Blog

  • Starbucks Is Not Halal!

    Starbucks Is Not Halal!

    Some people really have very vivid imaginations eh? From a simple fact that Starbucks is not certified halal, they can spin theories about how pork fat is deliberately included as an ingredient in their food and drink to trick Muslims because Starbucks is a Jewish company bent on killing Palestinians. Like conspiracy theory much siol~

    starbucks tak halal

     

    While this may seem funny at first, the underlying naivete behind such ridiculous conspiracy theories is alarming and a cause of concern. Malicious intent aside, such a mentality reflects an overly sensitive frame of mind towards any real or perceived slight to the Muslim faith, and seeks to take offense at any and every instance. This is dangerous because these people can be easily indoctrinated and manipulated by others who espouse radical religious views, or may even be recruited by those with malicious intent to cause harm to others. In this age where terrorism is a real threat to our global and national security, we should all be responsible for our thoughts, words and behaviours and educate those who may have the wrong understanding of our faith.

    Starbucks may not be halal, but all Muslims have the prerogative to choose whether they will patronise the cafe or take their business somewhere else halal. There is no need to propagate false claims about its products or poltically align the company with murderous objectives just because it did not meet your religious standards. The sooner we learn that the world does not revolve around our religion, the easier it will be for us to lead our lives.

    For the record, Starbucks Singapore has never claimed to be a halal establishment and has even previously clarified that even though they are not certified halal, it does not serve pork or alcohol in their stores.

    starbucks reply

    starbucks reply2

     

     

    Source: www.aiseyman.com

  • Osman Sulaiman: Daiso Singapore Apologise For Hijab Incident, Assures No Such Discriminatory Policies Are In Place

    Osman Sulaiman: Daiso Singapore Apologise For Hijab Incident, Assures No Such Discriminatory Policies Are In Place

    Update on Daiso:

    Met up with the GM of Daiso, Jun Tomioka at IMM together with Ms Malis Jais (the job applicant) on last Wednesday.

    During the discussion, the GM has clarified that Daiso does not have any policies against employees wearing the headgear.

    He also went to great lengths to explain to us how the organization has in fact catered to the well being of employees from different races and religions. He then highlighted that they do have many employees wearing the headgears in their organization.

    When asked how then did their HR came up with such information to job applicants that Daiso’s employees are not allowed to wear the headgears on sales-floor? There must be a directive from someone to the HR person as it specifically single out sales-floor area.

    The GM apologized for the mistake when relaying information to job applicants. He said that lapses might have occurred during communication to his staff and apologized for the lapse.

    He was apologetic the whole time which was a breath of fresh air from the usual sidestepping whenever I took on such cases.

    He also mentioned that although Daiso has a dress code policy, it has never excluded headgears in workplaces unless in factories where machinery is involved.

    I told him that his apology will mean nothing if there are no concrete steps taken to ensure such thing will not happen again.

    He then made a personal guarantee that such errors would not be repeated as the company is planning to create a handbook for employees where information would be passed down more effectively. They will also remind all its shop leaders not to make similar suggestions and exercise greater vigilance in the recruitment process.

    We are convinced and satisfied that the GM is sincere in rectifying the matter and this incident is probably due to miscommunication among its employees.

    Ms Normalis has since received a formal apology letter from Daiso which we have agreed to keep it confidential and not to reproduce or distribute whatsoever.

    People who felt that they have been unjustly dealt with need to speak up about it. Keeping silent will not help resolve anything. As for the above case, I’m happy that it ends well for everyone and hopefully create awareness for more companies to embrace hijab wearing employees.

     

    Source: Osman Sulaiman

  • Malaysian Trade Union Congress Calls For Six-Hour Work Day

    Malaysian Trade Union Congress Calls For Six-Hour Work Day

    he Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) has called on the government to implement six-hour work day, citing the health of employees as a reason.

    MTUC president Mohd Khalid Atan told daily Harian Metro that the body has always been championing for lesser working hours, from the current 48 hours per week to 40 hours.

    He cited Sweden as one of the countries which had reduced its working hours from eight hours to six per day.

    He said a majority of workers in the country are working additional hours of up to four hours a day, bringing the total hours of work to 12 hours a day.

    “This has brought various health issues like heart disease, irregular blood circulation and others,” he told the daily.

    “Give them a chance to enjoy a wholesome life which emphasizes on health. This will ensure their work productivity is not affected,” he added.

    The 40 hour work week for a full-time employee has been trimmed to 30 hours at some Swedish firms,CNN reported while some studies have found that the result is more productivity and better morale.

     

    Source: http://english.astroawani.com

  • Admin Executive Paid Yearly Insurance Premiums Higher Than Annual Pay

    Admin Executive Paid Yearly Insurance Premiums Higher Than Annual Pay

    An endowment insurance plan bought two years ago by Madam Corinne Han has proved a costly mistake.

    The Prudential policy, which Madam Han, 57, bought at United Overseas Bank (UOB), requires her to pay yearly premiums higher than her annual pay.

    She told The Straits Times that her intention in visiting UOB in 2013 was to open an account and inquire about fixed deposits. Instead, she ended up purchasing the policy that came with freebies like an air-fryer and a steamer.

    Madam Han, an administrative executive with O-level education, earns about $30,000 a year, but the policy requires her to fork out an annual premium of $40,000 for five years, translating to total premiums of $200,000. So far, she has paid $80,000.

    Back in 2013, when she visited UOB, she had $350,000 on hand due to a divorce settlement.

    But after accounting for legal fees and loan payments, she would be left with about $100,000, insufficient to pay for the total premiums of $200,000.

    As she was staying with her mother at the time, she rented out three rooms in her HDB flat. This gave her a combined monthly rental income of $2,000 in 2013. It has since dropped to about $1,000.

    This is how the PruSave Max Limited Pay plan works.

    At the end of the 10-year maturity period, Madam Han is projected to receive a maturity benefit of $236,000 – that is, a potential gain of $36,000 – if Prudential can earn 4.75 per cent on its investments.

    By then, the value of the accumulated premiums, based on the illustrated rate of 4.75 per cent, would have grown to $291,172.

    However, the “Effect of Deduction” (EOD) would amount to about $55,000, which leaves a non-guaranteed maturity sum of $236,000 to Madam Han. The EOD – which is due to Prudential – includes the cost of insurance, distribution cost, expenses and surrender charge.

    If Prudential’s investment return is 3.25 per cent, the maturity benefit is projected to be $217,768.

    However, both the projected maturity figures of $236,000 and $217,768 are non-guaranteed.

    The figures are used by the insurer for illustrative purposes, something that may be the source of confusion as the maturity benefits may be misconstrued to be between these two rates of returns.

    The figure that is guaranteed, as indicated in the policy’s benefit illustration, is actually $181,000 – a sum that is lower than the total premiums Madam Han would have coughed up for the plan.

    The plan she has comes with a death benefit of 105 per cent, which means the policy provides negligible protection.

    Endowment plans typically are savings plans that come with insurance protection which, in this case, is nominal. Customers pay premiums over a fixed period and, typically, a small portion of the premiums is deducted to pay for insurance cover. The rest is invested. So most customers would expect to get their money back, plus interest, when the endowment policy expires.

    “I didn’t know that I may get back less than $236,000, which I believed was guaranteed,” says Madam Han.

    The policy documents state that it is not a savings account and that the actual benefits are not guaranteed.

    There is still the question of how Madam Han ended up buying this plan.

    After paying for two years, she now faces financial difficulty in paying future premiums. UOB has informed her that the annual premiums could be reduced, but she would have to forgo the excess premiums that were paid in the first two years.

    This means that if she pays a reduced annual premium of, say, $20,000 for the remaining three years, she will forgo the excess $40,000 that was paid in the first two years.

    Madam Han has complained to UOB and wants to surrender the policy and recover her premiums.

    A UOB spokesman told The Straits Times: “We will be arranging a meeting with Madam Han to clarify and address the matter with her.”

    Madam Han has four children, aged 20 to 27. Two of them have not completed their formal education.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Beware! Do Not Hire This Filipino Maid Who Stole From Employer

    Beware! Do Not Hire This Filipino Maid Who Stole From Employer

    <Complaint by Michelle Yu-Tan>

    Dear all, this was my previous helper here in Singapore. Her name is Laurence Angela Lardizabal Soria and might go for the last name Perez. I would just like to make a public note that we had already sent her back home to the Philippines after 3 offenses of lying and stealing from us.

    She is from Batangas San Jose. After giving her a chance the first and second time round, the last offence she commited was stealing money from my wallet. Although she already confessed for taking the money when confronted before sending her back, we were surprised that no apologies was even said.

    Please be aware of who she really is and if you happen to know someone who would think of hiring her, think again. If you have valuables, it will disappear.

    Please do me a favour to share this and spread it out so it may reach everywhere in the world. Who knows, her next destination might be in your country.

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

deneme bonusu