|
I REFER to yesterday's report '$50 notes with KF mark: Defaced bills command no value'. There is an anomaly where Mr G.S. Lee was told by OCBC that there was no problem with notes defaced with the letters KF. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) asserts in antithesis that notes with such markings are considered deliberate mutilation and command no value.
OCBC has a responsibility to inform us, without the usual tangential answers customers receive from organisations, prestidigitation, or unintended hyperbole, why the bank had no knowledge of the MAS ruling. Ms Koh Ching Ching, head of OCBC's group corporate communications, said the notes could have become defaced while being circulated. The notes becoming defaced in circulation have no nexus to the question of why OCBC told Mr Lee there was no problem, when he drew its attention to the notes.
The defacing in circulation and the assurance that there was no problem with the defaced notes are dichotomous, and one is not relevant to the other in terms of what OCBC said and what the MAS said. To reiterate, an answer is required to the question: Why was OCBC unaware of the MAS ruling?
Dudley Au
|
