'We are very sorry': Government apologises for confusion, anxiety over NRIC unmasking saga SINGAPORE: The government apologised to the public on Thursday (Dec 19) for the saga over unmasking National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) numbers.  “We are very sorry to have caused them much anxiety,” said Minister for Digital Development and Information Josephine Teo at a press conference, adding that the public’s concerns are taken seriously. “We had wanted to give them better protection, and this required a change in our policy involving the use of NRIC numbers, because the current situation leaves us vulnerable.” The government had intended to make the change only after explaining to citizens the rationale but before it could do so, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) went ahead and launched its Bizfile portal, with a search function that produced people's names and full NRIC numbers. “On behalf of ACRA, I would like to apologise for causing anxiety and concerns to members of the public over the disclosure of NRIC numbers on our Bizfile portal,” said ACRA’s chief executive Chia-Tern Huey Min. LAPSE OF COORDINATION Mrs Chia-Tern said the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) had in July “issued a circular for government agencies to cease any planned use of masked NRIC numbers in new business processes and services”. This was part of a wider government effort to uphold the use of NRIC numbers as a unique identifier, and to move away from the use of masked NRIC numbers, which provides a false sense of security, she said. “Unfortunately, there was a lapse of coordination between the staff on how this was to be implemented. ACRA then proceeded on the misunderstanding that it should unmask NRIC numbers in the new Bizfile portal,” explained Mrs Chia-Tern. Acknowledging the mistake and oversight on ACRA’s part, she reiterated her apology for the anxiety and confusion caused to the public. “As the owner of the Bizfile portal, ACRA should have been more mindful that many Singaporeans have long treated their NRIC numbers as private and confidential information, and would not want to have their full NRIC numbers searchable on the new portal,” said Mrs Chia-Tern. “We should also have taken more deliberate care to ensure that such information, deemed sensitive by many, is provided only when needed.” As Singapore's national business registry, ACRA has to keep an accessible repository of information on business entities and the people behind them to facilitate due diligence checks, she said. This ensures corporate transparency and guards against illicit activities. Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah emphasised that the shift in policy does not mean that all masked NRIC numbers will necessarily become unmasked. “That's exactly what ACRA thought too, so I'm just trying to illustrate that that’s how the error occurred,” she said. ACRA chief executive apologises for Bizfile’s unmasking of NRIC numbers LEARNING FROM THIS EPISODE “ACRA will learn from this lesson and tighten our systems and processes,” said Mrs Chia-Tern, adding that the search function in question has already been disabled. Ms Indranee, who is also Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, said that the authorities do not take this incident lightly. “MOF (Ministry of Finance) and ACRA will learn from this episode and setback,” she said. “We are thoroughly reviewing the incident to identify areas where we should have done and can do better, including improving the communication and coordination between agencies, and the features of our digital services.” In response to a CNA question on whether any action will be taken towards staff from ACRA or any other agency found responsible for this lapse, Ms Indranee said it would be “premature at this stage to say whether anything is going to happen to the particular staff in question”. “You must remember, this is an instance of a misunderstanding. And I think one has to ascertain exactly how that came about and have a look at the full facts, before deciding on what, if anything, needs to be done,” she said. Josephine Teo, Indranee Rajah, ACRA chief on NRIC disclosure, change in policy | Full presser COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC Ms Indranee also addressed the speed of the authorities’ public response, noting the five-day gap from when the first media statement was put out after the incident broke. Before Thursday’s press conference could be convened, more thorough checks had to be done all the way down to the staff level, as the situation occurred suddenly and also involved multiple parties, with two ministries and one agency, she said. “So it does take a little bit of time, and that's why there's a bit of a gap. Obviously, if we can do it faster, that would be ideal, but that is the reason why there is a bit of a gap between the earlier statement and this,” said Ms Indranee. She said that the original plan to roll out the policy shift was to have “a phased out sequence with the proper communications”. “But what happened in this instance is that, because of a misunderstanding, the numbers inadvertently got put out, then it became an issue, and then everything got accelerated,” she said. Ms Indranee said the government will do its best to consult, explain, take feedback and communicate with the public in the proper sequence and as quickly as possible. However, when unintended disruptions to communications plans come along, as with the ACRA incident, “what's very important is to be able to let all of you know what happened, and also to express our sincere regrets and apologies that it happened, and to reassure people on this”, she said. Mrs Teo said the incident was “really unfortunate” as it arose out of a misunderstanding. “If things had gone according to plan, we would have had the chance to do the proper communications. And that is just really something that should not have happened, but it did happen, and for which we are very sorry.” https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/nric-unmasking-acra-josephine-teo-apologises-confusion-anxiety-4816066

SINGAPORE – An investor keen to earn a bit more interest ended up losing all her $200,000 savings after she was swayed into buying a complicated financial product she did not understand. The woman, a 58-year-old customer service employee earning $3,000 a month, wanted to put the inheritance from her late husband into a fixed deposit but was convinced by a bank sales representative to consider “other products that could give a better interest rate”. The customer – we will call her Madam Goh – had secondary-level education, and could read and understand Chinese, as she was from the Chinese language stream. She was given documents in Chinese to read and sign but she did not check them and chose to believe everything the bank employee told her. It was not disclosed what returns she would get, but she invested the entire $200,000 without understanding what she was buying. To make matters worse, she did not even read bank statements sent to her over the next five or so years. She had the shock of her life when she tried to withdraw her money – the account was empty as losses had erased all her savings. Cases involving bank customers who are sold unsuitable products are not rare, but such cautionary tales seem to escape many people who continue to invest without checking the terms and conditions. It is hard to cry foul if you choose not to read before you sign, or worse, simply throw away important bank statements without even reading them. While the Monetary Authority of Singapore has mandated that financial institutions follow fair dealing guidelines, such as not promoting unsolicited investment options to fixed-deposit customers, it is still up to everyone to check and understand what product is being sold. Madam Goh would not have fallen into a high-risk investment trap if she had just stuck to her original plan of opening a fixed-deposit account and not put the entire $200,000 at risk just to possibly earn a few thousand dollars more. Fortunately, she made the right move in bringing her case to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec), which helped her claw back some of her money. Total loss in high-risk structured note​s Such financial products are normally sold to companies and savvy investors who want to maximise their returns by betting on a combination of bonds and high-risk equities. While some structured notes have components that can guarantee part of the invested sums, Madam Goh was apparently sold one that tied all her money to the fate of four stocks. To make matters worse, she did not understand the complex workings of the product, and was served the raw deal of losing all her money just because the worst-performing stock fell below the final valuation price. Shocked that all her money was gone, she asked the bank for compensation but her request was denied because she had signed all the documents, including one stating that she understood the product and acknowledged the risks involved. A translator helped her to present her case during an adjudication session at Fidrec as she was not fluent in English. The adjudicator noted that the evidence showed that Madam Goh had bought an unsuitable product. But she had to bear the bulk of the blame because she still chose to invest despite not understanding what she was buying. Moreover, she did not read any of the bank documents that were in Chinese during the purchase process and threw away all statements unread that had been sent to her. But Fidrec found that the bank was also at fault for peddling a product that was clearly not suitable for customers like her. After all, no one would want to purchase such high-risk products when they do not draw equally high incomes. It was also clear that Madam Goh did not understand the risk that came with structured notes. This led the adjudicator to warn bank employees that the process of form filling and signing should not be “a check-box exercise”. As a result, the bank was told to bear 40 per cent of the losses, or about $80,000. The case could have had a better outcome for Madam Goh if she had sought help earlier, after noticing the discrepancy in her savings as soon as she read the statements sent to her. In some previous cases, Fidrec had ordered full refunds for similar customers who filed complaints early, as this helped to minimise their products’ losses. Projected profits are not real profits​ Many investors are likely to be turned off if they are shown the estimated amount of losses they would suffer in a downturn, so most vendors prefer to show the projected profits instead. But you should always take such numbers with a huge pinch of salt. In another case, a customer bought a 15-year endowment policy through a bank as part of his retirement planning. The policy required him to pay an annual premium of $5,000 for five years. During the purchase, he was shown a “benefit illustration” outlining that he would receive a guaranteed maturity amount of $20,000 plus a non-guaranteed portion. It was stated that this variable component could be $10,000 if the investment return was 3.5 per cent, or $20,000 if it was 5 per cent. But when the policy matured, the customer received only $28,000 – just $3,000 more than he had invested – over a 15-year period. He kicked up a fuss because the amount was less than even the lower projection of $30,000. The insurer told him that while the fund achieved an average return of 3.55 per cent, higher claims had affected its performance. The customer did not buy this explanation and took his case to Fidrec, basing his claim on the benefit illustration even though the numbers were merely projections. His case was dismissed because the adjudicator found that the benefit illustration stated clearly that the document was meant to show examples of projected returns only. The customer also acknowledged this when he signed on it. As the customer bought the policy from the bank and not the insurer directly, the adjudicator noted that he should have claimed against the bank if there was an allegation of sales misconduct. The lesson from these two cases is that there is no such thing as a lucrative and risk-free investment, so it is essential to study the terms and conditions carefully before signing anything. For instance, most insurance products come with policy illustrations that are meant to show the benefits and costs, but such numbers are not part of the actual contract, so any projected profit is not part of the deal, no matter how lucrative it seems. What you should check in the contract are the guaranteed values, because all non-guaranteed ones may not be paid, as these are subject to the insurer’s discretion. If you suffer losses, you can seek compensation only if you can show wrongdoing, such as the sales representative providing false information to mislead you into buying something that was not what you wanted. Finally, always think twice before changing decisions when it comes to money. Just like you are unlikely to buy a car suddenly when you go shopping, you should not be adventurous with investments if you are going to the bank to place fixed deposits. https://www.straitstimes.com/business/invest/how-a-woman-lost-200k-after-investing-in-complex-financial-product

SINGAPORE: A 40-year-old man shared on social media that he’s starting to regret buying a resale HDB flat for S$1.1 million. “[I am] single, never married, salaried employee. I had just completed the purchase of my resale HDB flat, which cost me SGD1.1M, and I am taking over the house next month,” he wrote on r/askSingapore, a Reddit forum, on Wednesday (Dec 11). “A sudden feeling of remorse has fallen over me since signing of the completion process at the HDB Hub.” The man explained in his post that he couldn’t shake the feeling that he might have overspent on the property and feels uncertain about what to expect as he prepares to move into the new house next month. He also mentioned that the timing of the purchase added to his financial worries. December is usually when he allocates S$10,000 for overseas holiday shopping, a tradition he enjoys every year. However, with the recent house purchase, he now feels a need to be more financially cautious. Reflecting on these emotions, he wondered whether this was simply ‘buyer’s remorse’ or a sign that he had made a mistake. “Am I over worrying or is it what they call the buyer’s remorse? Have any one of you been in this similar situation like a sudden feeling of ‘maybe I should not have purchase it’ just simply appear etc.” he wrote. In the comments section, a few Redditors reassured him that experiencing buyer’s remorse after a big purchase is completely normal. One Redditor said, “It’s more of a prudence feels, don’t worry too much about it. HDB is an asset, albeit depreciating, can always sell off next time. Just be cautious with expenses, like reno, furnitures, and further liabilities.” Another commented, “Just buy what you like and enjoy life as long as you can afford it. You wont be able to bring them to the afterlife with you assuming you don’t have any kids.” Some, however, expressed concerns about the high price he paid for the flat, questioning whether it was a sound financial decision. One Redditor remarked, “1.1m ? You are part of the problem lol keep raising prices higher.” Another wrote, “Erm, 1.1m to shoulder solely alone. Not a very prudent decision.” Others suggested practical solutions to ease his financial burden. A few pointed out that since he’s single, he could consider renting out the other rooms in the flat to offset his mortgage payments. According to The Straits Times, a record number of 328 resale flats were sold for over one million dollars in the third quarter. Christine Sun, chief researcher and strategist at OrangeTee Group, shared that this brings the total number of million-dollar deals in the first three quarters of 2024 to 747, already surpassing the 469 recorded for all of 2023. This quarter’s price hike is also the biggest since Q3 2022, when prices went up by 2.6%.