Tensions boiled over at a kopitiam in Petaling Jaya recently as a heated dispute erupted between a female customer and a chicken rice stall owner.
According to a Facebook video, she accused the stall of selling white-cut chicken with mysterious black curly hair and refused to pay for the two chickens she had bought.
This angered the stall owner and his staff, who confronted the woman directly, their indignation palpable.
The staff scolded the woman, loudly clarifying that they would never sell white-cut chicken with hair to customers.
“How could there be a bundle of hair on the chicken meat? Others won’t serve it to you like this (with hair), don’t be foolish!” he said.
Stall Owner Offers Free Chickens in Bid to Soothe Ruffled Feathers
However, the woman was adamant, demanding that the stall owner inspect the packaged chicken closely and acknowledge the problem.
“Look for yourself. We ate halfway and found something in the chicken. You need to check if there’s something in your chicken!” she insisted.
The stall owner, his patience wearing thin, attempted to reason with the customer despite the woman hurling vulgar words.
“The chicken meat has already been chopped for you. How can I sell it to others? Don’t be so unreasonable!” he said.
In a final olive branch, the beleaguered proprietor offered to treat the woman to the contentious chickens, which might have soothed the ruffled feathers of a less determined diner.
The Chicken Rice Clash That Hatched a Heated Debate
Alas, it was not to be, as she remained steadfast in her conviction.
Her grievances extended beyond the current fracas, including a previous denial of individual chicken legs.
The online community, ever the judge and jury, quickly weighed in, some speculating that the woman was trying to score a free meal.
Others, however, argued that the stall owner should have the mysterious hair analyzed, lest he be found wanting in his duty to provide his customers with the highest quality of poultry.
Calculated Ploy to Cause Trouble
In an exclusive interview with Oriental Daily, the stall owner, a man in his sixties, provided his side of the story.
He claimed that the woman had purposely tried to cause trouble, alleging that she came prepared to record the incident during her previous visit, when she had requested four chicken legs but was only offered two, a point of contention.
The stall owner added that the woman’s parting words were a threat to get him in big trouble.
As the saga unfolds, it remains a delicate dance between vendor and patron.
The line between reasonable expectation and unreasonable demand is often blurred, leaving both sides grappling to find common ground.
