I am siding with Credit Tip-Off Service.

Kayveas is damm cocky, and najib telling CTOS to update their information by breaking the laws by approaching banks. both arent very intelligent. High IQ Low EQ

no matter how i read, kayveas is indeed defamed CTOS, and let see how our "LAWS" handled defamation. i do think everyone is equal in front of law, so do u, Kayveas

1. Kayveas states CTOS is blacklisting people, this is already a defamation, all they did is provide information, the final decision is bank and companies
2.then Kayveas told the reporters bout CTOS not submitting the financials to make CTOS look like a bad guy. hey, its a change of topic, who cares bout their financials, i dont even care if CTOS bankrupt, we just need informations.
3. then Kayveas lodge a police report after getting a legal letter. dude , if u guys ever read a legal letter, it wasnt suppose to be a threat. a legal letter is not a threat in the eyes of law.

Note: i am in no way any related with CTOS and i do think the company is suspicious itself, but it wasnt as bad as one of our minister defames peoples and get off with it.

Verdict: i think cTOS should declared bankrupt and be liquidated and Kayveas be given warning for defamation

I've heard that no one or organization is allowed to keep other people's financial records for a certain number of years or something. It prevents people who have failed once in their life to get back up, despite settling all their debts. In short, its sort of like discrimination.

In this defamation context however, I do think CTOS is not responsible for blacklisting, they merely provide the information. This is why the above rule is in place, not to allow companies to provide such information so others can use it to blacklist.

Unless the information is illegitimate, against national interest or personal (non-public domain) record I think it's OK!

What's the big deal... voting for dungu's this is what you get...

CTOS don't keep financial records.

It's just publicly available notices. Even the star has it everyday.

So how can it be an obstacle to anyone in anyway?

If banks make the decision to deny financial aid to someone, is it right to blame CTOS?

If its discrimination, then the Star ought to be banned too for highlighting the notices.

well said 'happy4ever'.

It looks like if there is any problem, it's the financial institutions that has been misusing the CTOS information.

CTOS's no angel but I don't like the good for nothing Kayveas sticking his nose into these irrelevant issues.

CTOS needs to go period. Do they have the authority to keep your information. Did you give them the permission to store your information? What they are doing is invasion of privacy. On what basis that they are obtaining your information. Are they selling your information without informing you. This can only be the beginning of what CTOS is capable of doing. One day, without notice your every bank transaction or credit card transaction can be recorded by them. Where you eat...what are your spending habits.... You want that to happen to you? If identity theft happens, you are the victim and by then what is your say on this.

as mention by previous post in this thread CTOS only store the public available info like bankrupt notice and court ruling

you credit history are really store in the CCRIS database maintain by bank negara, you can check you credit report by fill in a form

http://creditbureau.bnm.gov.my/index.php?ch=7&pg=12&ac=18

they have a guide on how to read the report


http://creditbureau.bnm.gov.my/view.php?id...%BB%D8%B8%89%8D

CTOS is providing info based on data collected from the newspaper. The ads in the newspaper only serve as a medium of notice for individuals whom may have a legal case brought against him. This information are now being used as a form of historic events for a person\'s credibility to determine whether he is a good creditor or not. What a farce..no agency has any right to use public information and sell it to any interested parties without due diligence being conducted. To say that it is bounded by the Banking Act which deters them from obtaining settlement information means they should not even be collecting these information in the first place knowing that theres no avenue for them to update informaation which has already been settled. At the end of the day, the public at their own initiative have to inform CTOS for debts which has been settled or dischargement of their bankrupcy and that for a sum as well. Bank Negara already provides information pertaining to anyone\'s credibility, why should Private Banks rely on other forms of information other than those provided by the Government which are at least recent. Put a stop to CTOS which profits from information which are published free by the insolvency department. By providing dated and inaccurate information which are used by Finacial Institution this only serve to wreck the country's economy. If they cant be regulated than they shouldnt be in business. Banks who uses them to determine ones credibility should be penalised for negligence. Who is more foolish the fool or the fool who follows him. Banks should wake up from its kiasuism. All loans have risk, doesnt means that the persom with no CTOS listing has less risk than one who is listed. Banks says CTOS listing does not affects decision making but with listing it does prejudice decision making. Which is worse? Government need to act fast before everybody succumbs to this CTOS dilemma.

You have all the facts right but you're forgetting that no one is going to go through a years paper or even 2 years of paper records to find whether or not a person had been sued or is there a legal noticed served against an individual.
Again another thing you forgot is CCRIS from BNM only records data which is being submitted by FIs (Financial Institution, i.e. banks and finance companies). Thus one wouldn't know that a particular individual or a particular company is being pursued by his/it's vendor for defaults in payment.
Even CTOS had put up a disclaimer before anyone subscript to it's service saying that
the records might not be up to date and urged ppl using it only as a reference. Thus most FI used CTOS as a reference and further check if a customer appealed or it's a large case. Some FI has it's own criteria on CTOS whereby I've known some which disregard records that are more than 5 years old.

And why is everyone afraid if they've done nothing wrong? That I seriously don't understand!
Look at one of the rubbish post in The Star:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...16302&sec=focus


and my reply in this topic:
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/480209/+60

The worse is people like you.

If I collect all old newspaper and scans them and stores them. Storage space needs money.

Then someday you need to refer to some past articles, you come to me. Shall I give you free service of looking up your queries (spend time and effort) or shall i charge you?

In fact, you should blame the Star for publishing such notices. Because if the said people have settled their debts, it should be shown in the Star too saying these people are CLEAN and have settled all debts. Do you find it in the papers? Or do you only see cases of summons, bankruptcy etc notices?

Think about it.

oh...i Never saw the Jabatan Insolvensi part until bolded...
Insolvensi search cost a fee of RM10 per check.
Also Jabatan Insolvensi would only list individual who's a bankrupt or companies which are liquidated.

The only problem with CTOS is they are providing information only half the story. And the other problem, is that people only read half the story and make judgement out of it. For FI, to do that, whether it's intentional or convenient is called Negligence..therefore the motion now is for CTOS to rectify its database to include recent data. CTOS has a duty of care to the public to provide accurate information to whoever who uses it. It is insufficient for them just to disclaim themselves by suggesting that the reader should perform their own due diligence to verify or obtain latest information themselves. If the people who pays for this service need to do additional search then CTOS is redundant. But having said that, because CTOS is conveniently available..the FI conveniently uses positive CTOS listing as pre-judgement thus prejudice that particular person. Do you think that with over 100's loan or credit card application a day you are required to call them for justification. Doin searches and searches just to approved a loan..you must be joking. So the most convenient way is to filter applicants away who is CTOS positive. Therefore, the lead information provided by CTOS does not even allows you to get past the first stage. Think about it. Its like being relegated without going for the playoff in football terms. if you are one of the victims who keeps getting denied for a loan because you're CTOS positive but already paid your dues the you will probably understand the misery the people are having because the information provided by CTOS IS OUT OF DATE therefore they either rectify or declassify.

1. CTOS just collects all publically available records.

2. All records is pertaining to those who is being sued, eg MARA, Legal Suits, Auction...

3. Hence, there is no recourse for Government to act unless Government outlaw it.

4. BTW why such fear when you pay your dues.

5. Besides there is more than 1 Company doing the job. Refer to The Edge, there is another Company doing just the same and not getting the flank. Ever wonder why?

it is not about fear ..this is public records which are sold and only serves to mislead because it is incomplete. Even though you have paid your dues the records does not reflect it. And some institution are using this incomplete data to pass verdict. So lets say if your are in a law of court and the judge finds you guilty with only half the evidence presented, how would you feel, dont you feel you have not been given a fair trial. Its the same with CTOS for only being partial in its reporting. Again, DUTY OF CARE is not being exercised when dealing with public information which is highly sensitive as information like this needs to be highly regulated. Only in this country that this sort of data collation is allowed due to our non existence Data Protection Act. And item No 5 in your statement..does'nt mean that there is more than one company doing it is right..as the saying goes ..two wrong doesnt make a right..everybody seems to be missing the point ...that the information reflected by CTOS is incomplete..it should not even be allowed to be on display let alone on sale, it is inconceivable how this will affect the people as information as highly sensitive as this is being misused over and over again. We only call for proper and regulated reporting just like journalism. We do not want something like CTOS to bring the whole system of data protection down and this include everyone not just the people listed by CTOS.

half story, or full story doesnt matter.

when ur potential client showed up in the newspapers, then its a great idea to avoid doing business with them. beside, we all know what type of people showed up in the newspaper's hall of shame

and i do suggest the peoples who havent settle their ptptn loan after a long due, should be going into CTOS....

even if the person have settled their loan, it doesnt matter. and it should still be keep in ctos database. reason: some people needs their names to be published on the papers so they would pay up. borrowing money is far easier than paying up.

This post has been edited by john123x: Jul 5 2007, 11:29 PM

eric84cool:read up...I think I've explained...

dvng, might as well ban the papers for publishing those legal notice. or even better; stop the court from sticking all those legal notice outside the court.
So how do you suggest CTOS buck up?
If you were the head of the company how would you do?
Check on 100's of names published every month through out the country and go to court and enquire one by one? somemore, how many more historical records they have to go through?
So you shouldn't put the blame on CTOS, but by blaming the FIs, yes you're correct. CTOS is just a service provider.
For your example, you can always appeal to the banks; so if the bank doesn't listen you can blame the bank, not CTOS!

For eg, I read a paper one day and saw the published notice on so and so become bankrupt. One day, he came to borrow money from me; It's just normal for me to reject. And since that so and so wants the money; so and so must prove it to me instead of me doing it.

FIs deal with thousands of applications per day.....what do you expect? send runner to every court in the country just to see whether or not the said applicants got any legal case previously and presently?!... You seem to think only one side but not seen the other side of how things work.

Once you're the boss of a company that deals with lending business you'll know. Another reason why banks reject because history shows that the said applicant had a certain case against him because he didn't pay or refuse to pay. It's not to discriminate; but with certain histories reflected badly against a said applicants, doesn't the bank or anyone has the doubt of lending out?

You know a guy who didn't pay someone for many years than later he told you that he paid off recently and shows your prove. Would you rationally lend him money?!...for me I wouldn't. I would assume that you're only covering your debts with another debts. It's only logical to think that way.

I think enough explanation from my post here. Again regarding collecting of PUBLISHED PUBLIC information; what's wrong of charging other for it if I'm the one going through all the troubles help collecting and compilling those information and buy servers and warehouse to store the information?!

They would have gone through all the legal procedures to get the company set up. So ever wonder why only now ppl are complaining? Doesn't it seems ilke a plot or scandal which started from someone in the ministry which he himself is listed in CTOS and he just wants to cover up his own ass?!

But to all here.. Few things to ponder for your future:

One:
If you are getting a divorce from your spouse and you don't want your ex-spouse to know about your credit, are you to blame yourself or blame CTOS if they sell all your credit information to your ex-spouse for merely RM 15.00.

Two:
You got a business competitor and both of you are having serious competition over a deal. But you have problems with your credits and you are on CTOS list for past poor credit management.

You needed this deal to waver through for your business to prove that you no longer have poor credit management. But your competitor got hold off these information and use it against you and your business from CTOS for RM 10.00.

The potential client thinks that you are for no good and you have no integrity due to your information is listed in CTOS.

Are you going to say all those information is old information or you going to close the door when the barn door is already open with the horses all out?


To me, is don't glorified CTOS as though they are always correct cause they aren't. Those two scenarios above, I seen incidents happened to my friends and it is not nice..

Another mistake in saying "CREDIT INFORMATION".
CTOS don't list CREDIT INFORMATION.
CTOS only COLLECTS PUBLISHED PUBLICLY AVAILABLE LEGAL NOTICE.
Try to differentiate it.
Somemore, CTOS did informed that not necessary records are updated UPFRONT.
So who to blame?.....the buyer/subscriber who buys/subscribes to CTOS service EVENTHOUGH they know that the records might not be updated and used it or still it's CTOS fault?!

If someone eventually saw your friend's legal notice published in the paper; than what?.....you guys blame the paper for publishing it out?!....GROW UP!
It's not glorifying CTOS, as no one is doing that here. It's just consumer has the wrong perceptions on how it works and blames the wrong party.
Like I mentioned in another thread...Think Logical! Analyse and see who's to blame. Understand the situation.

Again, citing on your example; especially no2; cos no1 is not possible like I mentioned.
What makes you think the other company wouldn't check CTOS themselves and it's the competitors who "framed" your friend.
Okie, maybe the competitor did that. But than again WHAT IF the company finds out themselves...so what??...Blame CTOS again?! Okie....let me put it this way; if the company happened to find out your friend's is previous listed for whatever reason; and it's not from CTOS, but other sources....than what?!....blame that particular sources?!

Now again, ask yourself if you're dealing in a business deal. You find out that the other business party you're dealing with was blacklisted ok, don't sat blacklist; say was in trouble before (eg. maybe owe couple of other companies before but eventually settled); would you have confidence in dealing with that particular said company?!....
Like everyone is saying TALAM is bad....so what's TALAM going to do??....sue everyone?! Even if TALAM changed and have better QC, so what??......TALAM would always be remembered for bad quality finishes and consumer would be cautious about that.

In real life world; once you've done wrong; you'll always be remembered as doing something worng no matter how many good things you've done. That's life!

Adsolutely true. During a construction tender exercise years ago, two contractors was competing seriously against each. One fine day, one of them came to see me with a CTOS list of his competitor showing all the legal cases he has having with his supplier. All this happened during the 97 crisis when almost everyone was having financial squezze. The thing is, both of these two company are really expert in their own field and it is difficult to choose any of the other one. The chap who showed me his competitor CTOS listing was actually the one with a higher tender value and he was trying to discredit his competitor with his so called bad records and hoping the tender will go to him even though his cost his higher so he can profit more. Poor credit management doesnt means somebody or someone is poor in his job which he does well. Therefore, information like this is highly detrimental when use with prejudice. And suprisingly, people are now using CTOS to frightened you e.g pay up or i will see you in CTOS. Why is CTOS being so influential now? The service of CTOS has been grossly misused and mistreated. Its about time that CTOS be closed indefinitely.

This post has been edited by dvng: Jul 6 2007, 12:54 PM

I'm saying real life mates...
like what do you think of TALAM's houses like I mentioned...
also.....Direct sales or MLM??.......
than tell me your truthful answer...

Like I said also previously; it's up to the party that held your CTOS to be discretions in their actions (same as you do in your quoted example). CTOS serve only as a provider of information.

So what?...you're going to close down the whole police force as ppl would still threaten others who don't pay that they would go to the police or lawyer to sue their ass off....

And btw, don't you agree ppl remembers 1 thing that you done wrong more than a thousand things you've done right?! Ask yourself to your heart. Not to based it all on morales and all.

Racist or no racist I dare to honestly speak up my mind and tell you that I do have my reservation if someone dealing with me is listed or previously had shown bad records before. Given 2nd chance or not is based on my further investigation. So don't simply shoot me down if you do act that way. I guessed you wouldn't act like that as certainly you wouldn't investigate more on the case whereby the competitor furnish you with all the CTOS listing. So enough accusation; did you or did you not investigate further on the allegation and find out why the particular company is listed in CTOS in the first place than only you choose which company to deal with. Or did you just brush aways the chap and since he's trying to frame the other party; with your high morality you reject that chap straight away and didn't investigate straight away sign up with the other company listed in CTOS?!

---

Added on July 6, 2007, 2:35 pmbtw, I work in a bank as a risk analyst and the bank process many applications per day; more than thousands.
The bank needs a tools to mitigate risk and CTOS happens to be one of the tools. and you can't blame the bank for generalising as after analyzing we found that those ever listed has higher tendency to default.
Somemore with tons of applications per day; no bank can afford to judge an applications 1 by 1; thus a general reject rules is being set. Like for us; for minor records listing (i.e. summons) in CTOS more than 5 years; we disregard it. But bankruptcy cases listed in CTOS; we'll take it seriously and rejects. All this policy doesn't come by by just snapping fingers. All this policies is being done after doing analysis and studies.
Many thinks the banks are against them.......but they doesn't understand that bank's appetite for risk is unlike ah long! Basically bank's don't like risk. Somemore, we can't have any risk based pricing; if not we'll approve this guys with higher APR (interest).
So unless the case is being appealed, we'll reject outright. If you work as an underwriter or risk analyst as me; you'll know and understand why we need to rely on generalisation.

---

Added on July 6, 2007, 3:45 pmpls all check CTOS website: http://www.ctos.com.my/ FAQ to have better insight and I've checked the particular page and found that it's last updated on:Wednesday, July 21, 2004 11:38:43 PM
So all this while it's been claiming to be 'Lead Information System' which denotes:
To provide 'information lead' for the purpose of discovery and insight to past record to aid in process of decision making.
again they further commented in this FAQ:

so attacks should be towards FIs and not CTOS.

This post has been edited by b00n: Jul 6 2007, 03:45 PM

CTOS is just collection of records that is "PUBLICALLY" available. Hence, if you want you can compile and start your own company.

As for Banks, it is a lending business that is using "PUBLIC FUNDS" which means every Tom, d*** and Harry monies in the Bank.

If Banks don't have any resources to screen thru applications, you would ended up with those earlier days where BNM had to save Banks from going bust.

So many complains on the CTOS... I wonder if there's any credit repair service that would help people improve their credit record in Msia ?

the Government Agency...
AKPK which acts a counsellor to help one's manage their current debts.
Than they will help propose to the banks that the particular customer would pay so and so amount within so and so tenor.
But believe me; sometimes the proposal is ridiculuos to the max.
But since it's a government set-up; no one can deny it.
*sigh*

not so simple..if you collect public info for yourself it is ok..if you are collecting public info and sellin it without first making sure it is accurate, recent and verified you will end up being sue for slander and violating data protection act. That's where CTOS ended up. So make sure what you are sellin is legitimate and accurate. No disclaimer is going to get you out of the rut. Information is a powerful tool, it can be used for good or against somebody. If the information is flawed, then you need to be careful of what you are sellin. Just like sellin drugs withot MMA approval.

if u read trough it's obejctive.....and made known to everyone that it's only a "lead information" provider.
I.e. someone can get a lead on something and do further investigation.
Without a source or lead; would you know a person is bankrupt or being served bankrupt notice before?!
thousands of appplication comes in the bank per day; how to screen through all??.....go to the courts and enquire one by one?(i guess the court clerks would also say f@rk off) or based on leads that filter out some and do further investigations?!

---

Added on July 7, 2007, 1:08 pmagain, your target should not be against CTOS, it's against the FIs and their policies.
Even without CTOS, there's bound to be other method for FIs to regulate their policy on. Than what??....blame the new source?!
btw, for all's information....there's another company or system which the banks used....BASIS; wonder when will it get into the lime light.....
Just that CTOS is more popular; it's being targeted.

This post has been edited by b00n: Jul 7 2007, 01:08 PM

Just wonder.....
1) if CTOS is that bad and unethical then why it exist at the beginning ???
2) Who approved them to operate such services ???
3) Where does CTOS get those creditor or debtor information ??? Who provide to them ???
4) If Financial Institution (Bank and Financce company and Others) said they don't depend on CTOS information or evaluation, then why engage CTOS services ???

at the end, it is still a myth..... unsolve mystery.....

Item 4...Beats me..the FI's were probably just covering their ass..by saying that they dont rely on CTOS..it was CTOS info that prejudiced their decision..so they conveniently deflect the problem to CTOS..so rather than doing their own investigation which could be exceedingly time consuming..the officer's in the FI's will just reject your application as long as it's listing is CTOS positive..if CTOS still exist..then the chances of people abusing the 'lead information' will still persist. Ultimately, the way I look it..CTOS may have to be closed..until such act and regulations be put in place..the concept of providing lead information at the moment may be put on hold..I dont think even if CTOS doesnt exist there will a dearth of approval of loans, the officers in the FI"s will probably need to be more diligent in its decision making...

good for background checks..

CTOS has been in existence for 20 years but only now has it been an issue...i can only imagine how much money it has made all these years; i can hazard a guess that it stepped on the wrong toes, or has fallen out of favour with those in power, and now it has to pay the price!

all the juicy fillers in the story is for show only! and i guess there'll be more politicization of the issue with the elections coming...

it falls out of favor when a certain Datuk can't get a loan because his name is listed in CTOS as he was being pursued before for legal actions.
also, it got collective 'lead information' on at least 30% of the ministers in the ministry's office.
again the said Datuk who's opposing CTOS had been using CTOS all this while...
hmmmm......tell me about conspiracy!

CTOS is lying.........................................

my credit history in CTOS stating credit card debt etc r the ones from the banks........

that means the the financial institution themselves supply the info to the CTOS

its true the damn CTOS did informed those stupid users of ctos database that not necessary records are updated UPFRONT.

but if you apply loans from institution using damn CTOS.... the damn CTOS database show your bad credit... but actually you already clear your name with the creditors.... you have to actually provide yourself proof that you ve cleared ur debt... u have to do it ur self... just because the damn ctos didnt clear ur name...

I myself got this troubled making loan with MBSB........... I have to call several creditors including Singer just to get
letter proving that my debt already clear.......................... so it takes another month to clear my name.....
but CTOS didnt... becuase they said that clearing my name in the database is not their responsibilities... If I want then I have to f***ing pay them...................... f***......

somebody hackers out there.... plz.......... hack this CTOS database......

or any abu sayyaf bombers plzzz bomb this CTOS

did you settle your creditors before you apply for financing with MBSB ?

Hmm.. MBSB, interesting. Meditate on this I must.

I thought this CTOS case is dying a slow death now suddenly someone came in and bring up the issue again.

First again, show me proves that CTOS stating your credit card debts. Maybe u just hide certain information and scan it so everyone can view. Just to prove that you're correct and I don't have the correct information.
Credit card debt...yes; you'll get listed for that if the card company pursue legal actions on you.

Again, what do you meant by "apply loans from institution using damn CTOS" I don't get you here.

To stress this again, CTOS collects information that is being published. So once when you settled with your creditors; if they never published it so where does CTOS get the information from? So blame CTOS or your creditors?! Get the facts right pls.

After you get the release latter from your creditors; than provide it to CTOS to delete your record. It's not for CTOS to look into everyones case from time to time and check. So many cases, you meant CTOS is to check everyone's cases daily to see whether or not it's being updated?

Btw, companies like Singers are not listed in CCRIS. So by removing the service of CTOS, I guessed everyone can start owing Courts Mammoth, Singers, Carrefour etc....and don't have to pay....
Again your name wouldn't be in CTOS if these companies didn't pursue legal action on you.

So dear sir, to prove me wrong pls scan your copy of CTOS record you claimed you've seen and lets debate again.

---

Added on August 15, 2007, 10:58 ambtw, there's a more detailed discussion in RWI.
So pls proceed there to see more debates and explanation.

CTOS GONNA BE BAN?, Public view on Ctos sought (Social Issues)

This post has been edited by b00n: Aug 15 2007, 10:58 AM

Hi there

I do agree with Datuk Kayveas with some of his point - The economy can be affected when banks and credit providers, such as finance firms, tighten credit facilities based on the records in Ctos.

May be you guys don't know that not only loan application cannot be approved if your name is in the CTOS list, it's sad to say that you can't even open a Current Account in any bank if your name is inside the CTOS list. What kinda theory is this ? People wanted to keep their money inside the bank also have to go through CTOS ??!? Since these people already have debts, they are already have difficulties in their life, but why the CTOS & the bank still put in more pressures on them ? Why can't just give them a small possibility opportunity to do some business and to recover and to settle their debts slowly? Why must pust them to the end side?

Furthermore how can those bank judge a person's finance status/reputation by just according a silly reference list from CTOS ? How true and how reliable the CTOS is ? If it's so reliable, there won't be so many complaints regarding their system is not updated & etc. From other bloggers stated that CTOS is making RM8 million per year of profit, is this true ? Why are they suppose to make profit ? The bank charge the loan applicant for the searchings and as a result the consumer has to bear the costs, and why we must pay these charges to the only 'private company'?

I agree that the economy can be affected when the banks and credit providers tighten the credit facilities for the applicant, that can make a poor person to become even poorer person. Our government officers keep on condemn and tries various way to stop Shark Loan, but why they still can't find out the reason why Malaysian wants to borrow money from shark loan ? I doubt that it's 100% all because of soccer bettings/gamble. Many should know that this will ended up with more and more security problems when the citizens has no money to pay. Besides, since it's known that 1/3 of the citizens is inside the CTOS list, why the bank and the related parties don't do something to loosen the citizen's problem ? Why the bank only concentrate on making profits and only care how many million they earn per year instead of helping the citizens such like offering a lower interest rate and longer return period for those people who owes or who needs money ? If the economy and security become even worse, I think there won't be any benefit to anyone of us..do you agree ?

For those who think that those blacklister are deserved, you should not think like that. I believe that they are just not matured enough to manage their financial stuff when they are young. They don't know how to plan what they should spend and what they shouldn't spend. Some of them they are greedy, but why they are greedy? Is it because they are not well taught in the school or not well educated by their parents for not to be greed? If so, that's not all of their fault..Some people RM100 is enough to spend for a week, but why some needs RM100 to spend for a day? Their thinking and living style already with them for years and years, you cant judge them with only one or two or three mistakes that they did before, they also need the opportunity to grow up and to climb up, but is this opportunity given? We should symphatise and help people who needs..For those people who condemn them as deserved, is it because their house used to be bigger than yours and their cars used to be luxury than yours ? Forget about it, if the country is rich, citizens's financial problem is OK too, you will never have any worries when walking on the street at any time, you don't have to fix so many CCTV at your home, you can travel with your 5 or 7 Series without any affairs. I know that to help is not that simple and easy, but at least try instead of criticise and make their life even difficult.

I had forgotten since started when till today I dislike to read the main section of the newspaper.

Just my 2 cents worth of view.

Good luck mate.

Regards

---

Added on August 21, 2007, 9:21 pmSome views to add,

What's the purpose of having a Bank in our country? I believe that it's because of our govenment appoint them and expect them to provide reasonable services to the citizens to help them to a better living and to improve our country's economy. But now it seems like the bank having different goals and different opinion like what we and the government expect/hope.

They always come with full of silly services charges. We keep money inside the bank yet still have to pay services charges. We appoint third party to withdraw money yet have to pay unreasonable service charges. and I also heard that if we keep a quantity of money inside and the bank suddenly bankrupt, as a result we can't take back the full amount, is that true ?







This post has been edited by Hakkinen: Aug 21 2007, 09:21 PM

Sorry but your views had all being debunked on a more organised debates in the other thread which I've provided.
But still I need to correct you on Bank "solely" rely on CTOS which is not true.
CTOS is just merely a point for reference. Further checks would be conducted depending on CTOS matches.
Again, CCRIS is already a must for FI (Financial Institute) to look up reference on what we called "Credit Worthiness".
CTOS is to check on whether or not any institution or companies had made legal actions against somebody who defaulted their payment.
Again, another misconception that you had on CTOS being the only reference company in town. I would quote you another one that most FI is also using i.e. BRIS
Another good read in Jeff Ooi's blog:
http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/07/ctosbashing..._the_beef_2.php


again, you might want to blame the FI instead of CTOS.
FI is the main culprit like you put it.
The thread provided in my previous post also did voiced out on this issues regarding profit searching FIs.

Do a read-up when you're free........

This post has been edited by b00n: Aug 22 2007, 12:24 AM

o yeh that shit head Jeff Ooi..... hopefully one day gov would arrest him under ISA

again I call upon all hackers around the world........

PLZ HACK CTOS DATABASE
PLZ HACK CTOS DATABASE
PLZ HACK CTOS DATABASE
PLZ HACK CTOS DATABASE

---

Added on August 23, 2007, 3:09 pmI also think b00n is currently got some shares in CTOS ... same like those in Bank Negara.....

that's why they defend the CTOS... If not believe me just call the complaint dept of Bank Negara by the name of Pn Siti.....
She would probably blame CTOS and putting the blame on kayveas

This post has been edited by hajilosong: Aug 23 2007, 03:09 PM

bro, based on your intelligence, I guess I don't mind you calling names here...
If you are to read up the previous threads on this which I had already provided...there's lots of debates and discussion carried out.
Understand that first before commenting.
Use the points not agreeable to you after you've read and voiced it out instead of showing "shallow mind" quality in calling names and remarks like:
hahaha....
Again I worked in a bank like I posted before (if you are ever going to read and do research); I've also mentioned that it's the bank's policy which is at fault and not CTOS....

Try do some research and read up first...
No need google; go look at our previous debates and discussion where some pages also show extensive write ups on data privacy acts.

shoo....go read pls.......

Also, I would appreciate as a sane ppl and inviting discussion, pls quote which point you don't agree. Especially the explanation to your query which I thought I already mentioned clearly.
So pls tell me which is wrong or got problem so I may change my way of expression........

before I forgot, what does jeff ooi had done to you to deserve the "shit head" comment fro you?
if it's the article I linked; it's not from him, he just helped to post from one of his readers....

This post has been edited by b00n: Aug 23 2007, 03:26 PM