Taking risk

Living is a continued risk, one never knows when the proverbial accident comes and all good plans are on hold or out the door. We learned early to avoid or minimize risk, and many times, praise the Lord, we reached the goal easily or even with difficulty, but getting there nevertheless.

Whether personal, social or professional, we all take risks. There are rules, and �common sense� that guide us. But these are not enough, as everyone acts from different perspectives and interests. The �best intention� or �genuine good faith� fails and one is left in disbelief �holding the ball�.

I am always aware that there are two sides to a story or case. One cannot convince the other no matter how persuasive, strong, convincing or rational you put your case. We resort to getting counsel, advice, and then move to mediation or conciliation and when all fail, we seek to be judged by someone in authority. But even then, the losing party is still aggrieved by the justice system and feels a miscarriage of justice.

As a volunteer, in business or in profession, a person can end in financial or personal ruin in spite of the best motive and attempts to be fair and reasonable. Consider the experience in sponsoring a relative, an employee or a partner to come to Australia. The good intention of �helping� or providing the best opportunity or an expectation of a happy relationship does not always work. Some sponsors are disillusioned or �regretted� bringing someone to Australia. Expectations of gratitude, loyalty, or even friendships turned into bitter family dispute, or a community scandal. These may be few, but the rarity is so much publicized those affected are in deep or permanent emotional stress.

�Show Cause�

In legal language, �show cause� order puts one in defensive. You must justify or defend that what you did is not a breach of the law or professional ethics. This was the Order of the Philippine Supreme Court to the UP College of Law professors (including the Dean) for being critical of the decision in the Vinuya case and calling for the resignation of the decision writer, Justice Mariano del Castillo.

To be sure, most Filipino lawyers condemn this action of the Supreme Court and even attracted international attention of prominent lawyers. The issue is plagiarism, a verbatim copying from the works of eminent legal scholars, without citation. In the end, I am sure the Supreme Court will not cite the professors of contempt but perhaps admonish them that their �duty to the Court� is to assist in not bringing the Court into disrepute. By quietly calling Court�s attention would have allowed Justice del Castillo to correct the omission of citation.

Banks and Joe Hockey

Dealing with banks in today�s financing is very onerous. There is virtually no competition among banks as the �big four� has a captured market. There are unfair and non-negotiable terms in bank�s transactions. Documentations are tight in bank�s favour. While disclosure is a legal requirement, it serves no purpose when the terms are not negotiable.

In borrowing, interest is the price of the money, the cost of funds. The rate is determined by a number of factors, including risk. Secured loan has a lower interest rate as the bank can call on the security in case of default. However the reach of the security is hidden in the transaction�s structure and the bank charges a higher rate. If a borrower has a mortgage loan with the bank and has also credit card (visa), all bank loans are tied into (tucked) the mortgage, and the high interest rate on the credit card is unwarranted.

The bank enquiry called by the Joe Hockey, the Shadow Treasurer, should be heeded.

The bank�s rate of interest on account of risk is illusory. It takes no risk or little risk in most loans because the borrower pays to insure the risk or tucked into the security. When the media ridiculed Joe Hockey on his call for bank enquiry, you know it is bidding a Labor�s spin and not in the public interest.

Taking risk

Living is a continued risk, one never knows when the proverbial accident comes and all good plans are on hold or out the door. We learned early to avoid or minimize risk, and many times, praise the Lord, we reached the goal easily or even with difficulty, but getting there nevertheless.

Whether personal, social or professional, we all take risks. There are rules, and �common sense� that guide us. But these are not enough, as everyone acts from different perspectives and interests. The �best intention� or �genuine good faith� fails and one is left in disbelief �holding the ball�.

I am always aware that there are two sides to a story or case. One cannot convince the other no matter how persuasive, strong, convincing or rational you put your case. We resort to getting counsel, advice, and then move to mediation or conciliation and when all fail, we seek to be judged by someone in authority. But even then, the losing party is still aggrieved by the justice system and feels a miscarriage of justice.

As a volunteer, in business or in profession, a person can end in financial or personal ruin in spite of the best motive and attempts to be fair and reasonable. Consider the experience in sponsoring a relative, an employee or a partner to come to Australia. The good intention of �helping� or providing the best opportunity or an expectation of a happy relationship does not always work. Some sponsors are disillusioned or �regretted� bringing someone to Australia. Expectations of gratitude, loyalty, or even friendships turned into bitter family dispute, or a community scandal. These may be few, but the rarity is so much publicized those affected are in deep or permanent emotional stress.

�Show Cause�

In legal language, �show cause� order puts one in defensive. You must justify or defend that what you did is not a breach of the law or professional ethics. This was the Order of the Philippine Supreme Court to the UP College of Law professors (including the Dean) for being critical of the decision in the Vinuya case and calling for the resignation of the decision writer, Justice Mariano del Castillo.

To be sure, most Filipino lawyers condemn this action of the Supreme Court and even attracted international attention of prominent lawyers. The issue is plagiarism, a verbatim copying from the works of eminent legal scholars, without citation. In the end, I am sure the Supreme Court will not cite the professors of contempt but perhaps admonish them that their �duty to the Court� is to assist in not bringing the Court into disrepute. By quietly calling Court�s attention would have allowed Justice del Castillo to correct the omission of citation.

Banks and Joe Hockey

Dealing with banks in today�s financing is very onerous. There is virtually no competition among banks as the �big four� has a captured market. There are unfair and non-negotiable terms in bank�s transactions. Documentations are tight in bank�s favour. While disclosure is a legal requirement, it serves no purpose when the terms are not negotiable.

In borrowing, interest is the price of the money, the cost of funds. The rate is determined by a number of factors, including risk. Secured loan has a lower interest rate as the bank can call on the security in case of default. However the reach of the security is hidden in the transaction�s structure and the bank charges a higher rate. If a borrower has a mortgage loan with the bank and has also credit card (visa), all bank loans are tied into (tucked) the mortgage, and the high interest rate on the credit card is unwarranted.

The bank enquiry called by the Joe Hockey, the Shadow Treasurer, should be heeded.

The bank�s rate of interest on account of risk is illusory. It takes no risk or little risk in most loans because the borrower pays to insure the risk or tucked into the security. When the media ridiculed Joe Hockey on his call for bank enquiry, you know it is bidding a Labor�s spin and not in the public interest.