You're a little too demanding aren't you. You should really see this as a privilege instead of an entitlement.
The bank is not a not-for-profit organisation and I think whatever promotions they stipulate is entirely up to their discretion. Plus, its not like they don't offer other accounts where the interest is above the measly 0.05%.
An entitlement? I would think that "entitlement" criteria would be the following:-
1. unable to deliver, yet demand stratospheric salaries.
2. purport to be 'talented' and on the same level as CEOs from top-class corporations, but when fail to deliver, don't step down like CEOs from to-class corporations. Instead, urge that all 'move on' and learn from the experience.
That's real entitlement attitude.
What I am just asking is why this criteria, which would bar a whole category of people. People like what I have outlined above. Here I cut and paste for you again (in blue, my previous post above):-
Has it ever occurred to people that there are semi-retired people, or even part-timers who have the maximum savings in 360 (now $60,000) eligible for the bonus interest and fulfill every requirement, except that because they are partimers or semi-retired, the salary portion is not fulfilled?
And what about people who have $60,000+ simply because they have worked for some years and are good savers and not extravagant-for-the-sake-of-face, but just don't fulfill the salary criteria?
By stipulating $2,000, OCBC is telling all these people to, 'you die is your business' -- thinking that it is necessarily that way. But really don't realise there are many varied profiles of people.
On the other hand perhaps OCBC may actually know and have stats to these other profiles, and it may just be a simple reason of being stingy, PRECISELY BECAUSE there ARE many profiles of people (unlike what so many here are typically responding using the 'you don't deserve it becasue of your low salary' stereotypical reasoning, in essence the "you die, is your own business" gang) - because if, for example, OCBC were to include the CPF criteria of netting in coffers payers - anyone earning $500/month and above will have to pay cpf (resulting in those who earn $500 getting $100 docked from their pay) - if ocbc were to include that, then many more will get at least a bit more interest, right?
But of course, perhaps MAS wouldn't like that. I'm just asking because I find it funny that with similar offerings (of bonus interest accounts) by other banks, it is this criteria too, that only a $2,000 salary and above will be counted as fulfilling a criteria for bonus interest. So that's why I'm just asking OCBC if this is a MAS stipulation. Simple as that.
btw, these are some categories of people who may not currently qualify for the $2,000, but may have the maximum to earn the bonus interest (at $60,000 for now), with of course anything beyond that, at the base rate:-
1. semi-retired who are carrying on working part-time
2. partimers, who may be taking a break because of kids, or after working for many years, or those laid off, and doing contract work / permanent-part time work / freelance work in which some months don't amount to $2,000
3. same as above who earn less than $2,000
4. young adults who have just started working, but who may have (through savings, prevous part-time work while in school, parent's contributions etc) the maximum $60,000.
5. those still in uni and poly with a substantial savings, but doing part-time and therefore either don't earn $2,000 or it fluctuates, depending on hours work.
-- All these categories of people are losing out on the 1.2%. Surely, if the govt can take 20% for cpf, starting at a low $500/month, OCBC, the other banks and MAS should peg the salary criteria at $500, isn't it?
See - think out of the box a bit, and you'd see that the "they are targetting the $2,000 high end people" scholar thinking goes out the window. The world consists of more nuanced diversity of people in the economy than what our scholars are bred to typically think.
Think out of the box.

..totally bochup