How Compliant Singaporeans Have Become!
-
Aiyoh, GV is the worst. They have at least 20 mins of non-stop ads- it's so long, it's borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnng.
My friend even fell asleep during that 20 min interval. -
the systems is setup not for the people or for the good of the public. The systems in sg is to benefit a small number of certain people
-
you make life hard for the low level employees only. nothing will change.Originally posted by margarita:wonder wat they'll do if i just pour the cup of drinks bought outside on the floor?
actually dun need wad special bags or wadever, just buy dump in backpack and bring in. in fact if u bring plastic bags in oso no prob as long not so obvious u gonna eat and make merry inside.. the staff oso close one eye. dat time we juz ta bao long john inside den realised none of us got bag so we juz bring in the long john plastic bags and hid it on one side as we walk by.
if u considerate, dun make a mess inside can liao. i think dats their biggest headache. but den again, i often go eng wah and cathay, hardly to gv so.. feel free to screw em up. -
Don't go GV and watch movies is the best solution!
-
I'll purposely go get a ticket. Don't buy anything.
And not allow them to conduct check on me. -
Actually, i think they can. Re the term not being on the ticket, they will be fine as long as they refer you to other terms. I'm sure the ticket has words to the effect of "subject to terms and conditions". I think this applies even if those terms are not accessible immediately.Originally posted by diggo:The question is .. is it legal?
If the contract on the ticket is for the entry to the cinema and that there is no food allowed in the cinema, then fine.
However, if it is GV food only, then it is protectionist. Why are you "forced" to take GV food.
Further they CANNOT DO search. Hell they do not have any search warrant and/or law enforcement officers.
There is no sign outside the cinema even to state the terms and conditions of getting in.
CASE should look into this...
Also, since it is private property, they can impose a search on you as a condition of entry.
So i think they're covered legally. However, we as consumers can exercise consumer power and hit them where it hurts most: Their bottomline. -
Sign is not enforeceable... the agreement is that u pay to see the movie, not the obey the sign..Originally posted by shinta:think they did hav a sign, no outside food allowed -
Do not agreed. Put it to the extreme... if the terms and conditions stated tat u can be molested once u in the threatre, does that means they can do that?Originally posted by lwflee:Actually, i think they can. Re the term not being on the ticket, they will be fine as long as they refer you to other terms. I'm sure the ticket has words to the effect of "subject to terms and conditions". I think this applies even if those terms are not accessible immediately.
Also, since it is private property, they can impose a search on you as a condition of entry.
So i think they're covered legally. However, we as consumers can exercise consumer power and hit them where it hurts most: Their bottomline.
You have right...
Agreed in hitting them at the bottomline. -
Do not agreed. Put it to the extreme... if the terms and conditions stated tat u can be molested once u in the threatre, does that means they can do that?Originally posted by lwflee:Actually, i think they can. Re the term not being on the ticket, they will be fine as long as they refer you to other terms. I'm sure the ticket has words to the effect of "subject to terms and conditions". I think this applies even if those terms are not accessible immediately.
Also, since it is private property, they can impose a search on you as a condition of entry.
So i think they're covered legally. However, we as consumers can exercise consumer power and hit them where it hurts most: Their bottomline.
You have right...
Agreed in hitting them at the bottomline. -
To me, the bottom line is pretty simple:Originally posted by diggo:Do not agreed. Put it to the extreme... if the terms and conditions stated tat u can be molested once u in the threatre, does that means they can do that?
You have right...
Agreed in hitting them at the bottomline.
If GV can't respect its patrons, then there is no reason for me to respect them. I'll let Cathay, Eng Wah and the Shaw siblings have the pleasure of having my money in return for having the right to watch a movie in peace. Until the powers-that-be at GV start thinking more clearly with their heads, I'm not stepping a foot into their cinemas.
Enough said. -
There's no use in just talking because GV doesn't give a damn.
Singaporeans will still patronize them! Just Sunday I wanted to use my outstanding movie vouchers but shows like Monster-in-Law and Madagascar were sold out!
What you can do is to buy the cheapest drink in the supermarket and pour the content onto their carpet to force them to change the carpeting and incur extra cost in the process. Do this in the middle of the movie. You can always say it spilled accidentally. So everytime they change the carpetting, you pour drinks on it. Better still pour on the seats until people get disgusted with the hygiene condition of the cinema they will stop patronizing it!!
Heck if they increase price of ticket to cover the cost because with the COmpetition Law coming into effect end of the year, the cartel called CInematographer's Association headed by that sniggering fvcking pig Kenneth Tan is liable for penalties if raise their ticket prices. Also, you can always go to Orchard Cineleisure or just downloaded or watch DVDs (HMV has very cheap DVDs nowadays). -
Heh, and my guess is, as their revenue falls, they will tackle the problem, not by improving customer service, but by raising prices! muhahaha!
-
That's evil! I like it.Originally posted by Profounder:There's no use in just talking because GV doesn't give a damn.
What you can do is to buy the cheapest drink in the supermarket and pour the content onto their carpet to force them to change the carpeting and incur extra cost in the process. Do this in the middle of the movie. You can always say it spilled accidentally. So everytime they change the carpetting, you pour drinks on it. Better still pour on the seats until people get disgusted with the hygiene condition of the cinema they will stop patronizing it!! -
Deny ignorance.Read up on your rights.Print out our consumer laws especially.Do not let these fellows climb on our heads.Originally posted by mistyblue:ppl are generally not well ediucated about their personal rights here and therefore, simply comply with authority thinking that they can get into trouble if they did not.
If in angmoh country, the kids are educated since day one of their rights, therefore, doing this same thing to them, they would propably kick the manager out of his office.
But then, seriously we see all these conflict of interest at the top levels of our 'great big companies' in singapore... but no one in sg dare to make a beep.
sg had never been a democratic country. sometimes I feel that we still live in stone age for some things...
We must move forward as a civil society that knows our rights and will use them.What we fear needlessly will paralyse us. -
its simple if everyone were to not go to gv then they would have to review there policies
BOYCOT IT -
They're lucky they didn';t get me. I once made hell at a bank because they refused to take in my old and torn dollar notes that became like this after a fire. I rained abuse on the teller for her poor service and made her manager come out. He claimed there had been a change of practice, and I said "Cn I see this announcement then?" He shut up and said ok he'd do it for me.Originally posted by lotus999:I feel rather sad after reading this article in littlespeck.com
Golden Village
An unsurprising blow
That its Hong Kong partner pulled out somehow doesn't shock me. Here's why. By Seah Chiang Nee.
May 24, 2005
Just before a recent day-show at a Junction 8 Cineplex a spectacle unfolded that grabbed the patrons as much as the movie. The episode revealed how compliant Singaporeans have become.
Just before the show started, a lady usher, in black uniform, walked among the audience row after row, checking if anyone had brought in food 'illegally' not sold by Golden Village itself. When found, confiscation.
There was a sign that proclaimed bringing in food from outside is forbidden, so it is not a legalisic issue, but an ethical one. Does it make good business?
Golden Village Cinema is the only movie chain among four in Singapore that practices this 'trade protectionism'.
The reason for it is obvious.
The foodstuffs - ranging from coke to potato chips, hotdogs to chocolates - sell for up to twice the prices outside.
They will chase most patrons to nearby shops and that's what many patrons are doing. Whenever possible, they put them inside their pockets or handbags and bring them in, which is what every practical person would do.
So how is Singapore's biggest movie chain, owned now by Australia's 'Village Roadshow' conglomerate (with Hong Kong's Golden Screen), going to enforce its protectionism?
At Junction 8 at least (probably elsewhere too), it is sending hordes of black-uniformed ushers to check on patrons. I pity these girls. they're made to do an extremely despicable chore.
They swoop down on patrons row after row just before the movie starts and confiscated the 'illegal' food, issued a number for the hapless owner to reclaim after the show.
I've witnessed several incidents and if there was a crowd, they usually produced quite a rich haul. I was surprised how meekly Singaporeans surrendered their food without protest.
More surprising was the deafening silence the whole thing had produced. Only in one case I heard someone yelled at an usher for acting like the Gestapo, and she quickly scurried away.
Many people kept going back to suffer this ignonimity.
Imagine what would happen if this had happened in Australia. There would certainly have been an angry reaction from the people, or a sit-in or even violence from a few hot-heads.
Before these searches, there was already one incident at the Bishan 8 cineplex in which the police had to be called in when the staff-workers refused to let in two elderly gentlemen who refused to surrender a packet of snacks from outside.
On the strength of the ticket they bought, they insisted on watching the film. 'Not if you bring that in," insisted a Golden Village representative.
It wasn't something you'd expect to see in the 21st Century.
This Australian-owned chain is insisting on practicing trade protectionism when Singapore (and Australia) on the road of free trade pacts.
No other cinema houses are following suit.
So when I read about the Hong Kong partner's (a subsidiary of Golden Harvest) reasons for its pullout, I wasn't too surprised.
In a writ to Hong Kong courts, Golden Screen singled out Managing-Director Kenneth Tan for criticism for unacceptable tactics.
It said Tan went ahead with the May 1, 2005 cinema ticket hikes even after the board of directors had voted unanimously NOT to go with the price hike.
Another accusation was an alleged wrongful dismissal of a senior marketing executive.
I do not know if Tan can or cannot defend against the charges, but any one who can have its staff search customers like potential criminals, well..
At a HDB branch, same thing happened. I talked in the most deprecating tone I could and told the guy " Can you read? Do you know it's written lega tender on my notes?"
He protested a bit, and I repeated "can you read? do you understand english?", then he just shut his trap.
One thing I've learned early in life, never, ever let anyone walk all over you.
Walk over them instead. Especially when you've got every right. May it be constitutional, contractual or human. -
In contractual law, "subject to terms and conditions" is actually unfair contracting. You can make the most unfair contract with someone, make almost all the terms favorable to you and totally unfair to the other person. In a court of law, that'll come under illegality and unfair contracting if I'm not wrong.Originally posted by lwflee:Actually, i think they can. Re the term not being on the ticket, they will be fine as long as they refer you to other terms. I'm sure the ticket has words to the effect of "subject to terms and conditions". I think this applies even if those terms are not accessible immediately.
Also, since it is private property, they can impose a search on you as a condition of entry.
So i think they're covered legally. However, we as consumers can exercise consumer power and hit them where it hurts most: Their bottomline.
Not in Singapore of course. If you are rich or have power, you'll win anything. -
The government has been successful in making sure as many Singaporean are care-less and don't know how to think for themselves. Sooner or later, the only people left in Singapore in future will be the dumb ones. The smart ones have either left or were put in jail.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Deny ignorance.Read up on your rights.Print out our consumer laws especially.Do not let these fellows climb on our heads.
We must move forward as a civil society that knows our rights and will use them.What we fear needlessly will paralyse us.
There is no future for Singapore. -
That's why our pledge says "to build a democratic society". Since a pledge is highly unlikely to ever change, you can count on that that Singapore will always be building a democratic society and it will never succeed!Originally posted by mistyblue:ppl are generally not well ediucated about their personal rights here and therefore, simply comply with authority thinking that they can get into trouble if they did not.
If in angmoh country, the kids are educated since day one of their rights, therefore, doing this same thing to them, they would propably kick the manager out of his office.
But then, seriously we see all these conflict of interest at the top levels of our 'great big companies' in singapore... but no one in sg dare to make a beep.
sg had never been a democratic country. sometimes I feel that we still live in stone age for some things...
I used to make fun of the pledge all the time in school. One of the reasons I quit teaching was I do not want to say the goddam pledge everyday or hear it, because it is one of the phoniest things in the world! -
i dont think they have the contitutional rights to do soOriginally posted by M©+square:What if i don't want to open my bag to let them check?
Do they have the power to do so?
against our privacy -
You are wrong: they have the right. There are currently no privacy laws in effect in Singapore, with the exception of the Women's Charter, and applicable financial laws preventing banks and other companies from leaking your personally identifiable information, so they can search you.Originally posted by laurence82:i dont think they have the contitutional rights to do so
against our privacy
You can only hit them by not patronising them. That is the same reason why I decline to sit inside Eng Hwa and Cathay chains: irresponsible detention of my belongings and monopolistic rules.
There was once I bought ice-cream and had it in plastic bags. I intended to eat while watching. The staff tried to take the ice-cream away from me, saying that they will return it to me after the show. Sure. They put it inside their cupboard (no refrigeration whatsoever), and I am sure that they had a nice time cleaning it out afterwards. Location: Cathay Cineleisure. -
Keep it in your bag.Regardless of private or public property, no one is allowed to search your bags unless it's explicitly stated.And their terms and conditions, they had better be ready for a full listing and a reading session because if they catch me on a bad day, I will make the manager read through the muthafarking terms and conditions and find me a column that says they are permitted to open the personal property of patrons.Originally posted by pkchukiss:You are wrong: they have the right. There are currently no privacy laws in effect in Singapore, with the exception of the Women's Charter, and applicable financial laws preventing banks and other companies from leaking your personally identifiable information, so they can search you.
You can only hit them by not patronising them. That is the same reason why I decline to sit inside Eng Hwa and Cathay chains: irresponsible detention of my belongings and monopolistic rules.
There was once I bought ice-cream and had it in plastic bags. I intended to eat while watching. The staff tried to take the ice-cream away from me, saying that they will return it to me after the show. Sure. They put it inside their cupboard (no refrigeration whatsoever), and I am sure that they had a nice time cleaning it out afterwards. Location: Cathay Cineleisure. -
It's up to each and everyone to stop this mental rot.Take ownership of yourself.Originally posted by foxwalk:The government has been successful in making sure as many Singaporean are care-less and don't know how to think for themselves. Sooner or later, the only people left in Singapore in future will be the dumb ones. The smart ones have either left or were put in jail.
There is no future for Singapore.
A cowed and apathetic populace serves their short term interests but ruins the long term future of Singapore. -
Nope it isn't. At least i am pretty sure it isn't. I doubt UCTA or SGA 79 provides that a ticket sold "subject to terms and conditions" is an unfair clause. I also remember a case whereby a woman was bound by the terms a ticket was supposed to be subject to. Those terms were not on the ticket, and were merely referred to by a board at the ticketing counter. More importantly, those terms were not even readily available at the ticketing counter!Originally posted by foxwalk:In contractual law, "subject to terms and conditions" is actually unfair contracting. You can make the most unfair contract with someone, make almost all the terms favorable to you and totally unfair to the other person. In a court of law, that'll come under illegality and unfair contracting if I'm not wrong.
Not in Singapore of course. If you are rich or have power, you'll win anything.
Also, i do not see how you can argue that the term is unreasonable such that it would not be allowed under UCTA. Like i said, that is private property. It is similar to restaurants that do not allow you to eat outside food, or clubs that enforce a strict no slippers policy. -
Err no la! Molest is a crime and obviously a term that purports to allow a crime to be committed will surely be void!Originally posted by diggo:Do not agreed. Put it to the extreme... if the terms and conditions stated tat u can be molested once u in the threatre, does that means they can do that?
You have right...
Agreed in hitting them at the bottomline.