Some commentators appear to have missed one of the points - the Singaporean paper is saying that the banks do not pick up liability if they have not practiced fsckwittery.
That rather limits their scope for communication, since many of the available media are inherently fsckwitted for financial communication. A PSTN that is open to spoofing? SIMs that can be 'jacked by spinning a tale at the local carrier retail outlet? Active collusion by corrupt staff at any point in the over-extended outsourcing chain? Secret Q&A in an era of criminal e-pending? FFS, that's worse that a moderately weak password.
There are secure means of consumer communication. The banks know them and many of us know them. We simply need an ombudsman that knows them, but that might be too big an ask.