31 Dec '11, 1am

Here is an interesting story about how the regulator in America felt that it was their duty to act on behalf of...

Verizon (a telephone operator in the US) wanted to charge a "convenience fee" of $2 to its customers making a payment through the telephone. It drew protest from consumers. The regulator, i.e. the Federal Communication Commission, felt that it was their duty to look into this fee "on behalf of consumers" to see if any regulation has been infringed. Verizon changed its mind and decided to withdraw this fee. Read this report "Verizon scraps $2 fee" http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/technology/verizon_fee_canceled/index.htm?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29 The approach of the regulator in America seem to be quite different from the regulator in Singapore. The US regulator felt that it was their duty to look after the interest of the people. The Singapore regulator would probably say that...

Full article: http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2011/12/pro-active-regulat...

Tweets

Estate duty in Singapore

tankinlian.blogspot.com 05 Jan '12, 11pm

I retired from NTUC Income on 28 February 2007, after heading this cooperative for 30 years. I now run a consultancy compa...