By Eugene Wee

IN a moment of honesty, I once walked five minutes back to a retail shop to tell its staff that the credit card transaction for the $65 item I bought did not go through, which meant I had got it for free.

I wished I didn't do that.

You could call me dishonest, but I think I'd merely be returning a favour if I had walked off with the item. After all, it was the merchant who made the mistake with the transaction, not me.

Consider the same situation if the tables were turned. If my credit card were stolen, and the thief then used it to make purchases, I'd be liable for those purchases if I failed to report the theft before it happened.

So basically, the person who pays for the merchant's failure to make proper checks on fraudulent purchases is the consumer, making him a victim twice over.

Doesn't seem fair, does it?

Ever since The New Paper began reporting the debate on who should be liable for credit card fraud last week, readers have been writing to us to say banks and merchants should do more to protect consumers.

There are those who suggest that merchants bear some liability since they have a responsibility to ensure that fraud doesn't occur. But most merchants dismiss this suggestion, saying that they already have their hands full running a business and have no time to spend an extra five seconds to impose more stringent checks on each credit card user.

Some have suggested that banks put photos of card owners on the card so retailers can easily compare it with the purchaser. This assumes again that the retailer bothers to do the checks in the first place.

Such cards were offered by a local bank a few years ago and my wife signed up for one. So when it was stolen while she was in the US, she thought having her very Asian mugshot on the card would prevent the Caucasian man who swiped her card from using it.

Hours later, after she reported the theft, she was told a few hundred dollars bad been charged to the card at an electronics store. So much for photo ID.

Does that mean that consumers are powerless here?

Not at all. There is a very simple remedy - just switch cards.

There are at least two credit cards here that cap the limit you're liable for if your card is used fraudulently: Maybank and American Express cap your liability at $500 and $100 respectively.

Unless you're spending way beyond your means, there's no reason to be holding on to more than two credit cards.

Choice

So if you are truly unhappy that your credit card issuer won't budge on protecting you from fraudulent transactions should you lose your card, then vote with your feet.

So you do have a choice. But chances are, few will make that choice because they loathe giving up the perks that come with having a multitude of cards.

From restaurants to bars to fashion retailers to electronics stores, they all have special tie-ups with the major credit card-issuing banks to offer exclusive discounts, freebies and deals.

Would you be able to walk through Orchard Road, knowing that you are no longer entitled to the myriad of special 15 per cent discounts, one-for-one meal deals and freebies with each purchase reserved only for holders of cards from specific issuers - the same issuers who would make you liable for fraudulent charges on the card made before you reported its loss?

How do I know few will give up their wallet full of credit cards to be better protected against fraud?

I am among the multitudes that love the perks too much to part with my three credit cards. (What? Give them up and pay full price for meals? Yeah, right.)

I guess I'll just have to be extra careful with my credit cards.

That and hope that if the cards ever get stolen, the cumulative value of the discounts and freebies I have received thus far will offset the amount the crooks managed to charge on them before I find out.

This article was first published in The New Paper.