The “pay by bank” protection gap identified in the UK presents significant implications for Singapore’s digital payments landscape. While Singapore has robust regulatory frameworks through the Payment Services Act and MAS oversight, similar vulnerabilities exist that could expose consumers to financial risks when traditional card-based protections are bypassed.
Understanding the Protection Gap
What Pay by Bank Services Offer
- Direct bank-to-bank transfers without card networks
- Immediate settlement for merchants
- Reduced transaction fees for businesses
- Enhanced security through open banking protocols
- Faster refund processing when systems work correctly
The Critical Protection Gap
Pay by bank services in Singapore, like their UK counterparts, lack two fundamental consumer protections:
- No equivalent to Section 75 protection (joint and several liability)
- No access to chargeback mechanisms offered by card networks
Singapore’s Current Regulatory Landscape
Payment Services Act Framework
Singapore’s Payment Services Act, which came into effect in January 2020, provides a forward-looking framework for regulating payment systems and payment service providers, emphasising regulatory certainty and consumer safeguards while fostering innovation.
MAS Oversight and Recent Amendments
In April 2024, MAS introduced amendments to expand regulatory scope and impose additional user protection requirements, demonstrating ongoing efforts to strengthen consumer protections in the evolving payments landscape.
Singapore-Specific Vulnerabilities
1. High Digital Payment Adoption
Singapore’s advanced digital infrastructure and high smartphone penetration create fertile ground for pay-by-bank adoption, potentially exposing more consumers to protection gaps.
2. Cross-Border E-Commerce
Singapore’s position as a regional e-commerce hub means consumers frequently make international purchases where recourse mechanisms may be even more limited.
3. SME Merchant Ecosystem
The prevalence of small and medium-sized enterprises in Singapore’s retail landscape increases the risks of business failure, as pay-by-bank offers no protection against merchant insolvency.
Comparative Analysis: Singapore vs UK Protections
Traditional Card Protections in Singapore
Singapore consumers benefit from chargeback and dispute resolution mechanisms for transactions made with international card schemes, including American Express, Diners Club, JCB, Mastercard, UnionPay, and Visa.
Consumer Rights Framework
Singapore’s Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act provides baseline protections, but enforcement can be challenging and time-consuming, similar to the UK’s Consumer Rights Act.
Risk Assessment by Transaction Type
High-Risk Categories
- Future-dated purchases (travel, events, pre-orders)
- High-value items (electronics, furniture, luxury goods)
- Cross-border transactions (limited recourse options)
- Subscription services (recurring payment vulnerabilities)
- Marketplace transactions (third-party seller risks)
Medium-Risk Categories
- Established local retailers with physical presence
- Digital services with established refund policies
- Government payments (low default risk)
Lower-Risk Categories
- Utilities and telecoms (regulated entities)
- Established financial institutions
- Immediate digital delivery services
Economic Impact Analysis
Consumer Perspective
- Potential savings from reduced merchant fees passed through
- Increased risk exposure for problematic transactions
- Time and effort costs for dispute resolution
- Psychological impact of reduced payment security confidence
Merchant Perspective
- Reduced transaction costs (typically 0.5-3% savings)
- Improved cash flow through immediate settlement
- Potential reputational risks if consumer protection concerns emerge
- Competitive pressure to offer pay-by-bank options
Economic Efficiency
- Resource reallocation from card networks to direct banking
- Potential innovation stifling if consumer confidence remains low
- Market concentration effects favouring large merchants with strong brands
Regulatory Recommendations
Short-term Measures
- Enhanced disclosure requirements for pay-by-bank services
- Mandatory risk warnings for high-value or future-dated purchases
- Standardised dispute resolution processes across payment providers
- Consumer education initiatives on payment method protections
Medium-term Reforms
- Industry-backed guarantee schemes similar to travel industry protection
- Enhanced merchant vetting requirements for pay by bank providers
- Regulatory sandboxes for innovative consumer protection mechanisms
- Cross-border cooperation frameworks for international transactions
Long-term Considerations
- Statutory consumer protection equivalent to card-based systems
- Insurance-backed schemes for high-risk transaction categories
- Open banking liability frameworks clarifying responsibilities
- Integration with existing financial ombudsman services
Industry Response Strategies
Payment Service Providers
- Develop voluntary protection schemes to differentiate services
- Implement risk-based transaction categorisation
- Create merchant guarantee programs for qualified businesses
- Establish rapid dispute resolution mechanisms
Traditional Banks
- Leverage existing customer relationships for enhanced protection
- Offer hybrid payment products combining convenience with protection
- Develop value-added services around pay-by-bank offerings
- Maintain competitive positioning against fintech challengers
Merchants
- Transparently communicate payment method risks and benefits
- Implement robust refund policies to build consumer confidence
- Consider insurance products to protect against chargebacks
- Develop direct customer service capabilities for payment disputes
Consumer Guidance Framework
Decision Matrix for Payment Method Selection
Choose Traditional Cards When:
- Making high-value purchases (>$500)
- Booking future services (travel, events)
- Dealing with unfamiliar merchants
- Purchasing from overseas vendors
- Buying items with extended delivery periods
Consider Pay by Bank When:
- Dealing with trusted, established merchants
- Making routine utility or service payments
- Purchasing immediately deliverable digital services
- Benefiting from merchant fee savings
- Prioritising payment security over transaction protection
Conclusion
The pay-by-bank protection gap represents a significant consumer protection challenge for Singapore’s advanced digital economy. While the technology offers genuine benefits in terms of efficiency, security, and cost reduction, the absence of traditional card-based protections creates material risks for consumers.
Singapore’s regulatory authorities should proactively address these gaps through a combination of enhanced disclosure requirements, industry-backed protection schemes, and consideration of statutory protections for digital payment methods. The goal should be enabling innovation while maintaining consumer confidence in the payments ecosystem.
The success of pay-by-bank services in Singapore will ultimately depend on striking the right balance between innovation, efficiency, and consumer protection, ensuring that the benefits of digital payment evolution don’t come at the expense of fundamental consumer rights.
The Protection Gap
A Singapore Shopping Story
Mei Lin had always taken pride in being tech-savvy. Living in Sengkang, she has embraced every digital innovation that makes life more convenient—from GrabPay to PayLah!, from online grocery shopping to contactless payments. So when she saw the “Pay by Bank” option while browsing for a new sofa on FurnitureHub.sg, she didn’t hesitate.
“Instant payment, bank-level security, no card fees passed to you!” the website promised. The sleek interface made it feel as modern and secure as her DBS digibank app. With a few taps, she authorised a $2,800 payment directly from her savings account for a beautiful sectional sofa that would transform her new BTO flat.
The confirmation email arrived immediately: “Your order #SG240789 has been confirmed! Delivery in 8-10 weeks as this item is custom-made to order.”
Two months passed. Mei Lin’s delivery window came and went. Her calls to FurnitureHub.sg went straight to voicemail. The website still looked professional and accepted orders, but something felt off. When she finally reached someone, the voice on the other end was evasive.
“Supply chain issues, very sorry. Maybe two more weeks?”
But two weeks became four, then six. The showroom phone was disconnected. The website went dark overnight, replaced by a generic “Under Maintenance” page that never changed.
Mei Lin stared at her laptop screen in her half-furnished living room, the reality sinking in. She’d been scammed. $2,800—nearly three months of her take-home pay as a marketing executive—was gone.
Her first instinct was to call DBS. Surely they could help?
“I understand your frustration, Ms. Tan,” the customer service officer said sympathetically. “But since you used our Pay by Bank service, this was essentially a direct bank transfer. We can’t reverse it like we could with a credit card transaction.”
“But I thought Pay by Bank was supposed to be safer than using cards?”
“It is safer in terms of your banking credentials not being compromised. But it doesn’t have the same dispute protections as card payments.”
Mei Lin felt a cold knot in her stomach. “What protections?”
“With credit cards, you have chargeback rights. If a merchant doesn’t deliver, we can often recover your money from the card network. With direct bank transfers, once the money leaves your account…”
The officer’s voice trailed off diplomatically.
Next, she tried the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE). The advisor was helpful but realistic.
“You can file a report with us, and we’ll try to mediate,” explained Mr. Lim. “But if the company has ceased operations, there’s not much we can do. You could consider small claims court, but that assumes there are assets to recover.”
Mei Lin spent the next week discovering the full scope of her vulnerability. FurnitureHub.sg had been a legitimate business for three years before it overextended and collapsed. Fifteen other customers had paid using various methods. Those who used credit cards were already getting their money back through chargeback processes. One customer who used her Mastercard debit card was also seeing progress.
But Mei Lin and three others who had embraced the “innovative” Pay by Bank option? They were on a different list—the unsecured creditors list, somewhere behind suppliers and landlords.
“It’s not fair,” she complained to her friend Sarah over coffee at Compass One. “I used the most secure payment method available, and I’m the one who gets burned.”
Sarah, who worked in fintech, nodded sympathetically. “The tech is secure, but the consumer protection framework hasn’t caught up. In the UK, they’re having the same debates. Pay by bank bypasses all the safety nets that took decades to build around card payments.”
“So what am I supposed to do?”
“Learn, share the story, hope the regulators listen.” Sarah stirred her kopi. “And maybe use your credit card for big purchases until Singapore figures this out.”
Six months later, Mei Lin finally furnished her living room with a cheaper sofa bought using her credit card from Courts. The irony wasn’t lost on her. The “innovative” payment method had cost her money, time, and peace of mind, while the “old-fashioned” credit card offered protections she hadn’t appreciated until they were gone.
She still used Pay by Bank for utility bills, familiar merchants, and small purchases. But never again for anything substantial or from a company she didn’t absolutely trust.
When her younger brother asked about the empty spot where her sectional sofa should have been, Mei Lin’s answer had become a warning: “That’s my $2,800 lesson in why innovation without protection isn’t progress—it’s just risk with better marketing.”
The empty space served as a daily reminder that in Singapore’s rush toward digital payments innovation, consumer protection had been left behind. And until the regulators caught up, shoppers like her would continue to fall through the gaps.
Based on fundamental consumer protection gaps identified in pay-by-bank services. While this story is fictional, similar scenarios are increasingly likely as direct bank payment methods gain popularity without corresponding consumer protections.
Maxthon
Maxthon has embarked on an ambitious journey aimed at significantly enhancing the security of web applications, driven by a resolute commitment to safeguarding users and their confidential data. At the heart of this initiative lies a collection of sophisticated encryption protocols, which act as a robust barrier for the information exchanged between individuals and various online services. Every interaction—whether it involves sharing passwords or personal information—is protected within these encrypted channels, effectively preventing unauthorised access attempts from intruders.
Maxthon private browser for online. This meticulous emphasis on encryption marks merely the initial phase of Maxthon’s extensive security framework. Acknowledging that cyber threats are constantly evolving, Maxthon adopts a forward-thinking approach to protecting its users. The browser is engineered to adapt to emerging challenges, incorporating regular updates that promptly address any vulnerabilities that may surface. Users are strongly encouraged to activate automatic updates as part of their cybersecurity regimen, ensuring they can seamlessly take advantage of the latest fixes without any hassle.
In today’s rapidly changing digital environment, Maxthon’s unwavering commitment to ongoing security enhancement signifies not only its responsibility toward users but also its firm dedication to nurturing trust in online engagements. With each new update rolled out, users can navigate the web with peace of mind, knowing that their information is continuously safeguarded against emerging threats in cyberspace