The sweet shop at Basement 2 of VivoCity, Candy Empire, is discriminating against disabled people. Here are two letters sent to the Straits Times regarding their encounters.
Nov 1, 2006
Son's wheelchair not allowed in candy storeI have a 14-year-old son who uses a wheelchair. Whenever we shop together, I will check the space between rows of display in a shop before deciding if it is spacious enough for his wheelchair. If not, we will skip that shop. Even then, at times we will leave if shop attendants hint to us that we are taking up too much space.
Last weekend we visited Vivo City with his sister. At Basement 2, we saw the signboard for the candy store, Candy Empire, from afar and thought of buying some.
However, at the entrance there is a notice which reads: 'Please do not bring your trolley or wheelchair into the shop''.
I can understand about trolleys which may be large as there is a hypermart nearby. But what about a wheelchair? Isn't this discrimination?
For me, it is all right if the store does not want my business. But I cannot help feeling for my son. His disability is permanent and he knows he is not welcome in quite a number of places. But to have this type of notice specifically meant for wheelchair users, it is uncalled for.
Molly Zhao Li Juen (Mdm)
---
Nov 3, 2006
Disabled dad thrown out of candy shop with vulgaritiesIT PAINS me to write this but my family experienced an appalling incident recently in Singapore's newest shopping mall.
On Oct 29, we visited the sweet shop in Basement 2. During this visit, we pushed my father-in-law in his wheelchair around the shop. This visit was without incident. The family decided we would return after dinner as grandpa wanted to buy some candy for his granddaughter.
When we returned, we were rudely stopped at the entrance with a wave of a hand and an irritated expression as though we, in our apparent carelessness, had missed the notice on the entrance prohibiting wheelchairs. We had not seen this notice initially, presumably because we had not expected to be discriminated against in this mall.
When we asked why wheelchairs were prohibited, the manager retorted as if we were too dense to understand. 'The sign says so, so no wheelchairs!' He then gesticulated vulgarly at the sign behind him, without even looking at us.
Not only had the store blatantly discriminated against my father-in-law, but we also felt threatened by the manager's hostile attitude. I expressed my exasperation and we left.
As we left, we noticed another wheelchair-bound customer waiting outside. He was alone, presumably waiting for his family who were inside.
My father-in-law suffered a stroke last year which left him paralysed. We try to encourage him to venture outside the home. Imagine the hurt he must have felt. All he wanted was to buy candies for his granddaughter. We were in the shop earlier and the aisles could certainly accommodate wheelchairs.
Why build ramps in that mall only to limit access to certain shops? Are handicapped individuals allowed only to window shop?
If tenants apply principles which are against the very values the Government is striving to promote, that is, a handicap-friendly environment, landlords should not be passive and allow tenants to tarnish the good name of their establishment.
Had this incident occurred in the West, it would have created an uproar. With the upcoming integrated resorts and the influx of tourists, the mall will not want to be seen in the wrong light.
I wonder what MP Lily Neo would say about what happened to us. As reported in The Straits Times, Dr Neo's team were wheeling disabled people around to find out how to promote wheelchair-friendliness. But there we were, discriminated against by some businessman who could not care less for the handicapped.
As a business owner myself, I strive to impress on my staff that it is the masses we serve and it is the masses who sustain our business. Perhaps Mr X is not interested in the small business each family can give.
The purpose of this letter is to protect my family's rights and I will not stand down to such intimidation.
Catryna Zhang Ai Ling (Ms)
---
The Singapore government has spent time and effort to initiate campaigns to help the physically disabled. It just takes one shop to render the entire campaign useless.
