Incompetent car service centres in Malaysia; Quality and standard need to be regulated!

Higher expectations: A mechanic at a service centre in this file picture.

No joy at car service centres

PETALING JAYA: Malaysians are getting increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of service provided by authorised vehicle service centres.

The J.D. Power Asia Pacific 2014 Malaysia Customer Service Index (CSI) study also found that the expectations of vehicle owners increased since last year. (see below).

Overall satisfaction among new Malaysian car owners slipped three points from last year’s score to 754 out of 1000, the study revealed.

Satisfaction with service provided by Malaysian national brands dipped below the overall average to 744 points, down five points from last year.

On the other hand, the study found that customers expected more from these service centres, compared to the year before.

“The study identified 22 service standards that enhance the overall customer service experience. Customer expectations in 2013 were for service centres to meet 17 of the 22 standards,” stated the study.

“In 2014, customers expected a minimum of 19 of those 22 standards to be met in order to have a positive service experience.”

The study also found that additional services improved customer satisfaction, such as washing and vacuuming vehicles at the completion of the service and making follow-up phone calls to customers after service had been completed.

It stated, however, that only 14% of mass market customers had their service centres carry these out.

Toyota ranked highest in overall customer service satisfaction with a score of 777, followed by Nissan at 776, while Isuzu and Mazda tied for third place at 775.

The study ranks the satisfaction of new vehicle owners on the service offered by these authorised centres in five areas: service quality (38%); vehicle pick-up (20%); service initiation (14%); service advisor (14%); and service facility (14%).

“Brands need to focus on the entire process – from helping customers secure service appointments, to providing top-quality services, to faster service turnaround times, to having friendly and knowledgeable service advisors – all of which contribute to overall customer satisfaction,” said J.D. Power country head Rajaswaran Tharma­lingam.

“Customers have higher expectations, so it’s vital that the automakers’ service centres strive to not only meet, but also exceed those expectations to deliver a satisfying experience for their customers,” he said.

The study measures the overall satisfaction level among vehicle owners who have taken their vehicle to any authorised service centre for maintenance or repair works during the first two years of ownership.

Contributed by P. Aruna & Tashny Sukumaran

Fomca: Quality of service centres need to be regulated

PETALING JAYA: The quality of vehicle service centres need to be regulated, either by the industry itself or by relevant authorities, said Fomca.

“We are also receiving an increasing number of complaints over the poor quality of service provided at vehicle service centres as well as on the quality of the vehicles.

“The industry needs to look at itself and make improvements.

“Malaysians are not getting a fair deal,” said Fomca secretary-general Datuk Paul Selvaraj.

He was commenting on the latest J.D. Power Asia Pacific 2014 Malaysia Customer Service Index (CSI) Study which found that the public’s overall satisfaction had slipped three points from last year’s score of 754 out of 1000.

“The findings of the survey is the reflection of the quality of service being provided.”

An engineer, K. Ramesh took his one-year-old car to an authorised service centre after experiencing some problems.

“My car started jerking. I took it to the centre twice but they could not figure out what was wrong.

“They finally said I would have to change the fuel pump and asked me to wait two weeks until they purchased the part. Then, they asked me to leave my car with them for a week for troubleshooting,” said the 29-year old.

Before sending the car in, Ramesh decided to check with several online forums, and found a simple solution shared by other car owners.

“I tried it and managed to fix it by myself in less that two hours.

“Because of their incompetence, I was given the runaround and would have had to be without a car for a whole week,” he said.

Another car owner, Eric Chia, 27, waited two hours before the centre started servicing his car despite having made an appointment a day earlier.

“I waited two hours before realising that others who came in after me had their cars attended to first.

“When I asked the customer service advisor, he said it was his mistake and apologised,” he said.

To make things worse, the service, which was supposed to take an hour, took three hours to complete.

“I thought they did a thorough job, a month later, my air conditioner was blowing warm air and my engine mounting was loose.

“I had to send my car in again before they finally fixed the problem,” he said.

Contributed by P. Aruna The Star/Asia News Network

J.D. Power Asia Pacific Reports: Well-Informed Customers in Malaysia Have High Expectations for Customer Service


Likely due to cars are expensive in Malaysia, customers are expecting better service when they take their vehicles in for service or repairs, and authorized service centers are not meeting those expectations, according to the J.D. Power Asia Pacific 2014 Malaysia Customer Service Index (CSI) Study^SM released.

The study, now in its 12^th year, measures overall service satisfaction among owners who took their vehicle to an authorized service center for service maintenance and/ or repair work during the first 12 to 24 months of ownership. For the first time, the 2014 study examines service satisfaction exclusively on the mass market segment.

Toyota ranks highest in overall customer service satisfaction among mass market brands, with a score of 777. Toyota performs particularly well in the service facility factor. Nissan ranks second with a score of 776, while Isuzu and Mazda rank third in a tie at 775 each.

The study evaluates new-vehicle owner satisfaction with the service experience by examining dealership performance in five factors: service quality (38%); vehicle pick-up (20%); service initiation (14%); service advisor (14%); and service facility (14%). Satisfaction among mass market brands averages 754 index points (on a 1,000-point scale) in 2014, which is a 3-point decline from 2013.

 
The study identifies 22 service standards that enhance the overall customer service experience. In 2014, customers expect a minimum of 19 of those 22 standards to be met in order to have a positive service experience. In comparison, customer expectations in 2013 were for service centers to meet 17 of the 22 service standards. On average, authorized service centers are implementing 18.1 standards per service visit in 2014.

“Customers have higher expectations, so it’s vital that the automakers’ service centers strive to not only meet, but also to exceed those expectations to deliver a satisfying experience for their customers,” said Rajaswaran Tharmalingam, country head, Malaysia, J.D. Power Asia Pacific. “Brands need to focus on the entire service process—from helping customers secure service appointments, to providing top-quality services, to faster service turnaround times, to having friendly and knowledgeable service advisors—all of which contribute to overall customer satisfaction.”

The study also finds there are additional services some service centers provide that also improve customer satisfaction, such as washing and vacuuming vehicles at the completion of the service and making follow-up phone calls to customers after service is performed. Currently, only 14 percent of mass market customers indicate their service center delivered on both of these services, among whom satisfaction is 797, compared with 729 among customers whose service center did not deliver on both those standards.

Xinjiang's terrorists kill religious leader Imam Jume Tahir in China

Jume Tahir, the China's imam of the 600-year-old Id Kah mosque in the city of Kashgar, was killed Wednesday by "three thugs influenced by religious extremist ideology", the Xinjiang government web portal Tianshan said. PHOTO: AFP 

Xinjiang imam´s murder: 2 suspects killed, 1 detained

The murder of Jume Tahir, the imam of China´s largest mosque in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous ...

Imam’s murder is death-knell for terror

Police in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region announced on Thursday that they had shot dead two alleged religious extremists and captured one man, all of whom are believed to have murdered Jume Tahir, the imam of Id Kah Mosque, in Kashi.

According to a report by Xinjiang's official news portal ts.cn, the three suspects, who had been influenced by religious extremism and intended to do "something big" to make a name for themselves, killed the 74-year-old imam Wednesday after he finished the morning prayer service.

Id Kah Mosque is the largest in Xinjiang. Imam Jume Tahir was a patriotic religious leader who enjoyed a wide reputation and respect among Uyghur Muslims.

He publicly condemned the brutality of extremists after their recent deadly attacks in the northwestern region, which authorities believe to be connected to overseas terrorist groups.

The murder of the respected imam is a hideous crime. It only indicates that the extremists felt growing anxiety and fear over the patriotic religious leaders' public criticism and elaboration of the real spirit of Islamic teachings. They were attempting to create a sense of terror.

The death of Imam Jume Tahir has once again shown the world that the terrorists are the public enemy of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang. They mean to destroy the peace and stability of Xinjiang. They have created one bloody atrocity after another to draw global attention and promote their extremist causes. Whoever stands in their way will become a target.

The repeated deadly attacks have hurt the livelihood of Xinjiang, especially in the southern part of the region, including the tourist resort of Kashi. Local business people, mainly Uyghurs, have felt the biggest impact.

The terrorists are sacrificing the local economic and social progress for their purposes.

Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang seem to be on the increase in recent years. It is no surprise if you also learn about how the separatist World Uyghur Congress has been spreading false information to foreign media, and how the Western media have often been amplifying their prejudice against the Chinese government.

Prosecutors in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, on Wednesday announced they were prosecuting Ilham Tohti, a former lecturer at the Minzu University of China, for separatism. The US Department of State demanded the release of Tohti on the same day. The stance will encourage overseas Uyghur separatists to create more troubles.

However, the extremists' goal to split Xinjiang or mess up the entire country will never succeed. It has become clearer than ever that ethnic integrity is the only choice for people in Xinjiang.

Source: Global Times

Related:

People condemn murder of religious leader in Xinjiang

The murder of Jume Tahir, the imam of China’s largest mosque in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region...

Crossover: Renowned religious leader Jume Tahir killed by mob

For more on the murder of Jume Tahir, we’re joined on the phone by our reporter Zhang Nini who was f...

Related posts:

Terrorists Attack Kunming Train Station, China’s 9/11 !

Terrorists attack crowded Chinese market, strongly condemned by international community!

Video: International community strongly condemns Urumqi terror attack

Property prices in Malaysia to continue to increase, says REHDA

Property prices in Malaysia will continue to increase due to the supply and demand factor as well as the high land cost, according to Real Estate and Housing Developers Association (Rehda) president Datuk Seri FD Iskandar Mansor.

Notably, the average annual housing completion stood at 100,000 compared to the average annual household formation of 140,000, revealed the National Property Information Centre.

According to Iskandar, who also serves as managing director and chief executive officer of Glomac Bhd, the public have the misconception that developers are responsible for the rising property prices.

He explained that it is impossible for developers to maintain or lower the selling price for new launches due to land cost and high conversion premium, which has recently increased by up to 300 percent.

He also noted that the cost of doing business has been expanding each year, and, unlike before, developers no longer enjoy the 30 percent profit margin.

In fact, developers now only make around 15 percent profit margin because of high development and infrastructure charges, compliance cost, stamp duty and quit rent.

Moreover, land is getting scarce and more expensive.

“In early 2007, when Glomac bought land nearby the Petronas Twin Towers, the seller asked for RM1,000 per square feet (psf) but we wanted to pay only RM600 psf. I knew what we wanted to build on it so we paid RM1,000 psf,” said Iskandar.

“Now, that same piece of land is worth RM3,500 psf and the value of the building has risen. Land cost has tripled in the last seven years.”

Source:

 
Related post:

New kid on the block: Singapore's 'shoebox king' Oxley spices up Kuala Lumpur a record RM3,300 per sq ft

China probes Microsoft monopoly

BEIJING: China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) has launched an investigation into US software giant Microsoft’s Windows operating system, a day after officials showed up unannounced at several Microsoft’s offices in China.



Microsoft Corp faces China anti-monopoly probe



http://english.cntv.cn/2014/07/30/VIDE1406708763748561.shtml

The anti-monopoly regulator had sent some 100 inspectors to Microsoft’s offices in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Chengdu on Monday and had obtained internal documents and seized two computers. “The regulator is also investigating a Microsoft vice president and senior managers and have made copies of the firm’s financial statements and contracts,” it said in a statement on its website.

The SAIC said it has also seized documents, e-mails and other data from Microsoft’s computers and servers. The probe could not be completed as some of the key personnel of Microsoft were not in China or unable to be contacted, it said. Xinhua news agency reported in June last year, the SAIC had investigated complaints from enterprises that Microsoft had used tie-in sales and verification codes in its Windows operating system and Microsoft Office application, causing software incompatibility issues.

It said Microsoft has agreed to cooperate with the government on the investigation.

In November last year, China’s economic planner and watchdog, the National Development and Reform Commission had launched a probe into Qualcomm Inc, the California-based world’s largest mobile chipmaker, to determine whether it has abused dominant market position. — Bernama

Related

 Microsoft Windows dominates China’s OS market
According to the June monthly report published by the internet research firm CNCC, over 83 percent o...

Japan reopens China's wounds: Sea of Change in pacific policy; Japan's wars and Potsdam Declaration still relevant

Japan reopens China's wounds

Few wounds take so long to heal. But the defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, which broke out 120 years ago today, remains an open wound in Chinese national psyche.

Not because it hurt us too badly. The subsequent unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, fittingly portrayed as "humiliating the country and forfeiting its sovereignty", has since been a hallmark of national shame. But the Japanese imposed on us greater shame and sufferings in the decades that followed.

Nor because we are a nation of grudge-holders. We have befriended posterity of Western intruders responsible for our nation's humiliating past, and are forming partnerships with them. Even to Japan, our worst enemy in history, our leaders always reiterate the wish to let friendship "last from generation to generation".

But because the same old ghost of expansionist Japan is lurking next door, causing a contagious sense of insecurity throughout the region.

We cannot afford to not be vigilant, because Shinzo Abe's Japan is strikingly similar to the Japan of 120 years ago. International concerns about the likelihood of history repeating itself in Northeast Asia are not groundless. Because, like in 1894, Japan is again aspiring for "greatness" through expanding its overseas military presence. And its foremost target is, again, China.

It is dangerous to underestimate Japan as a security threat. Which it was, and still is.

The Japanese prime minister's rhetoric about peace may be engaging. But never forget Japan's extreme duality. Its wars of aggression have always been launched in the mode of surprise attacks while waving the banner of peace.

In 1871, Japan signed the Sino-Japanese Friendship and Trade Treaty with rulers of China's Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), which promises mutual respect for and non-violation of each other's territories. Hardly had the ink on that document dried when the Japanese began invading Ryukyu, then a Chinese tributary. The Ryukyu kingdom was finally annexed in 1879 and renamed Okinawa.

On Japan's agenda of overseas expansion, the 1894 surprise attack against China was a carefully plotted advance to control Korea before slicing China. But the Japanese government eulogized its acts of aggression as those of benevolence aimed at "preserving the overall peace of East Asia" against "barbarians and semi-barbarians".

The more devastating Japanese war of aggression, embarked in 1931, was also waged in the name of peace, under the pretext of building an "East Asia sphere of common prosperity".

Even today, Japanese politicians call it a war of "liberation from white colonialism", even "enlightenment".

In amazing similarity, present-day Japan is flexing its military muscles overseas in the name of proactive peace. Also like in the run-up to the year of 1894, with peace on lips, Abe is waging a propaganda war against China, framing us as a threat.

This country has suffered enough from its one-sided wish for peace, and poor preparedness for worst scenarios.

Now is time for a break.

Sources: China Daily/Asia News Network

Sea of change in pacifist policy

Japan may have crossed a rubicon as it will only be a matter of time before it acts like a ‘normal’ country where troop deployment is concerned.

ON July 1, the Cabinet of Shinzo Abe decided that Japan would no longer abide by the policy of not engaging in collective self-defence.

This may appear innocuous but to those conversant with Japanese defence policy since World War II (WWII) this could amount to a sea of change.

The Americans, in an attempt to prevent a remilitarised Japan after WWII, imposed on it a constitution which contains Article 9, an article probably found in no other constitution. It states that Japan renounces war as a sovereign right of a nation and cannot resort to force, or the threat of the use of force, to settle international disputes.

The defence of Japan was guaranteed by the United States in a security agreement signed with Japan after the American occupation. Nevertheless, the United States also insisted that Japan take some steps to defend itself.

Thus, Article 9 was not interpreted literally by subsequent governments as excluding Japan from establishing a Self-Defence Force (SDF), but it could not be allowed to participate in collective self-defence. Japan could not send its military force to help any country, however friendly, except for humanitarian purposes.

This approach, perhaps unexpectedly, worked brilliantly for Japan.

Freed of the need to build a large military establishment, Japan devoted its energies to economic development and built what was until recently the second largest economy in the world.

But as the United States began to realise that Japan was the greatest beneficiary of this approach, it applied pressure on Japan to give up this “free ride”, and start deploying troops overseas, especially to aid American military expeditions. The Japanese resisted.

They argued that the SDF could be sent overseas for humanitarian purposes but not for combat as this would involve Japan in collective self-defence, even if only to aid Japan’s crucial ally, the United States. Article 9, as then interpreted, would be violated.

But the Japanese could not resist US pressure for long. Since then the Japanese have sent Japanese vessels to supply fuel for US ships to attack Afghanistan, and troops to Iraq in the war against Saddam Hussein.

But though these troops were placed in combat situations, their presence was justified, however contrived, for humanitarian reasons. They were not there for the purpose of collective self-defence!

This has now changed with the recent Cabinet decision. Despite assurances from the Abe Cabinet that Japan will only use troops after all means have been exhausted, henceforth it can send troops not only to help US forces if attacked but also to the defence of any other country that it might feel an obligation to. Japan may have crossed a rubicon as it will only be a matter of time before it acts like a “normal” country where troop deployment is concerned.

China and South Korea are against it. They fear that this could lead to the remilitarisation of Japan as they believe Japan has not sufficiently come to terms with its past of aggression against Asia.

Many South-East Asian nations, on the other hand, have been impressed by Japan’s peace diplomacy since WWII, and may be less inclined to believe the Japanese will remilitarise. Even though many South-East Asians, particularly those of Chinese descent, suffered from Japanese atrocities, they are more ambivalent about the Japanese war record.

The Japanese occupation in South-East Asia was a military one and lasted only about three-and-a-half years. Compare this to Korea, which was colonised by Japan from 1910 to 1945, when Korean cultural identity was subjected to an eradication campaign by the Japanese colonisers.

Or the Chinese, who since the Sino- Japanese war of 1895 had suffered almost half a century of Japanese threats, colonisation (Manchuria in 1931) and invasion (from 1937-1945.) Memories of Japanese atrocities such as the Nanjing Massacre are still vivid in their minds.

South-East Asians are concerned that the history issue, whatever the merits of the case, will continue to prevent reconciliation between Japan and Northeast Asia, in particular China.

Sino-Japanese relations will not stabilise unless that issue is resolved. This will not be good for South-East Asia, given the profound economic and geopolitical impact these two countries have on the region.

There is also some reason for unease in the manner in which Abe implemented the change. Over a matter of such importance, the Abe government should have gone through the procedure of amending or abolishing Article 9 of the constitution, instead of resorting to the tactic of changing governmental interpretation.

It is true that this will be difficult, given that a recent poll shows 56% of the Japanese population are against the Abe move. (A constitutional change needs a two-thirds majority in both houses and a majority in a national referendum.) Nevertheless, it is the task of Abe and his people to convince the Japanese people of the necessity of the constitutional change. If the Japanese people are unconvinced, then Abe should leave things be.

More concerning is that this normalisation is accompanied by a nationalist agenda of visits to the Yasukuni shrine by Japanese legislators and indeed by Abe himself, and by other actions that suggest Japan did no wrong in the war.

Japanese nationalists like Abe argue that they are only praying for the souls of the deceased when they visit the Yasukuni shrine, and they have no wish to resurrect the past.

But there are other aspects of the nationalist agenda the Abe people are pushing which may survive. One is the introduction of patriotic education, that can have a long-lasting effect on the Japanese population.

It can be argued that the Abe move to make Japan a normal country should be welcome. Japan is a large country with a population of around 120 million.

Moreover, it has the third largest economy, and is technologically one of the most advanced in the world. It has also convincingly demonstrated a record of more than 60 years of peaceful diplomacy.

At the same time, many Japanese, particularly the younger generation, no longer want to carry on with the mentality of a defeated nation so long after the war. Nevertheless, it is a pity that their government has to pursue the normalisation of Japan while at the same time pushing a nationalist agenda.

By Dr Lee Poh Ping The Star/Asia News Network

Dr Lee Poh Ping is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of China Studies in the University of Malaya. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

http://english.cntv.cn/program/dialogue/20130726/100500.shtml

First Japan war’s lessons remain relevant

Today is the 120th anniversary of the eruption of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). The war is generally viewed as a turning point in modern Chinese history. The illusion of a strong navy of the then-Qing government and limited hopes brought by the Self-Strengthening Movement ended with the war's coming. China not only lost to the West, but also was defeated by an East Asian country—Japan. China's long-held sense of superiority came to an abrupt end.

The complete defeat in the war, and cession of territories and indemnities brought with it, caused Chinese society to realize that only reform could reverse China's backwardness. Yet all reform measures failed to save the Qing regime.

The war also completely remade East Asian geopolitics, with Japan assuming a role as the leading country in the region. Only in recent years has this arrangement changed to some extent.

Drawing lessons from the war is not an easy job. Neither China nor Japan has set an example in this. China was convulsed by half a century of war and other disturbances following its defeat, before it gradually found its path forward. Japan became increasingly self-centered and paranoid due to its victory in the war and began to follow an expansionist path. It would only begin to restrain itself following its defeat by other world powers in the World War II.

China's experiences during the past 120 years are fodder for significant reflection. China and Japan once again find themselves in a confrontational stance. How should we look at China's geopolitical status, both then and now? What's the most significant lesson for us? There has been much discussion throughout China on this subject, but no consensus has yet been reached.

Will China find itself in a new war, similar to the one 120 years ago? History will not repeat itself, but China still face a number of uncertainties. What are these uncertainties? From where can the Chinese people derive our strategic confidence?

It is naïve to compare the historical context of the First Sino-Japanese War or World War I with China's current circumstances. Both international politics and China's internal social structure have experienced profound changes.

China is rising, even as there are many factors countervailing this process, both internal and external. The momentum of China's development has empowered the country, while at the same time exposing problems. Opinions remain divided as to whether Chinese society as a whole can bear the pressure.

There are those who would compare the Sino-Japanese relationship of 120 years ago with today. It is a confusing comparison. China 120 years ago lacked national strength, social unity, and effective government. It proved unable to reform itself in the face of serious setbacks.

China's task of reform was thrown into sharp relief following the First Sino-Japanese War. Even now, the country must continue to push reforms, and curb its social ills.

We should continue to crack down on corruption, and protect the democracy advocated by generations of revolutionaries. All this, however, should not come at the cost of social chaos.

Source: Global Times Published: 2014-7-25 0:28:01

Declaration still relevant

Looking at the Potsdam Declaration 69 years after its release on July 26 in 1945 is of great help in knowing why the Japanese government's attitude toward the war of aggression it launched against China and other Asian countries during World War II matters a great deal to its relations with its neighbors and the situation in East Asia.

Along with Cairo Declaration in 1943, this historical document was the cornerstone of the postwar world order. It was these two documents that established the principles for Japan, one of the culprits for World War II, to redeem itself from the evils of its militarism. And it was by following what both documents stipulated that Japan could realize reconciliation with its neighbors, which had forgiven what its invading troops had done to their peoples with the hope that the island country would behave itself and contribute to the building of a peaceful Asia and peaceful world at large.

However, the declaration was challenged when the Japanese government made the decision to nationalize the Diaoyu Islands in 2012, territory it had grabbed from China with its military aggression. Japan was supposed to return all the territories it had taken from China according to Cairo Declaration, and the Potsdam Declaration requires that the Cairo Declaration must be observed.

By blatantly questioning the international definition of the nature of the war, the legitimacy of the Far East Military Tribunal and even the existence of the "comfort women" Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is actually trying to overturn what the two declarations had stipulated for Japan's surrender and the establishment of the postwar order.

Abe government's lifting of the ban on its collective self-defense by reinterpreting Article 9 of its postwar pacifist Constitution early this month trod on the toes of its neighbors, as there is no threat to Japan's national security that calls for the possible use of its collective self-defense and for any overseas military action.

All Japan's Asian neighbors can get from what Abe is saying and doing is nothing but increased suspicion about the possibility of the revival of Japan's militarism.

When celebrating the 69th anniversary of the Potsdam Declaration, it is indeed necessary and urgent for China and its Asian neighbors to remind the Abe government that it is leading its country in the wrong direction if it indeed wants its country to become a normal member of the international community.

Sources: China Daily/Asia News Network