The messy limit to tray returning

Sep 29, 2012

[Another excuse-making lazy Singaporean!]

LET'S get real ("Tray-return campaigns have worked before" by the Singapore Kindness Movement; Monday).

How do you return trays for "messy" meals such as chilli crab, bak kut teh and fish head curry?

[Riiiight! Lots of Hawker centre stalls sell Chilli Crab, and Fish Head Curry.]

There is no doubt that the tray-return campaign had worked and is successful in certain places like school cafetarias, army camps, McDonald's outlets and the foodcourt at Ikea.

But in all these establishments, the foods sold or catered are simple dishes like noodles and rice, or just finger food like burgers, chicken wings and french fries.

These are foods that do not generate a lot of waste like bones and gravy.

I do not want to sound pessimistic or negative. [Try harder! You're failing miserably!] But from my observation, the tray-return system is not so easily implementable in establishments where messy food is on the menu.

These items generate a lot of food waste, and woe betide the operators who want their customers to clear their soiled crockery and food waste after their sumptuous meals.

[Most of these stalls are either zichar stalls or restaurants. Yes. Maybe for these, the stall operators have an incentive and a vested interest in keeping their high-value (or higher value) customers happy. Or for operational and logistical efficiency, they could or should clean up after their customers? First of all, it is tray return. If nothing else leave your food waste (bones, bowls of leftover gravy, etc) within your tray. Return tray with everything on it. Second, maybe it's time to learn how to eat with a little more decorum and keep things neat instead of spraying your bones and gravy all over the place?]
The customers will either go to another outlet, or the restaurant floors will be covered with food waste and gravy.

For similar reasons, the campaign has not been successful in hawker centres.

[No. Not similar at all. So it would seem that all your arguments above are for non-hawker centres?]

There is a need to look into the prerequisites for a successful campaign this time round. It a waste of funds to relaunch it if no modification is made.

For the campaign to be successfully implemented, especially in hawker centres and foodcourts, the operators have to restrict the food items that can be sold in the establishments.

So, chilli crab, fish head curry, bak kut teh, cockles, clams and food that generate messy waste should be banned in hawker centres earmarked for the campaign. But it will not be easy to enforce a ban on the types of food that can be sold in existing hawker centres without attracting a backlash.

[No. No. No. You are solving the wrong problem. Messy, bone-spitting, gravy spraying, soup-spilling, excuse-making, lazy-farkers who do not reduce their mess or return their trays should not be allowed to eat at hawker centres.]

Hence, the relevant authorities should enforce it and the tray-return system in the new hawker centres that are being built over the next few years.

Soh Ah Yuen

[Stupid argument. Sets up a false premise, unrealistic assumptions and then concludes it cannot be done. As good as arguing that car park space is too small for buses and lorries and so parking spaces should be made larger.

So his argument literally is, I'm a messy eater! I love eating messy food! The messier the better! This new rule discriminates against lovers of messy food!

Stop making excuses.

Update: The letter below is written by a better person than me. Or he puts his point across in a non-confrontation (or at least less confrontational than me) manner. Yes, we cannot pretend to be "job-creators" when we are just being messy, inconsiderate slobs.]


Oct 20, 2012

 

Cleaners picking up trays is not the answer

 

 

I disagree with Benjy Kip, who wrote the letter Pay 10 Cents For A Cleaner To Pick Up Tray (Life!, Oct 13). Graciousness in the form of keeping tables clean for the next person should not deprive cleaners of their jobs.

They will still be needed to wipe dirty tables and take soiled dishes to the washing area. Creating messy tables to ensure jobs for unskilled people is a step backwards in building a gracious society.

Let us be more creative in solving this ungracious and unhygienic practice at hawker centres instead of resisting change to anti-social habits. Employing more cleaners is not the answer.

Just visit any hawker centre during peak hours and on Sunday mornings, and you will notice that the cleaners cannot keep pace with the fast turnover of customers.

Lim Jit Chaing

Ferrari crash: Regulator should step in

Sep 18, 2012


I AGREE with Mr Abbas Vakharia ("Fatal Ferrari crash: Insurer's stance cause for consumer concern"; last Saturday).

AXA's insurance policy clearly states that it covers a motor vehicle that is accidentally damaged by the operation of several named perils, including "collision".

But it does have a clause stating that the policy does not cover "any wilful act and/or wilful negligence" of the insured or an authorised driver.

A "wilful act" means that the Ferrari driver intended to collide with the taxi and even take his own life. While the driver was reckless, I cannot imag(in)e that he had intended to cause the collision.

I hope that the Insurance Commissioner's office will discuss this issue with AXA and clarify if its stand is justified, based on the circumstances.

Consumers need to be assured that insurance companies will act fairly in meeting their obligations.

Special attention is required from the regulator, as motor insurance is compulsory by law.


Tan Kin Lian
President
Financial Services Consumer Association

[I respect Mr Tan's expertise and experience in the insurance industry and value his contribution and input on this matter. However, while he is right to say that a "wilful act" would imply that the driver of the Ferrari intended to crash and die is an unreasonable assumption, he has unfortunately ignored the second part which is "wilful negligence", and exaggerated the first.  


In this case, there was probably "wilful negligence" on the part of the driver who should have known that going at more than twice (and maybe even 3 times) the speed limit was dangerous. The fact that the car sped through a red light about 4 seconds after the lights had turned red was eitther a wilful act (he intentionally ran the red light), or wilful negligence (he didn't see the red light). And at the speed he was going, either was dangerously fatal.  


The larger question is why would the insurance company do this?   Of course to save money for the company.   And if the driver were a poor man with no money and the victims needed the compensation, this would be a travesty.


But the driver was not poor and his estate can pay, and making his estate pay is better justice and better disincentive.   What this means is that in future if any other owner of supercars were to drive as recklessly with wilful disregard for safety or rules or the lives of others, their insurance company with not cover their recklessness. They or the family they leave behind will pay for their recklessness. And this should sound a warning to other supercar owners.   Mr Tan is right to be concerned, but he should also see the larger picture.]

The cost of clearing a tray ...

From Chiew York Hun

TODAYONLINE

Sep 07, 2012

I disagree with the opinion in the letter "No excuses please, just clear your trays" (Aug 31) from two perspectives.

First, the comparison with the police and doctors is flawed. The police would never encourage citizens to break the law and a doctor would never jeopardise his patients' health just to keep their jobs, whereas a food and beverage business would always encourage people to patronise.

Manpower and operating costs such as for cleaning services would have been taken into account in the price a customer pays. It is facetious to view tray return as a social grace when it is a paid-for service.

For instance, is it ungracious to have chambermaids make the beds in hotel rooms? Would one insist that it is social grace to refresh the room for the next guest?

Second, those employed to clear trays are often unskilled elderly with little chance to "elevate" their job. Clearing trays, wiping tables and washing dishes are critical processes that must go on simultaneously to maximise patron turnover.

Therefore, either there is separate manpower to do the wiping and washing or these elderly staff are also expected to do them. In any case, if customers start clearing their trays, it would reduce workload.

What could that mean other than a manpower cut in a profit-driven business obsessed with productivity and efficiency?

Asking customers to clear their trays benefits only the F&B company's bottom line and not other customers, as people are already employed to do that at a cost worked into the prices we pay. More importantly, these employees are a group who would have difficulty getting a job elsewhere. It is an irony that one deemed as gracious is endangering the livelihood of some needy elderly.

[Only a Singaporean can rationalise laziness and inconsideration with logic surpassed only by self-righteous indignation that anyone would dare suggest that he should clear his own table. He should hire someone to wipe his ass. Hey! Think of all the jobs that would create for the poor uncles and aunties with no better skills.]