Friday, January 18, 2013

Unnecessary terms and conditions

Editor, Forum Page
Straits Times

DBS Bank sent an e-mail to me, as their customer, to offer 
new currency notes for the festive season. This was
a nice gesture of the bank, but their process left a bad taste in my mouth.

I was asked to sign and fax a request form to the bank. It required me to read
and agree to one whole page of "terms and conditions" for the service.

I asked the relationship manager why it was necessary to impose
this kind of requirement for a simple transaction. I had thought that 
DBS Bank could be trusted to carry out a simple transaction, 
without the need to give this burden to the customer. 

Even if a mistake should arise, it would expect the bank to treat
its customer fairly to resolve the issue, without the need to hide under a pre-agreed

Many elderly people, who are not financial savvy or literate, have were misled
into making unsuitable investments by signing forms that they do not understand. One
should be wary about signing documents without reading or understanding them.

After the fax was received, a received a call from the bank's staff to verify my 
identity. The verification procedure was, as usual, quite tiresome. 
My signature was already on the form and I had earlier signed another form to indemnity
the bank for the use of fax signature. Why was this further step necessary?

Furthermore, the bank had required me to show my identity card when I collect my new 
currency notes at the pre-selected branch. Why was the phone-call  verification
necessary then? Where has common sense disappeared to?

I would have expected the Monetary Authority of Singapore to ensure that simple
banking practices are carried out fairly, without the need for millions of customers
to have to bear the burden of reading and understanding the terms and conditions .

Tan Kin Lian


rex said...

rex comments as follows,

i agree that there are so many procedures which are really counter productive.
Recently, practically all banks have implemented new token devices for "more secure" internet transactons. the token device now has a numeric keypad which is seldom used in my case at least.

You know what you do now? You key in the one-time password from the token and get login the bank website. After that, when you need to see your account, you key in OTP a second time to get another password!

This is call "more secure"? I say it is really stupid. If the thief got hold of the token, if he can key in once, he can key in twice or any number of times.

Wnat a stupid mindset!


yujuan said...

Heartily agree with Rex.

Could reluctantly accept the token system in internet banking for security purposes, but could not accept why it's applied to internet share trading as well.
Irritating to have an extra layer of one time password, different for every log in, mandatory under MAS new regulations. This Regulator seems to have nothing much to do than to make life for us more difficult- things they should do, won't do, things that they should not, they do, swinging the pendulum crazily to the extreme left. Anyway, maybe they just wan to be seen they are working, to cover up they really have nothing better to do, but the real Agenda is to wash off all responsibility should any mishap, like the Minibonds' collapse, happens once again in future.

Blog Archive