What really annoys me is when I come across someone refusing to perform a service when he has a duty to do so.
This morning when I read the papers, I came across a Forum Page letter in The Straits Times in which the writer, Wong Shi Shen, says that his insurance company refused to help him process an accident claim.
Here's the story for those of you who have missed it...
S'pore drivers at a disadvantage
"RECENTLY, I was involved in an accident with a Malaysian-registered car driven by a Malaysian motorist here. He and I agreed to lodge a police report and to submit our claims with our respective motor insurers.
But when I visited an authorised workshop of my insurer, Overseas Assurance Corporation (OAC), I was told that the workshop did not entertain claims against Malaysian drivers of Malaysian- registered cars because of the red tape involved. I was rebuffed by other similar workshops I called.
What was shocking was that the Malaysian driver managed to submit a claim against me. OAC informed me that it was increasing my premiums upon renewal because it had received a claim filed by the driver's Singapore workshop against me. The increase would be permanent if the claim succeeded.
When I asked OAC to process my claim because all other workshops had refused, OAC refused, stating that it was not a legal firm. I was given to understand that a Singapore motorist had to hire a lawyer to submit a claim for an accident in Singapore involving a Malaysian-registered car.
Till then, my impression was that one was covered for all accidents that happened on Singapore roads.
The irony must be obvious: Foreigners in a foreign-registered car can use Singapore workshops to make a claim for an accident against a local motorist in a Singapore-registered car plying Singapore roads.
Shouldn't the authorities ensure that the laws on our roads prioritise protection for Singapore motorists ahead of foreigners in foreign-registered vehicles?"
If what the writer says is true, I think the Monetary Authority of Singapore
should step in to put things right.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Despite her change, SQ keeps reverting to Anne Wong's old name
No one would blame frequent flyer Anne Wong if she were to develop a split personality. And reading about her recent experience with Singapore Airlines, our national airline appears to be partly responsible for her "disorder".
After her return from Hong Kong earlier this month, she sent this email to SQ on November 16:
"As you can see from my boarding pass stubs, I flew from SIN-HK (6 Nov 2011) and was Anne Wong Holloway.
"Then when I returned to Singapore yesterday I was Elizabeth Anne Wong all over again.
"Last night I printed out my boarding pass for tomorrow's flight to HKG from SIN and am Anne Wong Holloway -- this is enough to give me multi-personality disorder! Who am I?
"Also after printing out my boarding pass in HK, I got to the airport to check in my luggage and I was told that due to problems with the electronics/entertainment system I was moved from the seat I had picked out (somewhere in row 34, I think) to 31D.
"I thought to myself...this is most unusual as have found that no matter Business or Economy, one discovers the seats or the electronics are faulty only when on board. It impressed me no end that in such a big plane, SIA would have such spot-on, ahead-of-time, care-for-the-poor passenger fault reporting.
"However, I noticed during the flight that all the AISLE seats in the rows behind me were fully occupied. So obviously nothing was wrong with the electronics! I shall be wary when next time Singapore Airlines asks me to change my seat...
"In the meantime I hope that you will help me cure my multi-personality disorder."
If you have been following this blog, you would know that this was not the first time Anne had complained to the airline about the confusion over her name. She had the airline changed it to Anne Wong Holloway way back in 2005 but "for some unknown reason" it kept reverting back to her old name.
"This would be amusing if SIA was not our national carrier, but, say, India's," she messaged me.
After her return from Hong Kong earlier this month, she sent this email to SQ on November 16:
"As you can see from my boarding pass stubs, I flew from SIN-HK (6 Nov 2011) and was Anne Wong Holloway.
"Then when I returned to Singapore yesterday I was Elizabeth Anne Wong all over again.
"Last night I printed out my boarding pass for tomorrow's flight to HKG from SIN and am Anne Wong Holloway -- this is enough to give me multi-personality disorder! Who am I?
"Also after printing out my boarding pass in HK, I got to the airport to check in my luggage and I was told that due to problems with the electronics/entertainment system I was moved from the seat I had picked out (somewhere in row 34, I think) to 31D.
"I thought to myself...this is most unusual as have found that no matter Business or Economy, one discovers the seats or the electronics are faulty only when on board. It impressed me no end that in such a big plane, SIA would have such spot-on, ahead-of-time, care-for-the-poor passenger fault reporting.
"However, I noticed during the flight that all the AISLE seats in the rows behind me were fully occupied. So obviously nothing was wrong with the electronics! I shall be wary when next time Singapore Airlines asks me to change my seat...
"In the meantime I hope that you will help me cure my multi-personality disorder."
If you have been following this blog, you would know that this was not the first time Anne had complained to the airline about the confusion over her name. She had the airline changed it to Anne Wong Holloway way back in 2005 but "for some unknown reason" it kept reverting back to her old name.
"This would be amusing if SIA was not our national carrier, but, say, India's," she messaged me.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Feedback demon at Starhub
Avid tennis fan Irene Hoe was happily watching Starhub Channel 211's ATP 1000 Paris "live" on November 8 when she heard something annoying coming from the TV.
Almost immediately, she wrote to the telco's customer service to find out: "Why the hell is there LOUD background music being played during the match now?"
Four days later, Ms Hasda Yati of Starhub replied to thank her for the feeback. But what annoyed Irene was this sentence in her reply: "However, in order for us to feedback to the relevant department, we would appreciate if you would further elaborate on the incident such as the programme or time where the incident occured."
So, she shot back: "What can't you understand about Ch 211 and 'now'? And please note that 'feedback' is a noun and not a verb. Do NOT, I pray you, ask me to elaborate further."
Separately, the telco's Customer Care also sent Irene this standard reply on the same day: "We are currently experiencing higher than usual email volume and regret that we may take longer to attend to you. We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused."
Without missing a beat, Irene countered: "You are NEVER going to experience anything but 'higher than usual email volume' since you keep NOT dealing with issues and instead keep the flow going with ridiculous requests for 'more information' so that you can 'feedback' some voracious feedback demon.
"And please do NOT call me to get 'more information' and 'more details' of the 'incident'."
Two days later, obviously realising the mistake it had made in its earlier reply, another customer officer Ms Mabel Lim wrote to Irene:
"Thank you for your email of 12 November 2011. Please accept our
sincere apologies on the delay of our reply due to the high volume of
emails received.
"Rest assured that your feedback regarding Racquet Channel has been
shared with the relevant parties who will look into this. We
sincerely apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused you."
Irene's rejoinder: "I assure you that I am not assured by anything I am told by Starhub. I also assure you that I am in no need of any further assurance from Starhub. I am completely assured only of the certainty that absolutely nothing will be done."
This time, Irene sent a copy to its CEO, Neil Montefiore.
Let's hope he will be able to assure Irene that Starhub means action and not just words.
Almost immediately, she wrote to the telco's customer service to find out: "Why the hell is there LOUD background music being played during the match now?"
Four days later, Ms Hasda Yati of Starhub replied to thank her for the feeback. But what annoyed Irene was this sentence in her reply: "However, in order for us to feedback to the relevant department, we would appreciate if you would further elaborate on the incident such as the programme or time where the incident occured."
So, she shot back: "What can't you understand about Ch 211 and 'now'? And please note that 'feedback' is a noun and not a verb. Do NOT, I pray you, ask me to elaborate further."
Separately, the telco's Customer Care also sent Irene this standard reply on the same day: "We are currently experiencing higher than usual email volume and regret that we may take longer to attend to you. We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused."
Without missing a beat, Irene countered: "You are NEVER going to experience anything but 'higher than usual email volume' since you keep NOT dealing with issues and instead keep the flow going with ridiculous requests for 'more information' so that you can 'feedback' some voracious feedback demon.
"And please do NOT call me to get 'more information' and 'more details' of the 'incident'."
Two days later, obviously realising the mistake it had made in its earlier reply, another customer officer Ms Mabel Lim wrote to Irene:
"Thank you for your email of 12 November 2011. Please accept our
sincere apologies on the delay of our reply due to the high volume of
emails received.
"Rest assured that your feedback regarding Racquet Channel has been
shared with the relevant parties who will look into this. We
sincerely apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused you."
Irene's rejoinder: "I assure you that I am not assured by anything I am told by Starhub. I also assure you that I am in no need of any further assurance from Starhub. I am completely assured only of the certainty that absolutely nothing will be done."
This time, Irene sent a copy to its CEO, Neil Montefiore.
Let's hope he will be able to assure Irene that Starhub means action and not just words.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Silkair flight not so smooth
We are back from our holiday in Jiuzhaizuo/Chengdu and I would like to give an update on the service that we received from Silkair.
The flight up to Chengdu was pretty pleasant. The business class crew was helpful and efficient.
One notable incident that impressed me was when the crew allowed an old man from Economy to use the Business class toilet. Otherwise he would have to walk all the way to the back of the plane to ease himself.
My choice for lunch -- fish and noodles -- turned out to be a pleasant surprise. It tasted good! But my friends who opted for the chicken and rice were disappointed.
Well, I guess it was the luck of the draw. Who's to know what to expect from airline food. You just do not get consistency.
However, I would still give a passing mark overall for our flight MI 934 to Chengdu.
The return journey was a different story altogether. It started off badly. When I tried to check in my wife for her economy flight online, I failed miserably. This despite a phone alert from the airline a day earlier asking us to do so.
Silkair's position on its website was specific -- it said in a statement in red that online check-in was not available and that passengers had to do it at the airport. WHAT A WASTE OF OUR TIME!!!
At the airport, eight of our travelling companions who were on Business class, thought we would have an easier time. Unfortunately, it was not so.
We discovered Silkair had put a trainee to man the Business check-in desk. It probably thought that the number of passengers was much fewer and therefore they did not forsee any problems.
However, it was not to be. By the time the trainee finished checking in the business class passengers, ALL the Economy passengers had already been cleared. And there must have been at least 100 of them.
What was more embarassing was that two of our friends, also on Business class, had to amble over to the Economy desk to check in, in order to speed things up.
On board, the crew was, as usual, pleasant and obliging. But the dinner was horrendous. My fish and fat beehoon was just inedible and I had to tell the stewardess to take it away.
I discovered later that I was not the only one who found the food bad. My friend Ceci thought so too. She said the stewardess could not even get the menu right when it was read to her.
She was told that one of the two dishes offered was chicken with pasta when it turned out to be something else. The stewardess later apologised to her for making the mistake.
As the return flight was delayed by 30 minutes and we finally got home past midnight, I guess there were at least two growling tummies that needed to be fed that night.
The flight up to Chengdu was pretty pleasant. The business class crew was helpful and efficient.
One notable incident that impressed me was when the crew allowed an old man from Economy to use the Business class toilet. Otherwise he would have to walk all the way to the back of the plane to ease himself.
My choice for lunch -- fish and noodles -- turned out to be a pleasant surprise. It tasted good! But my friends who opted for the chicken and rice were disappointed.
Well, I guess it was the luck of the draw. Who's to know what to expect from airline food. You just do not get consistency.
However, I would still give a passing mark overall for our flight MI 934 to Chengdu.
The return journey was a different story altogether. It started off badly. When I tried to check in my wife for her economy flight online, I failed miserably. This despite a phone alert from the airline a day earlier asking us to do so.
Silkair's position on its website was specific -- it said in a statement in red that online check-in was not available and that passengers had to do it at the airport. WHAT A WASTE OF OUR TIME!!!
At the airport, eight of our travelling companions who were on Business class, thought we would have an easier time. Unfortunately, it was not so.
We discovered Silkair had put a trainee to man the Business check-in desk. It probably thought that the number of passengers was much fewer and therefore they did not forsee any problems.
However, it was not to be. By the time the trainee finished checking in the business class passengers, ALL the Economy passengers had already been cleared. And there must have been at least 100 of them.
What was more embarassing was that two of our friends, also on Business class, had to amble over to the Economy desk to check in, in order to speed things up.
On board, the crew was, as usual, pleasant and obliging. But the dinner was horrendous. My fish and fat beehoon was just inedible and I had to tell the stewardess to take it away.
I discovered later that I was not the only one who found the food bad. My friend Ceci thought so too. She said the stewardess could not even get the menu right when it was read to her.
She was told that one of the two dishes offered was chicken with pasta when it turned out to be something else. The stewardess later apologised to her for making the mistake.
As the return flight was delayed by 30 minutes and we finally got home past midnight, I guess there were at least two growling tummies that needed to be fed that night.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Hardly a great way to fly!!!!
It may still be promoted as "A great way to fly" but my confidence in our airline is very fast diminishing each time I go into its revamped website to do a booking or to confirm a flight.
It happened again this morning when I spent 45 minutes trying to confirm my flight and that of my wife.
I had really no problem when I logged into Singapore Airlines' website and confirmed my business class seat. But when I tried to do the same for my wife, I just could not do it.
Was it because hers was a redemption ticket for an economy seat? Surely SQ must be totally out of its mind to even think of doing such a thing, I told myself.
I decided I should find out. But the difficulty I had in locating the contact number made me think that SQ does not encourage its customers to speak to its officers.
I finally managed to get the number and got through to a woman who spoke with a very strong Indian accent. She said her name was Ruchira, confirming at the same time that she was speaking from a call centre, which she described as "a commercial desk".
When I told her about my problem, she tried to check but could not enlighten me. However, she gave me a number to call.
I did and got through to another woman, Zaza. She was helpful but, like her colleague, was not able to offer a reason. Knowing that I was getting exasperated, she said she would transfer me to another colleague who should be able to help.
When Shamin came on the line, I repeated my problem and again was made to wait while he went to check. He did not give an answer when I asked him whether the problem arose because of the redemption ticket.
He asked to try logging on to the Silkair website to get my wife's ticket confirmed.
My question is, why didn't they tell me this in the first place?
As I was late for a lunch appointment, I decided that I would try the Silkair website upon my return. Curiously, just as I left my house, SQ sent an email alert to ask that I check in through the Silkair website.
I have since done that and succeeded in confirming my wife's ticket. But I am still not clear why I could do it on the SQ website and she could not!!!! Would SQ blame it on its troublesome, revamped website? I hope not.
But the confirmation issue was not the only thing that got me hot under the collar this morning. Something else I saw on the Silkair website made me blow my top.
More than two months ago when we did our Chengdu bookings, I wanted to mae a seat selection for my wife. But I could not because SQ said the sector was operated by its partner airline and no seat selection was allowed.
At that time, August 8 to be exact, I found the practice a bit strange. When I called the Silkair office later to inquire, an officer named Vera told me that the seat selection service had been stopped. She could not offer any reason for the action.
This morning, when I logged on to the Silkair website to confirm the ticket, to my surprise, a message flashed across the screen to say: "Please be advised that seat selection may be limited on a fully-booked flight."
Wow, what a revelation!!! So there was in fact seat selection, but why was I told otherwise on August 8??? SQ could not have changed its mind between then and now.
I cannot wait for SQ's response to this mystery. Stay tune...
It happened again this morning when I spent 45 minutes trying to confirm my flight and that of my wife.
I had really no problem when I logged into Singapore Airlines' website and confirmed my business class seat. But when I tried to do the same for my wife, I just could not do it.
Was it because hers was a redemption ticket for an economy seat? Surely SQ must be totally out of its mind to even think of doing such a thing, I told myself.
I decided I should find out. But the difficulty I had in locating the contact number made me think that SQ does not encourage its customers to speak to its officers.
I finally managed to get the number and got through to a woman who spoke with a very strong Indian accent. She said her name was Ruchira, confirming at the same time that she was speaking from a call centre, which she described as "a commercial desk".
When I told her about my problem, she tried to check but could not enlighten me. However, she gave me a number to call.
I did and got through to another woman, Zaza. She was helpful but, like her colleague, was not able to offer a reason. Knowing that I was getting exasperated, she said she would transfer me to another colleague who should be able to help.
When Shamin came on the line, I repeated my problem and again was made to wait while he went to check. He did not give an answer when I asked him whether the problem arose because of the redemption ticket.
He asked to try logging on to the Silkair website to get my wife's ticket confirmed.
My question is, why didn't they tell me this in the first place?
As I was late for a lunch appointment, I decided that I would try the Silkair website upon my return. Curiously, just as I left my house, SQ sent an email alert to ask that I check in through the Silkair website.
I have since done that and succeeded in confirming my wife's ticket. But I am still not clear why I could do it on the SQ website and she could not!!!! Would SQ blame it on its troublesome, revamped website? I hope not.
But the confirmation issue was not the only thing that got me hot under the collar this morning. Something else I saw on the Silkair website made me blow my top.
More than two months ago when we did our Chengdu bookings, I wanted to mae a seat selection for my wife. But I could not because SQ said the sector was operated by its partner airline and no seat selection was allowed.
At that time, August 8 to be exact, I found the practice a bit strange. When I called the Silkair office later to inquire, an officer named Vera told me that the seat selection service had been stopped. She could not offer any reason for the action.
This morning, when I logged on to the Silkair website to confirm the ticket, to my surprise, a message flashed across the screen to say: "Please be advised that seat selection may be limited on a fully-booked flight."
Wow, what a revelation!!! So there was in fact seat selection, but why was I told otherwise on August 8??? SQ could not have changed its mind between then and now.
I cannot wait for SQ's response to this mystery. Stay tune...
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Heidi gets a re-contract fee waiver from Singtel finally
Undergrad Heidi Tan has reported good news from Singtel. The telco has agreed to waive the re-contract fee which it wanted to impose after she had to get a new phone to replace the one that was pickpocketed (see earlier post, Pickpocket takes Heidi's mobile; telco penalises her.)
Heidi was obviously upset when the telco told her about the penalty. She wrote to me about a week ago and her story was posted in my blog. I also informed Singtel about it.
Things moved pretty fast after that. The telco contacted me to ask for Heidi's contact as she had used her Chinese name in her contract.
The two parties eventually got together to resolve her problem. Last night, a delighted Heidi emailed me to say:
"Finally, we have resolved all the issues today. She (the telco's customer service officr) said that she has updated the system to waive my re-contract fee, as a gesture of goodwill. This was delivered as promised upon receiving my police report. I have it in email, so I guess that means it is in black and white.
"Hooray, I am so happy!"
Heidi made a police report after she was pickpocketed at Raffles City . But when she went to Singtel to get a replacement phone, she was told that she would only be eligible for the 21 months' upgrade from 6 June 2012. And under the 12 months' upgrade programme, the top-up charge of $300 is payable.
Singtel had told her: "In view of the price of the handsets sold to customers upon upgrade, we seek your kind understanding that we are not able to waive the top-up charge.
"Our record indicates that the line has an outstanding two years' contract which will expire on 8 Sept 2012. If the line is ceased, the gradated penalty of the set is payable."
Well, I am glad that the telco finally acceded to her request for the fee waiver. Bouquet for Singtel for being flexible and Heidi for not giving up.
Heidi was obviously upset when the telco told her about the penalty. She wrote to me about a week ago and her story was posted in my blog. I also informed Singtel about it.
Things moved pretty fast after that. The telco contacted me to ask for Heidi's contact as she had used her Chinese name in her contract.
The two parties eventually got together to resolve her problem. Last night, a delighted Heidi emailed me to say:
"Finally, we have resolved all the issues today. She (the telco's customer service officr) said that she has updated the system to waive my re-contract fee, as a gesture of goodwill. This was delivered as promised upon receiving my police report. I have it in email, so I guess that means it is in black and white.
"Hooray, I am so happy!"
Heidi made a police report after she was pickpocketed at Raffles City . But when she went to Singtel to get a replacement phone, she was told that she would only be eligible for the 21 months' upgrade from 6 June 2012. And under the 12 months' upgrade programme, the top-up charge of $300 is payable.
Singtel had told her: "In view of the price of the handsets sold to customers upon upgrade, we seek your kind understanding that we are not able to waive the top-up charge.
"Our record indicates that the line has an outstanding two years' contract which will expire on 8 Sept 2012. If the line is ceased, the gradated penalty of the set is payable."
Well, I am glad that the telco finally acceded to her request for the fee waiver. Bouquet for Singtel for being flexible and Heidi for not giving up.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Daily dose of boo-n-bouquets
While reading the papers this morning, I was both heartened and saddened by some of the reports regarding the care for service in Singapore.
However, that gave me an idea to start a daily review of the cheerful and not-so-cheerful things that are happening around us (on condition that I am not away. ). So, here goes:
BOUQUET to Changi General Hospital for treating four-year-old American Julian Hanusz for a cut on his forehead. His father, Mark, was so impressed not only with the service but the fee ($85) as well. He wrote a letter to the Forum Page to express his gratitude.
Mark says "tears welled up in my eyes" because he had been charged $16,000 at the Mount Elizabeth Hospital for a "minor knee injury". He did not say when this took place.
They were going home after a holiday here when the boy had the accident at the airport.
BOO-QUET to SMRT for planning to phase out its fleet of 15 London cabs when their eight-year licences expire. This will deprive or restrict many disabled people who are wheelchair-bound commuters from getting around.
I wonder whether SMRT has tried talking to the Land Transport Authority to resolve the issue which is basically a question of profitability.
I also wonder what has happened to its Corporate Social Responsiblity!!!!
BOO-QUET to Samsung for mishandling a customer's phone when it was sent in for servicing. When account executive Nio Jian Qiang got it back last week, he found a stranger's private files in his phone.
Apparently, somebody else's miccroSD card was left in his phone. According to Samsung, the culprit was a former technician who had put in the card for testing.
The mystery is that the card was from a phone that was reported lost by a schoolboy in an Internet cafe in July. Samsung is investigating.
BOUQUET to National University Hospital and four other agencies for coming up with a scheme that takes community elderly care a big step forward.
Called the Singapore Programme for Integrated Care for the Elderly (Spice), the scheme, launched yesterday, brings service to the old folks' homes. For example, these people are given their baths and meals.
At the moment, most rehabilitation centres do not serve such people outside their premises.
The other four agencies involved in the project are: voluntary welfare group Sathya Sai Social Service, the Agency for Integrated Care, and two private medical groups --- Frontier Healthcare, which runs a chain of family clinics, and geriatricians from the Agewell Artsz Medical Group.
However, that gave me an idea to start a daily review of the cheerful and not-so-cheerful things that are happening around us (on condition that I am not away. ). So, here goes:
BOUQUET to Changi General Hospital for treating four-year-old American Julian Hanusz for a cut on his forehead. His father, Mark, was so impressed not only with the service but the fee ($85) as well. He wrote a letter to the Forum Page to express his gratitude.
Mark says "tears welled up in my eyes" because he had been charged $16,000 at the Mount Elizabeth Hospital for a "minor knee injury". He did not say when this took place.
They were going home after a holiday here when the boy had the accident at the airport.
BOO-QUET to SMRT for planning to phase out its fleet of 15 London cabs when their eight-year licences expire. This will deprive or restrict many disabled people who are wheelchair-bound commuters from getting around.
I wonder whether SMRT has tried talking to the Land Transport Authority to resolve the issue which is basically a question of profitability.
I also wonder what has happened to its Corporate Social Responsiblity!!!!
BOO-QUET to Samsung for mishandling a customer's phone when it was sent in for servicing. When account executive Nio Jian Qiang got it back last week, he found a stranger's private files in his phone.
Apparently, somebody else's miccroSD card was left in his phone. According to Samsung, the culprit was a former technician who had put in the card for testing.
The mystery is that the card was from a phone that was reported lost by a schoolboy in an Internet cafe in July. Samsung is investigating.
BOUQUET to National University Hospital and four other agencies for coming up with a scheme that takes community elderly care a big step forward.
Called the Singapore Programme for Integrated Care for the Elderly (Spice), the scheme, launched yesterday, brings service to the old folks' homes. For example, these people are given their baths and meals.
At the moment, most rehabilitation centres do not serve such people outside their premises.
The other four agencies involved in the project are: voluntary welfare group Sathya Sai Social Service, the Agency for Integrated Care, and two private medical groups --- Frontier Healthcare, which runs a chain of family clinics, and geriatricians from the Agewell Artsz Medical Group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)