I have been following up on story about the young Thai girl, who came to Singapore to study and met with an accident. She fell onto the tracks, luckily she is still alive, but lost two of her legs. Parents came down to Singapore, and the young girl is now back to Thailand.
The family has to settle the huge hospitalisation and medical fees. SMRT gave her $5,000. And, our media took pictures of her appearing relaxed and happy, as she left Singapore. In my mind, this is a rediculous amount, coming from SMRT.
Today, I read that some anonymous donors have given $250,000 to the young girl. Is SMRT afraid of setting precedents? Is SMRT afraid that they will take over the role of the insurance companies? Can you help me uderstand SMRT’s thinking?
Terence Seah
Hi Terence
I know most Singaporeans like you are generous when it comes to donations for charity or a good cause. As examples, a young girl donated $1 million to the Japanese Red Cross in aid of the recent tsunami and nuclear disasters and the $250000 donated to the Thai girl by private individuals.
As for SMRT, it is a public company listed on the stock exchange. SGX is also a watchdog to regulate the companies for their transparencies and accountabilities.
In the train accident, is the SMRT liable and has to pay
compensation? If not, then in the account book, the money donated has to be accountable.
I am not a CEO of a big company and I have to admit that my above opinion could be flawed and is intended for discussion only.
Cheers
“…..lost two of her legs.”. This gives the impression that the person has more legs than 2. She lost both her legs.
Years ago, BG Boey Tak Hap helmed SMRT. In his name, we see “??”?one who is a ?????”??“?Knowing him personally, he is.
Ok, if a compensation is large, people might read that as an admission of guilt. And most conglomarates shun this as plaque. But this fear can be simply and easily removed if the compensation is made ex gratia, and appropriate documents be signed by the recipient for that.
Insurance pay-out is nit a matter of certainly. usually, liability on the part of the operator has to be established. But even then, there may be contributory negligence on the part of the injured which reduces the amount of compensation payable.
To my mind, it ultimately boils down to the heart.
If one has the heart, one will do a lot more for needy people; more so if the need was caused by some encounters involving that one person.
That there is a Governing Board to account to makes no sense to me. Can it be the case that a money making corporation has so cleverly found and assembled a group of heartless people? Viva this corporation then.
I have not donated in this instance and shant say more except that she shd guard her money carefully. $250,000 is not a big sum to lose…….over a small period of time. And she has years to live.
How i wish the platform barrier was there, then this accident may not occur at all.
Anyway, Police investigation are still oning and SMRT spokesman said that discussion with her’s family are confidential. I do agreed that it can be done better by…
Let us wish her the very best and admire her strong spirit !
Ya Terrence. Thanks for highlighting this. I believe many people are equally puzzled. Apparently, nobody in a corporation – much less a Govt-related establishment – would want to stick his head out and give money, as this will create the “misunderstanding” that the corporation (or individual) has plenty of money to throw. It is not politically correct (don’t forget they are considering raising the fare). In the final analysis, people just cover their hearts in a bid to save their necks.
While on this, I would like to talk about those charity shows on TV. I was watching the recent one on Ch8, where they showed footages of the poor, disadvantaged and/or disabled old people. Those images were heartrending no doubt, and designed to squeeze the viewer’s heart – as well as his wallet. My thought was – if all our high-flyers who earn millions per year were to give away just one month of their salary each, we wouldn’t need so much crying and coaxing on air for a few dollars from the average Lee and Tan.
Hi Thomas, Tim, Robert, Daniel,
In hindsight, maybe SMRT should not have given the $5,000, as it just looks rediculously too small. It could have waited until the completion of the investigation into the incident. So, now, the organisation is faced with a big suit. Guess, we cannot plan for everything.
Terence Seah
Terence, was up and out early to pluck durians. Missed reading the morning papers. What has happened & what’s new?
Tim,
THE family of the Thai student is suing SMRT for $3.4 million. I am interested to know how the accident happenend. So, let’s wait.
Terence Seah
Thanks.
A bit mad, a bit crazy. Pending what the Plaintiff’s writ has to say and to convince the sourt to accept it as the case was, this is my gut reaction.
Also, to arrive at a $3.4m compensation, you have to give a number on your loss of future earnings (i.e will your study/learning in Spore get you to pass all the exams to become not just like susanlim but also earn like a susanlim?), sufferings and pain, continual medical care/rehabilitation, the length of medical support and the cost of replacement legs (and how much the dud legs will ease/lessen loss of faculty, mobility/movement efficiencies). Not least, the apportionment of liability if no one single party is to take the whole be blame.
Nice to see what pans out.
If there was am indication of impending suit or a belief that the SMRT was negligent/contributed to the injury, then the right thing to do was not to pay a single cent untill every dust is settled.
No compensation, gratuitous or otherwise, looks better than and attracts less an adverse publicity that a miserly $5,000.
Got to sleep now b4 I call Dan to drive me up at 1.30 a.m. for more durians and do a Lucy look-see.
Hi Terence,
Only God knows what happened. Now the situation is going to get very ugly. All possibilities will arise and both use twist the events to win the case , and also the money.
The newspaper reported she fainted and fell onto the tracks, ie her own fault. She has not said anything so far, no statement, no disagreements, no nothing. The father says he wants to view the tape. That would be unacceptable if she has given no indication of how she fell onto the tracks. Some may be suspicious that on viewing the tape, then they will give their version of what happened, but that is after the fact, and unacceptable, but not necessarily illegal nor unacceptable as evidence.
I find her lack of statements and a lack of spontaneous statement of events by her, for a young girl suspicious. perhaps she is coached by an adult.
The newspaper reported her father as alleging that she was pushed. If so why no objection to the press report? No statement to correct.
And if she was in fact pushed, by whom? Does that make the SMRT guilty? In full? In part? Cannot be as there is no relation betewwn SMRT and the alleged member of the public.
All the father has been saying is she is an innocent victim, she needs help as the family is poor. So too Thailand is poor, relative to Singapore. This is not a legal argument. But one stated to appeal to both the Thai public for support for a fellow Thai, and to sympathetic Sgpns, not exactly relevant but a trick to put the judgement to the public to pressure and overwhelm the judicial process. This is dishonest and can be an obstruction to justice in some countries.
I find the timing also strange. Stay in hospital in Sgp, then newspaper appeals, hospital bills paid by public, complain of impoverished condition of family, stinginess of SMRT offer, receipt of spontaneous public donations, mention of estimated costs for rehabilitation, a special donation by Red Cross on arrival in Bangkok, imagine such arrangements, coordination can be faster than a 3+ hour trip to Bangkok, followed by a suit, exactly 1 day after arrival. I cannot believe all these events were not arranged earlier but kept secret. What are the Thai papers saying about this case?
What do you think would have been the reaction if a Singaporean was to have the same accident in Thailand? Do you think the response and results would be similar? Would the Thai papers have reported it?
Consider there was a case where a Sgpn film-maker had an accident if India. He was hit by a vehicle reversing into him. He lost the use of his limbs. Who is paying for his rehabilitation? India? Thailand?
Truth is stranger than fiction. I have a sickening feeling this will drag in the Thai press, Thai people, facts twisted, truth and objectivity shamed as being uncharitable and lacking in humanity, just so to milk how much we can afford.
I hope I am wrong and would be happy to be proven wrong. But when you get lawyers involved, truth and objectivity are the victims.
This is not a case of the small public being victimised by a BIG corporation. This is not a case of a lack of charity by Singaporeans. This is an appeal to ugly Nationalism.
Apologies to all disagreeing, but IMHO, this is only my opinion.
Dear Charles #9, I won’t & can’t accept your appologies, because I agree with your resonable arguments based on facts up to this stage. cheers !
Why am I so interested in this SMRT accident? Not because she is Thai.
An accident can happen to anyone on a holiday or while overseas. Many travellers buy travel insurance when they travel overseas; even when we go into W. Malaysia. I had assumed the Thai girl had travel insurance or personal insurance because her father is in insurance.
If she has travel insurance, she should be compensated by the insurance company, I would expect so.
Let’s say she fights the case with SMRT, and wins. She would then be compensated an appropriate amount, by SMRT’s insurance company. I also assume this is additional to what was paid by her travel insurance.
Let’s say she loses the fight because someone pushes her down the tracks, or it was truly an accident, she may or may not be further compensated to a limited amount. In this case, how does travel insurance works?
SHCians love to travel, so it is good to have an understanding of how travel insurance works. Can you shed some light on travel insurance, pertaining to serious accidents?
Terence Seah
Terence@11
Travel insurance is to protect you from all the accidents and mishaps that can happen during your journey. If you look closely at your travel insurance policy there are many clauses and disclaimers on what is covered and what is not.
To complicate matters and to make the policy attractive there are other added coverages for instance: loss of baggage, travel delay, etc, and now even terrorist acts.
We should look at travel insurance to cover us for higher cost risks like accidents and medical emergencies, evacuation from remote locations, special sports like diving and mountaineering.
For general requirements, I tend to just get the cheapest coverage; there is an annual plan I have which is just S$88 but may have limited total cover. However, it works out well for me.
Be careful and don’t fall for the banks/credit card companies’ offer of an accident (only) policy. This cheap cover is often touted by them but it covers ACCIDENTS only. You are more liable to fall sick or be hospitalised due to other causes.
For claims or serious accidents there is a limit to the total amounts that can be paid depending on the class of policy you buy usually termed Superior or Premium, etc.
And make sure you buy the cover you need like when you go for winter sports or other riskier pastimes.
Hi Charles Chua #9
Your assessment of the unfortunate train accident happened to a young Thai girl and its aftermath is measured and commendable as it is based on logical deductions and facts.
The matter has now assumed a unpleasant twist when human decency is thrown to the wind and greed has reared its ugly head.
Now the event is overtaken by the tussle between compassion and the law of the country. Many Singaporeans are generous and wish the event will play out in favour of the victim. When the dust is finally settled and the law dictates that SMRT is liable and has to pay a compensation, then the story will have a happy ending.
To SMRT, it can afford the payment and its transport business will not be affected in anyway. But as I have said earlier in comment #1, the amount of money dispensed has to be accountable.
Robert Ong
The victim is Thai. Will your soft spot be less if she was a Bahai, a Moi?
No, and I will answer that for you.
Inherent in us is this sense of justice. Whoever the victim is, we want to see a wrong righted, if a wrong does exist.
However, we may be different from some others. We voice out. You and I are the same, not identical tho. You usually put it nicely; I am brash. Still, we speak out.
I refused to take up travel insurance for yesterday’s durian trip. No durian fell on me. Durianas smiled sweetly at me at the Immigration. The coach did not hit a water buffalo. The concoction of durian, curry, assam and laksa soup did not plot an uposiring in my tummy. Best, no complaint of otaks coming alive and turning into piranhas.
Back to this accident.
SMRT owes a duty of care to whoever is in its premises under “occupier;s liability”. The standard of care increases if the whoever is an invitee/licensee as must be the case with everyone who pays a fare for a train ride.
The crux therefore appears to be whether the duty of care was adequate, that sufficient railings and screens shd have been provided (assuming there wasnt any at the place of accident) to prevent anyone falling onto the track. That the accident wd have been averted but for these safety measures.
The circumstances in which she fell are most relevant. Even if she was pushed, or fainted – an involuntary act – this duty of care (and the adequacy of preventive/safety measures) comes to be srutinised.
But if it was a case of choice, an act of self-infliction, SMRT will probably be absolved.
A young gal has lost both her legs. This is very sad. However, the sadder an incident is, the sadder I feel if anyone – especially manipulative people behind the scene – tries to make fodder out of it. Out of your soft spot.
If compensation is finally adjudged to be due to her under the law, pay promptly. Not a cent more. More shameful if it’s a cent less.
Logical deductions may not be legally right. Legally right may not be morally correct. And morality does not need to be logical. So we are going around in circles. In any case, no amount of money can compensate for the loss of two legs. We wish the young lady well and hope the unfolding of related events will not aggrieve her further.
We should have more such exchanges of ideas and opinions, as in the process we learn something. I appreciate Tim’s insight on the delicate balance between compassion and compensation. Particularly, I agree fully with him on this: “No compensation, gratuitous or otherwise, looks better than and attracts less an adverse publicity that a miserly $5,000”.
Like Terence, I too like to look at the happening news.
He was 62 when he left the industry, supposdy taking a stroll downhill. Now, at 77, he is recalled and tasked to steer a industry member out of trouble.
Despite big fat salaries paid out, have we not groomed at least a few talents to handle what is essentially not even a crisis? Fat peanuts only get us fat monkeys, which, comfortably up there, are too fat and too afraid to climb down the trees.
This is also a time to call for George to show us his calibre and astute diplomatic skills.
Then, we have someone changing the lyrics of a song. This someone comes from a giant institution which gets the lions’ share of the budget.
Yet, it lacks the common sense of a toddler learning nursery rhymes that it’s rude to put in your words to change another’s song.
Imagine someone puts words into a national anthem to go smthg like ths :
“Many Cheetah kaya singer Paula somemore somemore men no shoe………”.
I will be the first to throw my slippers at him, and only bcos I dont hv a gun to shoot him.
Even if it was devoid of common sense, didnt it hv the rich resources to warn it of the legalities, and that it was to produce a song to be sung at a country – its employer -birthday?
Tsk, tsk, tsk…………
I dread the day if our Big Mr-No-Need-Emeritus is forced to return to save us from more gaffes. During his days, nobody goofed up unpunished.
Hi Tim,
Please do not make any indirect reference to ministers on this forum, whether you mean well or otherwise. Please stay within the topic of discussion.
Thank you. Be good, from Kota Kinabalu.
Terence Seah
Terence, you’re right IF, directly or indirectly, a Minister is referred to as it means politics.
Unfortunately, in this instance, you’re wrong becos, directly or indirectly, NONE of these people is a Minister. What they had been is no issue, just like what you have been and what I have been. All of us have been little boys wetting our diapers, and later, learned a few swear words to grow up.
Enjoy yourself at KK – remember, it was the place here you were born. Only difference is, the kerbau isnt there.
Yes, why so stingy to spend to expedite the installation of a Fence Detection of Intrusion System which wont take 2 years to complete after making so many pledges of perking up?
Human error?
Wasnt it obvious that it has to be human error seen from the sneak-in and then from the delayed detection of the graffiti – measuring some 7-10m and 1 m high – that eyes were blind and security was non existing at best?
In a case like this, they cant put the blame on my butty God and call it an Act of God (for using the impugned word “God”, my posting might be impounded for a while, silly Terence).
Clearly, somethg is amiss at SMRT. Clearly, the rank & file did their jobs with eyes close. Sure sign of indifference, disdain for/diaillusion of the Management. Heads must roll and the head has to be the one on top. Dont make fodder out of frys.
To me, she has long out-lived her shelf life. She has to go. And go now!
The world economy is in dire straits. Italy sees a rich cousin in China and so finds the cheek to ask Chinamen to take over the Sting of the unfinished Italian Job.
Investors are running away from the stockmarket to roost in gold.
Not to lose out – kiasu, that is – we must also dig for gold.
The level roads are ruthlessly dishevelled. Construction workers seem to enjoy the fun of this upheaval, even rampaging into the wee hours. Driving has become hazardous but it’s a small sacrifice if, in finding gold, we’ll all have a better tomorrow. Meanwhile, the incidental benefit of free training to become F1 racers cannot go unmentioned.
was the vibration & tremor from all thsi digging too much for the sewerage to bear? Or did they too think there was gold below the Tanglin Market?
Whichever, what surfaced indeed was yellow albeit not as good as gold, in feel and in smell. You cant make/sell food in this condition. Food poperators have suffered. Organisations like the owner of this Market should not be stingy with compensation.
What will come out next from the ground with this continuous digging? Gold? No doubt…………….not.
Mt Grandma believed that not far below – 18 storeys to be exact – lives a group which shd not be disturbed. Once they are let out, all hell break loose. Literally.
No coincidence if they come here as foreign talents.