We thank you on highlighting the above incident to our En Mohamad Zaihan on 29 January 2009.
We took note that your wife as a passenger had an unpleasant encounter in the above incident. In such cases, please note that as governed by the Banking and Financial Institution Act, the Bank is not in the position to divulge any information to you. Rest assured that the matter is being handled tactfully in the most appropriate manner.
Once again, we thank you for bringing up this issue to our attention. We empathized with your wife for the discomfort and inconvenience caused. We believe it is not the intention of our panel repossessor to cause any anxiety.
Here’s the response I sent back to them:
Thanks for finally getting back to me. I hope your statement that “the matter is being handled tactfully in the most appropriate manner” means you’ll be giving a written apology to my wife for what the car repossessor did and acknowledging that his actions were wrong. I also hope you don’t think I buy the part about the repossessor not wanting to cause anxiety. You can’t carjack someone without causing anxiety. Let me be very clear on this: the incident we’re all talking about here (the one you are not in a position to divulge information to me about) was a carjacking, albeit one that appears to fall within some sort of legal grey area (I’m assuming this because the police haven’t charged anyone). You can’t carjack someone and then be surprised and dismayed that the people who were carjacked feel traumatised. It’s disappointing that RHB Bank is standing by the repossessor in this case. What you’re saying here is that RHB approves of the way in which the car was repossessed. Why bother putting a copy of the Code of Ethics on Repossession on your website, then, if it’s meaningless?
I feel RHB Bank’s response here is inadequate and inappropriate. My wife and I will be sure to follow up on this with the appropriate authorities.
If my response seems a little angry, it’s because I’m angry.