UPDATE [10 Dec 2012, 2203] Syopz has issued a statement to the effect that “It is most regrettable that despite the presence of extensive Emergency Response Procedures at Syopz Mall, individual apathy towards a fellow human being in distress resulted in the non-compliance of health and safety measures in that moment of need.”
“Despite the presence of extensive Emergency Response Procedures”? And these “extensive” Emergency Response Procedures failed to detect a stroke for four hours? And they shift the blame to “individual apathy”? So much for your Emergency Response Procedures. Or does the blame lie with the contrite employer who has suddenly coughed up wads of cash? In any case they have repatriated her without informing the institution that, well, apparently does not own them anyway.
And finally they state: “The Management of Syopz Mall would like to record our apologies to Taylors University for having been wrongly assumed as the responsible party of this unfortunate incident.” So I shall assume that your Assistant Manager – Events & Promotions will not be employed by the Taylor’s Education Group and that the Jobstreet advertisement is a fraud.
I have read the report of Juana Jaafar (who, in the interests of disclosure, is my friend) relating to the incident at Taylor’s University on Dec 1. I have also read Taylor’s denial of responsibility and the hand-wringing displayed by at least one senior member of the Taylor’s Education Group, Chief Marketing Officer Lydia Wang, whom incidentally Yahoo! has reported thus: “Wang, however, could not provide an update on the condition of the Indonesian worker.’They (mall management) will be getting back to us,’ she said.”
Is it too much to ask that the University or its parent Group should enquire into the health of the woman involved?
With regard to the denial of ownership of the property in question (for the purposes of determining legal liability), I wish to know what the Taylor’s Education Group makes of it’s own Jobstreet advertisement for a management position at the property in question (Syopz Mall), which I reproduce below in two pages (I apologise for the midline truncation).
Unless Taylor’s University and/or Taylor’s Education Group proves that it is the agent of the Syopz Mall and not in fact its owner, I contend that:
a) the University and/or Taylor’s Education Group has misrepresented itself with regard to its ownership of the “Commercial Building” in question.
b) the University and/or Taylor’s Education Group has attempted to deflect responsibility to an organisation (Syopz Mall), which it purports to be a separate “privately owned commercial entity adjacent to Taylor’s University”, unconnected with the University, but which does in fact come within the management of Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus and the putative ownership of TEG Assets Management Sdn Bhd, as appears in the advertisement below.
c) the University and/or Taylor’s Education Group has, in bad faith, misdirected the public as to the nature of its liability, particularly in the claim “We have officially raised our concern and disappointment to the Management of Syopz Mall on this issue, and they have assured us that they will address this matter seriously and with utmost importance” without reference to its position of ownership of or mutual membership with Syopz Mall within the same corporate group.
d) the University has insulted my intelligence by trotting out its “Core Values”, such that “we believe in respecting and caring for each other regardless of nationality, religion and cultural differences. We certainly do not condone such acts of neglect. We are utterly dismayed by the lack of humanitarian action on the part of the community who were present during the unfortunate incident.”
Under these circumstances I believe that the University or its apparent owner Taylor’s Education Group has a public obligation at least to determine the current condition of the employee in question, and her course of treatment and prognosis, beyond the excuse that “they will get back to us”. I trust I do not have to point out that if the University has a duty of care to this employee, and has failed in this duty, what the implications will be for other employees, students and the general public who have the misfortune of setting foot in what appears to be 27-acre legal disclaimer.