should have reported to him. Why take so long until it was full blown. Was there some kind of wayang? Now shifting the blame to his staff , is not helpful The beans will soon spill. It looks like the PR spins
backfired. Now the whole matter is going to leave a lot questions.; September 17, 2007 12:48 AM
Thomas Phua's Blog said...: If you read that carefully, the claim is as far back as 3 years.

Motor insurance claim can take 3 years to settle in the process.

It is best to leave liability to be fought by the insurer, and get the car repaired.

It is not wise to insist on one's rights, because some time you meet a great liar who can report from black to white.

Just report with integrity and leave the liability issue to insurer.

In life, you win some and you lose some.

Leave the job of a CEO to a CEO, don't try to think one is smarter than others.

One who knows how to comment on the CEO, just do not have the capability to become a CEO.; September 17, 2007 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: So there was plenty of time for every one to digest and mull over the issues. It didn't happen over night. Income 's management, with all the experience ,could also have foreseen where the case was heading and could have nipped it in the bud instead of letting it get out of control.
As for your comment, certainly you qualify as a CEO because you speak with the authority and the wisdom of a CEO.; September 17, 2007 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The $45K plus $25K were intended to salvage and repair the damage the bad publicity had caused.That was not the only case.Whether the money helps time will tell. A vast section of the public know the background of the case , for them the money isn't an act of magnanimity , it was a publicity stunt.The compliments by a few members of the public are not going to erase the damage already done.Money cannot buy you love.; September 22, 2007 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: That is correct, the publicity stunt will not work because it was not done with sincerity. People are not stupid. I wonder why .said suddenly has this hangup about CEOs. The issue is not about CEOs. There are good CEOs and bad CEOS. There are CEOS that broke the bank and CEOs that change the world. How does this insurance salesman know whether the writer is what material? He may be a CEO trainer but that is not the point. By his logic, or lack of it, people should also not comment on the gold tap and peanuts, then they are CEO material? LOL...
People are what they are due to their values. Values like honesty and sincerity are what people value and can be found without a doubt in the previous CEO of Income. Period.; September 23, 2007 1:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Exactly, should we leave Barings Bank to Nick Leeson? or Enron and Worldcom to their respective CEOs. Should we also leave NKF to Durai instead of to Mr. Gerald Ee? Now I heard Mr. Lock has rejected Income's handout. I respect Mr. Lock's stand even though he is only a teacher and not a CEO. Income should respect its policyholders' dignity and not insult its policyholders' dignity by offering a hyped up handout with a built in condition. In other words, the policyholders are not stupide even thought they are not CEOs as what .said seems to imply. Oh, and stop treating policyholders this way just because it has the NTUC name in front of its namelest it spoils the good name.; September 26, 2007 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Now the damage control or whatever
publicity stunt Income was trying to pull a fast one has backfired. It is going to be great show. It will be a Goliath killing show.
The public is not that naive as what the people from Income would like to think. This long drawn legal tussle has shown the true colour of the new management.The last minute olive leaf
to Lock was a manipulated move which hoped to pull a wool over the public's eyes. But it failed.; September 26, 2007 11:54 PM
Thomas Phua's Blog said...: My friend called me that his car and a lady's car while driving ahead side by side, that lady's car grazed his car handle.

He thought he has hit her car and stopped to apologised, that lady demanded compensation.

Over the days called him for $450 and then reduced to $150.

When I saw the photo, it was a line which probably can be polished off.

Some people are simple opportunist.

I cautioned him that based on the line from front to back of the wing mirror, it is likely that lady hit his car.

Such case is likely to be 50-50 case.

Out there, there are simply some opportunist who try to hussle for payments for such minor incident.

My friend happen to be a nice young man, and I knew he will apologise and true enough he did and that lady solicit payment.

I have advised him not to pay and tell her it is 50-50, and if wish to, seek insurer.

Insurer will not entertain such minor 50-50 case.

Surveyor will also know, polish up the line will go off.

- Thomas Phua; September 29, 2007 8:27 AM