Latest Banking and Financial Related News in Malaysia

3818 Views  ⚫  Asked 7 Years Ago
asked on Aug 26, 2011 at 23:55
edited on May 19, 2016 at 04:24
The Star Online > Nation
Published: Friday August 26, 2011 MYT 3:24:00 PM

PTPTN to adopt friendlier approach with loan defaulters

KUALA LUMPUR: The National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) is prepared to negotiate with blacklisted defaulters or those who have been issued with summonses to help them repay their loans, its chairman Datuk Ismail Mohamed Said said.

He said that through a much friendlier approach, the corporation would open its doors to negotiation and work out the loan repayment structure.

"The borrowers and PTPTN officers will discuss the amount of deposit to be paid by the borrowers and the amount of monthly installment as well as how the payment should be made, either through salary deduction or bank's order," he said.

Speaking to reporters after handing over 2,500 goody bags at the Gombak toll plaza here Friday, Ismail said the borrowers could come to PTPTN to negotiate the repayment process.

He said up to July 31 this year, a total of 961,346 borrowers still owed the corporation a total of RM5.43bil.

Of the amount, 715,086 borrowers have started to repay their loans, with RM2.63bil collected thus far.

Some 246,260 or 25.62% have yet to make any payment for their loans, totalling RM1.39bil, while the arrears for those who have started to make repayment but at irregular intervals is RM1.42bil. - Bernama
0 had this question
Me Too
1 favorites
[ share ]
35 Answers
« Previous   1   2   3   4   Next »

answered on Dec 15, 2017 at 16:59
With new tech, EPF to drop withdrawal limits

December 15, 2017

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 15 — Employees Provident Fund (EPF) members aged 55 and 60 will be able to withdraw any amount from their account whenever they wish, starting January 2018.

In a report by The Star, EPF chief executive officer Datuk Shahril Ridza Ridzuan reportedly said this new arrangement was made possible due to an upgrade in the fund’s system.

“Under the [current] EPF scheme, there are a number of restrictions on technology in terms of processing,” he was quoted saying.

“With the improvement, you will be able to withdraw any amount at any time so in case of an emergency, you have access to the money,” Shahril added.

Under the policy now, members may only partially withdraw at least RM2,000 once every 30 days.

Currently, those who prefer monthly withdrawals must also withdraw at least RM250, but this will also be reduced to RM100 with the new system.

The age cap for partial withdrawals has also been revised from 75 to 100.

“The EPF anticipates that most of our members will face increasing challenges in preparing for their retirement with the dramatic demographic shifts facing both Malaysia and the world, as well as the advent of the next industrial revolution.

“Therefore, these enhancements are to keep pace with changes in members’ needs and expectations,” Shahril was quoted saying.

Other enhancements to the policy include the option to appoint Amanah Raya Bhd as a trustee, and the extension of death benefit — or the ability to claim RM2,500 if a member dies before the age of 55 — to 60.


Full Story:
0 found this helpful

answered on Jan 6, 2018 at 17:23
Bid to recover money from friend ends in jail time

IPOH: It was trust that assured stageshow operator Tan Teik Heng to lend RM150,000 to a friend in 2016, and he has yet to recover most of his money.

Adding insult to injury, Tan was thrown into jail after an attempt to collect money from the friend, known as Beh, ended with the stageshow operator in jail for a week for slapping Beh during an argument in October 2016.

“Beh said he would pay me back with cheques, so I lent him the money,” Tan said at a press confe­rence held by Perak MCA Public Services and Complaints Bureau chief Jimmy Loh yesterday.

Tan said he went to Beh’s house when the cheques bounced and an argument ensued.

I slapped him and he lodged a police report. I was subsequently arrested and later fined RM1,500 by the court,” he added.

Tan first lent the money to Beh in June 2016 and got some cheques in return. But whenever a cheque bounced, Beh would issue another under his wife’s name.

“This went on for five months and I did not suspect anything as I trusted him,” he said, adding that he managed to recoup about RM20,000.

“It was only after I saw an an­nouncement in a Chinese daily that Beh’s brother-in-law was cutting ties with the family that I felt something was amiss.” Loh said Tan lodged six police re­­ports on Beh’s alleged cheating in Taiping.

Meanwhile, a Taiping district police spokesman said they had investigated the matter.

“The man who lodged the report wanted to reclaim his money. We found no element of cheating and advised him to pursue it in court.”

0 found this helpful

answered on Jan 20, 2018 at 06:55
Bank Negara launches free central credit info platform for public

19 Jan 2018

KUALA LUMPUR: Bank Negara Malaysia has launched its free online platform for the public to access their own central credit reference information system (CCRIS) report, anywhere at their convenience.

The new initiative – eCCRIS is a secure online platform – and the service is provided for free and is available nationwide starting on Friday.

Bank Negara said the CCRIS report shows the financing and repayment history of a borrower with participating financial institutions over the past 12 months.

“It does not provide an assessment of a borrower’s credit standing. It is therefore a factual report and is not a blacklist.,” it said.

Bank Negara said eCCRIS is an extension of its efforts to promote the financial well-being of all Malaysians by encouraging prudent financial management.

With eCCRIS, the public can now access their personal CCRIS reports online via the eCCRIS website.

Users can to monitor and verify their personal  credit standing, including their loan repayment history.

Users will also be able to lodge data verification requests directly via eCCRIS to participating financial institutions to verify and correct any inaccuracies identified in their CCRIS report.

The platform was launched by Bank Negara Governor Tan Sri Muhammad Ibrahim.

Also present at the launch were  Datuk Kamaluddin Ismail  of Association of Development Finance Institutions of Malaysia (ADFIM), Tan Sri Tay Ah Lek of the Association of Banks in Malaysia (ABM), Datuk Mohd Redza Shah Abd Wahid of the Association of Islamic Banking Institutions Malaysia (AIBIM) and Marzunisham Omar, Assistant Governor of Bank Negara.

To register, the public simply needs to follow these five steps:

1. Walk-in to any Bank Negara Malaysia office or Agensi Kaunseling dan Pengurusan Kredit (AKPK) branch nationwide to perform a one-time registration.

2. At the CCRIS kiosk, individuals will need to verify their identity using MyKad, and register a valid mobile phone number. For businesses, an authorisation letter and company registration certificates are required for an authorised person to register on behalf of the company.

3. A 6-digit PIN will be sent to the registered mobile phone number.

4. Users are required to key in their MyKad number and 6-digit PIN for first-time login at

5. The user will then be required to (i) set preferred user ID and password, (ii) select personal security image and phrase, and (iii) set three security questions and answers

0 found this helpful

answered on Dec 27, 2018 at 17:04
Banks can’t use exclusion clauses to escape liability, court rules

December 17, 2018 3:23 PM

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court in a landmark ruling today held that commercial banks could not rely on exclusion clauses in agreements to stop their clients from suing them for negligence.

“Parties are not on equal levels. In today’s commercial world, the customer has to accept the contract as prepared by the other party,” judge Balia Yusof Wahi said in dismissing an appeal by CIMB Bank Bhd.

“There is unequal bargaining,” he added.

In this particular instance, he said, where a bank customer had brought a suit against the bank, it merited public policy for the court to interfere.

“It is patent unfairness and injustice to the plaintiffs (the bank customers),” he said in the ruling made by a three-member bench.

The other two judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Zaharah Ibrahim and Federal Court judge Azahar Mohamed.

A five-member bench led by Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin had heard the appeal in January and adjourned the ruling to another date.

Zulkefli, who was Court of Appeal president, resigned in July, while Zainun Ali who was also on the bench retired last month.

Today’s ruling was delivered by the remaining three members, as provided for under Section 78 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

Early last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was liable for breach of contract and in tort for refusal to make a housing loan progress payment to a developer.

A three-man bench chaired by Rohana Yusuf said CIMB Bank could not rely on the exemption clause in the loan agreement with a British couple.

“The exclusion of a liability clause in the agreement cannot be sustained and cannot absolve the bank from liability in contract or tort,” she said of the unanimous decision.

Justices Vernon Ong and Hasnah Mohammed Hashim were the other members of the bench.

As for the drawdown expiry date issue, Rohana said it was clear that the bank had waived its rights by conduct of making further disbursements after the expiry date had passed.

“Therefore, they cannot now rely on this clause as an excuse for non-payment,” she said in allowing the appeal by Anthony Lawrence Bourke and Alison Deborah Essex Bourke, who had sued CIMB.

Rohana also said the bank was liable for non-payment of the sum due to the developer.

The Bourkes, who now live in the UK, bought a piece of property at Jalan Sultan Ismail in Kuala Lumpur from developer Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd in 2008.

To finance the purchase, they took a loan from the bank that same year. It was a term loan agreement where the couple would service the monthly instalments and the bank would pay progress payments to the developer whenever they were due.

However, CIMB failed to make payment on one of the invoices and as a result, the developer terminated the sale and purchase agreement with the couple.

In 2015, the Bourkes sued the bank for negligence and breach of contract.

CIMB’s defence was heavily premised on the bank’s standard exclusion liability clause which protects the bank from any claim made by the borrower.

It also relied on another clause in the loan agreement which stated that the bank need not disburse the loan if full drawdown is not made within a certain period of time.

The High Court in 2016 dismissed the suit on grounds that the exclusion liability clause protected CIMB from being sued for damages.

The trial court also found that because the drawdown expiry deadline had lapsed when the invoice for the sum due from the developer was received, CIMB was not obliged to make disbursements on it.

Lawyer Ong Yu Jian, who represented the Bourkes, said today’s ruling meant that the court had removed the “bulletproof vest” of banks that prevented clients from filing suits on equal ground.

“Now the courts will look at the facts of each case before them in coming to a decision. The banks will not have an upper hand over their clients,” he told FMT.

0 found this helpful

answered on Dec 27, 2018 at 17:06
Don’t hesitate to challenge unfair contracts, says couple who won CIMB case

December 27, 2018 7:00 AM

PETALING JAYA: A British couple who won their case against a commercial bank which attempted to use an exemption clause in a housing loan agreement to ward off a civil suit has advised customers to test their rights in court.

Anthony Lawrence Bourke said they should first get legal opinion whether to proceed or otherwise.

“In our case, the first lawyer whom we met was not familiar with the subject matter but was kind enough to refer to another counsel who agreed to take up the case,” Anthony told FMT via e-mail.

He and his wife Alison Deborah Essex Bourke, who now live in the United Kingdom, filed the suit in 2015 against CIMB Bank Berhad on the grounds that a clause in the agreement excluded the bank from liability.

It was a setback for the couple when the High Court in late 2015 dismissed their claim.

Two years ago, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and last week the Federal Court, in a landmark ruling, affirmed the finding – a small win for bank customers.

“It was costly, stressful and time-consuming to pursue the action but we were encouraged by the unanimous decision of the Appeal court judges in agreeing with us and this gave us more confidence in the Malaysian justice system,” Anthony said.

Anthony said the legal battle was challenging but as minion litigants against the giant bank, they had to be courageous and patient.

“It is a long process with many decisions to make along the way but we pursued our case as we believe the bank was unjust to us,” he added.
Lawyer Ong Yu Jian.

Their lawyer Ong Yu Jian said the couple wanted to buy a property as they were participants of the “Malaysia My Second Home programme” where the government allows foreigners to live in the country on a long-stay visa of up to 10 years.

The bank, in 2008, granted them a term loan facility of RM715,000 to purchase the property in Kuala Lumpur from a developer.

The property was still under construction and payment was to be made progressively by the bank based on the certificate of completion issued by the architect to the developer.

In early 2014, the developer sent an invoice seeking a progress payment of RM25,557.12 but CIMB did not release the money as it needed to conduct site visit inspections on the property.

A year later, the developer terminated the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with the couple as the bank had not paid the money.

The couple filed a claim against the bank for breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking for damages suffered resulting from the termination of the SPA.

CIMB took the position that the courts must give effect to the clear and plain meaning of the words in exclusion clauses, regardless of how unreasonable it might be.

The three-member Federal Court said the exemption clause in the agreement was against public policy as Section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 prohibited the right to sue.

Justice Balia Yusof Wahi, who delivered the ruling said the bargaining powers of the parties to that agreement were different and never equal.

“In today’s commercial world, the reality is that if a customer wishes to buy a product or obtain services, he has to accept the terms and conditions of a standard contract prepared by the other party.

“There is the patent unfairness and injustice to the plaintiffs. It is unconscionable on the part of the bank to seek refuge behind the clause and abuse the freedom of contract,” he said.

He said the right of access to the courts had always been jealously guarded by the common law and the general principle remained that contracts which sought to oust the jurisdiction of the courts were invalid.

Ong said this decision, was essentially a clarion call to banks that if you made a mistake you would have to pay for it, like everyone else.

He said the public did not have to worry anymore as the Federal Court had said that this sort of exclusion clause was no longer enforceable.

He said the court ruling would compel banks and other financial institutions to remove unfair exclusion clauses in their standard agreements.

Ong said this decision simply forced them to be more fair and careful when excluding their liability.

“If there are no longer such clauses to protect them from negligence or breach of contract, it would invariably force them to be more careful in their conduct.

Full Story:
0 found this helpful

« Previous   1   2   3   4   Next »

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions by category or search to find answers.