I refer to Ignatius Low's comment "DBS alone can't fix a national problem" (ST, April 27).

He makes some good points, about how DBS is a profit-oriented commercial entity and poverty being a national issue that should be dealt with at the national level. But his analysis does not go deep enough.

Before its acquisition by DBS, POSBank was a national entity that could and did cater to the less well-off. As Mr. Low would put it, the issue of poverty was dealt with at the national level.

But the writing was on the wall once DBS acquired POSBank. All the assurances given then, that the interests of the man-in-the-street would be protected, proved to be for naught.

Now that a few years have passed, both the Government and DBS will say what Mr. Low said, that DBS as a profit-seeking entity must act rationally.

But that misses the point that POSBank, with its massive deposit base, had been given to DBS on a silver platter for free. Surely that should have come with certain social responsibilities which are now being shirked.

If POSBank had been a purely commercial entity, then DBS would have been entirely justified in imposing charges. But it was not.

POSBank was a bank started by the Government for the common people, and it fulfilled a valuable role that remains necessary. It was given to DBS by the Government, and not acquired in a commercial takeover.

All the present arguments being bandied about, bsaed on returns to equity and economic inefficiencies, fail to appreciate the social aspect of the issue. Mr. Low made a stab at it, but he did not grasp the core of the issue: DBS got a free lunch at the people's expense, courtesy of the Government, and now they are helping themselves to dessert.

Further, DBS' arguments are themselves unconvincing. If I can maintain $500 in POSBank at all times, I get interest of a paltry $7.50 (assuming a 1.5% p.a. interest rate). Presumably, POSBank still breaks even or makes a profit on my deposit.

But if I can only afford to keep $400 in my account, I get $6 interest, while paying $24 back to POSBank over a year for the privilege of having an account. And POSBank still gets to put my money to profitable use. Is there a real difference?

In the final analysis, it's the common man whose interests are once again being sacrificed at the altar of economic progress, for the aim of building a world-class bank. At what price, I ask?

It seems that every Singaporean counts, but only if he or she can afford to keep $500 sitting idle in the bank. I would venture that there are a lot more Singaporeans who can't afford that, than Mr. Low appears to think.

I REFER to Mr Ignatius Low's commentary, "DBS alone can't fix a national problem" (ST, April 27).

Before its acquisition by DBS Bank, POSBank was a national entity that catered to the less well-off.

But the writing was on the wall once DBS acquired it.

All the assurances given then, that the interests of the man in the street would be protected, came to naught.

Now that a few years have passed, both the Government and DBS will say what Mr Low said: that DBS, as a profit-seeking entity, must act rationally.

But that misses the point: POSBank, with its massive deposit base, had been given to DBS on a silver platter.

Surely, that meant POSBank came with certain social responsibilities which are now being shirked.

If POSBank had been a commercial entity, DBS would have been justified in imposing charges.

But it was not. POSBank was a bank started by the Government for the common people, and it played a valuable role that is still needed.

It was given to DBS by the Government and not acquired in a commercial takeover.

All the present arguments of returns on equity and economic inefficiencies being bandied about fail to appreciate the social aspect of the issue.

Mr Low made a stab at it but he did not grasp the core of the issue: DBS got a free lunch at the people's expense, and it is now helping itself to dessert.

Further, DBS' arguments are unconvincing.

If I can maintain $500 in POSBank at all times, I get a paltry interest of $7.50 (assuming an interest rate of 1.5 per cent).

Presumably, POSBank still breaks even or makes a profit on my deposit.

But, if I can afford to keep only $400 in my account, I get $6 interest, while paying $24 back to POSBank over a year for the privilege of having an account.

POSBank can still put my money to profitable use. Is there a real difference?

It seems that every Singaporean counts, but only if he can afford to keep $500 sitting idle in the bank.

I would venture that there are a lot more Singaporeans who cannot afford that than Mr Low appears to think.