Tag: Singapore

Abuse Of Future Hawkers While Keeping Prices Low

By Foo CL

This article by Straits Times, “First of 20 new hawker centres will open in Hougang in August 2015: NEA” wrote about how new hawker centres bring about more hawker and affordable food to Singaporean.

For one of such hawker centres, NEA mentioned that Fei Siong Food Management will manage the new hawker centre on a not-for-profit basis, by channelling operating surplus “to improve vibrancy and create social benefits”.”

I saw this as a step in the right direction but at the end, I cannot describe how disappointed after I was directed to “FEI SIONG FOOD MANAGEMENT PTE LTD”, knowing more about the tendering of the hawker stall.

In the article, it states that the rental is S$1500-S$1800 which is comparable to others hawker at the same area, but failed to mention all the hidden cost charge by Fei Siong food management.

Cleaning and washing fee up to S$2000 per month excludes GST.

In most hawker centers, their highest rate to clean tables ranges between S$450-600 and S$600-1000 to wash the bowl inclusive of GST. Even taking the highest rate of the of the busiest hawker center, most would never exceed S$1600 in total cleaning fee (GST INCLUDED).

The rates offered is very much higher than the prevailing market rate.

Compulsory rental of point of sale (POS)

The POS system cost S$50 a month and the Fei Siong food management can also access your sales figure through this system.

Fixed uniform and utensil

Uniform and utensils will be provided by Fei Siong food management at an undisclosed amount.

Unfair tendering system.

There is a total of 40 stores but only 20 will be open tender, and the other 20 will be under the “entrepreneurship” program which will be operated by Fei Siong food management.

Under this program, applicants will write in the food they can cook and Fei Siong food management will select them to operate the stall on their behalf. The operator and the helper will be paid 25% of the stall sales. If u cannot meet the sales target, you will be removed from the program.

The rest of the 20 stall will be selected by Fei Siong food management instead of an open tender, which I will cover in the next point.

Conflict of interest?

Since Fei Siong food management will be managing 20 of the stalls and select the other tender. Wouldn’t Fei Siong food management give priority to food stores that are more popular, better profit margin and easier to operate to themselves and left over choices to those that decided to tender the stall remaining 20 stalls?

This 20 stalls will also have an unfair advantage due to higher overheads and operation cost stated above.

Strict Terms and conditions.

Fei Siong food management will require the hawkers to operate their stalls for 12 hrs a day. Wear their uniform, and control their off days so there will be a minimum numbers of stall opened every day.

This will not be easy for small family operated businesses that wish to keep their overhead low since they will definitely need to hire helpers to operate such long hours.

Business entity or government entity.

Is this hawker center that is built by taxpayer money been tender to Fei Siong food management for revenue or is it build for the benefit of residents to keep the food pricing low?

Price control

Despite having a higher operation cost, the hawker center management still wish to disguise it as a low-cost food center by restricting at least 2 product to be below $2.80

Been in F&B business myself, all the condition seem awfully similar to those in commercially operated food courts. But this is a NEA hawker center that is built by taxpayer money and released by the government as a form to assist citizen keeping food cost low. Why is it being abused as such?

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

July 2, 2015
Heartless Lorry Driver Swipes Motorcyclist, Then Says “He Die His Problem Lar”

Hi everyone,

Spread awareness of this heartless lorry driver of vehicle no. YL3271E.

This lorry driver was driving very recklessly on the roads when he turned and hit on a rider. The rider lost his balance, hit onto our car and flew.

When we stop, we confront the lorry driver but he deny it is his fault. After arguing for a while he just say “If he die his problem la!”

Now the rider still unconscious in hospital.

Please do share the lorry driver photo and let everyone be careful of him!

Jez
A.S.S. Contributor

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

July 2, 2015
Take Studied Approach To LGBT Endorsement

I refer to the commentary, “Why we need more light, less heat on sexuality issues” (June 30). I agree that on contentious issues such as this, we need more resources from all possible disciplines of knowledge to achieve mutual understanding.

For that to happen, however, we must identify the heart of the dispute and why arguments of religion versus rights have dominated the debate.

When the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community cries for equality and against discrimination, especially with the Pink Dot slogan Freedom to Love, their ultimate interest is the inclusion of homosexual relationships in the institution of marriage.

Only then would the LGBT community be equal before the law and thus be protected from discrimination. But this would be deemed a threat to the religious community, wherein marriage is defined strictly as between a man and woman.

The United States Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage based on the argument that it is a constitutional right. This has implications for religious communities across the US because granting such marital rights redefines marriage itself for Americans.

So, the foremost task of various knowledge disciplines would be to provide perspective and research on the LGBT issue, contributing towards answering the question in dispute between the religious and LGBT communities: What makes a marriage?

Is it an emotional bond in which fidelity is a choice and commitment, or can it happen only between a man and a woman? Does same-sex marriage benefit a democratic society?

Our Government is wise to uphold public opinion. The majority are conservative, and the research on same-sex marriage and its societal effect has just begun, as the Netherlands was the first country to endorse it, in 2001.

The debate on its benefits and harm to children and society are ongoing. More time is needed before one can make a correct judgement. Thus, to uphold our current policies is to safeguard our society’s common good.

The West’s experiment in same-sex marriage is irreversible. As a young nation, it is best that we take a cautious approach, to allow knowledge of different disciplines to inform us of the consequences of endorsing this movement, and we can decide from there.

This article, written by Jervin Lim Teng Lai, was published on Voices, Today on 2 Jul 2015.

Source: www.todayonline.com

July 2, 2015
Singapore Chinese Muslim Stunned By Halal Dietary Question In Job Application

“You don’t eat pork, right?”

Singapore Chinese Muslim Heidi Heng was shocked when she was asked the question when she tried to find out more about an opening for an administration position.

At first, she said, she was mistaken for being a non-Chinese because she was seen wearing a headscarf. Then, she was told that her Halal diet would be an inconvenience to other employees especially when it comes to company events.

Heng was responding to job application queries sent via Whatsapp messages on her phone when she was confronted by questions that involved her race, religion and dietary option. She was corresponding with someone who appeared to be the human resource staff of an unnamed company.

A screen grab of the conversation was posted on Facebook on Tuesday, and has since garnered more than 1,000 shares and nearly 100 comments.

The conversation had taken place over Whatsapp when Heng was asking for the appropriate email address to send her resume to. Heng seemed disappointed at how the conversation had panned out, even labeling the comments that the staff member made as “racist”.

“Work is work, food is food. I can eat Halal food, (you) can eat (your) non-Halal food. Just (wanted) a simple admin job, end up get a racist comment… Admin job got event every month meh (sic)?” she said.

Most of the commenters on Facebook have shown support for Heng while criticising the company.

“I don’t see why one’s dietary preference will hinder the productivity of the admin job… what if the candidate is a Chinese vegetarian?” said a Bob M Fauzi.

One commenter even offered Heng a job and is awaiting her reply.

Yahoo Singapore has contacted the Ministry of Manpower for a comment.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

July 2, 2015
Judge Increases Jail Sentence To 3 Months For Foreigner Who Attacked Cabby

Just two weeks after he was sentenced to a three weeks’ jail for assaulting a taxi driver, 34-year old Dutchman Dino Petrus Johannes van Deijzen saw his sentence increased to three months.

The deputy public prosecutor had appealed the original sentence, saying the judge in that case, District Judge Imran Abdul Hamid, seemed to have been convinced by van Deijzen’s portrayal of himself as a victim.

The Dutchman, a design executive, had claimed that the taxi driver, Me Ee Kah Ling, had also hit him, resulting in the former losing consciousness.

Justice Imran was reported to have “noted that the victim had also engaged in a scuffle with van Deijzen and traded blows, which would have explained the blunt force trauma suffered by the accused.”

However, justice Tay rejected this.

He said Mr van Deijzen’s claims were “convenient excuses to downplay his use of inexcusable violence” against Mr Ee, 42.

Further, justice Tay noted that Mr van Deijzen was not remorseful and that there were neither an offer of compensation to Mr Ee noran apology from the Dutchman.

Mr van Deijzen and his girlfriend were reportedly intoxicated when they hailed and boarded Mr Ee’s cab at Dunlop Street at almost 1am on 21 October.

They asked to be ferried to blk 538 in Ang Mo Kio.

When the taxi reached the destination, Mr van Deijzen’s girlfriend vomited in the taxi.

Mr Ee then asked the couple to leave the car and asked for the fare.

The couple, however, ignored him and walked away without paying.

At this point, Mr Ee threatened to call the police, and was retrieving his phone from his taxi when Mr van Deijzen pounced on him, slammed the door and punched Mr Ee.

Me Ee tried to escape and ran away, but Mr van Deijzen gave chase and pushed him to the ground, and continued to punch and kick Mr Ee.

The heinous act was caught by the in-vehicle CCTV of Mr Ee’s taxi.

Soosay (Photo: Straits Times)

Also in June, National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor, Sundram Peter Soosay, 43, has been found guilty of assaulting a taxi driver while drunk.

Mr Soosay, who is a Singapore permanent resident and has been working at NUS since 2008, was lambasted by District Judge Victor Yeo in court.

Judge Yeo said Mr Soosay’s testimony was “riddled with hindsight reasoning, convenient conjecture and hypothesis”.

Judge Yeo then sentenced the law professor to four months jail and ordered him to compensate the taxi driver, 71-year old Sun Chun Hua. (See here.)

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

July 2, 2015