Sanctuary 
Singaporean Apologies
I've read about 3 apologies by Singaporeans/Singaporean companies in the news recently, each handled in very different manners. The first is the extremely notorious set of apologies by Ms Wee Shu-Min on her post about Mr Derek Wee, MP Wee Siew Kim's for his daughter's 'elite post' on her 'private blog', and his apology for that apology a day later. The second is the not so popular, but almost as well publicised, apology by Candy Empire on its ex-policy of disallowing wheelchairs into their store. The third is an apology by Marks & Spencer on retracting their job offer to a candidate because they could not find a uniform to fit her.
As yet, the last apology has yet to make full page news, so I will include it here. Taken from The New Paper, 18 Nov 2006, page 23.
After reading all the apologies, I have to say the one from Marks & Spencer is, by far, the best. First and foremost, the company admits that they had made a mistake in assuming that they had a uniform the candidate could fit into in stock. Secondly, they explain that they did not insist the candidate keep to the terms of the 1 month contract she had signed because it would be better for her to be able to look for other jobs in the 2 weeks it would take for a uniform to be ready - i.e. they had the candidate's welfare in mind. And most importantly, a direct apology was made to the candidate.
Well, let's put it this way. The apology from M&S actually sounds sincere. (Word 'sound' here not used with bad connotations).
The apologies by the Wee father and daughter have been slammed all over the internet and the papers, and probably during friendly gatherings all over Singapore, and I've already written a post about it, so I won't bother to say too much about it here. Except to repeat the point that none of the apologies even seemed remotely geniune, and that it was rather evident that both parties did not care much about the people they were apologising to, and didn't even try to make it seem like they did.
I empathize with Candy Empire though. Their apology in the Straits Times on 7 Nov 2006, page H8 goes as follows.
Although this apology is nowhere near as sincere as the one from Marks & Spencer, I still feel that Singaporeans should give credit to Mr Abdul for at least making the effort. I definitely have nothing against the handicapped (even though I do use the handicapped toilets now and then to save time =P - see post), and I do feel that they should be viewed with sympathy and consideration. I, however, do understand why a store would ban wheelchairs from their premises (not that I agree with this policy). As it was reported in the Straits Times on 5 Nov 2006, the store said that they had such a policy because 'wheelchairs may hurt customers and damage property'.
While some people may view that as 'discrimination', I can totally see where the store's management is coming from. Imagine a customer in a wheelchair accidentally banging into another customer, running over another customer's foot or belongings (not actually sure if this is possible), or even worse, knocking someone down and causing such hurt that the person has to be sent to hospital. Who would bear the medical costs then? Surely it's unthinkable to request for an already disabled person pay for your hospital bills? (Well, at least with all the angry remarks I've read about people not sympathising with the handicapped, I guess that would be the case with most?) So would the store have to pay for the cost because they allowed someone in a wheelchair to enter? It can't possibly be the injured customer's fault can it? He IS hurt.
Then there would be the case where the store's property is being damaged by the wheelchair. I suppose if a couple of jars of candy got smashed, the store should put up with it - it's not like able-bodied customers are never clumsy and never knock over stuff in stores. But let's face it. A wheelchair can possibly do a lot more damage. And what if the wheelchair knocked over an entire shelf, and this shelf lands on someone, who would most likely get injured rather badly? Especially if that someone was a kid? If the person who knocked down the shelf was not handicapped, they'd likely have to pay for both the damages to store and the medical fees of the person who was injured. But a wheelchair-bound person knocking down the shelf seriously complicates matters.
So how IS this 'discrimination'? I don't really know. But I can tell you what I think 'discrimination' is. In the same article "Candy store's 'no wheelchair' policy upsets shoppers" in The Straits Times, 5 Nov 2006, 2 different attitudes towards wheelchairbound shoppers are reported.
Hmm. Try to entertain Ms Loh because she obviously has the money to spend, but give unhappy looks to Mr Shui because he's younger and possibly won't be giving them much business? Now THAT is what I call discrimination.
And Candy Empire's banner, although not done in the most tasteful of ways, certainly didn't deserve the feedback it got.
In their update in the Sunday Times, 12 Nov 2006, it was reported that Mr Abdul said that the sign 'had to be taken down because people were coming to the store to take pictures and ridiculing it on online forums'. An example of this ridicule can be found here on Xialanxue's blog, where she comments that 'Wee Siew Kim, Wee Shu Min and Vivocity's Candy Empire all have one thing in common - They REALLY need to hire some PR professionals.'
Yes, as Malcolm said, the sign does indeed indicate that the store was discriminating against the disabled, and yes, Malcolm, General Managers should have some PR skills. But Mr Abdul certainly isn't the store's HR manager (unlike Ms Ngooi of M&S), and I still think that his efforts to rectify the situation shouldn't be made a mockery out by so many Singaporeans. And as to comparing him to the MP Wee and his daughter, well, that's just really plain silly. Mr Abdul recognised that there was a problem with the management of the store, admitted that there was a problem, apologised for it, and attempted to fix it. He may not have done it in the best way possible, but at least he tried. I cannot say such a thing for the Wees. Tried to rectify the damage they caused? Maybe. But as to actually making a proper apology? I don't think so.
And yes, perhaps Candy Empire would be better off hiring some PR professionals, but I do believe that MPs have the services of PR professionals at their disposal. Hmm. Ok, maybe they don't. Then why DO we pay so much taxes?
As yet, the last apology has yet to make full page news, so I will include it here. Taken from The New Paper, 18 Nov 2006, page 23.
We refer to Ms Norbaieyah Ismail's letter and confirm that her friend was offered the job as a customer service assistant at Marks & Spencer.
However, it was for a temporary assignment of one month.
When the assignment was offered to her, the human resource personnel genuinely thought that Ms Norbaieyah's friend would be able to fit into the available uniform size. Unfortunately, it was not the case.
Given that the Marks & Spencer tailor would take two weeks to produce a new set of uniform, the human resource personnel felt that it would not be fair to hold the candidate back from other job opportunities that she may receive during the course of waiting for the uniform.
In addition, we would also like to seek Ms Norbaieyah's understanding that Marks & Spencer, being an international retail company, has very strict guidelines and policies - and definitely one which states that every Marks & Spencer employee has to adhere to a strict uniform code.
We regret and apologise if we have failed to clearly explain this to the candidate.
And we would like to reassure Ms Norbaieyah that the company does not practise discrimination of any kind in our employment policies.- Gloria Ngooi,
Human resource manager, Marks & Spencer
After reading all the apologies, I have to say the one from Marks & Spencer is, by far, the best. First and foremost, the company admits that they had made a mistake in assuming that they had a uniform the candidate could fit into in stock. Secondly, they explain that they did not insist the candidate keep to the terms of the 1 month contract she had signed because it would be better for her to be able to look for other jobs in the 2 weeks it would take for a uniform to be ready - i.e. they had the candidate's welfare in mind. And most importantly, a direct apology was made to the candidate.
Well, let's put it this way. The apology from M&S actually sounds sincere. (Word 'sound' here not used with bad connotations).
The apologies by the Wee father and daughter have been slammed all over the internet and the papers, and probably during friendly gatherings all over Singapore, and I've already written a post about it, so I won't bother to say too much about it here. Except to repeat the point that none of the apologies even seemed remotely geniune, and that it was rather evident that both parties did not care much about the people they were apologising to, and didn't even try to make it seem like they did.
I empathize with Candy Empire though. Their apology in the Straits Times on 7 Nov 2006, page H8 goes as follows.
We refer to your report "Candy store's 'no wheel-chair' policy upsets shoppers" (Sunday Times, Nov 5). We would like to clarify that people on wheel chairs are now alowed in Candy Empire shop at VivoCity since the removal of the sign last Thursday.
It is not a cosmetic change in our policy.
We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience caused to anyone who was offended by the sign.-Abdul Mohamed
General Manager
Candy Empire@VivoCity
Although this apology is nowhere near as sincere as the one from Marks & Spencer, I still feel that Singaporeans should give credit to Mr Abdul for at least making the effort. I definitely have nothing against the handicapped (even though I do use the handicapped toilets now and then to save time =P - see post), and I do feel that they should be viewed with sympathy and consideration. I, however, do understand why a store would ban wheelchairs from their premises (not that I agree with this policy). As it was reported in the Straits Times on 5 Nov 2006, the store said that they had such a policy because 'wheelchairs may hurt customers and damage property'.
While some people may view that as 'discrimination', I can totally see where the store's management is coming from. Imagine a customer in a wheelchair accidentally banging into another customer, running over another customer's foot or belongings (not actually sure if this is possible), or even worse, knocking someone down and causing such hurt that the person has to be sent to hospital. Who would bear the medical costs then? Surely it's unthinkable to request for an already disabled person pay for your hospital bills? (Well, at least with all the angry remarks I've read about people not sympathising with the handicapped, I guess that would be the case with most?) So would the store have to pay for the cost because they allowed someone in a wheelchair to enter? It can't possibly be the injured customer's fault can it? He IS hurt.
Then there would be the case where the store's property is being damaged by the wheelchair. I suppose if a couple of jars of candy got smashed, the store should put up with it - it's not like able-bodied customers are never clumsy and never knock over stuff in stores. But let's face it. A wheelchair can possibly do a lot more damage. And what if the wheelchair knocked over an entire shelf, and this shelf lands on someone, who would most likely get injured rather badly? Especially if that someone was a kid? If the person who knocked down the shelf was not handicapped, they'd likely have to pay for both the damages to store and the medical fees of the person who was injured. But a wheelchair-bound person knocking down the shelf seriously complicates matters.
So how IS this 'discrimination'? I don't really know. But I can tell you what I think 'discrimination' is. In the same article "Candy store's 'no wheelchair' policy upsets shoppers" in The Straits Times, 5 Nov 2006, 2 different attitudes towards wheelchairbound shoppers are reported.
1. Ms Sherena Loh, a wheelchair user, said this is the first time she has heard of a store openly banning wheelchairs. The 47-year-old senior manager said sales staff and shope owners usually try their best to accomodate her.
"They will even shift their furniture a little to make space for my wheel chair. If the place is too narrow, they'll bring out the items for me to choose," she said.
2. Aaron Shui, 14, who is wheelchair-bound, planned to buy some candy at the store with his family last weekend. ... Said his mother, Madam Molly Zhao, 47, a house wife: "At other stores, sales staff will just give us unhappy looks when we enter. But this is the first time I'm seeing such outright discrimination."
Hmm. Try to entertain Ms Loh because she obviously has the money to spend, but give unhappy looks to Mr Shui because he's younger and possibly won't be giving them much business? Now THAT is what I call discrimination.
And Candy Empire's banner, although not done in the most tasteful of ways, certainly didn't deserve the feedback it got.
In their update in the Sunday Times, 12 Nov 2006, it was reported that Mr Abdul said that the sign 'had to be taken down because people were coming to the store to take pictures and ridiculing it on online forums'. An example of this ridicule can be found here on Xialanxue's blog, where she comments that 'Wee Siew Kim, Wee Shu Min and Vivocity's Candy Empire all have one thing in common - They REALLY need to hire some PR professionals.'
Yes, as Malcolm said, the sign does indeed indicate that the store was discriminating against the disabled, and yes, Malcolm, General Managers should have some PR skills. But Mr Abdul certainly isn't the store's HR manager (unlike Ms Ngooi of M&S), and I still think that his efforts to rectify the situation shouldn't be made a mockery out by so many Singaporeans. And as to comparing him to the MP Wee and his daughter, well, that's just really plain silly. Mr Abdul recognised that there was a problem with the management of the store, admitted that there was a problem, apologised for it, and attempted to fix it. He may not have done it in the best way possible, but at least he tried. I cannot say such a thing for the Wees. Tried to rectify the damage they caused? Maybe. But as to actually making a proper apology? I don't think so.
And yes, perhaps Candy Empire would be better off hiring some PR professionals, but I do believe that MPs have the services of PR professionals at their disposal. Hmm. Ok, maybe they don't. Then why DO we pay so much taxes?
posted by Shelly at 5:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home