What a coincidence, I lived in Chelsea too and I go shopping in wetmarket and Sainsburys. Looks like Chelsea is getting more and more Asian with mor eand more new development!
You must be doing shopping in Harrods and those \"push shops\" :evil:
Harlequin:You said even London is cheaper than SG.... sorry that my milk in Chelsea is indeed at £4.99/L....
Wait, may be I should consider to migrate there since the milk is cheaper there? :idea:
You can go in and search for yourself! Here is the link:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp
Also, shopping in sainsburys is not the cheapest! It's mid-range. There are cheapest places to buy your grocery(e.g. in wetmarket!)
Harlequin:I am interested to know how much you had to pay for 1L of milk? A Lux soap bar? A bicycle? Tube fare? Gas (petrol) pump price?Harlequin:
Er... May I know which year of UK's living cost you are referring to that is less costly than Singapore? Or rather, which decade or millennium? I happened to lived in London for sometime, I have not known any thing that's cheaper than SG, not even the breakfast milk, cereals leh...
The living costs are not just base on VAT, or its exemption lor....
BTW, HK also no VAT, GST or its equivalence.... how come their living cost is always higher than us? :scratchhead:
I was shocked with your quoted price and did a serach:
Found that Sainsbury's British Fresh Semi Skimmed Milk, 2 Pints 1.13L @ £0.89/unit or £0.78/ltr only
Here you are the link:
http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp
Harlequin:1L of milk in carton is at £4.99.... not branded, just the supermarket house brand.... and that's no VAT levied.
I lived there for 5 years!
I do agree all the things are expensive than Singapore if you just buy grocery in Harrods only (not in sainsbury)! :skeptical:
Harlequin:Er... May I know which year of UK's living cost you are referring to that is less costly than Singapore? Or rather, which decade or millennium? I happened to lived in London for sometime, I have not known any thing that's cheaper than SG, not even the breakfast milk, cereals leh...chrisloh:Those have lived in UK before know that it's less costly to live in UK (even in London) than Singapore if you don't spend on luxury items like LV/Hermes/Channel bags as there are many VAT (aka GST) exemptions.
Here is the link for for you to find out more if you are interested:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/goods-services.htm
The living costs are not just base on VAT, or its exemption lor....
BTW, HK also no VAT, GST or its equivalence.... how come their living cost is always higher than us? :scratchhead:
:? Strange le, I provided the link for all to see, why everyone is only instered to speculate but refused to check first! 
Those have lived in UK before know that it's less costly to live in UK (even in London) than Singapore if you don't spend on luxury items like LV/Hermes/Channel bags as there are many VAT (aka GST) exemptions.
Here is the link for for you to find out more if you are interested:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/goods-services.htm
He also said every schools are good schools . He also said there will be some top schools!!!
Err..if a teacher in Singapore pose nude in Playboy magazine! I think it is misconduct under MOM's guideline.
Dreamaurora:3Boys, to answer your question about the Playboy posing cheerleading coach, yes, I would fire her as she will not be setting a good example to the students. But if the law deems that my reason for firing her is not valid under employment law, then I rightfully must pay her notice period pay and any other outstanding benefits.Dream,3Boys:[quote=\"Dreamaurora\"]I think you didn't really get what I was trying to put across. I never disputed that the Church is wrong in sacking her morally. And yes, the Church did give her 2nd chance and she squandered it.
The issue here is according to Singapore's law the church has to abide to the same employment law that other secular companies abide to. The church is not allowed to set impose its own standard on what is 'good conduct' and 'misconduct' when deciding on employment issue. You are saying just because the Church is a Christian organization, it is allowed to use biblical principles to govern its staff even if it is in conflict with the government law. That I cannot agree.
Your analogy of the pastor may not be exactly appropriate here. A pastor that is caught red-handed in an immoral act will no doubt unable to face the congregation and execute his job correctly, whereas an admin staff's performance will not be exactly impacted by his/her vice.
I get you, I do. I also get your interpretation of the law.
But I don't agree that this is how the law is to be applied.
If it is, we have a problem.
To the highlighted part of your post, my answer is 'Yes'. Not so much that it needs to be different for churches, but ALL organisations ought to be allowed to have some rules for personal conduct.
Some countries (or organisations within those countries) have rules barring public officials from going to casinos. Imposition of 'values' yes?
We don't, so guess where we are with the CPIB and the SLA?
Who's to say such a policy is wrongful?
Some years ago, a school in the US fired a teacher for posing nude in Playboy magazine.
http://www.examiner.com/article/cheerleading-coach-carlie-christine-unjustly-fired-for-appearing-playboy
There was an overwhelming pro and con debate. Unsurprisingly, the cons said that her posing nude has got nothing to do with her teaching ability, and that her sacking was unjust.
What do you think?
Singaporeans will accept if their son's P2 English teacher also happened to moonlight as a exotic dancer?
MOE will be excoriated online instantly.
If we apply this \"no personal standards to be set\" philosophy, we are a society on the downhill. :sad: That's my view.
Dreamaurora, you say it all! What's more can I say?
Dreamaurora:Perhaps this case is the first one the worker actually went the MOM to dispute the dismissal.I am a Methodist, btw.3Boys:
Are you, pirate and chrisloh implying that the Church has no grounds to dismiss her on continuing adulterous behavior?
To answer your question.
Legally, NO.
Morally, YES.
This is the main crux of this discussion.
I did say if I am Khong himself I would terminate the woman from employment because like what you said, the Church needs to maintain a higher moral standard and set a good example.
The problem is vices such as adultery, alcoholism, pornography, etc may not affect work directly. If a worker watches pornography at office, that is ground for misconduct. But if a worker watches pornography only at home, there is no ground for misconduct to fire the worker. As this case has shown, MOM treats all organisations equally and churches is no exception.
[quote]I have seen church workers and pastors dismissed before on things like adultery, alcoholism and viewing pornography (we Christians are far from perfect!), and I have not seen that they have ever been overturned by MOM.
You can claim that you have experienced \"giving birth\" like a woman NOT one but twice! Aiya, just 15 mins, woman endures longer than that.
ChiefKiasu:Lol. It's only funny when it's overJennifer::salute:
The way you wrote the above. Arcade game :udaman:
Come to think of it... actually the screen reminds me more of the Desert Storm pictures that the allies showed on TV. Black and white picture. Cross hair on a building, and suddenly a flash and a puff of smoke... and no more building.