Any posts with incorrect statement(s) on SST credit card tax will be removed without notice. The section's T&C has been updated to include notice on removal of incorrect/misleading SST discussions and applicable throughout the section.

If the card issuer offers to pay on your behalf then it need to be accurately stated so. It shall not be considered a "waiver", "reward", "gift" or anything with similar definition. Someone else is paying the SST credit card tax although is it not the cardholder.

This post has been edited by hye: Sep 14 2018, 08:57 AM

Members here are to note that credit card SST are not waiverable.
If the bank's CS is using the term obviously they are unaware of the impact nor it signal it is correct. Appreciate anyone with such communication from the bank to forward it (unedited communication) to me for my next course of action.

This post has been edited by hye: Oct 11 2018, 01:22 PM

To all members

This thread is being actively monitored.

A tip for everyone.

The next time whenever you apply for a credit card, take notice of a clause which goes something along the lines of "Allowing the bank to use your details for internal marketing purposes / 3rd party marketing purposes." You will notice a check box beside those clauses which may indicate "Yes" or "No". This is of course up to everyone prerogative whether they want to say yes/no and obviously if you decline, the bank have no right to reuse your personal details for their marketing purposes.

Thus effectively stopping them from reusing your details to perform cross marketing of their products.

Do not despair for those still wanting to remove themselves from such list - write to the bank.

Take note that the above is one of the protection of the PDPA (Personal Data Protection Act). If the bank violates it, you may report it to the PDPA authorities for legal action. The same can be applied to those pesky telemarketing calls. Next time if you get one of those calls, ask them where are they from (note the company, time of call and person who is calling) and ask them where they get your details. Then ask them whether they have written consent from you to call you. See their reaction next.

Similarly, you can ask them to remove your information forever from their database. Non-compliance will be reported to the PDPA authorities.

I didn't read in detail on how our PDPA need to operate the customer's exclusion to use their personal details but I suspect it is rather loose. I.e - most forms design it such that customers "allow" it by default. In Europe (GDPR), customers need to explicitly allow the use of their personal details and organisations cannot use it if they set their boxes to "default".

Nevermind about that ... just educating the members here to pay more attention to what they fill in the form. You can avoid telemarketing calls.

That should be it. Note that PBB email channel are not the most efficient in the world.
Try to google some ideas on how to write it effectively - effecting/invoking the data protection portion. The bank will get the hint if you write it correctly and there's no element of threats needed to achieve this.

This post has been edited by hye: Nov 5 2018, 05:52 PM

You may not have caught on to the earlier discussion where a member mentioned about a telemarketing call received.
I responded by giving a tip to protect personal data protection by highlighting a clause that can be found in a cc application form.

Approval for financial products are granted by banks after screening the customer of their financial records/capabilities using various tools and internal assessment for worthiness. Very clear the bank would need to know whether the customer would be able to have the financial abilities to pay if he/she uses their financial product. Even though a "good rated" customer opted out of internal marketing purposes / 3rd party marketing purposes, it wouldn't impact the rating as the customer ratings model are not based on such.

I don't know where did you derive your conspiracy theory to begin as if you talk to a banker, they'll laugh it off. Can you provide documented proof as to where this idea came about ? Not keen on any "I heard from so and so .." or anything as such. Even a theory will start from somewhere even though from a fool's heresay.

This post has been edited by hye: Nov 6 2018, 08:23 AM

Malaysian credit evaluation model are still very much based what customer's history and ability to pay.

Understand that in China it is possible to do so because there's no (read:zero) protection of your personal data privacy. Your personal data is pretty much available to anyone that is able to source and capitalise on it. It is not surprising that some enterprising organisations build credit worthiness models based on these criterions and a lot of other desirable and non desirable effect happens due to such. We are not in China thus don't apply such model here if it is not happening as so - perhaps China is the only place where it can happen so where there is a political will to have the public's privacy in the hands of power while balancing economic/technological growth. Understand that if such is possible here then your data privacy (and not only personal data privacy, I'm sure) is now lost - ask yourself whether you want/wish for that to happen.

Read more my friend. Connect the dots by making proper sense out of it and not applying generalisation by not understanding the "why" behind it.
Anyway ... I will not continue to discuss this OT further. Let's move on.

This post has been edited by hye: Nov 6 2018, 08:56 AM

Thanks kart & voncrane for an engaging discussion.
Keeping the discussion healthy and not to the point of bickering about it. And yes, no offense to anyone.

Noticed that rampant incorrect SST discussions are prevalent in this thread.

Members

Recently a member here have informed me of PBB latest points redemption catalogue which "allows" SST redemption to be redeemed for x no. of points. I'm allowing limited discussions on SST waiver (via points redemptions) specifically to PBB cards only reflecting the bank's "guts" to note it as such. (Credit to lilsunflower)

This thread is often very "hot" for its cash back related discussions and often we see quite a bit of heated discussion going on.

Recently a "BP related abuse" remark from a member ignited sparks. I'd like to remind everyone that discussions are generally welcomed and to keep it civil. Do not resort to flaming members although you do not agree to his/her opinion. Interventions for such will be activated if necessary - I hope I won't have to intervene as I trust everyone are able to have a civilised discussion. I did not intervene recently and choose to put up this notice for our members as note - does not mean I do not view the recent discussion as flaming.

Stern WARNING that profanities are not welcomed anywhere in this section and in any forms conceivable. (e.g short form, masked, etc) Recent discussions from Leroi2x was to have contained such and the offensive discussions/replies removed. If anyone wish to post in this section, keep to this rule or be shipped out.

This post has been edited by hye: Nov 14 2018, 07:08 PM

I would recommend anyone relying on travel insurance to examine their cards travel insurance provision/coverage and evaluate whether it provide sufficient coverage for them or not. Then consider purchasing a stand alone travel insurance if need be.