Uncategorized
Fidrec – more symbolism than substance?
Investors may be misled with regards to claims amount.
Richard Woo
Investors of financial products who are affected by the financial crisis have been told they may refer their cases to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) if their investments do not exceed $50,000. However, recent news reports say that Fidrec will now consider hearing cases where the investments exceed $50,000.
Some investors of structured products may thus be thinking that they can still refer their case to Fidrec to claim for the full amount of their investment even if it exceeds $50,000. The truth is that, regardless of what one may have gleaned from newspaper reports, Fidrec, without the concurrence of the financial institution concerned, is restricted to only claiming the maximum of $50,000 for any case brought before it. And even then, such cases are subject to certain conditions.
Excerpt from a report published in Today, Oct 16, 2008:
“..Where a consumer’s claim is above $50,000, Fidrec will only be able to handle the claim if the financial institution agrees to submit to Fidrec’s jurisdiction for the whole claim amount, or the consumer agrees to limit the claim to the maximum claim amount of $50,000.”
Two specific examples:
[a] A recent email from Fidrec to an investor is a clear confirmation of the scope of its jurisdiction:
We will be able to handle cases beyond S$50,000 provided the consumer agrees to limit his claim to S$50,000 or the Financial Institution provides the consumer with a letter of consent to agree to submit to Adjudication for higher claim amount.
[b] An investor has recently reported receiving a letter from a financial institution stating:
As your investment exceeds S$50,000, you can refer your case to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd (Fidrec) if:
(i) You are prepared to limit your claim amount to S$50,000 and you refer your case to FIDReC within 6 months from the date of this letter; or
(ii) You write to us to request for the case to be referred to Fidrec for the full claim amount and we agree to your request. We reserve the right to review your request at our sole and absolute discretion.
News reports misleading
Hence, all this talk in the newspapers about investors [or a certain group of investors] being able to refer to Fidrec even if their claim is in excess of $50,000 is all hogwash, for example:
[c] Mr Heng of The Monetary Authority of Singapore is reported to have said, inter alia, in a report in The Straits Times, Oct 17, 2008, captioned: Do the right thing:
As over 80 per cent of customers invested S$50,000 and below, Fidrec is the right avenue for them to pursue their claims. Fidrec normally deals with claims not exceeding S$50,000. In the case of the structured products, however, the FIs have agreed for Fidrec to hear deserving cases…
[d] Extract from The Straits Times, Oct 18, 2008 under the article captioned: MAS to banks: Do the right thing:
Fidrec normally deals with claims not exceeding $50,000. But in the case of structured products, the centre has agreed to hear all “deserving cases”.
[e] Extract from Weekend Today, Oct 18-19, 2008 under the article captioned: MAS: Probes underway:
While FIDReC normally deals only with claims not exceeding $50,000 the FIs have agreed to waive the rule in relevant cases.
[f] Extract from The Straits Times, Oct 21, 2008, under the article captioned: All play part in structured product rules:
Typically, Fidrec does not handle cases exceeding $50,000 in invested funds, however, in this case, they will.
“Deserving” or “relevant” cases
MAS, please clarify as to what is meant by a “deserving” or “relevant” case. And why whether a case can be considered a deserving or relevant one is left ultimately to the judgment of the financial institution handling the case?
However, regardless of any feedback, we can at this moment, conclude that it is not open to any investor who is not deemed to be a deserving or relevant case to refer their case to Fidrec if their investment happens to exceed $50,000, unless they are willing to restrict their claim to a maximum of $50,000 only. But would an investor with an investment of $100,000 bother to refer to Fidrec, knowing that Fidrec can only claim $50,000 for him/her?
Investment in joint names
Fidrec seems to be directing its attention at symbolism rather than substance. For example, A and B each invested $50,000, separately, and therefore each of them can refer their claim to Fidrec should the need arises. But had A and B put $50,000 each in a joint investment of $100,000, Fidrec can only claim $50,000 as the maximum. This email from Fidrec smacks of bureaucratic inflexibility or irrationality:
Our jurisdiction of S$50,000 is based on per placement/ account. If the account is in joint names, it is still considered as one placement/ account. In other words, although you and your sister each came up with S$50,000, as long as the investment is done in joint names, it is considered as one claim and you will not be able to claim for anything more than S$50,000 even though the overall investment is S$100,000. However, if you invested S$50,000 in your own name only, and your sister invested S$50,000 in her own name, then you will each be able to claim S$50,000 separately.
———-
Indonesia
Miss Universe cuts ties with Indonesia chapter after harassment allegations
The Miss Universe Organization severs ties with Indonesia franchise due to harassment claims. Malaysia edition canceled.
Women allege body checks before pageant. Investigation launched. Safety prioritized.
Indonesia winner to compete in November finale. Height requirement controversy.
WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES — The Miss Universe Organization has cut ties with its Indonesia franchise, it announced days after allegations of sexual harassment, and will cancel an upcoming Malaysia edition.
In the complaint, more than a half dozen women said all 30 finalists for Miss Universe Indonesia were unexpectedly asked to strip for a supposed body check for scars and cellulite two days before the pageant’s crowning ceremony in Jakarta.
Their lawyer said Tuesday that five of the women had their pictures taken.
“In light of what we have learned took place at Miss Universe Indonesia, it has become clear that this franchise has not lived up to our brand standards, ethics, or expectations,” the US-based Miss Universe Organization posted Saturday night on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter.
It said that it had “decided to terminate the relationship with its current franchise in Indonesia, PT Capella Swastika Karya, and its National Director, Poppy Capella.”
It thanked the contestants for their bravery in coming forward and added that “providing a safe place for women” was the organization’s priority.
Jakarta police spokesman Trunoyudo Wisnu Andiko said Tuesday that an investigation into the women’s complaint has been launched.
The Indonesia franchise also holds the license for Miss Universe Malaysia, where there will no longer be a competition this year, according to the New York-based parent organizer.
In a lengthy statement posted to Instagram, Indonesia franchise director Capella denied involvement in any body checks.
“I, as the National Director and as the owner of the Miss Universe Indonesia license, was not involved at all and have never known, ordered, requested or allowed anyone who played a role and participated in the process of organizing Miss Universe Indonesia 2023 to commit violence or sexual harassment through body checking,” she wrote.
She added that she is against “any form of violence or sexual harassment.”
The Jakarta competition was held from 29 July to 3 August to choose Indonesia’s representative to the 2023 Miss Universe contest, and was won by Fabienne Nicole Groeneveld.
Miss Universe said it would make arrangements for her to compete in the finale, scheduled for November in El Salvador.
This year’s Indonesia pageant also came under fire for announcing a “significant change in this (year’s) competition guidelines” with the elimination of its minimum height requirement after it had crowned a winner.
In its statement, the Miss Universe Organization said it wanted to “make it extremely clear that there are no measurements such as height, weight, or body dimensions required to join a Miss Universe pageant worldwide.”
— AFP
Malaysia
A Perodua service centre in Kuantan, Malaysia went viral for its strict dress code, Perodua responds
A dress code for vehicle servicing? A Malaysian car brand’s service centre dress code signage has puzzled netizens, raising queries about the need for attire rules during a routine service.
The manufacturer responded with an official statement after a flurry of comments, seeking to clarify and apologize.
MALAYSIA: A dress code signage positioned at a service centre belonging to a prominent Malaysian car brand has sparked bewilderment among Malaysian netizens, who question the necessity of adhering to attire guidelines for a simple vehicle servicing.
The signage explicitly delineates clothing items that are deemed unsuitable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, abbreviated pants, and distressed jeans.
The car manufacturer swiftly found itself flooded with comments from both inquisitive and irked Malaysian netizens. This surge in online activity prompted the company to issue an official statement aimed at clarifying the situation and extending an apology.
In a post that gained significant traction on the social media platform, politician Quek Tai Seong of Pahang State, Malaysia, shared an image to Facebook on Monday (7 Aug).
The image showcased a dress code sign prominently displayed at a Perodua Service Centre in Kuantan. Within the post, Quek posed the question: “Is this dress code applicable nationwide, or is it specific to this branch?”
The signage reads, “All customers dealing with Perodua Service Kuantan 1, Semambu, are requested to dress modestly and appropriately.”
Adding visual clarity to these guidelines, the sign features illustrative graphics that explicitly outline clothing items deemed unacceptable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, short pants, and ripped jeans.
Delineating the specifics of the dress code, the signage stipulates that male visitors are expected to don shirts accompanied by neckties, opt for long pants, and wear closed shoes.
Conversely, female visitors are advised to don long-sleeved shirts, full-length skirts, and closed-toe footwear.
Perodua’s dress code sparks online uproar
Following the rapid spread of the post, Perodua’s official Facebook page found itself inundated with comments from both intrigued and frustrated Malaysian netizens, all seeking clarifications about the newly surfaced dress code policy.
Amidst the flurry of comments, numerous incensed netizens posed pointed questions such as, “What is the rationale behind the introduction of such regulations by the management? We demand an explanation.”
Another netizen expressed their dissatisfaction, arguing against the necessity of the rule and urging Perodua to take inspiration from the practices of other 4S (Sales, Service, Spare Parts, and Survey) automotive dealerships.
A concerned Facebook user chimed in, advocating for a more lenient stance, asserting that attempting to dictate customers’ clothing choices might not be in the company’s best interest.
Someone also commented in an angry tone, “Oi what is this? Going there for car service, not interview or working, right.”
As the discourse unfolded, it became evident that while some inquiries carried genuine weight, others chose to inject humor into the situation, playfully remarking, “If I wanted to buy a Myvi, I should buy or rent a formal attire first.”
“I sell economy rice at a hawker centre, I have never worn a long sleeve shirt and a tie… I guess I will not buy a Perodua car then.”
“I guess they will not serve those who wear short pants.”
Perodua addresses dress code controversy
As reported by Chinese media outlet Sin Chew Daily News, the manager of Kuantan’s Perodua Service Centre had acknowledged that the images on the dress code signage were misleading.
In response, the manager divulged that discussions had transpired with the head office, leading to the prompt removal of the signage to prevent any further misconceptions.
The manager clarifies, “We do encourage visitors to adhere to the dress etiquette, but we won’t go to the extent of restricting their choice of attire.”
He also revealed that currently, no complaints have been directly received from the public.
However, feedback from certain customers was relayed through Perodua’s agents.
Perodua also released an official statement by chief operating officer JK Rozman Jaffar on Wednesday (9 Aug) regarding the dress code on their official Facebook page.
The statement stated the dress code etiquette is not aligned with their official guidelines and they are currently conducting an official investigation on the matter followed by corrective measures to avoid the same incident from happening.
Perodua also extends its apologies for any inconvenience caused.
-
Comments1 week ago
Christopher Tan criticizes mrt breakdown following decade-long renewal program
-
Comments4 days ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Current Affairs2 weeks ago
Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media
-
Singapore1 week ago
SMRT updates on restoration progress for East-West Line; Power rail completion expected today
-
Singapore1 week ago
Chee Hong Tat: SMRT to replace 30+ rail segments on damaged EWL track with no clear timeline for completion
-
Singapore5 days ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Singapore5 days ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore1 week ago
Major breakdown on East-West Line: SMRT faces third service disruption in a month