Recently, she wanted to deposit her money in one lump sum to get better returns. It was then I discovered how unmindful the bank was, vis-�-vis small depositors like her.

Her fixed-term deposits were renewed automatically each year for the past few years. The interest remained static.

Staff at the bank could have advised her to secure a far better return by reinvesting her money in one big sum. That was never done, and regrettably so.

Had she taken a loan from the bank, and the interest rate had increased, she would have to pay the higher rate or face a penalty if she defaulted on payments.

She asked to deposit a larger sum of her funds in a promotional time-deposit scheme to get a higher return.

However, she was told she did not qualify because her money was not fresh funds. The teller added that fresh funds help the bank grow and develop.

She then asked if she could withdraw her money from her savings account and re-deposit it in the promotional time-deposit account. This too was not acceptable to the bank under the same ruling.

I advised her to close her savings account and take her money to the bank next door, which offered a slightly better interest rate.

After transactions at the second bank were completed, the bank officer revealed that all banks adopt the 'fresh funds' policy. His bank would have subjected my mother to the same ruling if she was its client.

I am flabbergasted.

Small depositors face cumulative obstacles to using banking services. The minimum sum rule for savings accounts is now a fait accompli. Savings account interest is pathetically low.

Low-wage earners struggle to save some money for a rainy day and find an insurmountable Everest in the way, with terms and conditions and fine print which befuddle and confound them no end.

In our quest to be a premier financial hub, should our banking institutions not try harder to ensure quality service for all, regardless of social standing?

Ho Kong Loon