January 22, 2010
Last week, I was rudely stopped by a SMRT station manager,
accused of being a “terrorist”, and had my IC taken down.
The act of terror? A photograph of a faulty display panel taken
by a cellphone camera.
The SMRT staff quoted a “Prevention of Terrorism Act”, which
doesn’t exist, and insisted on his authority and reason for
demanding my IC.
SMRT’s reply was that photography and filming is strictly not
allowed in our trains and stations. Yet such a “rule” is merely a
company policy, and not at all found in the Rapid Transit Systems
Regulations. Neither is the policy displayed prominently in
stations and trains nor are most commuters aware of it. Moreover,
SMRT has even held photography competitions in its stations, where
winning entries are displayed prominently.
SMRT’s staff are supposed to be friendly and helpful. Yet the
station manager’s conduct clearly proves otherwise. Even my
complaints to customer “service” were treated with insincerity and
contempt. With service staff in such dismal conditions, how can we
expect commuters to be caring and considerate?
While an unwitting customer may have done something he’s not
allowed to do, SMRT’s staff could have resolved the issue swiftly,
in a cool and calm manner. Is there a need to start treating
commuters as criminals or terrorists? An offer was even made to
delete the innocuous photograph — of a malfunctioning display
message, not potential bomb sites: apparent to all reasonable eyes
that it cannot be used for terrorism activities. Yet the station
manager insisted on taking down my IC and wasting everyone’s
time.
The access to such personal information without authority or
valid reason is disrespectful and deleterious to a customer’s
personal security and privacy, not to mention illegal.
I understand the customer relations officer’s need to defend the
company’s acts against complaints, and by his own admission all
these is condoned and even part of SMRT’s policy: They found
nothing wrong with staff treating customers with contempt. But it
is time for SMRT to start reflecting on its organisational attitude
and policies.
The misdeed may be small, even trivial. But such a nonchalant
attitude reveals a great deal about a soulless organisation and
serves only to alienate its customers.
(Mr) Raymond Chong
EDITORS’ NOTE:
Mr Raymond Chong had lodged a complaint on the day of the
incident to SMRT which took more than one week to reply to him. The
corporate communications officer insisted that they had done
nothing wrong and again accused him of breaking the law. Mr Chong
emailed them again and criticized their insincerity in taking the
matter seriously and this time another corporate communications
officer replied with a softer and less condescending tone. She
offered her apologies to Mr Chong but still failed to answer his
questions. Mr Chong has also sent his letter above to The Straits
Times which was published in the Straits Times Forum on 20 January
2010 in a watered-down version. Singaporeans need not depend on the
mainstream media to have their voices heard in public now. Our
readership is now on par with TODAY Online and we promise we will
publish all your letters within a week completely UNEDITED in its
original version unlike the Straits Times.
Train operator’s split personality
RECENTLY, I was stopped by an SMRT station manager and had my
identity card (IC) number noted for photographing a faulty display
panel with my cellphone camera.
The SMRT staff quoted a Prevention of Terrorism Act as the
reason for my ‘booking’.
SMRT’s reply to my complaint was that photography and filming
are not allowed in trains and stations. It cited company policy,
yet this is not displayed prominently in stations and trains.
In fact, SMRT has held photography competitions in its stations,
where winning entries are displayed prominently.
The other dissonant point was the difference between the public
face the SMRT tries to project of its staff – friendly and helpful
– and the absence of this basic attitude in the station manager’s
tone, which bordered on rudeness.
Raymond Chong
[Source: Straits Times Forum, 20 January
2010]
