Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singaporeans

  • Saladworks In JEM Flooded

    Saladworks In JEM Flooded

    A salad shop in Jem mall in Jurong was flooded on Thursday evening.

    An employee of Saladworks, which is on the second floor of the Jurong East mall, said that the flood occurred at about 4.40pm, and that “water just started coming from the pipe”. She said she believed that units directly below the shop were also affected.

    When The Straits Times visited the shopping mall at 8.30pm, workers were seen mopping the floor outside the shop. The eatery was closed, and a section of its storefront blocked off from public access. Sandbags were placed near the entrance of the Paris Baguette cafe next door, which was still open for business.

    One floor below, an upriding escalator was out of service, and water was seen dripping from the ceiling.

    An employee working at PrettyFIT shoes store, which is two units away from Saladworks, said it was not the first time the eatery was flooded.

    The employee, who wanted to be known only as Yolanda, said: “A few months ago, near Christmas time, there was another flood. That was bad, it affected Paris Baguette and PrettyFIT.”

    Ms Yolanda added that a friend who works at the salad shop told her that the first flooding occurred because of a clogged pipe.

    Several incidents have been reported at the shopping mall which opened in June 2013, including at least two small fires, flooding when sprinklers came on unexpectedly and a ceiling collapse due to a burst water pipe.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • The Peak@Toa Payoh Residents Don’t Want RC Centre At Their Void Deck

    The Peak@Toa Payoh Residents Don’t Want RC Centre At Their Void Deck

    A group of residents of The Peak@Toa Payoh are irked that their objections to the building of a Residents’ Committee (RC) centre at the void deck have gone unheeded.

    The kerfuffle started when a notice was put up in March last year that the centre will be built at the void deck of Block 139B, stirring some residents to start a petition against the move, which they submitted to area Member of Parliament Hri Kumar Nair last June. Out of 246 units in that block, residents from 163 signed the petition.

    Despite the RC exploring alternative sites and adjusting plans — including reducing the size of the centre — because of concerns raised, residents were unmoved in their view. Building the centre, they said, will eat up their void deck space, as well as affect ventilation, lighting and safety of the area, among other things.

    Housewife Huang Eng Hui, 35, who lives at the affected block and is one of those who signed the petition, worries about the centre hindering evacuation in the event of a fire.

    “Because we have a lot of wheelchair users, young families with prams, in case of a fire, when people are coming down, they will need a straight path,” she said.

    The upcoming centre will also involve shifting the unloading bay to another area, which is near a blind spot where an accident had happened, she added.

    Another resident staying in that block agreed that an RC centre is necessary for the area, but she prefers to have it built elsewhere.

    The 31-year-old civil servant, who wanted to be identified only as Ms Josephine said: “It’s the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) attitude, but I think I’m not that keen on having an RC centre underneath the block. It’s better remaining an open space.”

    Other residents said it was not a case of NIMBY syndrome, pointing to how they had suggested alternative sites, besides void decks, for the RC centre.

    In a statement on April 7, Mr Charlie Chew, chairman of The Peak RC, said they had considered siting the centre at the rooftop of the multi-storey carpark and a standalone building, among other areas.

    Eventually, they secured the use of the Utility Room as a second site for the RC centre, allowing them to build a smaller centre at Block 139B, thereby addressing the residents’ concerns about ventilation, lighting, evacuation, and safety.

    Yesterday, Mr Chew told TODAY: “Their expectations of (not having a) RC centre at the void deck were not met, that’s why they interpret this as ‘I’m saying this but you’re not listening’.”

    When contacted, Mr Hri Kumar said it is unfair to label this incident as a case of NIMBY-ism, noting that it was the first time his constituents have expressed concerns about building an RC centre.

    He added that the RC had tried to address concerns by redrawing plans but the current arrangements remain the “best compromise”, given the lack of suitable alternative locations.

    Asked if communication with the residents could have been better, Mr Hri Kumar said: “It’s always a challenge, not just this case, to disseminate information.

    “We can always learn, it may be a question of stepping up the frequency of notices, it may well be a question of doing more direct connections door-to-door … we have to keep trying our best to get the message across, deal with issues and do the best we can.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Holistic Approach Needed To Fight Religious Extremism

    Holistic Approach Needed To Fight Religious Extremism

    Identifying weak religious grounding as a common trait among radicalised individuals here, national leaders yesterday reiterated the need for a holistic approach to counter the threat of terrorism.

    Speaking at the East Asia Summit Symposium on Religious Rehabilitation and Social Integration, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said: “One common characteristic that has been observed among radicalised individuals that we have investigated in Singapore is that they possess weak religious grounding.”

    He added that this made the individuals “more susceptible to believing wholesale the radical exhortations that distort religious concepts to give their message of violence an aura of divine sanction”.

    Since the first arrest of alleged Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) members here, religious scholars and teachers have embarked on a counselling programme to debunk radical ideas, said Mr Teo, who is also Home Affairs Minister.

    Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the event, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that a holistic approach cannot only involve “kinetic power or arresting people”.

    Stressing the importance of showing radicalised individuals “the right approach to religion”, Mr Shanmugam said: “When you radicalise a person you are creating a human bomb … you can arrest and put him in prison, you can also try to de-radicalise by getting him to see the real aspects of religion.”

    While religious leaders here have been reviewing the curriculum and enhancing training of Islamic teachers, challenges abound, said Singapore’s mufti, Dr Fatris Bakaram.

    For instance, some preachers and leaders are reluctant to correct popular misconceptions “because they have this worry of being unpopular”, he said. He added: “Preachers and teachers have to stand up, have to develop their self-confidence, that they are part of the whole responsibility to guide youths.”

    Dr Fatris said that the young today exhibit an increased sense of “restlessness to fight injustices”. They should be given the right platforms to further their desire for social justice, he said. “The younger generation has the energy and drive to change the world, and that has to be acknowledged.”

    For instance, Islamic studies graduates have been employed as youth development officers in local mosques to assure young Muslims here that they have important and active roles to play in the religious community, he said. “When (the youths) feel they are appreciated, that they are given the trust and confidence to contribute, I think that will provide effective safeguarding them from being deceived by the extremists.”

    Dr Fatris added that while terrorism cannot be isolated as a “Muslim problem”, Muslims must not shy away from it. “We have to acknowledge that this is the issue of the day affecting global communities … extremist groups have been using, or abusing, the name of Islam … It is not to say that Islam itself is the source of the problem, but the misunderstanding of Muslims and their religion is the thing we have to address,” he said.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • ITE Graduate Looked Down By Interviewer Because Of Poor Qualifications

    ITE Graduate Looked Down By Interviewer Because Of Poor Qualifications

    Dear All Singapore Stuff,

    I’m going to share my thoughts regarding an interview with a certain company for the position of Test Technician and after the interview, I left feeling horrible, depressed and really upset. The interviewer was rude and unprofessional. I found this job opening through jobstreet.

    First of all, I waited for almost an hour before the interview commenced because the HR recruitment specialist had an appointment and forgot about the interview. How convenient. That is unprofessional and they should have told me beforehand. The interviewer didn’t introduce his name, what his position was or which department here was from. So we’ll call him Mr Nice guy.

    So Mr Nice guy asked me regarding my last drawn salary, from two previous companies. He asked “why is your salary low?”. I explained that I worked only for a few days during the course of the employment and probably that’s the reason why it’s not that high. Mr Nice guy wasn’t satisfied with my answer and raised his voice and said “NO NO YOU’RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION”. At this point of time, I felt that this interview had gone sideways. Mr Nice guy critiqued how could I possibly work with the company if I couldn’t answer a simple question.

    In the first place, is this question even relevant? You employ someone based on merit and skills, not on previous pay and I did give an answer. I’m sorry if you are not satisfied with my answer.

    Mr Nice guy proceeded with the interview and I answered as best as I could, in a polite manner even though I felt like walking out the door. He was rude throughout the interview and asked me questions that are not related to the job scope. All the while he behaved in a condescending manner and constantly undermined my credibility. Mr Nice Guy kept hinting that the company is looking for “highly educated people” He seem to have a prejudice against ITE graduates like me.

    The ad that they posted is misleading to future applicants on what are the required qualifications. I have met the necessary requirements. I have a Nitec in the relevant course and I have the relevant experience. The interviewer looked down on me just because I was an ITE graduate. He also continously undermined my capabilities throughout the interview and he was hinting that ITE graduates have no place in the company.

    Education is very important in Singapore. But it is wrong to stereotype someone just based on his/her qualifications. Even if you are from ITE, it doesn’t make you less of a person. What does it matter if you have a PhD but you’re an asshole. Is someone deemed highly educated just based on his qualifications? Everyone should be treated equally regardless of their education. There should be no prejudice against people who has less education than you. What’s important is the attitude of someone and I believe that is what you should look for in an employee.

    Mr Nice guy concluded the interview by bluntly saying that according to him, I had failed the interview because of my attitude and I wouldn’t ever get a good job in Singapore and that the way I answered his first question was unreasonable and unprofessional.

    I believe he was the one who was rude and treated me with no respect. If i wanted to be interrogated I would’ve just gone to a police station. Where did he learn his interviewing skills from? He was rude and inconsiderate from the start and he didn’t even know that he was rude. He spoiled my day with his attitude. I dont have any background in human resource but i doubt that that is a how an interview should be held.

    I have lodged a report with TAFEP and am currently awaiting a personal apology from the interviewer itself for being rude to me. I hope other people don’t go through what I have been through.

    PS: Interviewer is a foreigner. At first I didn’t want to mention it for fear of readers having clouded judgements but due to recent cases, i thought this factor should be taken into consideration.

    Disgruntled Applicant
    A.S.S. Contributor

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Muslim Customers Also Have The Right To Eat And Shop In A Dog-Free Environment

    Muslim Customers Also Have The Right To Eat And Shop In A Dog-Free Environment

    Aiseyman! Just because someone is visually impaired, does it gives her the right to demand access for herself and her guide dog to wherever? And when she is denied access to a shop because of her anjing she plays the victim by using her handicap status to call out the shop for discriminating her. If like that also can, then can Muslims walk into a bar and demand that they are served halal food and drinks, and when they are denied that, call the bar out on religious discrimination? If we really did that, many people will not be sympathetic to us, but they will criticise us and say that we are difficult to integrate with.

    This is not the first time that the guide dog and its owner have made a big fuss over denied entries into shops and eateries. She has complained about and shamed the staff at Macdonalds, Haagen Daz, Forever 21 and now Zara. Yet her sense of entitlement is so huge that she forgets that in every transaction, there is both a buyer and a seller, and that both players have the right to accept or refuse each other. She may think that she has a right to be in the shop with her dog, but so do the Muslims who also have the right to patronise the shop. If the shop allows her dog in, what about Muslims who are averse to any contact with dogs? What about people with allergies who cannot be in contact with animal fur and dander? Can they also say that they are being discriminated against if guide dogs are allowed on their premises?

    It is the shop’s perogative to control the human traffic that flows into their premises, and staff they should not be shamed for doing so in order to protect their other customers. To give another relevant example, many people don’t scream discrimination when a club bouncer refuses entry of a drunk person (to protect the drunk and others in the club) or a person who is underdressed (to maintain the club’s image).

    This is not to say that people should totally turn a blind eye to those with handicap, but there should be mutual respect and give and take also right? If she really wanted to be in the shops so badly, why couldn’t she park her dog with the friend outside or use a walking stick to help her get around? Like that, I think the shops will be more than happy to serve her. But no, it seems she only wants everyone to accomodate her and her dog without sparing a thought for anyone else.

     

    Source: www.aiseyman.com

deneme bonusu