By: Susan Gao、Melissa KO、Kenji ChanEdited by: Susan Gao
Food Order Platforms Price Markup Up to 86%
- 2017-12-08
- Society
- The Young Reporter
- By: Susan Gao、Melissa KO、Kenji ChanEdited by: Susan Gao
- 2017-12-08
More than 60% of the meals ordered through online food order platforms were more expensive than restaurants' takeaway, with price markup up to 86%, the Consumer Council said on Wednesday. After 91 trial purchases from nine food order platforms in September, the Council found problems including hidden surcharges, unilaterally order cancellation, late delivery, food leaking and double charges. The prices of over half of the food on four aggregate order platforms such as Foodpanda and UberEATS were about 30% higher than takeaway prices, while all the food on three eatery chain platforms including McDelivery were marked up by 4% to 86% with an average of 30%, said the Council. The Council's Chief Executive Gilly Wong Fung-han said at Wednesday's press conference that they would not advise on prices, and markup was understandable if people accepted paying more for convenience. Ho Chung-yin, a 32-year-old data analyst working in Central said she had used Foodpanda four times and knew the prices were much higher. "I only order online when I don't have time to eat out," she said. Testers of the Council found five out of 13 orders were canceled without remedy when ordering on 51WM, an aggregate platform. UberEATS even listed restaurants that had already folded or were being decorated without any notice, testers said. Customer Service Director of 51WM Dickson Lo told The Young Reporter that order cancellations were all done solely by restaurants, probably because they were understaffed or the locations were too far away. "We cannot improve the problem in the long run," Lo said, "because it is a fundamental problem resulting from restaurant's own uncertainties." The Council urged traders to be responsible and delineate every party's responsibility clearly, and provide means of contacts for inquiries with immediate assistance, while three aggregate platforms still have no contact hotline. …
People not satisfied with new scheme for low-income families
- 2017-12-07
- Politics
- The Young Reporter
- By: Susan Gao、Melissa KO、Kenji ChanEdited by: Susan Gao、Melissa KO
- 2017-12-07
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has introduced several policies to ease the plight of low-income families in her maiden policy address today, while many of those families are dissatisfied and argue for more. The city's first female leader proposed to "significantly enhancing" Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) starting from April 1, 2018. Under the new policy, with a few more requirements being satisfied, the monthly payment for a four-person household with two children will increase by 23% from the current $2,600 to $3,200, said the Chief Executive. Ivan Wong Yun-Tat, the Vice Secretary of Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre and the district councilor of Kwai Tsing, said that Carrie Lam has responded to the grassroots' aspiration but "the benchmark duration of working hours for the scheme is still higher than expected." The new scheme requires all family members in a four-person household to have no less than 192 total monthly working hours, whereas Wong said 72 working hours per month is the most ideal amount. An open forum discussing Carrie Lam's first policy address was held in Kwun Tong Methodist Social Service today. It was jointly organised by 20 social welfare concern groups with Wong as one of the organisers. The neighbourhood, several political parties and concern groups turned out en masse the event, urging the government to do more for the disadvantaged groups. Mrs. Lam, a full-time housewife having been received the allowance for several years said she was not satisfied with the scheme because her daughter has autism. She suggested that the government should do more, especially to support those low-income families of a child with special needs. Anthony Wong, the business director of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, said the families of "N have-nots" tended to benefit the least from the updated …
iPhone 8 battery is safe, local Apple Store claims
- 2017-10-04
- The Young Reporter
- By: Maggie Liu、Susan Gao、Melissa KO、Lloyd Hewitt-Robinson、Kenji ChanEdited by: Susan Gao、Melissa KO
- 2017-10-04
The new iPhone 8 released on September 22, has reportedly had some battery problems. The Apple Daily newspaper reported that a Hong Kong buyer surnamed Lam reported that his gold-coloured iPhone 8 was already bloated when he opened the box even before getting a chance to use the phone. Lam took the faulty device back to the Apple Store where he bought it from, and the store gave him a replacement as it was determined that the device could not be fixed, said Apple Daily. This afternoon, The Young Reporter visited the Shatin store. "iPhone 6s also has had this kind of problem before. We would normally just recall the phone," said its spokesperson, "No need to worry about (iPhone's) safety." Three such known incidents have all taken place in Asia, Japan on September 24, Taiwan on the 26th and Hong Kong on the 28th respectively. Karl Leung Ping-hung, the head of the department of information and communication technology at Vocational Training Council said, "batteries used by current mobile phones and pads usually swell when reaching their lifespans." However, it is still unclear what caused the new iPhone 8 battery to swell up this time. Apple Store said it would investigate the incidents. Kylie Chen, a big fan of Apple product, who plans to buy a new iPhone said the phone bloating incident would not affect his decision. Two more iPhone 8 Plus users have reported problems with their devices. A Taiwanese woman surnamed Wu was the first to report the problem after her gold iPhone 8 Plus burst open whilst charging using an official charging cable, said Taiwan Apple Daily. Wu had the iPhone for three days and began charging when the device has 70% battery and after three minutes it burst open after becoming swollen, Apple Daily said. …
Hong Kong Free Speech
- 2017-09-13
- The Young Reporter
- 2017-09-13
Reporter: Susan Gao, Maggie Liu, Melissa Ko and Lloyd Hewitt-Robinson Editor: Susan Gao and Melissa Ko The Hong Kong independence banner saga continues at local universities after the student unions of 13 higher institutions issued a joint statement condemning Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and university authorities for "making an explicit effort" to limit free speech. "The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power," the joint statement wrote. Student unions reiterated, "everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise." Last week, the banners declaring Hong Kong independence were put up on the Chinese University's democracy wall, but later they were replaced with other banners while anti-independence posters were also put up. This action has provoked a heated debate over the freedom of speech after the banners advocating Hong Kong independence were shown on noticeboards at various universities. According to Amnesty International, freedom of speech applies to ideas of all kinds despite what may be offensive and it comes with responsibilities. The three universities, which are City University, Baptist University and Chinese University, all agreed that freedom of speech is the right to express one's own ideas without censorship. City University's student union external secretary, Ng Chung-hing, said, noticeboards managed by the student union, serve as a platform for student members to express their own opinions freely. The student union itself is independent from the university, which does not have the right to take down the posters. Baptist University's student union external secretary, Mak Kwan-wai, said, BU students are welcome to discuss whatever they want, including the Hong Kong independence issue because the principal promised that the school is not allowed …