Blog

  • D’Concept Design Leaves Customers In Lurch

    D’Concept Design Leaves Customers In Lurch

    When Mr Jai Amir, 35, hired D’Concept Design to renovate his home in June, he thought that he had done his homework.

    After all, he had quotations from nine other companies and designers from D’Concept visited him four times to discuss plans to overhaul his living room, kitchen and toilets.

    He ended up forking out $43,774 upfront, after taking a bank loan. The work on his resale flat in Tampines – including re-flooring and new fixtures – was to have been completed in August. However, until now, only the cupboards in the living room have been torn down.

    “The company kept giving excuses. First, it said the designer was on reservist duty; then, the boss was not around. Later on, the boss himself told me that his contractors had suddenly left him. Then, after a while, everyone stopped picking up their phones,” said Mr Amir, who works as a chef.

    He met 14 other D’Concept Design customers last month, who were left in similar situations, to decide what to do. The Straits Times understands that, so far, at least 11 police reports have been made and the group has engaged a lawyer.

    Since January, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) has received 14 complaints against D’Concept Design, mostly about multiple delays despite payments being made to the firm.

    Many customers paid in full even before renovation works had begun. The total contract value of the cases lodged with Case adds up to $457,294, with the highest contract valued at $51,000.

    An Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority search found that the firm was registered in September last year. It has a paid-up capital of $2 and has one owner, Singaporean Kelvin Ang Yong Hong.

    Calls to Mr Ang’s mobile phone went unanswered and the company’s officein MacPherson was locked and its signs removed. No one came to the door at his registered home address in Yishun when The Straits Times went there last Wednesday.

    Checks with Case, the Renovation and Decoration Advisory Centre and the Housing Board found that D’Concept Design is not registered or accredited by them.

    There have been other sudden closures of companies in recent months. Last week, 76 couples with wedding packages amounting to more than $130,000 were left in the lurch after bridal salon Sophia Wedding Collection shut. The police are also investigating The Scizzorhands hair salon which left hundreds out of pocket in August.

    Case executive director Seah Seng Choon urged consumers to be careful when dealing with a lowly capitalised company. Owners of private limited firms – which D’Concept Design and most other pre-payment businesses are – are liable up to only the firm’s paid-up capital amount and cannot be sued directly for company debts.

    Mr Seah also urged home owners to refer to the model contract provided by HDB. He added: “While it is understandable that renovation firms may need some payment upfront, consumers should pay only a little bit at a time, instead of a lump-sum payment.”

    Mrs A.L. Lee, 31, who also had a bad experience with D’Concept Design, said the company even arranged visits to houses that it said it had renovated.

    “We saw two or three units, so it gave us confidence that they were able to do the job,” said Mrs Lee, who works in marketing.

    She paid the firm $33,000 in August to renovate her kitchen and living room but, after making payment, she claims the company was uncontactable. “I thought I did my homework. It’s so hard to establish if a company is really trustworthy, and even good ones can fail.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Goh Meng Seng: Good Opposition Performance Backfired, Don’t Blame Small Opposition Parties

    Goh Meng Seng: Good Opposition Performance Backfired, Don’t Blame Small Opposition Parties

    From Goh Meng Seng

    I cannot help but wonder why people cannot see through the plain attempt of some political leaders of shifting away blame when they come up with some totally illogical and even contradicting statements.

    Half truth is thrown up to mask their flaw argument.

    For example, people say opposition suffered a bad swing because of small parties and we contested all seats. This is because people fear PAP losing power.

    One must first look at simple facts of comparison. In 2011, all but 6 seats were contested. You mean to say that PAP won’t face the same risk of losing power in 2011 if we simply look at the total number of seats contested?

    There must be something more to make voters to fear PAP losing power. There are combined factors:

    1. The show of an over confident of WP and SDP winning. This can only be effected when majority of media focus has been put on them, showing the huge crowd size of their rallies and suggestive reporting of potential GREAT victory. This also means that other small parties did not hog the news space and didn’t project any negativity to voters as a whole.

    2. However, the number seats of WP and SDP added up will not Cross the 50% mark. It would be irrational for voters to conclude that PAP will lose power if Both WP and SDP win all the seats they contested. Thus, it also means that in voters’ mind, other smaller parties may also win seats! If that was so, it must be the case that voters also think smaller parties have good credible candidates who could potentially win seats as well .

    Now, how can people start to say that other smaller parties do not have credible candidates if that was the case?

    Thus, please don’t put blame on other smaller parties. Opposition as a whole has put up a TOO STRONG showing which Ironically backfired. It was too strong overall to make people frighten of the unthinkable, PAP LOSING POWER.

    Contrary to those nay sayers, opposition wasn’t weak at all and it was Precisely due to this perceived strength, voters begin to worry about PAP losing power. Period.

     

    Source: People’s Power Party – PPP

  • Trial Of Ex-Policeman Over Kovan Double Murder To Begin On 20 October

    Trial Of Ex-Policeman Over Kovan Double Murder To Begin On 20 October

    On July 10, 2013, the suburban neighbourhood of Kovan was shaken by a grisly crime.

    The body of a 42-year-old man was found on the road outside Kovan MRT station with a 1km-long blood trail that led to the discovery of another body in a house.

    It sparked a 54-hour manhunt that ended when the murder suspect, a former police officer, was arrested in Johor two days later.

    With the murder trial set to begin in the High Court tomorrow, ELIZABETH LAW ([email protected]) looks back at the drama and intrigue of the case.

    The body of Mr Tan Chee Heong, the director of an electronics products company, was found at a taxi stand outside Kovan MRT.

    It had been dragged about 1km, leaving behind it a blood trail that led to his father’s house at 14J, Hillside Drive.

    At the house, police officers discovered the body of car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin.

    His car, a Toyota Camry with the number plate SGM 14J – the family house number – was missing.

    The suspect was established to be police officer Iskandar Rahmat, 34, who had handled a police report the elder Mr Tan had made in 2012 about a theft from his safe deposit box.

    At the time of the killings, Iskandar had been put on administrative duty.

    The stolen car was found the next day at a parking lot in Eunos. By then, Iskandar had fled to Johor.

    He was arrested by Malaysian police on the night of July 12 at a restaurant in Danga Bay.

    Iskandar was charged with the double murders on July 15, 2013, and faces the death penalty. He has claimed trial to both charges.

    TWO PARTS

    Two tranches have been set for the trial. The first part starts tomorrow and will go on till Oct 30. The trial will break and continue in April next year.

    The prosecution team is led by Senior State Counsel Lau Wing Yum.

    There will be 102 prosecution witnesses.

    Those testifying in the first tranche include eyewitnesses and police officers, some of whom have worked with Iskandar.

    Shin Min Daily News had reported that American forensic scientist Henry Lee, who did post-Sept 11 forensic investigations and has worked on cases like the O.J. Simpson trial and the assassination attempt on former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian, would be a witness.

    Iskandar, now 36, is represented by a team of six lawyers under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences.

    Led by veteran lawyer Shashi Nathan, the team includes Ms Tania Chin and Mr Jeremy Pereira of KhattarWong; Mr Rajan Supramaniam of Hilbourne and Co; and Mr Ferlin Jayatissa and Ms Sudha Nair of Lexcompass.

    Mr Nathan told The New Paper that over the last two weeks, the team has been making daily visits to Iskandar in Changi Prison.

    “He is very concerned about his trial though as an ex-police officer, he is familiar with the procedure and knows what to expect,” Mr Nathan said, adding that his client has been doing a lot of reading on his own to prepare for the trial.

    Mr Nathan is arranging for his own forensics expert to testify. The expert testimonies are likely to take place during the second tranche.

    There will be one final pre-trial conference today in the High Court before the trial begins tomorrow.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

  • A Letter From Australia – Thank You SDP For Well-Run Campaign In GE2015

    A Letter From Australia – Thank You SDP For Well-Run Campaign In GE2015

    Dear Singapore Democratic Party,

    I am a Singaporean living in Australia. I am married to an Australian and live here with our family.

    I followed closely both GE2011 and more recently GE2015 from afar, which has been made possible by the Internet in current times. Needless to say, given that I am writing this letter to you, I am supportive of having strong and credible opposition voices in the current political climate in Singapore.

    Since GE2015, 9/11/15, I have been left somewhat broken-hearted, and to be honest, a little shell-shocked.  It is not my intent to go into a political analysis here – I am not a political commentator, neither am I au fairewith the intricacies of politics in Singapore – I am sure that you all would have done/ will do a post-mortem of the outcomes from GE2015 and are in a much better position to do so that I am.

    However, I would like to give my gratitude to ALL OF YOU, candidates and volunteers alike, at the SDP (and all other opposition parties) for putting yourselves forward in a bid to secure an alternative, and equally as good if not better, future for the country and people of Singapore. Thank you. You are all courageous and progressive people that Singapore should be proud to call sons and daughters.

    In my opinion, GE2015 saw the fielding of the strongest pool of opposition candidates that Singapore has seen since Independence. Not just in formal qualifications, but also in personality, character and voice. It was because of this that I was so heartbroken that the ground did not show the support that I had wished it to. It was never a question for me that the incumbent party would still form government at the end of this round of GE based on numbers alone (and dare I say, so should they as they are probably the most adequately resourced to do so at present), but I had felt that the opposition field this time would have been able to provide the much-needed alternative and credible voice in Parliament, to challenge both the incumbent and people of the nation to think outside-of-the-box, be more progressive and dare to dream beyond our backyard as a nation. I would have been happy even with a stronger margin for the opposition than what GE2015 delivered, for a more promising GE2020. Alas, that wasn’t to be so.

    So it leaves, I guess, the opposition parties and their supporters to re-evaluate their positions, as they face the cross-roads post GE2015.

    In any case, please accept my gratitude again for a campaign well-run for GE2015. Onwards and forwards to the next milestone!

    With best wishes,
    ​Elin

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • Former Construction Safety Officer Earns $4,000 A Month Doing Your Grocery Shopping

    Former Construction Safety Officer Earns $4,000 A Month Doing Your Grocery Shopping

    For a small delivery fee, he will take your grocery shopping list that you have specified online, visit the store, call you if the products are not available, and deliver on the same day.

    Mr Achmad Sobirin Suhaimi, 31, is part of a new wave of service providers taking online shopping to a new level.

    The former full-time construction safety officer used to squeeze in grocery deliveries before or after work to earn some extra bucks.

    Two months ago, he started his own company, and today, earns $3,000 to $4,000 a month helping clients – both individuals and businesses – do their day-to-day chores such as dealing with couriers, and personal grocery shopping.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

deneme bonusu