Local News

Singtel customer Adrian Lok was outraged after finding out the expensive iPhone X 256 GB that he bought from the Singtel website was actually an old refurbished phone. Mr Lok only discovered this shocking fraud when he went down to Apple Orchard and it was verified by the staff that the phone in his possession was already activated earlier in Jan 2018. 

Despite Mr Lok spending hours trying to get a satisfactory resolution from Singtel, he faced numerous roadblocks and uncooperative customer service operators. With no recourse in sight, Adrian was forced to make a public complaint about Singtel's fraudulent business practices and their terrible customer service recovery. 

Below are important excerpts of Adrian's complaint. 

"renewed my contract with Singtel on 12 Aug 2018 and gotten a IPhoneX 256GB Silver edition from Singtel Online Sales 65383833 and picked up the IPhoneX 256GB from Toa Payoh PopStation on 14 Aug 2018. I have opened up the box on 17 Aug 2018 and found the phone display has a defect as shown on the picture. I called up 653838388 and was told Singtel could not do the exchange and wanted me to bring down to Apple Shop.

Made my way to Apple Orchard and was informed that my phone was not a brand new phone as I have claimed and therefore could not do the exchange with me. Provided me the documentation proof Genius Bar to show that the phone I have gotten from Singtel was activated on 31 Jan 2018 and it is definitely not a new phone and therefore I have to deal with Singtel."

If you wish to read the entire complaint, see the original post appended. 

In this day and age, is it very difficult to translate a message? Or do people have no heart in correctly communicating a MP's visit to his residents? 

We already owe much to minority communities in Singapore, but it turns out that some careless grassroots people just can't do their jobs right. Of all things, they had to screw up a translation. Let's give them a applause for their level of fail.

"We Singaporeans have to understand something very clear. Sir Stamford Raffles was a multi lingual person when he founded and brought Singapore forward.

Author of the book Crazy Rich Asians which was adapted into a box office hit, Kevin Kwan, is wanted by Singapore for failing to register for NS in 1990. Kevin Kwan is a Singaporean born author who moved to the United States at the age of 11. Kevin Kwan later applied to renounce his citizenship twice, but was rejected due to not serving NS. 

Kevin Kwan could be facing three years of jail if he returns to Singapore. MINDEF claims that they have sent letters to his overseas address. But he has still failed to register for NS. MINDEF also claimed that he also didn't have the right permit for a long term stay overseas. 

Kevin Kwan has yet to make a response to MINDEF's statements. 

Citizens who avoid NS by moving overseas can face charges under the Enlistment Act which includes penalties such as fines of up to S$10,000 and imprisonment of up to three years if they ever return to Singapore.

Do you think Kevin Kwan deserves to be charged when he moved away since he was 11?

Is it better to volunteer just for the sake of it or not volunteer at all? Apparently some people think needy Singaporeans are a joke.

A volunteer from Crisis Centre Singapore was captured on video for making fun of disabled, needy Singaporeans. According to its Facebook page, Crisis Centre Singapore is a shelter for homeless people. It is to much surprise that a volunteer, who is supposed to be helping them move on with their lives, thought it was a joke to mock them.

In the video, he twisted and bent parts of his limbs to imitate someone who is not very capable of walking. He purposely limped in what he thought was a "funny" way and pointed to his volunteering brochures. The worst of it all? They were laughing. Whoever recorded the video should not be spared from shame as she obviously found it a joke too.

What made them think it is ok to tease needy Singaporeans? If those poor homeless people are a joke, why do they bother volunteering? Why would they do such a stupid thing as to take a video and upload it on the Internet? Do they know no shame?

It is sad that they have tarnished the reputation of the voluntary organisation who has clarified that it is an isolated incident. Hopefully it will rise up, prove people wrong and help more needy Singaporeans. 

To the volunteers who insulted the needy: Don't bother helping. Look at your shameful actions and help yourself first. Good intentions? Oh please, who will believe?

Singaporean netizen Hazrul provided an excellent summary on the common misconceptions about dogs in Islam. He provided detailed explanations for both Muslims and non-Muslims, and provided religious evidence to back up his words. In short, Hazrul explained that Islam is meant to be simple and hoped people would not over-complicate this matter. At the end of the day, Hazrul believes it is all about hygiene and we should practice good hygiene practices regardless of the animal we touch. 

Some useful excerpts for our readers who do not wish to read everything. 

"For Muslims, you decide what is best for you. No one can say this is incorrect because there's flexibility to every situation. Islam is meant to be simple. But Islam also says dogs are God's creation. Treat it with kindness. So if a Muslim touches a dog, it's perfectly fine guys. No one has their madhab printed on their forehead. Neither does everyone follow madhab strictly."

"For non-Muslims, the Malays don't hate dogs. Islam doesn't hate dogs."

"For both. Don't get triggered because of a dog lah. There are so many beautiful and positive stories about dogs in the Quran and Hadith. The common ground is to treat dogs with kindness because the dog is mentioned in the Quran as loyal and loving animals, and mentioned in various hadeeth that Allah pardons your sins if you treat a dog with kindness.

Also, wash your hands before and after touching any animal, even your pet cat. Cat cafes practice this. Hygiene is what all this hoo hah was all about anyway. It’s just good hygiene guys!"

If you rather read the explanation for yourself, check out Hazrul's helpful Facebook post. 

Of late, more and more citizens have been getting onto e-scooters. Which of course leads to more accidents. Especially when they don't follow the rules and regulations. But when an accident does occur, the person at fault should take responsibility and make sure the victim is alright. 

Netizen Esmond's daughter 3.5 years old met with an accident. The rider didn't take responsibility and insisted that it is their fault for being in his way. Read his full post below:

"This escooter knock down my daughter (3.5 years old) while we walking on the pedestrian walkway along Pasir Ris Drive 3 (outside downtown) on 18 Aug 2018 around 2145 hrs and never even stop nor say sorry. He stopped only after I shouted for him to stop.