Blog

Magnanimous Singtel Gives Existing Customers Cheat Codes To Avoid Paying Admin Fee To Recontract
Note 1: Article was first published at 2pm, 14th September 2016.

Note 2: Updated at 4pm for more clarity on M1 and StarHub’s stance.

Note 3: Updated at 5.20pm with more inputs from Singtel, and an additional option to avoid the admin fee.

Registered interest for the new iPhone 7? It’s now time to reserve your preferred variety and collection arrangements.

Apple’s new iPhone 7 is just around the corner from being launched in stores worldwide as 16th September draws closer.

Keen customers of our local telcos would probably have registered their interest to pre-orderApple’s new flagship smartphone. Singtel customers who’ve indicated their interest would probably have received an email to remind them to reserve their phone today (14th September) from 3pm. Through the reservation process, you can specify the iPhone 7 model, colour, capacity and preferred method of purchase/collection options.

While all sounds well, we noticed a small note in the T&C section of the email reminder sent out to reserve the new phone that raised our eyebrows:-

Yup, that highlighted text in green is new.

Let’s face it, nobody likes admin fees, but it is part and parcel of a business organization to add a cost to such admin tasks and its related maintenance matters to quantify the related backend paperwork. So it’s understandable if you’re signing up a new mobile line, depending on the prevailing promotional terms, you may have to cough up an admin fee.

However, if you’re already an existing customer of the telco, we find it hard to justify yet another admin fee of S$10.70 to be levied just to re-contract with a new phone; it’s almost as if you’re paying a penalty to be their customer. More so, you’re tied to the telco for another two years and the cost isn’t absorbed as part of your monthly payment obligations. Yet that’s exactly what Singtel is doing it seems, starting with the new iPhone 7.

Looks like this new admin fee will be effective from 15th September, just when the new iPhones are about to be launched.

Just to be clear, the usual expected norm is you pay admin charges + any handphone offset charges should you change to a lower tier plan when your contractual period isn’t over.

The new rule effectively makes you pay the admin fee regardless of the state of your existing plan when you want to re-contract with Singtel – whether your previous contract has expired, or you’re at the 21st month (when telcos usually allow you to re-contract) or if you’re still half-way through the current plan. As long as there’s a change to your current plan, you pay the admin charge. Should you downgrade the plan prematurely or end the contract altogether prematurely, other charges will come into play to recover the mobile phone offset offered for your ongoing plan – these aspects don’t change. Here are further inputs from Singtel on this matter:-

The S$10.70 administrative fee covers the handling and processing cost for the purchase of a subsidised handset for recontracting customers. It will not apply when customers upgrade to a higher tier Combo Mobile Plan (example, upgrade from Combo 2 to Combo 3).

According to inputs from Singtel and as seen in the above exchange on the Singtel’s Facebook page, there are a few escape options where Singtel’s re-contract admin fee won’t apply though:
- Re-contract to higher tier plan
- Re-contract online (via singtelshop.com or easymobile.sg)
- If you are a Singtel Circle nominated keylines, Red Prestige customer, or a Singtel UOB credit card holder
So if you’re a Singtel customer, the easiest way moving forward to avoid the admin fee is to re-contract online.

Our HardwareZone community members have also caught wind of this change and there’s adiscussion thread dedicated to the mandatory admin fee over here.

Does this admin charge for re-contracting also apply to other telcos?

In short, no.

We quickly reached out to check on the policies from other telcos and we are glad to confirm that that M1 and StarHub don’t levy an admin fee for eligible re-contractual periods (when your old contract has expired) – no matter whichever plan you will be signing up next. You can also re-contract before your contract expires and not incur any charges – so long as you don’t downgrade your plan since it will affect the handset subsidies provided for the former contract.

For more iPhone 7 related stories, follow us here, and do factor the admin fee consideration along with the expected telco price plans across all the three telcos.

Source: www.hardwarezone.com.sg
September 15, 2016
German CEO Of DB Schenker Logistics (Asia Pacific) Jailed 2 Weeks And Fined For Slapping Taxi Driver

A drunk German chief executive was given two weeks’ jail and fined $1,000 for slapping a taxi driver and kicking his vehicle after the cabby had declined to pick him up.

Jochen Thewes, 45, of DB Schenker Logistics (Asia Pacific), had earlier paid $2,950 in compensation to the driver and apologised to him in court. He also paid $250 for repair work on the damaged cab.

Thewes, who was fined $1,000 for causing damage to the taxi, is appealing against the conviction and sentence over the charge of causing hurt by slapping.

At about 3.50am on Sept 24 last year, cab driver Malcolm Xu, 33, was at a taxi stand at Tan Tye Place, Club Street, when he declined to pick up a drunk-looking Thewes. Thewes then walked over to the driver’s side and kicked the locked door.

When Mr Xu opened his door to check the damage, Thewes pushed him and slapped him on his left cheek. Mr Xu suffered a bruised and bleeding nose, and was treated at a private clinic the next day.

Mr Xu testified in court that he thought Thewes was drunk, which was why the cab ahead of his vehicle at the taxi stand did not want to pick him up and had driven away .

Thewes appeared unhappy and frustrated, and hurled vulgarities at him when Mr Xu explained he could not pick him up as he was headed east to change shift and not to the destination sought by Thewes.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Stephanie Koh argued that Mr Xu’s evidence was consistent with video footage in the area and that Thewes was inebriated after a night of drinking and had approached cabs intending to go to another place.

Mr Xu did not ” exaggerate or embellish” his account, which was supported by other evidence, she said.

District Judge Salina Ishak was convinced, noting in judgment grounds released yesterday, among other things, that closed-circuit television footage showed Thewes behaving in a “drunken and unruly manner”. She ruled that Thewes lacked credibility in court when his defence was simply that he was too intoxicated to remember what had happened.

In mitigation, Thewes, through his lawyer Selva K. Naidu, acknowledged that it was shameful for him to have behaved in the way he did and said he had learnt his lesson.

Mr Naidu added that this was a brief incident and there was early compensation paid for the victim’s injury and damage to the car.

The judge, in finding Thewes guilty, pointed to aggravating factors which warranted a two-week jail term.

“This was a case of an unprovoked assault by an intoxicated offender on a public transport worker in the course of his duty in the wee hours of the morning,” she said.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

September 15, 2016
Why Sack Driver When SMRT’s Statements Did Not Show Driver Was At Fault For Fatal Accident?

I agree totally with Andrew Loh that the sacking of the driver involved in the fatal accident smacks of “scapegoating”.

No need to look too far until the lembu balik rumah?

Take a look at the statements by SMRT, Where did it say the driver was at fault? So why sack the driver?

Mati

Reader Contribution

September 15, 2016
Victim’s Family Questions Sacking Of MRT Driver

The families of the victims in the fatal SMRT accident in March have questioned the operator’s sacking of the train driver involved in the tragedy, before investigations by the relevant authorities are complete and the Coroner’s Inquiry is held.

Expressing their sympathies for the sacked driver, they reiterated the need for the full picture to emerge. Amid concerns that the sacking could prejudice the ongoing probes, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said in response to TODAY’s queries that the sacking was “an internal decision by SMRT”.

“Investigations by MOM and LTA are ongoing and will be based on the facts of the case,” they added.

On Wednesday (Sept 14), The Straits Times reported that Mr Rahmat Mohd, 49, was dismissed on Tuesday after an internal disciplinary inquiry. Citing sources, it added that an operations control centre staff member had also left the company earlier on account of the incident, which occurred on March 22.

Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari, 24, and Nasrulhudin Najumudin, 26, were killed by an oncoming train while on their way, as part of a team of 15, to check on a warning signal from a monitoring device.

Speaking to TODAY, Nasrulhudin’s eldest brother Nasrifudin, 33, said his family was shocked to hear about the sacking of Mr Rahmat. “He could be the breadwinner of the family so we are also sad for him,” said the civil servant.

Asyraf’s cousin, who wished to be known only as Mr Khai, noted that all the staff involved in the accident as well as their colleagues would have been “affected emotionally and mentally”.

While he felt that SMRT had its own reasons for dismissing the driver, it would have been better if the operator based its disciplinary actions on the Coroner’s Inquiry, which would uncover the “real sequence of events”.

“They should wait (for the inquiry),” he said. Nevertheless, he said the family is thankful for SMRT’s support following the tragedy. “We have to accept the situation as it is … The takeaway from all this is that hopefully, none of this happens again,” he added.

Mr Melvin Yong, the National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) executive secretary, said that the union had previously written to SMRT, asking it to withhold any disciplinary action until official investigations are complete, so as to not prejudice the outcome.

“We will now review the situation, study the grounds for SMRT dismissal, and work with the affected staff on the next steps. The union will continue to render affected staff the necessary support and assistance during this difficult time, as we have since the incident,” he added.

In April, SMRT shared the findings by an independent panel on the accident. The panel found that the team involved had stepped onto the train track before “vital” protection measures were implemented. Also, a speed limit to prevent trains from entering the track area on automated mode was not set, and watchmen were not deployed to look out for and warn of approaching trains, “directly causing” the accident.

The report was submitted to LTA, MOM and the police to assist with their statutory investigations. A Coroner’s Inquiry will be held after official investigations conclude. LTA had earlier said that its investigations would be completed in the third quarter of this year.

When contacted, SMRT spokesman Patrick Nathan reiterated that the company does not comment on staff disciplinary measures.

The sacking of Mr Rahmat also drew flak online.

Writing on Facebook, prominent blogger Andrew Loh said the firing was a case of “scapegoating”. He asked if the sacked train driver was really at fault, and even if he was, whether he should be made to bear the full responsibility. He added: “Amazing that, at the other end, despite years of failures, disruptions, delays and all sorts of incidents on our trains, affecting millions of commuters, NOT A SINGLE higher-up has ever been held accountable.”

Referring to Mr Rahmat, Ms Emily Chong wrote on SMRT’s Facebook page: “At 49 years old, he now has to find a new job to support himself and his family — for a mistake that was not his to bear.”

Source: www.todayonline.com

September 15, 2016
Former Journalist Ismail Kassim: PAP Should Nominate Strong Minority Candidate For Upcoming Presidential Elections, Not Amend Constitution To Stifle Competition

A note to PM

Dear Prime Minister

By now you ought to know how divisive your proposal to amend the EP system has become. I cannot think of any issue in the last three decades that has caused such a wide and deep division within the electorate.

The tragedy is that your aim to ensure that members from minority communities too have a chance at becoming an EP is commendable, and has its merits.

Unfortunately, the way and timing of your move have also prompted considerable misgivings over your real motive:

Is it really to ensure minority representation or is it to prevent an independent-minded citizen from being elected EP in 2017?

Because of suspicions and emotions aroused over motive, it has become very difficult, even for those in the middle ground, to look at the proposed changes in a calm and objective manner.

And any rush to implement a system that is deemed unfair may have adverse repercussions on the EP itself.

Reserving the post for a particular minority is fundamentally flawed and goes against the grain of multiracialism and meritocracy. Likewise, the obsession with higher qualifications without giving due weight to strength of character and integrity is both elitist and undemocratic.

Will any good arise from foisting a minority candidate in a closed race open only to members from that community on the nation; in all likelihood too, it is likely to become a farce, reminiscent of a past EP election, when a businessman was forced to compete to give the semblance of a democratic race.

Such an EP is unlikely to command wide respect, and in all probability will be regarded as a ‘kayu’ (wood) by significant sections of the people, including members from his own community.

There is still time for you to salvage the situation; just make sure that whatever changes that will be adopted will not come into effect in the 2017 presidential election.

In this way, your protestations that they are not aimed against any individual will instantly become more credible.

The minority community that has not yet produced an EP for the last 47 years will not mind waiting a little longer.

As far as I know, they have grumbled over a lot of things such as continuing discrimination in the military and national service for their males and the unfair banning of their tudung-clad females from becoming nurses and policewomen.

But over the EP, there is none.

The PAP, notwithstanding its faults, is a great party with a sterling record.

If you feel strongly, you should nominate a minority for the coming EP and use all the powers at your disposal to get him elected.

If you think it is too risky, you can always field a stronger candidate. There is someone with impeccable credentials from your ranks who cannot become PM because of his ethnic origins. I think he will be unbeatable in any contest.

These are the heroic options, which a party with a solid reputation to protect, should choose.

Do not stoop so low now as to amend the Constitution out of fear, just to exclude opponents and independent-minded citizens.

So Mr Prime Minister, I hope you will reconsider all your options, and choose one that will unite the people, and not divide them further.

Ismail Kassim
14th November 2016

Source: Ismail Kassim

September 15, 2016