Over $900 for a crab? Japanese tourist makes police report over 'overpriced' dish at Seafood Paradise
Over $900 for a crab? Japanese tourist makes police report over 'overpriced' dish at Seafood Paradise PHOTO: Junko Shinba A Japanese tourist was shocked after she was charged $938 for chili crab. A Japanese tourist simply wanted to enjoy Singapore's beloved dish chilli crab, but ended up leaving one seafood restaurant in a crabby mood instead.
The disgruntled diner, Junko Shinba, told AsiaOne on Sept 15 that she visited Seafood Paradise at Clarke Quay on Aug 19 with her family and friends. The group had just ended a sightseeing tour and happened to walk past the restaurant.
While they were ordering their meal, Shinba claimed that one of the waiters strongly recommended one particular type of crab for $30 but he did so "without explaining that they charge per 100 grams".
According the receipt from the meal, the diners had chosen the Alaskan King Crab for their chili crab dish. A representative from Paradise Group, who owns Seafood Paradise, told AsiaOne that the Alaskan Crab costs $26.80 per 100 grams.
Alaskan King Crabs are one of the largest edible crabs in the world, and can weigh between two and five kilograms.
The bill came up to be $1,322.37 with the chili crab dish costing some $938.
Other dishes which the group ordered, such as Black Pepper Beef Fried Rice and Crisp-fried Yam Ring, were less than $20 each.
Made police report
"We all became speechless knowing that one dinner for four adults cost that much," said the 50-year-old freelancer.
She claimed that they were not informed of the total weight of the crab before it was cooked.
"None of us were informed that the whole crab would be cooked only for us, as some other restaurants serve crabs partially," lamented the tourist.
"There were three plates full of crab and many other dishes, we were unable to finish everything," she told AsiaOne.
Aghast at the bill, Shinba said she wanted to call the police to settle the issue.
According to her, the police arrived at the restaurant to mediate. The restaurant staff also showed Shinba a receipt from another customer who had ordered a similar dish to prove that the restaurant did not overcharge her group.
Eventually, the restaurant manager offered the tourist a $107.40 discount for the meal, which Shinba's friend paid for with his credit card.
Shinba also said that she contacted the Singapore Tourism Board, who brought the matter to attention of the Consumers Association of Singapore.
Staff clearly communicated price and weight: Paradise Group
Responding to AsiaOne's queries, a representative from Paradise Group said their staff had "clearly communicated" the price and weight of the Alaskan King Crab to the diners when they placed their order.
The restaurant said that the crab weighed about 3.5kg in total.
"To prevent any miscommunication, the staff even brought the whole Alaskan King crab to the table before preparation. Upon payment, the customers refused to pay the bill and requested to make a police report. Hence, the restaurant manager assisted in making the police report."
They further clarified that the $107.40 discount was given "out of goodwill" by waiving off the cost of 400 grams of crab, as the customer claimed they didn't have enough money to pay for the meal.
Even teochew cold crab also not cheap, dont say Alaskan crab
"Margin of Safety" as the Central Concept of Betting A team's past ability to create quality chances is the expected number of goals that they should have produced. The expected number of goals in excess of the actual number of goals constitutes the "margin of safety". The margin is counted on to cushion the bettor against discomfiture in the event of a performance decline in the upcoming fixture. The soccer bettor does not expect the upcoming fixture to work out the same as in the past. If he were sure of that, the safety margin demanded might be small. The function of a safety margin is, in essence, that of rendering unnecessary an accurate estimate of the team's winning probability in the upcoming fixture. If the safety margin is sufficiently large, then it is enough to assume that the team's upcoming performance will not fall far below their expected goals in order for the bettor to feel sufficiently cushioned against bad luck. The safety margin is always dependent on the odds that the bettor accepts from the bookie. It will be large in certain odds, small at some lower odds, and negative when the odds is too low. However, even with a safety margin in the bettor's favour, he may lose his bet. For the margin guarantees only that he has a better chance of winning - not that loss is impossible. Theory of Diversification There is a close logical connection between the concept of safety margin and the principle of diversification. One is correlative with the other. Even with a margin in the bettor’s favor, an individual bet may work out badly. But as the number of such commitments is increased the more certain does it become that the aggregate of the profits will exceed the aggregate of the losses. This point may be made more colorful by a reference to the arithmetic of roulette. If a man bets $1 on a single number, he is paid $35 profit when he wins—but the chances are 37 to 1 that he will lose. He has a “negative margin of safety.” In his case diversification is foolish. The more numbers he bets on, the smaller his chance of ending with a profit. If he regularly bets $1 on every number (including 0 and 00), he is certain to lose $2 on each turn of the wheel. But suppose the winner received $39 profit instead of $35. Then he would have a small but important margin of safety. Therefore, the more numbers he wagers on, the better his chance of gain. And he could be certain of winning $2 on every spin by simply betting $1 each on all the numbers. (Incidentally, the two examples given actually describe the respective positions of the player and proprietor of a wheel with a 0 and 00.)
SINGAPORE - After a 30-day trial, popular restaurant group Paradise was on Wednesday (June 1) found guilty of 29 out of 33 charges of using about $640,000 worth of gas without paying a cent for it, and with tampering with gas meters at some of its outlets here.
Paradise group found guilty of tampering with gas meters, using nearly $640k of unpaid gas
Mr Edlan Chua, who is the business chief operating officer of the Paradise restaurant group, which was found to have tampered with gas seals and used about $640,000 worth of gas without paying. ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW SINGAPORE - After a 30-day trial, popular restaurant group Paradise was on Wednesday (June 1) found guilty of 29 out of 33 charges of using about $640,000 worth of gas without paying a cent for it, and with tampering with gas meters at some of its outlets here.
The Energy Market Authority (EMA), which regulates the gas industry, is asking for the maximum fine of $610,000 - $10,000 for each of the 21 tampering charges it was convicted of, and $50,000 for each of the eight dishonest consumption charges.
The statutory board's prosecuting counsel Mr Amarjit Singh said yesterday that when someone steals utilities, it ultimately leads to consumers having to pay more. In addition, tampering with gas mains could interrupt supplies, or lead to gas leaks and even death.
"In natural resource-scarce Singapore, theft of utilities if undeterred can adversely affect suppliers and consumers as the cost of stolen utilities will invariably have to be spread out, borne by and shared between the suppliers and consumers, resulting in losses to suppliers, and in consumers having to pay more.
"Offences involving illegal tapping of gas and tampering with gas meter installations or gas mains also have the potential of causing interruption to supplies and considerable inconvenience to other consumers," said Mr Singh.
The prosecuting counsel added: "Tampering with gas meter installation also poses public safety concerns ... If the gas meter installation was somehow badly mishandled in the tampering process, gas leakage or explosion may occur, leading to property damage, injuries and/or deaths. This is not speculative or whimsical, but a real daunting prospect and no laughing matter."
Senior Counsel Engelin Teh will present the defence's view of an appropriate sentence before District Judge Ng Peng Hong on June 24.
Paradise's offences were committed between August 2011 and April the next year.
Gas provider City Gas detected an abnormally low gas consumption at Taste Paradise in Ion shopping mall on March 23, 2012, which led to the unravelling of the massive scale fraud.
Seals meant to secure the bypass valve of gas meters at Paradise outlets were missing. In some instances, the position of the valve was moved from "closed" to "open", allowing gas to flow without registering on the meters.
Eight restaurants dishonestly used gas diverted past the meter, which was not reflected in the monthly bill issued by City Gas. The total loss suffered by the gas supplier was $636,438.12.
In January 2014, Paradise, known for both its fine-dining and casual Chinese eateries, was charged with tampering with the gas meters at 24 of its outlets.
Of the 24 restaurants, 13 were from Paradise Inn eateries, four came under Kung Fu Paradise, two were from Seafood Paradise outlets, and one each was from Paradise Group Holdings, Paradise Dynasty, Paradise Pavilion, Taste Paradise and Canton Paradise.
They include outlets in Changi Airport, Suntec, Marina Boulevard, Orchard Road, East Coast Road and Jurong East Central.
The award-winning chain was founded by restaurateur Eldwin Chua, who went from running a zi char stall in Defu Lane to operating restaurants under various brands, with footprints in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Hong Kong, the Philippines and London.
Please disable your advertisement blocker!
Sila mematikan Penyekat iklan anda!
Hãy vô hiệu hóa chặn quảng cáo của bạn!
ကျေးဇူးပြု၍ သင့်ကြော်ငြာပိတ်ဆို့ခြင်းကို ပိတ်ပါ။
광고 차단기를 비활성화하십시오!