Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Behavior of a thief [3]

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Behavior of a thief [3]

Two people were quite angry that I described the behavior of the banks as "like a thief". They probably work for the bank. Perhaps they are even involved in the practices that are described as being dishonest.

Some people find my words to be too strong. I agree. Normally, I do not wish to make judgment on other people. In this case, I avoid mentioning any specific person or bank. But I have to use strong words, so that people wake up from their slumber and do not think that the current behavior is acceptable, especially as the practice is quite common - in the pursuit of profit.

My aim is to make people realize that the behavior, which they think is quite common place, really amounts to dishonesty. If they shocked about the description, perhaps they should ponder about the truth of my words. (And accept my apology if they feel offended - as I do not wish to be personal).

Tan Kin Lian

7 comments:

yujuan said...: Want to b specific, DBS and UOB
always employ tactics to mislead the consumers, and levy unreasobale charges just for the motive of profit, no matter how small the addition.
UOB even go to the extent of sending investment bank officers to
our house to sell stupid products.
Don't ever fall for UOB's special promotional interest for Savings accounts, their interest carrots are only for one, two months, before they revert back to 0.10%.; February 05, 2011 4:58 PM
Unknown said...: Mr. Tan,
Dont think your words are too strong. Just my personal opinion.

Tan Wa lau; February 05, 2011 6:25 PM
Vincent Sear said...: If you're sure you speak the truth and fact for public good, cheating, dishonesty or even faudulently are not words too strong or defamatory.

Chapter 224 Section 415 - Cheating

Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Section 499 - Defamation

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

First Exception — It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.; February 05, 2011 9:23 PM
rex said...: rex comments as follows,
To the two persons who are offended.
There is good reason for you to feel angry if you mistakenly thought you had been accused of being a ROBBER. A robber takes away someone's possessions under threat, as in, "give me your money.. or else...". The banks and credit card company does nothing of this sort.

However do note that the accusation in the blog is based on the word "THIEF" rather than the word ROBBER. There is a lot of difference, more than you think you know. A thief STEALS. That is to say, when the victim is not looking, the thief sneakily takes away the victim's possessions. A thief is a coward. A thief doesnt even need to carry weapons, because the victim is not even aware of what's happening - unlike a ROBBERY. Do you understand?

Mr Tan likens Credit card companies to Thieves, not Robbers. While the victim is not looking, the credit card company does its bad deed. The victim sometimes didnt even know that one dollar is missing out of $100 he has.

Think about it before you get angry, you two fellas.

rex; February 06, 2011 8:05 AM
AP said...: @ Vincent Sear: a few elections ago, JBJ stated that Tang Liang Hong had placed two police reports before him at a rally.

That was a statement of fact.

So why was JBJ sued?

I know this is OT but I just want you to know stating facts cannot save you.; February 08, 2011 9:29 AM
Vincent Sear said...: I happened to have attended that rally and the full 3-1/2-day trial for this case. TLH lodged a police report that he felt there were were people following him and his life was in danger. JBJ waved that report in front of a rally crowd announcing TLH had lodged a report against GCT. That was tantamount to alleging that GCT was behind some plots to assassinate TLH.

That was the basis of the defamation suit brought up by GCT and PAP. I'm no PAP fan but fairly and objectively, I think it was a bona fide case. Credit to JBJ defence counsel (the late) George Carmen QC, he argued it till minimal token damages were awarded. JBJ wasn't bankrupted by that case. He wasn't disqualified from his NCMP seat for that.; February 08, 2011 11:39 PM
Vincent Sear said...: To add, lodging a police may be a fact of action taken. However, the content of the report were exaggerated for rhetoric.; February 08, 2011 11:42 PM