From the article, a 91 year old woman had SGD$8.8million frozen in her OCBC account, despite repeated instructions by her to “close her account”, with OCBC officials citing doubts with regards to the old lady’s “mental capacity to manager her financial affairs independently”, and claiming that they “acted in line with the duty of care imposed upon them by law”.
Such an honourable act, protecting the assets of a senile old lady from the greedy, grubby paws of her loved ones, who’re most likely trying to swindle the money from her.
Such an honourable act, insisting that the old lady be examined by a psychiatrists when this old lady hired a fucking lawyer to apply for summary judgement with regards to this case. This old lady must have been mentally incapable of managing her financial assets well – she blew a chunk of cash to hire a lawyer and to fight her case in court! Imagine the amount of money spent on taxi-ing to and fro from court, oh and to her lawyer’s office as well!
Such an honourable act, leading a 91 year old woman, deemed mentally incapable of managing her finances, into a room for a “face to face meeting with senior bank officials” and the ubiquitous PR manager. If this old lady was incapable of managing her finances, and deemed to be in a poor mental state, how the flying fuck can she comprehend what senior bank officials are saying?
Bank officials: Ah soh ah… your money ah… cannot let you take cuz you kee siao already.
Ah soh: Similanjiao? Go market buy fish ah ok ok i pay $1000 for fish hor ok.
The irony’s so thick that I could cut it with a damned knife.
On Aug 29, Madam Hwang filed a suit against OCBC for breach of contract. She wanted the High Court to compel the bank to give back her money.
Explain to me once again, how an old lady who’s supposedly mentally incapable of managing her finances could have filed a fucking lawsuit against OCBC for a very specific clause – breach of contract. She explicitly stated that she wanted her cash back, yet OCBC insisted that they would not process further instructions with regards to her account, because they were duty-bound to “protect” her. How is this protecting the old lady?
Isn’t it the old lady’s perogative to close her account? If she was obviously senile and incapable of managing her funds, it would be an obvious choice to deny her access to the account. However, in this case, the old lady FILED FUCKING LAWSUITS against OCBC. If this doesn’t prove that the fiesty old lady’s perfectly fine, I don’t know what else would.
It is our duty, as morally upright citizens, to take care and look out for the interests of the elderly, as they are automatically deemed to be senile once they’re old. Thus it is definitely appropriated for OCBC to freeze her assets, and to deny any access to it. Woe to OCBC should the old lady’s loved once plunder her account, and waste $8.8m of her hard earned money on worthless minibonds, the way the various Town Councils did! Woe to OCBC should her loved ones remove $8.8m from her account, and close it, rendering OCBC one less customer! Woe to OCBC should her loved ones plunder the $8.8m on worthless minibonds, such as Merrill Lynch and Lehman Bros minibonds! (Did I mention this earlier? OOPS I DID!)
Woe to us, should we not look out for the interests of the elderly.
The elderly should not have control over their finances! The elderly should not have control over their lives!
The elderly should not be given the reins and the keys to a country!
Woe to us should this ever happen!
Oh no, WOE TO US NOW.