Being led to believe
You were being persuaded to buy something on the belief that it will perform according to some specifications or will provide some satisfaction to you, or will reward you in some ways. A certain expectation is being built into the transaction. And if it is not met, no deal, or there is a breach of the agreement, in this case a downgrading of expectation. This is perhaps what the NTUC Income bonus issue is all about. Tan Kin Lian said, 'please keep to your promise.' Is such an expectation unreasonable? Why should the buyer be made to accept terms that make them worst off because the seller has to juggle and improve his solvency problem? The key question here is whether the existing buyers are better off. Would it be too much to ask for or to demand that the seller keep to its promise to existing buyers and only apply the new terms to new buyers? I thought this is the only decent and ethical thing to do. Apparently this shifting of the goal posts and applying it to existing buyers and incumbents is the accepted way of doing business here. The changing of the terms of CPF contributions affecting the date of withdrawal, the interest rate, and the withholding of the money saved are similar to changing the terms in an agreement. The affected people keep quiet, so they are presumed to have given their consent or approval to the changes. The decision maker will say, see, no protest, so the people must be happy. The people who made the changes think that it is ethically and morally right to do so, probably on the declared objective that 'it is for the good of the buyers or incumbents.' What kind of logic is this? There are many brilliant people here but none of the brilliant people has questioned these changes. Would Ngiam Tong Dow say something on this since he is on a speak your mind spree? Maybe all the super talents share the same logic, that it is alright. Another Uniquely Singapore feature?