Woman allegedly finds cockroach in soybean milk from Alley Wei's Tampines outlet, staff counselled

A woman said she and her parents were left vomiting in disgust after allegedly finding a cockroach in a cup of soybean milk from Alley Wei.

The alleged incident happened at the Taiwanese restaurant's Tampines Mall outlet around 2:40pm on Jul. 20.

In a Facebook post uploaded on the night of Jul. 25, Rhonda Tay recounted allegedly discovering the insect in her drink several days earlier.

In response to Mothership’s queries on the incident, Karen Hsu, a spokesperson for Alley Wei, said that they "[acknowledged] receipt of the feedback that has been posted online".

Hsu also said that they were aware that the customer had indicated she would post about the incident online if they did not "accede to her request for a public social media apology".

The alleged incident

On Jul. 20, Tay visited Alley Wei's Tampines Mall outlet to buy three cups of soybean milk for herself and her parents.

The family had been at the mall for a traditional Chinese medicine appointment and had the beverages at the nearby clinic.

Tay noted in her Facebook post that her parents do not usually remove the lids from their cups.

She, however, said that she habitually removes cup lids before drinking.

Tay's parents soon finished their drinks.

Just as Tay was about to finish her drink, she allegedly spotted what appeared to be a baby cockroach at the bottom of her cup.

The 42-year-old later shared a photo of the insect in her Facebook post.

The alleged discovery led her parents to wonder how many cockroaches they might have unknowingly consumed, Tay said.

The family decided to proceed with their TCM treatment before returning to the restaurant at around 5:50pm.

According to Tay, they approached the cashier at Alley Wei and "dug out the baby cockroach in front of her".

Tay claimed the cashier apologised and offered both a refund and a replacement drink, repeating the offer four times. She said she declined.

She added that while she understood frontline staff might not be "[trained] to communicate", she believed it was simple logic to immediately discard the allegedly contaminated food.

The issue was apparently raised to a supervisor, before a management executive was later involved.

24 hours to respond

In the Facebook post, Tay shared that she had rejected the outlet's alleged attempts to offer monetary compensation.

Instead, she apparently told staff that both she and her parents wanted a public apology across the company's social media platforms.

According to Tay, two members of the company's management team apparently contacted her, one claiming to be a supervisor and the other a management executive.

Tay also shared what she claims are messages exchanged between them.

In the screenshots posted on Facebook, Tay wrote that she had submitted feedback to the Singapore Food Agency (SFA).

She also gave the outlet a 24-hour deadline to issue a public apology.

Tay told Mothership that she also repeatedly informed management during a call that she would not accept any refunds or private verbal apologies.

Tay also told Mothership that she had waited five days for the company to act, but was allegedly ignored.

She added that nobody had contacted her since Jul. 20.

Tay also told Mothership that both she and her parents vomited "for a good four days" due to what she described as mental disgust and “phobia”, rather than potential food poisoning.

She added that they did not seek medical attention for food poisoning, but that she was monitoring her parents' condition.

Alley Wei’s response

Hsu told Mothership that, as the beverage was purchased as a takeaway item and approximately three hours had elapsed before it was returned, they were unable to determine with certainty whether the "foreign object" came from their establishment.

"With regard to the foreign object found in the drink, as the beverage was purchased as a takeaway item and approximately three hours had elapsed before it was returned to us, we are unfortunately unable to conclusively determine whether the foreign object originated from our establishment.

We do monthly pest controls and do cleanings diligently and frequently. As such, while we take the customer’s feedback seriously and have conducted the necessary internal checks, we are unable to verify the source of the foreign object with certainty."

Hsu also told Mothership that they personally spoke with the customer over the phone to better understand her concerns before the matter was escalated publicly.

During the conversation, according to Hsu, the customer repeatedly emphasised that her primary issue was with what "she perceived" to be the rude attitude of their kitchen staff during the interaction.

After conducting an internal review and discussions with the staff involved, Alley Wei reportedly concluded that the staff did not intend to be rude or dismissive.

Hsu added:

"They attempted to address the customer’s concerns by offering several forms of resolution, including replacing the item and other proposed remedies. However, these were repeatedly declined by the customer.

As the available options continued to be rejected, the staff eventually asked the customer how she would like the matter to be resolved, in an effort to understand what outcome she was seeking.

We believe this may unfortunately have been perceived by the customer as being rude, when the staff’s intention was to find a resolution that would be acceptable to her".

According to Hsu, Alley Wei had offered the customer a full refund and compensation in an effort to resolve the matter amicably.

Hsu also said they suggested arranging for the staff involved to apologise to the customer in person, as they understood that her main concern was the interaction with their staff.

Both offers were apparently declined.

According to Hsu, issuing a public statement, as requested by the customer, was not something they believed to be appropriate or proportionate.

"[The] customer maintained that the only acceptable resolution would be for our company to publish a public apology on our social media platforms.

While we fully acknowledge the importance of taking responsibility for any service lapse and have apologised sincerely to the customer, issuing a public statement on our social media for an isolated customer complaint is not a course of action that we believe is appropriate or proportionate from a professional and corporate standpoint".

Hsu told Mothership that they have since counselled the staff involved and reinforced the importance of maintaining professionalism and appropriate customer service standards at all times.

They have also reportedly reminded their team to handle customer concerns with empathy and courtesy, regardless of the circumstances.

Hsu said:

"Given that the customer has already chosen to publicise the matter despite our attempts to resolve it privately, our recommendation would be to allow the situation to subside naturally unless there are any further developments requiring our attention".

SFA statement 

In response to Mothership queries on the incident, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) said that they are looking into the matter.

SFA added that as part of the enquiry and gathering of evidence, they may engage the feedback provider for more details and will not hesitate to take enforcement action if sufficient evidence has been obtained.

"Food safety is a joint responsibility. While SFA puts in place and enforces the regulatory measures, food operators must play their part by adhering to good food hygiene and preparation practices. Food operators should also ensure their premises are clean and well-maintained. Members of the public who have concerns about food safety practices by food operators should report to SFA via the online feedback form."