Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Cheated by rogue lawyer” (ST, Aug 14).
For five long years, the Sim brothers had to endure a court case and fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars just to keep their own property. Their ordeal started in 2004 when their lawyer, Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu, “forged their signatures and transferred ownership of a factory they had purchased to her name,” according to a report by the Straits Times (ST).
The ST report said:
“Cheated of their property when their lawyer forged their signatures to seize ownership, three brothers had to come up with another $700,000 to prevent the bank from selling off the building. On Thursday, their five-year-long plight finally ended when the High Court ordered the rogue lawyer’s name to be removed from the property title deed and replaced by their names instead”.
Since the rogue lawyer had forged their signatures and transferred ownership of a factory they had purchased to her name, and had also altogether swiped $2.4 million from more than a dozen victims in early 2004, by mortgaging four properties, and ran away from Singapore in May 2004, I am somewhat puzzled as to why the bank mortgagee had proceeded and continued with the subject court case all the way to the Court of Appeal over five years, when there was clearly fraud by a third party, the rogue lawyer?
This brings to mind the recent furore in the media about banks insisting on holding a credit card holder responsible for $17,000 used on her stolen credit cards.
In countries like the United States, consumers are well protected, and have only a US$50 liability for credit cards used fraudulently. It is also almost unheard of for customers to be pursued in the courts by banks for fraud by a third party like a rogue lawyer.
The Consumers Association of Singapore’s (CASE) response was that consumers can walk with their feet, i.e. use banks that have better terms and conditions for fraudulent use of credit cards.
This is once again, somewhat akin to just talk with no bite, and no action.
In my opinion, it could have done some research to find out which banks give the best terms, name them, and lobby for the terms to be changed to further protect consumers. Failing which, they could also mount a campaign to boycott these banks or suggest that consumers switch banks.
Corporations such as financial institutions (FIs) and telephone operators seem to take our consumers for granted – requiring customers to opt-out of services (telcos) and misleading loan advertisements (see article on bank unsecured credit at 10% when it is actually 26%).
What has CASE done in this regard over the years?
Another case in point is the Minibonds and structured products saga, whereby 10 FIs were only banned from selling structured products from six months to two years, when hardly anyone was buying them now in any case.
In countries like the United Kingdom, a consumer watchdog organization like CASE would have come down hard on them, and insitutions have typically been fined millions of pounds in the past for their misdeeds.
That is why we have always said that CASE should be independent, like those of other countries, such as the United Kingdom.
In the United States, consumerism is strong and consumer advocates like Ralph Nader, would relentlessly shame and pursue corporations who take consumers for granted like what is happening in Singapore.
Perhaps what we direly need in Singapore is a Ralph Nader.
Strangely enough, the name of the bank is not named in the Straits Times article. Otherwise, Singapore’s Ralph Nader (if we had one) would have called for consumers to avoid dealing with this bank for mortgages or possibly everything else too.
Finally, what has not giving senior citizens peak hour concessionary fares got to do with suing customers for third party fraud? Taking Singaporeans for granted! Making more profits is more important than doing what’s right for consumers!
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The problem is gov. control everything in this country. Make it very hard for us fight for our case.
This was definitely the incompetency of the law ministry.
Singapore still has a long way to go man.
Have an independant ombudsman commission. That shld be the way forward..
CASE has also never been able to help motorists in the area of price fixing by petrol companies. Whenever there is a price change you will see that all other companies adjust their prices to follow the leader.
We are in a country with no human rights and no consumer rights.
“1) Yang on August 17th, 2009 1.16 pm
The problem is gov. control everything in this country. Make it very hard for us fight for our case.”
Assuming this is true, but as long as the youths and adults and people accept, what can be done about it?
You die, your business.
very ho: “We are in a country with no human rights and no consumer rights.”
You’re wrong..
We are in a country with no rights!
[ when their lawyer, Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu, “forged their signatures and transferred ownership of a factory they had purchased to her name .. ]
By acknowledging that this agreement is fraudulent, the govt would have confessed that SLA, BCD or JTC had phucked up big time.
CASE prefer going after the small fish – hawkers that raise their prices by 50 cents.
For the rest, it can only give a bark.
And of course let’s not forget the case of fake certs from Brookes school where it denied all responsibility.
Totally useless.
4) anon on August 17th, 2009 1.32 pm
CASE has also never been able to help motorists in the area of price fixing by petrol companies. Whenever there is a price change you will see that all other companies adjust their prices to follow the leader.
Same goes to those motor insurance companies raising their premiums like nobody business and yet the govt is not doing anything about it. Don’t you motorists out there find its getting very ridiculous? Its really unbelievable having to pay so much for ERP. Road Tax and now the insurance premiums are sky rocketed to God knows when it will stop. How about those car parking rates in those commercial buildings and shopping malls (especially capitalLand property) ? imagine going for a movie or lunch can cost you as much as $8, and? is there any control? NO! they just rip off your pocket from those motorists. Can anyone knows how much does the building owner monthly collection from just the parking fee alone?
Let’s just say that the PAP wants it that way….CONTROL and FULL CONTROL….
Bunch of megalos…and look where we are today. Poor fellows the Sim’s. Really pity them.
I wonder how much CASE employees are getting paid to play and sing songs in Singapore.
This lame duck was already deemed an anachronism long ago – an entrenched belief amongst Singaporeans.
How did we degrade into this level?
I wonder how much CASE employees are getting paid to play and sing songs in Singapore.
- Not much..unfortunately.
CASE?
Why not look into HDB
Their market subsidy is a hoax within a hoax.
They raise prices of new flats every quarter, even if the average median transacted price in the same area has stayed constant.
Instead of displaying it as reduced ‘subsidy’ , MBT attributes it to growth in land value
Uniquely Singapore, or typically Singapore. They rule with their heads and not with their hearts. Need to slaughter the golden goose – feed it just enough only so that you can lay your hands on the eggs.
Just like NKF been renamed to NEW NKF due to scandal, CASE should be renamed due its overall ineffectiveness and wayang. A very suitable name in mind is GONE CASE. GONE CASE running by PAP MP will lead Singapore into the future ! Long Live GONE CASE !
Daniel, soon there will be 2 more new names, New Temasek and Supreme GIC.
hah, S’pore plans to be a hub for sports, business, banking, education, etc, etc…?
what a distant dream.
haha I second that “GONE CASE” …sounds more apt! CASE is clearly a waste of the taxpayer money and should be shut down.
SC,
hahaa… good 1!! :)
Consumers? What are those? I mean this is Singapore where the government happens to control everything. I mean how private is the private sector? In reality, we have a public sector and a slightly less public sector owned mostly by Temasek.
Consumers are in theory something like voters. They’re supposed to have a choice. If merchant A sells me shoddy goods at inflated prices, I move my business to support merchant b. Hence merchant A actually has to keep me happy by giving decent goods at affordable prices – otherwise I walk. Of course, Merchant A’s profit margins are not going to be as high had he been allowed to provide me with shoddy goods at inflated prices and I had to buy them cause Merchant B would be taxed out of existence if he tried to sell at a lower price or higher quality or both.
Elsewhere, this would be called extortion – over here we call it market realities – ie the market is too small for competition – it is good for you to pay more for an inferior product because we make more money and that’s good for you.
Does that make sense?
CASE is tri-partite as well, isn’t it? It represents the government, companies and consumers.
Ever been treated shabbily by companies sporting the del “CaseTrust”?
CASE for consumers? Humbug!
They can’t even eradicate those unscrupulous TimeShare co, what else can we expect from them? sigh..
“If the transnational political spectrum has any meaning, it is that those on the left tend to favor government intervention while those on the right favor obtrusive solutions to problems. That is the traditional and accepted definition – much as those on the left would like to blur that understanding.”
CASE is perhaps one of the unofficial MOST HATED organization in SIN. Primarily because it is TWO FACED, TWO HEADED, HYPOCRITICAL and often, COWED by the POWERS OR CAPITALIST DOGS.
I have many friends who told me of their shenanigans but these are wormy stories kept LOCKED safely in their cans, away from the public eyes who will never know the filth or INJUSTICES practiced in that place.
A typical “divide the public complains and conquer them”.
CASE is the unequivocal servant of the MONEY TYRANTS.
There are way too much unjust in this country. I wonder if too much resentment in the people will cause this govt & society to collapse.
Forget it. Our government is only good in implementing new laws and rules but there is no one to carry out the order. What’s the point then? The only day our government takes action is only when it affected their rice bowl.
CASE is a pretentious watchdog. these dogs teeth have been deliberately removed so it cannot BITE the “untouchable”
you want to take up a case against them or accuse them?
the LAWS will stand in your way!!!
the wages of SIN is death!!! and the STRENGTH(power over the people) of SIN is the LAW!!
I’m looking at HK as an example.
1. In the govt constitution, with regards to business and competition, it clearly states things have to be “pro-consumer”. eg when the HK govt steps in to set guidelines and laws with regards to telecommunications, the consumer’s well-being is at the central of the decisions it makes.
(though i take this with a pinch of salt, as big business also controls the govt here. When Li Ka Shing says jump, the govt folks say how high… it gets quite messy sometimes.)
2. There are plenty of NGOs, civil groups, lobby groups, unions, politicians, trade organisations, chamber of commerces, legislators, district councillors, who are there to help citizens and businesses bring their cause.
3. Individuals and businesses are allowed to protest and get their voice heard.
4. There is freedom of press – and one can take up the case to the press, who will then challenge the bank, even the govt (if the law doesnt provide cover for the individual).
5. Our Consumer Council is not made up of govt folks. but judges, lawyers and district councillors.
In my humble opinion, CASE has its plate full as well. It has to balance being seen as an efficient watchdog by the general populace, as well as ensuring that it doesn’t turn the market into a strictly-controlled one that loses all freedom. Freedom to price, freedom to compete, these are freedoms that should be preserved to some extent in the economy.
So CASE must bark sometimes, and bite sometimes. The issue is that now, in most cases, it’s confused. When it barks, it should bite, and when it bites, it should bark. Otherwise we’ll all be barking up the wrong tree with our debate.
20) mice is nice
so far only hub is StarHub : )
31) aygee
//////. Our Consumer Council is not made up of govt folks. but judges, lawyers and district councillo//////
our CASE is headed by an MP.
32) [mercenarylitigator]
and beacuse it is headed by an MP, there is so much conflict of interest, thus the confusion. It is not just barking up the wrong tree, sometimes I think it is in a wrong jungle altogether
4) anon
//////// CASE has also never been able to help motorists in the area of price fixing by petrol companies. Whenever there is a price change you will see that all other companies adjust their prices to follow the leader.///////
Heard of the joke that all the different grades petrol pumps at the petrol kiosk leads to the same tank underground?
Bucket shops and cartels are are more proactive than CASE.
patriot
Not even courts and judges are independent.
And you expect CASE to be that? LOL
CASE doesn’t have to be independent to be efficient. Even if it’s run by the Gahmen, it can still be efficient. The trouble here that we notice is that CASE isn’t efficient. Independence wouldn’t have significant bearing on its efficiency.
39) [mercenarylitigator
agree.
there are many pathetically inefficient independent body too.
If “GONECASE” is not acceptable,
here’s another suggestion: “BASE” for
Businesses Association of Singapore.
With 50% walkovers and 66% mandate at every election, the Singapore people has given up or voted away their rights, whatever rights that is. They have given the PAP the overwhelming right to decide what is “right” for them and take them for granted.
So complain and rant on blogs no use, although you have the freedom and the right to do it.
CASE is not even a watch dog ‘cos it can’t even bark!
Since when was the last time CASE proactively brought some unfair competition to light?
I can’t for the life of me recall…
And for all those arguments against too much control (stifle business), I think the consumer watchdog in Australia is great…I lived there for a while and they always have public service ads to inform consumers about their rights etc…
And they will not shy away from taking companies to task for unfair practices – I think even Optus was singled out in a case over their misleading pre-paid card rates…
We have a labour movement that does not fight for the rights of workers and a government that is not in touch with the people and not accountable for its mistakes…
So what’s new? CASE has never been known to actively campaign for the protection of consumers. It does not even proactively raise issues of consumer interest, but might give some weak response when consumers write to the press.
I cannot remember the “case” now but there was one incident many years ago where I strongly felt that CASE was more on the side of businesses than of consumers.
This is SINgapore.
CASE originated from NTUC in 1970. It is so obvious that they are accounted for to the PAP, not the general consumer in Singapore. Mind you NTUC cheif is from PAP too.
Do you see any CASE members raising up their voices during the minibond saga? Do you see any CASE members complaining about the increase of car insurance these 2 years? Examples can go on and on, and its everywhere on the news … The trust is CASE doesn’t care, and CASE is not powerful or influnential to care about the misinformed consumer.
NTUC cheif is from PAP
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC090902-0000113/Two-banks-that-sued-APBS-made-themselves-easy-prey,-says-judge
High Court Judge Belinda Ang: “Fraud nullifies actual authority of the agent as was the case here. Chia in putting forward the forged documents as genuine was not acting within his actual authority, whether express or implied.”
Why wasn’t this principle applied to the Sim brothers’ case? After all, it was clear that their lawyer had “forged their signatures and transferred ownership of a factory they had purchased to her name.”