First Nets, then Starhub
Both have long standing contracts with their customers, more or less tying them down in a way. Then comes the increases. And according to Starhub, this is market practice and the contract allows them to change the terms and conditions. Sure. Can such a practice continue to be allowed to go on? An equitable contract should be one that ties the parties to terms that both agree to at the moment of signing the contract. How can another party conveniently include all the empowering clause to allow it to change the terms of the agreement to his advantage and the other party cannot walk away with it? We have a lot of such contracts being signed. Some may be justifiable, eg long term housing loan that are affected by changes in interest rates. But all these short term contracts, when the variables are quite predictable and can be built into the contract, should not be allowed to have all the freedom to change according to their whims and fancy. This will put the other party at the mercy of the one sided contract. Yes, Case is right this time to step into the fray. Rip Van Winkle has awaken after all the years of sleeping. I mean Singaporeans in general, to their rights and start thinking.