Customer cries foul over $24 chicken rice at Yishun stall
Property agent Ms Li, 29, shared her experience on STOMP, claiming the price for "three portions of chicken breast with rice" was unreasonably high - comparable to that of a steak.
The incident took place on July 5 at the 925 Chicken Rice stall located in Yishun Central.
Ms Li told Shin Min Daily News that she had requested "three portions of chicken breast with rice", expecting the total cost to be between $12 and $15.
However, Ms Li was shocked when the cashier told her that the meal would cost $24.
When she questioned the price, the staff explained that one portion of chicken rice with breast meat costs $8. Hence, three portions amounted to $24.
Pay more for more meat
In response to queries, 925 Chicken Rice stall said Ms Li was charged more as she asked for more meat, and staff typically confirm the order with customers before preparing it.
But Ms Li found the pricing inconsistent, noting that half a chicken at the same stall is priced at $15, making her order disproportionately expensive.
Ultimately, she paid only $8 for a single portion.
Ms Li added that the portion size was modest: "I didn't ask further as there were customers waiting behind me. But I guess this will be my last time ordering from them."
The diner ended up paying $8 for her meal. PHOTO: STOMP
"This is just an ordinary coffee shop, without air-conditioning. Charging $24 for three pieces is outrageous - I could buy a steak with that money," she said.
When Shin Min reporters visited the stall, stall employees said they did not recall the incident.
Mr Ni, 33, who manages the stall, suggested there may have been a misunderstanding, adding that a standard serving of chicken rice with breast meat would not cost $8.
"She must have added extra meat. We always double-check with customers and never serve the largest portion by default," he said.
Photos uploaded by Ms Li showed the serving included two rows of chicken breast, indicating a larger-than-usual portion.
Some netizens agreed that the stall's pricing was unfair. "I stopped patronising that stall whenever I visit Yishun. I'd rather spend the money and eat elsewhere," said one.
Another netizen had a different view: "I think it is the Stomper's fault for ordering the food without finding the prices. Each food outlet sets the prices according to their own calculations of profit margin. There are no rules or regulations governing the itemised food prices and eating places."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
43 minutes ago
- Business Times
Statistics and politics are a dangerous mix
HOW much longer can we trust government statistics? After staffing shortages at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reportedly affected the agency's ability to collect data for the consumer price index (CPI) last month, a handful of Democratic senators wrote to the Department of Labor demanding to know how it affected the agency's statistics. Earlier this year, the government made the radical move to dissolve several external expert advisory committees that served the BLS and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Meanwhile, across industries as diverse as medicine, insurance and education, professionals are dealing with the outright disappearance of data from government websites. But to answer the question: We can trust the statistics at least until the 'Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service' regulation, proposed by the Office of Personnel Management in April, goes into effect. After that, all bets are off. The gaps in the CPI data and the dissolution of advisory committees illustrate the two threats facing government data: inadequate funding and political interference. The former has been cooking for a while. The BLS' budget is down 20 per cent in real terms since 2010, and President Donald Trump's 2026 Budget proposes an additional 8 per cent cut. Surveys aren't free to run or maintain, and they certainly aren't free to improve. The Census Bureau has long wanted to modernise the Current Population Survey – which produces one of the most paramount statistics of all, the unemployment rate. It recently designed a three-year plan to make the survey more accurate and cost-effective. Not for nothing, those advisory agencies and other outside experts had been sounding the alarm for more funding and pushing for modernisation in the collecting and publishing of public data. The threat of political interference, however, is new. It started during the presidential campaign last autumn, when monthly employment reports showed a strong labour market. Trump and his surrogates immediately accused the agency of producing 'fake numbers'. That cooled after he won – but if there is any kind of turn in the numbers, the false allegations will almost certainly arise again. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up On one level, it's just empty if that destructive rhetoric undermines trust but doesn't affect the production of the numbers. Unfortunately, the administration's actions won't stop at rhetoric. In October 2020, Trump issued Executive Order 13957 to establish 'Schedule F' in the civil service. Its purpose was to reclassify federal employees in certain positions and make them subject to the hiring and firing discretion of the agency lead. In other words, the goal was to undermine merit-based hiring and replace it with political hiring. In January 2021, then president Joe Biden rescinded the order, but Trump restored it in January 2025. Under this new rule, federal employees whose jobs are reclassified lose their civil-service protections, which include appealing a termination they believe was based on political reasons rather than performance. This order was officially published in the Federal Register in April, and public comments – some 40,000 of them – were received until May. The administration is supposed to take the comments onboard and issue the final rule, which will then take effect 30 or 60 days later. If and when that happens, more details about how exactly it will work will be announced. But in practice, the president will have the ability to fire any federal employee he chooses. It is not hard to see how all this might create problems for government agencies such as the BLS. In 2019, former BLS Commissioner Erica Groshen was asked about the possibility of manipulating government statistics. She explained that it would be impossible for a political appointee to do so – because the staff would prevent it. 'If I had tried to do that while I was commissioner, I know with certainty that the first people to turn me in would have been the employees of the BLS,' she said. So to return to the question at the beginning: Government data is trustworthy because of civil servants, but they are in the administration's sights. Once the new rule reclassifying federal employees goes into effect, the staff that produces and maintains the data is at risk. And once they are, the data is, too. Of course, manipulating a report like the Current Population Survey would be difficult, given its depth of detail and the fact that all the raw data itself is released to the public. It's more likely that the government will just stop publishing the data to the same level of detail – so if there were some changes to the headline numbers, the reasons would be hard to verify. That seems to explain the public data that's already been pulled, whether it's about climate or Social Security Administration wait-time performance. Integrity and transparency are at the heart of public statistics. It's no surprise that they would be under attack by an administration that values neither. BLOOMBERG The writer is a labour economist and independent policy consultant
Independent Singapore
44 minutes ago
- Independent Singapore
Employee learns confirmation letter has been unsigned for 5 months, turns to local forum for help
SINGAPORE: An employee was taken aback upon learning that her confirmation letter had not been signed for five months. On Monday (Jul 15), the employee took to the r/askSingapore Reddit forum to seek advice from others in the workforce. In the post, she explained that she was verbally confirmed by HR after completing three months in her current role. Following that, HR printed a formal confirmation letter and passed it to her manager for signing. However, according to the employee, the manager has yet to sign the document. 'I've personally seen the printed, unsigned letter lying on my manager's table for a couple of months,' she wrote. She further shared that the confirmation letter does not include any pay increase or additional benefits. It simply states that the company is happy to confirm her employment status. Not knowing whether the lack of a signature would affect her position or entitlements, she asked Reddit users, 'Does a confirmation letter matter?' 'Be a bit thick-skinned and ask for your manager to sign it.' In the discussion thread, one Singaporean Redditor pointed out that the unsigned letter might actually have some serious implications. 'It matters for company benefits and notice period. Without that confirmation, you can't be sick because MC won't be a paid leave, or annual leave won't be paid, etc.,' they said. Some Redditors also criticised the manager for letting the letter sit unsigned for so long One wrote, 'Doesn't this show how irresponsible your manager is? Fives months is damn long??? It's as if he doesn't care.' Meanwhile, a few others encouraged the employee to speak up and ask the manager to sign the letter. 'For your own sake, be a bit thick-skinned and ask for your manager to sign it. It's not unreasonable to get a black-and-white proof of your confirmation as a full-time employee. For the notice period or for any other benefits or entitlements that were specified in your contract,' one explained. 'HR wouldn't confirm you unless it has been given approval by your supervisor. Maybe your supervisor thought it was a copy of the letter for him. Doesn't hurt to ask nevertheless,' another chimed in. Are confirmation letters legally required? According to Bestar Singapore, employment confirmation letters are not legally required. Employers in Singapore are not obligated by law to issue them. However, it remains a common practice and is often part of the standard HR process. While not mandatory, such letters are useful for various purposes. They serve as official proof of employment and may be needed when applying for visas, renting a property, applying for loans or credit cards, or for other official needs. Read also: Newer helpers complain a lot more these days, says maid agency owner Featured image by freepik (for illustration purposes only)
CNA
44 minutes ago
- CNA
MBS expansion project to bank on bigger suites, premium offerings in bid to stand out from competition
SINGAPORE: The upcoming expansion of Marina Bay Sands (MBS) integrated resort will feature bigger suites and more premium offerings in a bid to court affluent travellers seeking unique experiences. '(We want to) create a brand-new development that is separate and distinct, that has amenities that we don't have today to offer tourists coming into Singapore,' said Mr Patrick Dumont, president and chief operating officer of Las Vegas Sands, which owns MBS. The expansion project, which will add a fourth tower to what is now a recognisable part of Singapore's skyline, held its groundbreaking ceremony on Tuesday (Jul 15). It has been billed as an 'ultra-luxurious resort and entertainment destination', to be built at an estimated total development cost of US$8 billion (S$10.3 million). The expected completion date is June 2030, with an estimated official opening set for January 2031 subject to approval from the Singapore government. IR2 – as the project is currently called – will include an all-suite hotel tower with 570 suites; a multi-storey rooftop experience with restaurants and gardens called 'Skyloop'; a new gaming area; more premium retail, F&B and wellness offerings; as well as about 200,000 sq ft of meeting space. A 15,000-seat entertainment arena will also sit beside the 55-storey hotel tower. In an interview with CNA a day before the groundbreaking, Mr Dumont said the average suite size will be larger than what's currently available in MBS, where suites range from 75 sq m to 600 sq m. This is why the number of planned suites has had to come down significantly from about 1,000 when the expansion project was first announced in 2019, to a final count of 570. 'Our view is that scale is an attribute; that design is a very positive attribute for hospitality, and having the right spaces necessary to provide the highest level of luxury service is going to create a tremendous distinction for this property,' said Mr Dumont. 'So, we're very focused on quality of the suites, not the number of keys.' The new gaming area will be 'much smaller' than the existing 15,000 sqm casino on MBS' premises, said Mr Dumont. MBS is currently allowed 16,000 sq m of approved gaming area in total. It has also exercised an option to deploy an extra 2,000 sq m, by paying the Singapore government US$1 billion in additional land premiums. Asked if the firm was worried about regional competition from potentially bigger casinos in the works, such as Japan's first such resort in Osaka Bay, Mr Dumont said MBS' new gaming facility will be "enough to make sure that we have the amenities necessary to satisfy the high-value customers that are coming here to Singapore'. He pointed to the premium dining and wellness options that will be on hand, and the 15,000-seat entertainment arena. The latter is being built to handle regional and international touring acts, concerts and large-scale live events – a space that will 'create buzz for Singapore and drive more tourism to our property and to Singapore overall'. 'We are investing in other services necessary to create the unique experience for customers to feel like coming to experience this new destination,' he added. Integrated resort operator Las Vegas Sands said the move towards luxury comes as it sees growth in high-value tourism in recent years, after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. And one source is Southeast Asia with its growing young and affluent middle-class. 'In the last couple of years, young people have been very successful throughout Southeast Asia. There are a lot of very smart, motivated, business-minded entrepreneurs who ... want to experience travel,' said Mr Dumont. Singapore has been the top choice for these travellers to 'conduct business, and at the same time, have great leisure experiences with their families'. 'So, for us, it's investing in that future and that growth in Southeast Asia,' Mr Dumont said. He observed that social media has also had a big impact on travel patterns. 'People want to go to unique places, experience things that are unique, and be able to share them with their friends and their family,' Mr Dumont told CNA. 'By creating something that's ultra-luxury – that has the highest level of design, the highest level of service – we'll be able to address that segment in a very competitive way.' 'VERY SUCCESSFUL' REFURBISHMENT Efforts to woo high-end travellers to MBS are already underway, with a US$1.75 billion multi-year transformation. When first announced in 2022, the plan was to usher in "a new era of luxury hospitality'. Apart from introducing new premium dining and retail offerings, it made the bold move to cut nearly a third of its hotel rooms, to make way for high-end suites. MBS now has 1,850 rooms in total, down from 2,561 previously. The number of suites has gone up from 180 to 775. New offerings include the lavish Paiza Collection suites located on high floors and paired with private, dedicated VIP arrival lifts, as well as 24-hour butler services. Prices for these suites range from S$2,300 to S$35,000 a night, based on a search on MBS' website. The biggest suites, which span 600 sq m with three to four bedrooms, are reserved on a by-invite-only basis for the hotel's highest tier of guests. Currently, it would seem MBS' bet on luxury has paid off. In 2024, adjusted property earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation exceeded US$2 billion for the first time. Net revenue also touched a new high of US$4.2 billion, according to its annual report which described 2024 as a year of 'exceptional' financial performance despite disruptions caused by renovations of hotel rooms and gaming spaces. Hotel occupancy for the year stood at around 95 per cent. Mr Dumont said MBS' reinvestment programme was 'very successful' and has bolstered the integrated resort operator's confidence in its mega expansion project. Asked if he was concerned about ongoing tariff-induced global economic uncertainties, he said Las Vegas Sands has its sights set on the long-term, and reiterated his belief that high-value tourism 'will continue to grow'. Since opening doors in 2010, MBS has welcomed more than 500 million visitors. Last year, it hosted a record-breaking 2,200 events which drew 1.2 million attendees. The integrated resort has also been ramping up hiring. It now directly employs more than 12,000 people, up from over 11,000 last year. This figure is set to increase further, although the firm said it was not yet ready to share estimates on the number of new jobs the fourth tower will create. Still, MBS has not been spared from the challenges of rising labour costs and recruiting in a tight labour market here, Mr Dumont said. 'We have a few years to think about how we are going to accomplish it, and we intend to work with the government to make sure that we have the most efficient plan for getting the manpower necessary.'
