Writer Camelli Tang wrote about how disdain the level of service at Changi Airport was while relating an incident that she encountered at the airport. Apparently, there was a sick passenger on board and she was helping and there was no one around to ask her if she needed assistance. She had to provide her particulars before she was eventually allowed to use the wheel chair and even then, there was no assistance provided at the customs.

Personally, I would like to disagree with what Camelli had experienced because I was very well attended to on 2 of my trips back. On one trip, I was in so much pain in my abdominal that a wheel chair was provided for when I alighted. The request was made known to the stewardess on board and appropriate arrangements were made by them when we landed. On a second occasion, I was not well and was escorted at each transit (at other airports) and at Changi Airport. Assistance was also provided at the Immigrations and Customs to bypass the queue through a side exit (with my passport checked, of course).

With these 2 experiences - coming back from 2 different airlines, I can attest that the service level of Changi Airport is not as bad as the writer had described. In addition, these 2 incidences of mine happened at least 7 years apart - so it’s evident that it’s not a one off thing. I would tend to agree with the commenters that the writer could have brought this to the attention of the cabin crew who would then be more familiar with protocols that would have ensured a smooth journey for the sick passenger, although I would have not have suggested that the writer make the call to the ambulances herself.

After living in Singapore for so many years (not that many if you compare it to our forefathers, but you know what I mean), I learn to understand that there’s something I can do to make a difference, and there are other things that I just have to leave it to the hands of people who are more familiar with it. If mishandled, things may deteriorate and finger pointing will be totally useless.

World-class airport? Not with apathetic service

SINGAPORE’s Changi Airport is recognised as one of the best in the world. However, an incident which took place last Wednesday has left me wondering how world-class it really is.

My China Airlines flight from Taipei landed at Changi Airport at about 8.45pm. A fellow traveller, who had been feeling unwell, was unable to breathe or walk properly. Trying to get help in case she passed out, I went to look for a wheelchair.

I went up to the officer on duty at the customer service counter at the arrival hall

(before the immigration check) and asked for a wheelchair. There was one behind her, all locked up.

This was her reply: ‘The aircraft should arrange for the wheelchair for her since she is a passenger from there. It is not our responsibility… You have to return the wheelchair to me here at this counter…You have to give me all your particulars before we issue you the wheelchair.’

She eventually provided me one - after taking down my particulars. And she got someone to accompany me to take it back after use.

Is a customer service officer not supposed to render assistance to passengers who need it? Why such apathy?

Later, while we were queueing to clear Customs - there was a long line - we were not given any assistance in terms of priority, nor asked if the sick passenger needed an ambulance.

Do the airport staff have any sense of empathy towards a passenger who is unable to walk, has breathing problems and may pass out or even die on the spot?

I used to be proud of our airport but, after this incident, not any more.

Camelli Tang (Miss)

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 16th June 2008

Runner Jeanette Wang, finished first for the Ultra tough 84km Women Open during the recent adidas Sundown Marathon. Her prize is a sponsored trip to Berlin Marathon this September. However, adidas, has an unstated condition to the claiming of the prize. She has to sign an adidas sponsorship contract, and use only adidas products on the sponsored trip. Alas. She is currently under Nike sponsored athletes, and cannot sign another sponsorship contract with adidas.

It feels very unfair to the athletes, that the claiming of a prize requires unstated condition. Since the condition was not there in the first place, it should not be enforce post-race. However, thinking back, in sports, is there any ethics left with all the scandals involving drugs? Perhaps, we are having a new kind of scandal, that is not involving sportsman. =)

She thought she had crossed the finish line but the winner of the inaugural adidas Sundown Marathon, Ms Jeanette Wang, has hit a new hurdle.

The 26-year-old Straits Times journalist topped the Women’s Open event two Sundays ago, clocking in at 9hr 14min 36sec in the gruelling 84km run.

But the seasoned athlete is now unable to claim one part of her prize, a sponsored trip to the Berlin Marathon this September.

The reason: adidas, the prize sponsor, wants her to use only its products on the trip, or forfeit the race altogether.

But she is in Nike’s stable of sponsored athletes and is forbidden to endorse other brands.

‘On the one hand, I want to be loyal to Nike, which has been supporting me for the past four years. On the other hand, I did win the race and I feel like I deserve something for it,’ said Ms Wang, who had also topped her age group at the 2006 Standard Chartered Ironman Korea.

Her win also entitles her to a year’s sponsorship contract of adidas products worth $3,000.

A check on the official adidas Sundown Marathon website showed that there were no conditions stating that the winners would go to Berlin only if they signed the adidas sponsorship contract.

Mr Fabian William, the winner of the 82km Men’s Open and who also won a Berlin trip, is already sponsored by adidas.

When asked by The Sunday Times, adidas said that donning its products at the Berlin race came with the sponsored trip. ‘It would be unheard of for an organisation to send an athlete halfway across the world to enter its own premier race with limited race slots, but have its direct competitor benefit in turn,’ said Mr Marcus Chew, the marketing manager for adidas Singapore.

‘I would go as far as saying that we are bending over backwards to accommodate her.’

The company had offered to match the value of Ms Wang’s current sponsorship contract with Nike if she signed with adidas, along with more opportunities to race overseas.

It also offered to custom-make running shoes for her for the Berlin race, said Mr Chew.

Top local marathoner Vivian Tang, 37, ran into a similar fix in 2006.

Following her win at the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon that December, adidas had offered her a sponsored trip to the London Marathon on condition of endorsement. But she had to turn it down as she was sponsored by Nike.

Most race prizes come in the form of vouchers or cash, as most top athletes are already sponsored and ‘it would be unfair for an athlete to win a prize and not be able to claim it’, said Ms Tang.

Another veteran marathon runner, Mr Steven Chan, 39, agreed.

‘Singapore already does not have a strong pool of athletes. We shouldn’t have such rigid rules that stop them from taking part in more competitions,’ he said.

Saying that she has no plans to approach the Singapore Sports Council for help, Ms Wang added that she was considering her options and did not rule out ‘walking away from the victory empty-handed’.

She said: ‘There’s more to winning a race than the prize, but a prize shouldn’t be a business deal. It’s a reward for the hard work you put into the race.’

debyong@sph.com.sg

What should Jeanette Wang do? And should race sponsors offer contract sponsorships as prizes? Send your views to suntimes@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 15th June 2008

In the course of developing software for companies, it is a common, although unadmitted practise to leave backdoors in the applications so that they would be able to bypass certain steps in the process of development. For obvious reasons, I can’t say what is being done, however, one system engineer decided to take a step further. He locked the system up before leaving his company.

While some may think that it’s a human resource and perhaps technical issue that the company should clear up with the systems engineer, this person, as mentioned in the article below, became the first guy to be hauled to court under the Computer Misuse Act. While this is somewhat a case of “randsomware”, the reverse may result in the same kind of prosecution. Meaning, if you leave the company leaving loopholes and backdoors (knowingly or unknowingly), there’s a chance that you may run into trouble with the law.

So while all software engineers feel that there is sometimes a need to create a backdoor for convenience, do take a note of where the backdoors are and remember to close all of them. When it comes to fingerpointing, especially when confidentiality of information is compromised, very few people can be spared of it.

Editor: Special thanks to reader Onlooker for pointing out this article.

A SYSTEMS engineer has been hauled to the criminal courts by his former employers for allegedly sabotaging a computer software he developed.

SMC Marine Services has accused Thangavelu Boopathiraja, 36, of secretly setting passwords within the program before leaving the company.

The password protection, discovered months after his resignation, has left the company unable to check, modify or upgrade the system, lawyers for SMC told a district court on Friday, at the start of the hearing.

SMC is taking criminal action against Thangavelu under the Computer Misuse Act, for preventing access to the computer program without authority.

This is believed to be the first private prosecution involving the act.

Thangavelu denies setting the passwords and has claimed trial.

The defence’s position is that SMC’s prosecution of Thangavelu is malicious and is aimed at putting him out of business.

Thangavelu, a former Indian national who is now a Singapore citizen, was employed by SMC between February 2004 and August 2006.

SMC is in the business of transporting bulk cargo using tugboats and barges.

At the time, Thangavelu was developing a vessel monitoring system that allowed real-time information, such as fuel usage, to be sent from the vessels to SMC’s office.

According to the prosecution’s opening statement, the software tool that is used to write the source codes allow a programmer to add password protection features.

But these passwords can only be set knowingly and not inadvertently, said the statement.

The firm says that Thangavelu was not authorised to configure the system such that a password was required to retrieve source codes.

Anyone convicted of preventing access to a computer without authority can be fined up to $10,000 or jailed up to three years or both.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 14th June 2008

It’s quite amazing that someone would have thought that a backup copy of their deleted SMS would be available from the telcos if they accidentally deleted their SMS. The official reply from 2 of the telcos was that the messages are expunged daily, with Singtel commenting that they do it a “regular basis”. Come to think of it, this is beginning to sound like the start of a good model to work on. The telcos may consider offering a service of SMS backup that will be accessible to the subscribers on a monthly basis, and the onus will be on the subscribers to back it up onto their PC. While software may be available to backup SMSes directly from phone, it may not always be possible.

Additionally, the subscribers may even configure such that the SMS are zipped and sent to their email addresses every month so that they do not have to worry about logging in every month to download it. This is a good idea, isn’t it? So, if you are a 3rd party start-up company and are interested in figuring out how to do this without going through the telcos, do feel free to drop me an email to discuss. I can do this without a fee, do let me in on some shares. =P

Talk about being a serial entrepreneur. =)

IF YOU have deleted an important text message, don’t expect your cellphone company to have a magical backup server that will bail you out.

One Singapore man recently found that out the hard way when he tried to recover messages that he had trashed nine months ago.

Mr Huang Yongliang wrote to The Straits Times Forum this week asking about the possibility of retrieving the long-since-deleted texts.

‘I got curious about the policies on retrieving SMSes when I accidentally deleted mine,’ said Mr Huang.

The 27-year-old said he wanted the texts for ‘personal reasons’, but declined to elaborate.

Telecom companies, though, said customers can practically kiss the messages goodbye once they hit the delete button. The companies handle billions of messages annually and deleted SMSes are expunged from servers almost immediately, they say.

SingTel, for example, said it processes 20 million text messages a day. That adds up to around seven billion a year.

‘It is therefore not economically or physically viable to store SMSes in our system for retrieval purposes,’ said its corporate communications manager Cheam Tze Hui in a statement.

There are a few exceptions. Logs that record the phone number, date and time of an SMS are captured and stored. StarHub and M1 keep these records for seven years and one year respectively. It is understood that these logs serve as verification when customers dispute SMS charges on their bills.

Meanwhile, telecom companies say they also face privacy concerns when it comes to releasing text messages. Even if they are still on a backup server, SingTel said it will not release them - not even to someone who wants to retrieve his own message.

Telecom companies will, however, release the information to the police and the courts. The former have the right to such information when they are investigating a crime.

In 2001, police probing fake bomb threats sent via SMS traced the texts to a 20-year-old national serviceman. They tracked him using help from the telcos, which would not specifically reveal the method. But the telcos suggested that it involved SMS logs.

In civil lawsuits, a judge can order companies to release messages if they are relevant to the case, according to Mr P. Padman, a partner in law firm Tito Isaac & Co. He has encountered this in defamation and divorce cases in the past. However, telcos are obliged to give the courts only information which they still possess.

The only way to be certain of retaining the SMSes for one’s own use is to keep them in phones, according to service providers.

Two telcos - M1 and StarHub - said SMSes are purged from their systems as soon as they are delivered. SingTel would only say that while this is not done daily, it is fairly regular.  

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 14th June 2008

The Singapor Armed Forces (SAF) has suspended training for 3 days starting from today following the death of 2 NSF personnel on 2 unrelated incidents. This includes the Standard Obstacle Course (SOC), field camps, road marches and other strenuous physical training. I am not sure if this includes 5BX.

While measures had always been taken to ensure the safety of the personnel, accidents do happen because sometimes, death is caused by a set of factors which may not be present at the time of health examination. While the 2 servicemen did not die in battle, they did commit their lives to fulfilling what was needed and dictated for the defence of Singapore.

I salute them and hope that they will rest in peace. Meanwhile, new NSF like Jayden may have some lead time to adjust to the new army life. =)

THE Singapore Armed Forces yesterday called an unprecedented three-day halt to all physical and endurance training within the military, following the death of a serviceman in Brunei, the second training fatality in two days.

Until Saturday, the entire force of 300,000 active personnel and national servicemen will not be on obstacle courses, route marches or doing any fitness tests. Physically demanding field training is also out.

The ‘time-out’ will allow the SAF to ensure that proper procedures are in place and being followed, said Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, who yesterday extended his deep condolences to the families of the two 20- year-old servicemen who died this week.

The latest fatality took place on Wednesday evening. A pilot trainee, Officer Cadet Clifton Lam Jia Hao, collapsed while undergoing jungle training in Brunei.

In the earlier incident on Tuesday morning, Recruit Andrew Cheah Wei Siong fainted during a 2km walk in Pulau Tekong.

Both servicemen received immediate medical attention and were evacuated by helicopter to hospital, where they later died.

The Defence Ministry said that investigations are under way. Initial findings indicate that all safety procedures had been followed in both instances.

Both men, recent polytechnic graduates, had cleared medical checks and were deemed fit for the respective training they were undergoing.

Of the two, OCT Lam was fitter and had to meet more stringent health and fitness standards to qualify for pilot training.

However, given the hot, humid conditions in the Brunei jungles, it is possible OCT Lam could have suffered heat stroke.

Recruit Cheah, who enlisted last Thursday, was undergoing an enhanced 15-week basic military training programme meant for mildly obese recruits.

The fatalities will again put the spotlight on sudden deaths of otherwise healthy young men. The issue was raised in Parliament three years ago, also after two servicemen died in quick succession.

At the time, Mr Teo said that 19 SAF personnel had died of sudden heart attacks in the preceding nine years, including five who collapsed during training.

Despite thorough health screening, safety measures and medical support in training, such deaths ‘cannot be completely prevented’, he said then.

On the decision to suspend training, Dr Bernard Loo, a specialist in defence studies at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, said that it would ’soothe public concerns over the safety of trainees’.

He added that safety regulations here were already among the most stringent in the world and comparable to those of the military in the United States and Britain.

MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC and deputy chairman of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs Michael Palmer said the three-day time-out will allow the SAF to take stock, as medical conditions can be missed at medical check-ups and troops can be tired and make mistakes.

He added that it would be good to make public the findings of the three-day review to help assure parents whose sons are serving National Service.

joolin@sph.com.sg

jermync@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 13th June 2008

It may be cold comfort for some, but some molesters do get justice served on them - albeit a few. In such cases, it is usually very difficult for the victim to claim against the violator, as it’s usually a person’s words against another. Many a times, the violator gets away scot-free because there is simply insufficient evidence. At the same time, it may be a shameful thing that not many victims will want to make public - doing which may risk them being labelled, particularly from people who thinks that it takes 2 hands to clap. These group of people will probably feel that girls who are raped probably deserve it.

A recent post from a local blogger drew flames from many netizens, who copied and pasted the post in forums such as the SammyBoy and CNA forums. While some have expressed sympathy for the victim, many have called her names and insinuated that she deserved what she got. After all, she “only got touched” and not raped. One blogger has also noted that these are signs of deterioriation in the moral of the society - where people think that it’s the victim’s fault for leading the violator on.

If there’s any lesson to learn from, it’s probably to avoid putting oneself in a compromising position. While the victim may not necessarily “deserve it”, having herself (or himself) in vulnerable positions will only put her (or him) at a disadvantage. Claiming justice may be a tedious process - and some times difficult. This may even result in the violator claiming defamation against the victim. As for the molester in the article below, there were sufficient victims (sad to say that) and hence, evidence, against him to put him away for a long while.

A MOLESTER who preyed on more than 20 young girls and women in the Marsiling and Woodlands areas was packed off to jail for 14 years and ordered to be given 18 strokes of the cane on Thursday.

Mohammed Ismail Ariffin, 36, unemployed, pleaded guilty last month to 10 charges of outrage of modesty, aggravated molestation and insulting modesty between September 2006 and February this year.

His victims were between nine and 53.

A Community Court heard that Ismail, who suffered from mild mental retardation, would either touch the victim’s buttocks or smell their armpits to release himself.

The offences were committed at HDB lifts, staircase landings and even in the victims’ homes.

He was arrested on Feb 12. Fourteen other charges were taken into consideration.

His lawyer, Mr Noor Mohamed Marican, assigned by the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, said his behaviour was not normal.

Ismail, he said, was suffering from the adverse influence of taking Romilar pills - used mostly to suppress coughs.

Pleading for leniency, he urged Community Court judge James Leong not to impose a long sentence on Ismail but to send him for medical treatment and rehabilitative programme.

Ismail has previous convictions since 1991 for drug- and sexual-related offences. In 1996, he was givne six years and six strokes for aggravated molestation.

Judge Leong sentenced him to 14 years’ preventive detention and caning.  

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

I am surprised on how quickly the police admitted that the SOPs were not followed in the recent escape attempt by the 2 detainees, although I won’t know if they will take 4 hours to report the incident if they did manage to escape successfully. Then again, it’s easy to just blame the police officer (although I’d have to admit that it really reeks of negligence). Speaking of which, I wonder if any NS personnel is actually posted to the prison services? Or are they limited to just the armed forces, police force (excluding prison services) and SCDF?

Anyway, I am a little surprised that the Mas Selamat escape didn’t serve much as a wake-up call. If that didn’t, I wonder what will. Hmm…

A BREACH in procedure allowed two detainees to make an escape bid from the lock-up at the Subordinate Courts on Wednesday, said police, which will carry out a probe to see if there was any negligence involving the officers.

Although the two men were re-arrested swiftly after their dash to freedom, the lunchtime breakout attempt will again raise questions about complacency and readiness levels within the security forces, coming so soon after the escape of terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari in late February.

Commissioner of Police Khoo Boon Hui said in a statement issued at midnight: ‘We have a proper system to manage persons-in-custody. Though our officers have arrested the two men expeditiously, I am treating the matter seriously and have directed CID to investigate into the escape, including whether there was any negligence involving the officers.

‘Actions will be taken against those found to have not carried out their duties properly.’

The flight to freedom for the escaped detainees was short-lived. One of them did not make it out of the court building. He apparently tripped and fell near the security checkpoint at the court entrance and was pinned down by three uniformed officers and brought back to the lock-up.

The other man managed to get as far as the driveway of the nearby Furama Hotel about 100m away after leaping over a rope barrier and dashing out of the building, with a pack of security guards and cops in hot pursuit. He was caught and brought back to custody.

Police said the duo had appeared in Court on Wednesday’s morning for separate charges related to robbery with hurt. They were brought back to the lock-up to be transferred to the Queenstown Remand Prison and were placed in the same cell.

At about 1.45pm, a police officer opened the cell gate to give water to one of the men who had asked for it.

On opening the gate, the two men seized the opportunity to attack the officer and charged out. They continued to assault the police officer violently, punching and kicking him in the face and stomach, said the police statement.

While the Police officer was down on the floor, they made their way to a gate at the exit of the lock-up. They then pressed a buzzer to indicate for the gate to be opened.

Officer did not follow procedure
‘According to procedure, the police officer responding to the buzzer should verify the identity of the person via the CCTV before opening the gate. He failed to do so,’ said the statement.

‘He opened the gate without checking, thereby enabling the two men to make their way through a stairwell leading to the ground floor public area of the Subordinate Courts.’

An alert was raised and police officers were immediately deployed to seal off all exits.

Within 10 minutes of the escape, police officers spotted both escapees at the lobby and managed to subdue one of them just before the main entrance. The other tried to dash out of the Subordinate Courts. He was arrested after a short chase.

For voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant, the two men may be jailed up to seven years, fined, and caned.

They will also be charged for escape from legal custody, which carries a jail term of up to two years and fine, if convicted.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

I read the article slightly amused at how people will pay for something that they have not seen. I had been house-hunting recently, and I know that there’s no way I am going to pay deposit for some place that I have not seen. There’s too much risk involved - like whether there’s going to be da er long banging on my door (look out for traces or drops of red paint, or if the place has been newly painted), or whether there’s going to be leaky pipes (look out for fresh paint too), or if it’s going to be noisy (go there a few times at different times of the day). Of course, that’s a little exaggerated, but hey, I’m going to be staying here for quite a while, won’t I?

In short, don’t go for rushed deals, no matter how genuine (or how pissed) the person looks. Looks can be deceiving at many times and you may end up losing more than you gain. I should know it better now. Anyway, here’s something that you should look out for, courtesy of Mr Eric Cheng, Executive Director of HSR Property Group:

THINKING of renting a flat? To avoid falling prey to a rental scam, Mr Eric Cheng, executive director of HSR property group, suggests that tenants:

View the flat first to ensure it is in good condition.

Check that the landlord is the rightful owner by asking to see the conservancy charges bill.

Pay the deposit with a cheque and only after collecting the key personally. It will be easier to prove that payment was made.

Move in as soon as possible.

Engage a housing agent. Most established agencies refund deposits if anything goes wrong.

Of course, it’s entirely up to you if you’d like to hire a housing agent - since it usually entails a commission. However, do weigh the pros and cons and determine which is better for you. Oh, bring a friend along so that you can get a second opinion - and perhaps work on a back-out plan if the landlord or agent gets too pushy. =)

WITHOUT viewing the flat to be rented, 11 people handed over hundreds of dollars each in cash deposits to the owner of a Commonwealth Drive HDB flat, in exchange for a set of keys.

But when they turned up at the three-room flat, they found it locked. None of the keys worked and the landlord could no longer be contacted.

The 11 victims, six of whom are foreigners, lost $8,250 in total.

On Tuesday evening, police arrested a 46-year-old unemployed man. If found guilty of cheating, he could be jailed up to seven years and fined.

Police believe the first tenant was cheated in March, and that there are more victims who have not come forward.

Housing agents and prospective tenants would respond to newspaper advertisements offering the suspect’s flat for rent.

 He would meet the potential tenant, usually at a shopping centre, and hand over photocopies of documents including his identification card, as well as a set of two keys.

Making an excuse that he was in a rush, he would suggest that the tenant view the unit himself. Just before leaving, he would ask for a cash deposit ranging from $150 to $3,000.

Interior designer Rainer Lew, 36, was one of the 11 who handed over his money. He had met the man on Monday, a day before the suspect was nabbed.

‘I gave him $300 as a deposit. He didn’t strike me as suspicious. He even showed me his identity card which had an address that matched the unit he was renting out,’ said Mr Lew.

But when he visited the flat later, the gate was chained and padlocked. The door, which was unlocked, opened to show an unfurnished flat.

Police believe the man had an accomplice as he would sometimes meet his victims accompanied by another man whom he referred to as his brother.

They said they are closing in on this second man, and urged prospective tenants to be careful before putting down a deposit.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

Disclaimer: If you are reading this from ping.sg, the title *is misleading*! This post is really about a photo studio named “Naughty  by nature” and how they apparently coerced people into paying for their makeover photos. Alice wrote a post on it here some time in March 2008. Now, I’d try to be objective about the whole thing.

I received calls from them previously saying that there’s a free makeover of sorts. I didn’t go eventually because… I get paid to get my photos taken (sniggers a little), but that isn’t the main point. The main point is that people will have to know that there’s hardly any free lunch these days.  Of course, the ones mentioned here is not counted because they are really free. The idea behind such calls is really to get people to go down, get their pictures taken and they may not get the pictures they want because the main objective is really to sell it to them. Well, they might get one or two not-too-bad but perhaps not-too-nice looking pictures, but… that’s what you get for free, I guess. So, that’s on the end of the consumers.

Next, I’m going to talk about their tactics. If you are aware of the tactics used by slimming centers, you’d be familiar with psychological warfare tactics. I read that in some slimming centers, they strip you down to your birthday bathing suit and start commenting on how fat/ugly/wrinkled/unsightly* you are and start recommending you their products. Same theory, I guess, except that, according to the article, the studio probably tell you how nice you look and how wasteful it will be for the pictures to be deleted PERMANENTLY. Of course, there’s a chance that the pictures will be deleted but not cleared from the rubbish bin. So, it’s really psychological. However, if it’s true that the customers were prevented from leaving the place unless they purchase something, then technically, it’s unlawful because the studio will be detaining the customers by force. Then again, nothing can stop you from forcing and pushing your way out if you really want to. The customers are probably just pai seh lah.

Now, is it fair for the studio to deploy such free-photoshoot tactics to lure people into it. Well, I’d say it’s a fair game. Just like California Fitness. They call you up, tell you that there’s something free, then you’d have to prepare to lose some hours and perhaps some money. If you have skin as thick as a rhino, then you can just tell them with a straight face that you’d just want the free stuffs. Of course, service may be compromise, but hey, it’s a free lunch, isn’t it? =)

Have you been “nature by nature”-d?

* delete where applicable

THEY were promised free makeovers and photo shoots. Instead, the customers of a photo studio in Circular Road said that they were pressured into buying packages that cost up to $4,000.

The hard-sell from studio Naughty by Nature sparked dozens of complaints to Singapore’s consumer watchdog and eventually landed the company in court.

Yesterday, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) said that the company had agreed to change its sales pitch earlier this year.

Last September, Naughty by Nature had been temporarily barred by a district court from pushing pricey photo packages, Case said in a press release.

The consumer group had applied for the injunction after receiving 63 complaints about Naughty by Nature between 2005 and 2007, said Case executive director Seah Seng Choon.

Most of the complaints had been filed by women.

Mr Seah said that Naughty by Nature’s employees had once refused to let a customer leave the studio without buying a photo set. After staying for about four hours, the customer bought a package for about $3,000.

The customers got freebies, such as two photographs, only after they agreed to buy a package.

Co-owner of Naughty by Nature Bupendra Ramason defended his company’s sales pitch and said that the unhappy customers were in the minority.

‘I think they were shy people who were uncomfortable with our sales strategies. Most of our customers are families and we don’t have any problems with them,’ he said.

He added that, since the injunction, the studio has tried its best to abide by Case’s requests.

For example, sales presentations are now limited to only an hour when dealing with female customers.

The employees also give the two free photographs to the customers before the sales presentation.

Mr Ramason, 41, set up the studio in Circular Road in 2004 with business partner Raoul Martin Fenianos. He currently employs 90 staff members, of whom nine are full-time photographers.

A check on online forums and blogs showed that there were many customers who were unhappy with Naughty By Nature’s sales strategies.

One, 42-year-old Tan Ngiap Heng, told the Straits Times about being pressured to buy a $1,000 book of photographs after taking part in a photo shoot two years ago.

‘I felt that I was being blackmailed psychologically because they told me they would delete my photos immediately if I decided not to buy the package,’ he said.

He did not buy the package and subsequently made a complaint to Case.

Mr Ramason said that business had not been affected by the bad publicity.

Case and Naughty by Nature have agreed to settle disputes with the unhappy customers through an arbitration session chaired by a neutral third party.  

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008

2 detainees tried to do a Selamat by trying to escape from the custody at the courts yesterday. Fortunately for the police (but unfortunately for them), their freedom was shortlived. They were quickly taken back into custody and no one (well, except the poor policeman who opened the door to the cell) was hurt. According to the article, there seemed to be some form of negligence at the part of the police officer who opened the gate without looking at the CCTV. Police investigations are underway, but with the incident of Selamat’s escape still lingering in the air, it’s unlikely anyone will just get away with a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps it’s about time someone start looking into the SOPs? As for the detainee who assaulted the police officer, well, I guess that means more jail time for him. I wish them all the best in there.

TWO detainees escaped from custody at the Subordinate Courts yesterday at around lunchtime. But their flight to freedom was short-lived.

One man did not make it out of the building.

The half-dressed heavyset man apparently tripped and fell near the security checkpoint at the entrance of the court, where visitors are screened. Three uniformed officers pinned him down and he was back in custody.

The other man, who was of medium build and had a goatee, leapt over a rope barrier and dashed out of the building with a posse of security guards and cops in pursuit.

He got as far as the driveway of the nearby Furama Hotel, about 100m away, before he was taken down by a baton-wielding guard, said an eyewitness.

He was escorted back to the courts surrounded by more than 10 uniformed officers.

He was wearing the standard white T-shirt and brown trousers issued to remand prisoners. The other man, who was shirtless, wore similar trousers.

According to eyewitnesses, both men, who appeared to be in their 30s or 40s, were not handcuffed when they tried to escape.

In a statement last night, the police said the two men had appeared in court in the morning for separate charges related to robbery with hurt. They were brought back to the lock-up to be transferred to the Queenstown Remand Prison and were placed in the same cell.

At about 1.45pm, a police officer opened the cell gate to give water to one of the men at his request. As he opened the gate, the two men seized the opportunity to attack the officer and charged out, said the police statement.

They continued to assault the officer violently, punching and kicking him in the face and stomach. While he was down on the floor, they made their way to a gate at the exit of the lock-up.

They then pressed a buzzer for the gate to be opened.

According to procedure, the police officer responding to the buzzer should verify the identity of the person via the CCTV before opening the gate.

‘He failed to do so. He opened the gate without checking, thereby enabling the two men to make their way through a stairwell leading to the ground floor public area of the Subordinate Courts’, added the statement.

All the action was over in about 10 minutes, just before 2pm, and the public was not in danger, according to the police.

This is the second escape bid from the Subordinate Courts recently.

Last September, two men who were handcuffed together, slipped out from a ground-level courtroom. They ran up the stairs before falling 10m to the seventh-floor corridor.

One of them broke his hip, while the other hurt his right pubic area and had other injuries.

They were sentenced to jail and caning for various offences, including robbery with hurt and escape from legal custody.

Yesterday, the Commissioner of Police, Mr Khoo Boon Hui, said: ‘We have a proper system to manage persons-in-custody. Though our officers have arrested the two men expeditiously, I am treating the matter seriously and have directed CID to investigate the escape, including whether there was any negligence involving the officers. Action will be taken against those found to have not carried out their duties properly.’

For voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant, the two men may be imprisoned up to seven years, fined and/or caned. They also face charges for the escape attempt. If convicted, they may be imprisoned up to two years and fined.

selinal@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 12th June 2008