After reading the exchanges between Chung Tze Keong, the chief executive officer of Ctos, who asked M Kayveas what laws have the credit reference agency breached, I cannot help but point to Chung that Ctos is morally bankrupt. As I have said before, they are providing a service to financial institution to check the credit worthiness of an individual.

They do this by getting the information perhaps from the courts and or bankruptcy office. However what I find objectionable is that they have on occasion in cahoots with, say, an financial institution or a club and place a person's name on their database, if that person is a defaulter. No legal action has been filed against the said person but they do this to perhaps obliged their institutional clients. Does Chung's lawyer consider this legal and does he denies that such thing never happen?

An example is the case involving a club. The club may have a defaulter, and it may have a legitimate cause of action against its defaulting member. However I humbly hold the view that the club cannot use Ctos to blacklist a defaulting club member to pay its due without a court action. This is morally and legally wrong. Ctos is now allowing itself to be used as an enforcement agency with no final adjudication from a court of competent jurisdiction that monies is due and payable.

By doing so, Ctos has jumped the gun. That example is a case of an institution. What is there to stop Ctos from blacklisting a person at the instructions of monies owing to an illegal money lender (Ah Long)?

On the balance, I feel Chung should give his operations a good hard look at the hardship it has caused to innocent public. For Ctos to be relevant and a useful agency, it must reinvent itself and be socially responsible.