
There has been a resolution to the scandal that hit the Newton Circus Food Centre here in Singapore. I will begin by recapping the story. Last week a report came out the that a group of American tourist went to the hawker center at Newton Circus. They ordered 8 large Prawns and were charged S$239.00 which is about S$30 a prawn. Their total bill was S$491 at a outdoor hawker center where the average through Singapore is S$2 to S$3 a plate of food. This is a tourist attraction because it was features as one of the 1001 places to see before you die in the book of the similar title.
The stall owners were accused of overcharging and then intimidating the patrons in order to collect payment. This resulted in the patrons filing a formal complaint.
Another article ran on the 18th of March in the Straits Times which was an attempt to explain why the stall owners had not cheated anyone. It was reported that the tourist were served prawns weighing over 400 grams. And that the price for a prawn that size was warranted because it was rare. Also they denied the intimidating the patrons.
RESULTS:
The Singapore Government is quick to react. I have to commend them on that.
Channel News Asia reported that The National Environment Agency (NEA) said it had investigated the incident of overcharging of American Michael Rigby who was billed a total of S$491, including S$239 for eight tiger prawns.
The article went on to explain that Stall No. 43 (Tanglin’s Best BBQ Seafood Stall) at Singapore’s Newton Hawker Centre has had its licence suspended for three months for overcharging. And that the stall assistant involved in the incident will be barred from working at the Newton Food Centre for over a year.
My Comments:
I think the bottom line is the Stall owner failed to solve this problem when they had the chance. They probably could have made their case to the tourist but in the end maybe charge for one or two less prawns. It may had satified the tourist enough not to file a report and then this would never have built into such a big story. The tourist may have never came back but at least the bad taste that is lingering in the mind of everyone would not be there.
NEA decision was quick and reactive to the situation. Singapore is not about to allow negative press to stay on the front page expecially when everyone from Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Indonesia are fightin for every last tourist. My only complaint would be more of a question. Why was the stall worker banned longer than the stall owner? Shouldn't the stall owner be held more accountable for the actions of their employees?
This could be a cultural reaction to a problem by saying the main cause was the stall assistant. I would put forth that the stall owner of #43 was the major cause of the problem. First by not training properly. Second either not watching their operation or watching and not caring about how they did business. The Stall owner reaps the profit but the stall assistant only gets paid a portion of the windfall. If it was better to be a stall assistant then I too would be a stall assistant.


