Why didn't drink's price tag reflect surcharge?

I thank NTUC FairPrice's Jonas Kor for his speedy reply (Surcharge for chilled drinks is displayed clearly; June 24).

But Mr Kor has misconstrued my earlier letter (Has culture of deception become the norm here?; June 22).

It is not that FairPrice charges an additional 15 cents for chilled drinks that is upsetting, but rather the way that it is doing it.

Is it so difficult to have a price tag that reflects the actual price that one needs to pay below the item? Why does one need to look around the store for an additional "surcharge notice"? This is a perfect example of caveat emptor.

In his letter, Mr Kor wrote: "We do not condone any unethical business behaviour or practices that deliberately deceive customers."

I am certain that FairPrice did not set out to be deliberately unethical or deceptive, but from a customer's point of view, this is a deceptive practice.

It would be wise for FairPrice to step into its customers' shoes and see things from their perspective, instead of alluding to the legitimacy of the practice by stating that other businesses do this also.

Does FairPrice see itself as an industry leader or is it happy to just blindly follow what everyone else is doing?

Allen Chong (Dr)