Page 17 of 20 FirstFirst ... 27121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 481 to 510 of 573

Thread: Significant Singapore News

  1. #481
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Before you and minority start making up stories and treat your assumptions as facts, you better read and interpret carefully what was reported in the news:



    Firstly, the "train was being driven automatically".
    Secondly "a captain was on board",
    but SMRT did not say the captain was in control and physically driving the train at the time when it banged into the 2 engineers! Otherwise why say "the train was being driven automatically"?

    As to what the captain was doing at that time, we don't know, but he probably found out too late when the train was too near the engineers and don't have time to apply e-brake.
    Otherwise, how to explain:
    (1) In clear bright day light and straight line of sight, the train was still driving at 60 km/h when it banged and killed the 2 engineers?
    (2) In above case, the captain would be able to see reasonably far away and why he/she can't see 15 people beside and in front of the train track if captain was driving the train in the driver's seat?
    (3) In the SMRT investigation report, there is NO DRIVER's STATEMENT about what happened! And you think such a serious incident such as driving a train and killing 2 people without stopping don't need to make any statement??????
    (4) If there is REALLY a PHYSICAL DRIVER physically in the train driving it, where is the detail driver's statement of account of the accident by the driver? How could the driver's statement be a 1 liner: I can't apply e-brake in time, and suddenly all focus of SMRT is on safety protocol and not on the driver???
    This is as good as you driving a car bang and kill a person and say you can't apply e-brake in time and you are now free of all fault and the police is supposed to investigate the person whether he jay-walk???

    So from the above, we can have 2 conclusions:
    Either: (A) There was NO DRIVER in control of the train, as SMRT released the misleading statement that "the train travelling at 60kmh on an automatic mode" and the train "was not ... told to stop" and yet suddenly it said there was a "captain on the train" and the driver cannot stop in time.

    OR: (B) There was A DRIVER in control of the train, and he was driving RECKLESSLY, yet the so called SMRT comprehensive investigation report was totally incomprehensive because it doesn't address why the driver driving the train did not see the 15+ staff beside the track and the 2 engineers on the track despite straight line of sight, was driving at fast speed of 60kmh so near the train station, was unable to stop in time despite applying emergency brakes! And the report said nothing of the RECKLESSNESS of the driver and finding him some responsibility for causing the death???

    So, which is true? (A) or (B)???

    Before you argue further, you better check with SMRT to ask them to clarify their confusing statements and ask them to confirm or deny that the "the captain was in the driver's seat physically driving the train when it banged and killed the 2 engineers"!
    You have derived your own two conclusions, you are the one who has doubts, so either you live with the doubts or you ask LTA, SMRT (and not asking me or anyone else in this forum) or you simply choose to continue trolling here.

    I state what was reported to remove your doubt that a driver (captain) was onboard (in the driver seat) when the incident happened.

    QUOTE from straits times
    The train which hit the men was being driven automatically, but a captain was on board.
    UNQUOTE

    QUOTE from SMRT
    When the train captain saw staff on the track, he immediately applied emergency brakes but was unable to prevent the accident.
    UNQUOTE

    Above are two simple English sentences to answer if there was a driver onboard, unless again if you have problem in sentence constructions to understand it. If you opine that there are misrepresentations in the two sentences, write to Straits times, LTA and SMRT.... but I'm sure you do not have the guts to do so but just keep trolling here.

    You can keep trolling, I know you are enjoying it. But then I do find amusement in reading your trolls.

  2. #482
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    And now you put in the statement saying the captain was "in the driver seat"? Ha ha ha! Trying to push your assumption as fact?!

    And it is really funny and hilarious to see that some people are so stupid to assume that just because a captain was on board means he was driving the train in the driver's seat? and then the "train was being driven automatically"? Ha ha ha!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ilikeu View Post
    You have derived your own two conclusions, you are the one who has doubts, so either you live with the doubts or you ask LTA, SMRT (and not asking me or anyone else in this forum) or you simply choose to continue trolling here.

    I state what was reported to remove your doubt that a driver (captain) was onboard (in the driver seat) when the incident happened.

    QUOTE from straits times
    The train which hit the men was being driven automatically, but a captain was on board.
    UNQUOTE

    QUOTE from SMRT
    When the train captain saw staff on the track, he immediately applied emergency brakes but was unable to prevent the accident.
    UNQUOTE

    Above are two simple English sentences to answer if there was a driver onboard, unless again if you have problem in sentence constructions to understand it. If you opine that there are misrepresentations in the two sentences, write to Straits times, LTA and SMRT.... but I'm sure you do not have the guts to do so but just keep trolling here.

    You can keep trolling, I know you are enjoying it. But then I do find amusement in reading your trolls.

  3. #483
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    And now you put in the statement saying the captain was "in the driver seat"? Ha ha ha! Trying to push your assumption as fact?!

    And it is really funny and hilarious to see that some people are so stupid to assume that just because a captain was on board means he was driving the train in the driver's seat? and then the "train was being driven automatically"? Ha ha ha!
    Ahhh... not arguing if there was indeed a driver onboard now.... and now deviating to if the driver was at driver seat....

    Let me quote and unquote again from SMRT
    QUOTE
    When the train captain saw staff on the track, he immediately applied emergency brakes but was unable to prevent the accident.
    UNQUOTE

    I'm sure you have your imagination to explain how did the "train captain saw staff on the track" and "applied emergency brakes" if he was not at the driver seat? If you have doubts, no need to ask me to check with SMRT for you, i'm sure you are old enough with balls to do so yourself.

  4. #484
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    It is interesting and intriguing why SMRT made 2 very simple statements and then no further reports or statements from the Captain (or driver, if any) ...


    So it is on auto mode, but with a captain ?
    So if the captain applied emergency brakes and yet unable to stop the train on time ... what then is the purpose of the captain ?

    I am sure many singaporeans are wondering (maybe not all, some will just ACCEPT what SMRT says ) ... yet SMRT has no further report on it ?

  5. #485
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner View Post
    It is interesting and intriguing why SMRT made 2 very simple statements and then no further reports or statements from the Captain (or driver, if any) ...


    So it is on auto mode, but with a captain ?
    So if the captain applied emergency brakes and yet unable to stop the train on time ... what then is the purpose of the captain ?

    I am sure many singaporeans are wondering (maybe not all, some will just ACCEPT what SMRT says ) ... yet SMRT has no further report on it ?
    http://www.smrt.com.sg/Media/Press-r...nouncements%20

    QUOTE
    1. SMRT has completed its investigations into the fatal accident near Pasir Ris MRT Station on 22 March 2016, following a review by an Accident Review Panel. The report has been submitted to the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore Police Force and Land Transport Authority to assist with their statutory investigations.

    2. The Accident Review Panel comprised members of the SMRT Board Risk Committee and three independent experts: one each from Keppel Corporation and Transport for London (which runs the London Underground), and a third who was formerly with Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway Corporation.

    3. In the course of the review, the Accident Review Panel set out to examine the internal investigation findings, including the chronology of events surrounding the accident and its causes, and put forth recommendations to prevent a recurrence.

    4. On the day of the accident, a joint engineering team comprising six Signal staff (including four trainees) [1] and nine Permanent Way staff (including two trainees) were tasked to examine a signaling condition monitoring device along the tracks near Pasir Ris MRT Station. The device had earlier registered a warning of a possible fault that could affect train service [2]. The engineering team made their way to the device in single file along the maintenance walkway. As they approached the device, the Signal team, led by the supervisor, stepped onto the track before protection measures were implemented. The supervisor narrowly avoided being hit by the oncoming train, but Nasrulhudin and Muhammad Asyraf, who were second and third in line, were unable to react in time.

    5. Before a work team is allowed onto the track, protection measures must be applied. This includes code setting the speed limit on the affected track sector to 0 km/h so that no train can enter on automated mode, and deploying watchmen to look out for approaching trains and provide early warning to the work team.

    6. The Accident Review Panel determined that this vital safety protection measure was not applied and that the effectiveness of such protection before entry into the work site was not ensured as required under existing procedure, directly causing the accident. There were also other factors identified as areas for improvement, namely track access management controls, communication protocols and track vigilance by various parties.

    7. The Accident Review Panel has concluded that while existing safety protection mechanisms are adequate, and current operating procedures continue to be relevant and applicable, these can be improved for greater clarity and ease of ground implementation.

    8. SMRT deeply regrets that the failure to apply a vital safety procedure led to the tragic accident on 22 March 2016. SMRT Trains has taken immediate steps to ensure stricter enforcement of procedures, strengthened system ownership and control across levels and work teams, and tightened supervision within teams to prevent a recurrence.

    9. Separately, SMRT is comprehensively reviewing all its safety structures, processes and compliance. This is to ensure that safety continues to be accorded the highest attention and priority in our operations and maintenance services.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [1] The trainees were attached to the work teams, as part of their ground orientation, to observe fault rectification works.

    [2] Engineering staff are authorised for track access to investigate faults, on average, about two to three times a day on the North-South and East-West Lines.
    UNQUOTE
    Last edited by Ilikeu; 13-05-16 at 22:52.

  6. #486
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    proud owner,
    Glad to hear at least that you share the same opinion as me.

    Ilikeu has provided you the SMRT investigation report, but it still doesn't not answer your question (as well as mine):
    Why "no further reports or statements from the Captain (or driver, if any)"?

    As far as I see, SMRT made these statements:
    (1) The train was driven /routed in automatic mode.
    (2) There was a captain on the train.
    (3) The captain or driver cannot apply e-brake in time and the train was estimated to be travelling at 60km/h when it banged and killed the 2 engineers.

    SMRT never ever made the statement that the captain on the train was driving the train, since they said "the train was driven in automatic mode" (which I postulate means "no driver")!

    Yet minority and Ilikeu insisted that the "captain" was the driver driving the train! Strange indeed! SMRT didn't said so, and they insisted? They hallucinating that they saw the captain driving the train??? Ha ha ha!

    Why no detail driver's statement?
    If there is indeed a driver, it is really questionable why the train was still travelling at 60 km/h when it banged into the 2 engineers!
    Strange indeed, and yet SMRT investigation said nothing about the "driver" and what responsibility he need to shoulder for banging and killing the 2 engineers at 60 km/h!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ilikeu View Post
    http://www.smrt.com.sg/Media/Press-r...nouncements%20

    QUOTE
    1. SMRT has completed its investigations into the fatal accident near Pasir Ris MRT Station on 22 March 2016, following a review by an Accident Review Panel. The report has been submitted to the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore Police Force and Land Transport Authority to assist with their statutory investigations.

    2. The Accident Review Panel comprised members of the SMRT Board Risk Committee and three independent experts: one each from Keppel Corporation and Transport for London (which runs the London Underground), and a third who was formerly with Hong Kong’s Mass Transit Railway Corporation.

    3. In the course of the review, the Accident Review Panel set out to examine the internal investigation findings, including the chronology of events surrounding the accident and its causes, and put forth recommendations to prevent a recurrence.

    4. On the day of the accident, a joint engineering team comprising six Signal staff (including four trainees) [1] and nine Permanent Way staff (including two trainees) were tasked to examine a signaling condition monitoring device along the tracks near Pasir Ris MRT Station. The device had earlier registered a warning of a possible fault that could affect train service [2]. The engineering team made their way to the device in single file along the maintenance walkway. As they approached the device, the Signal team, led by the supervisor, stepped onto the track before protection measures were implemented. The supervisor narrowly avoided being hit by the oncoming train, but Nasrulhudin and Muhammad Asyraf, who were second and third in line, were unable to react in time.

    5. Before a work team is allowed onto the track, protection measures must be applied. This includes code setting the speed limit on the affected track sector to 0 km/h so that no train can enter on automated mode, and deploying watchmen to look out for approaching trains and provide early warning to the work team.

    6. The Accident Review Panel determined that this vital safety protection measure was not applied and that the effectiveness of such protection before entry into the work site was not ensured as required under existing procedure, directly causing the accident. There were also other factors identified as areas for improvement, namely track access management controls, communication protocols and track vigilance by various parties.

    7. The Accident Review Panel has concluded that while existing safety protection mechanisms are adequate, and current operating procedures continue to be relevant and applicable, these can be improved for greater clarity and ease of ground implementation.

    8. SMRT deeply regrets that the failure to apply a vital safety procedure led to the tragic accident on 22 March 2016. SMRT Trains has taken immediate steps to ensure stricter enforcement of procedures, strengthened system ownership and control across levels and work teams, and tightened supervision within teams to prevent a recurrence.

    9. Separately, SMRT is comprehensively reviewing all its safety structures, processes and compliance. This is to ensure that safety continues to be accorded the highest attention and priority in our operations and maintenance services.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [1] The trainees were attached to the work teams, as part of their ground orientation, to observe fault rectification works.

    [2] Engineering staff are authorised for track access to investigate faults, on average, about two to three times a day on the North-South and East-West Lines.
    UNQUOTE
    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner View Post
    It is interesting and intriguing why SMRT made 2 very simple statements and then no further reports or statements from the Captain (or driver, if any) ...


    So it is on auto mode, but with a captain ?
    So if the captain applied emergency brakes and yet unable to stop the train on time ... what then is the purpose of the captain ?

    I am sure many singaporeans are wondering (maybe not all, some will just ACCEPT what SMRT says ) ... yet SMRT has no further report on it ?

  7. #487
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    HHHMmmm

    why the supervisor did not set the speed to 0 ? they were already walking towards the affected area.

    Whether they step on the track or not, shouldnt the protocol be that the speed be set to safety level as long as HUMAN is on any park of the rail ?

    very interesting ..

    thanks for the report ...

  8. #488
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    To be fair to SMRT, they did mentioned in their investigation concluded that there was a lapse in safety protocol.

    Our argument here is that I believe based on SMRT statements, there is no physical driver actually driving the train, and this was disputed strongly by minority and ilikeu, and the 2 insisted that the "captain" was the driver in the driver seat driving the train!

    Yet, no where did I see SMRT said explicitly that the "captain" was driving the train, although their statements seemed to imply that the "captain" was driving the train, but yet they emphasized that the train "was driven / routed in automatic mode", Mmm, strange isn't it? Furthermore, in their investigation report conclusion, no where did they refer to a "driver" and what responsibility he/she need to bear (if the captain on the train they mentioned was indeed really the physical driver in the driver seat).... I believe this strongly indicated that there is NO DRIVER really physically driving the train at that time!

    And this bring us to the next point: SMRT is trying to bring in "unmanned" driverless pod for transporting people, so when these vehicle banged and killed people (like this SMRT train), who is going to be responsible? Are they going to blame the dead people again for violating safety protocol???



    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner View Post
    HHHMmmm

    why the supervisor did not set the speed to 0 ? they were already walking towards the affected area.

    Whether they step on the track or not, shouldnt the protocol be that the speed be set to safety level as long as HUMAN is on any park of the rail ?

    very interesting ..

    thanks for the report ...

  9. #489
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Let me response to you in blue below....

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    To be fair to SMRT, they did mentioned in their investigation concluded that there was a lapse in safety protocol.

    Our argument here is that I believe based on SMRT statements, there is no physical driver actually driving the train, and this was disputed strongly by minority and ilikeu, and the 2 insisted that the "captain" was the driver in the driver seat driving the train!

    I am glad that you are not disputing now that 1) there was a driver onboard and 2) the driver was in the driver seat.
    Now you are moving on to say the driver (can be onboard and in driver seat) but was not driving the train.... since you are the one making the accusation, and you are no longer asking me to check with SMRT to prove or defend against your allegations, so I presume you are really old enough with balls to check with SMRT yourself.


    Yet, no where did I see SMRT said explicitly that the "captain" was driving the train, although their statements seemed to imply that the "captain" was driving the train, but yet they emphasized that the train "was driven / routed in automatic mode", Mmm, strange isn't it? Furthermore, in their investigation report conclusion, no where did they refer to a "driver" and what responsibility he/she need to bear (if the captain on the train they mentioned was indeed really the physical driver in the driver seat).... I believe this strongly indicated that there is NO DRIVER really physically driving the train at that time!

    And this bring us to the next point: SMRT is trying to bring in "unmanned" driverless pod for transporting people, so when these vehicle banged and killed people (like this SMRT train), who is going to be responsible? Are they going to blame the dead people again for violating safety protocol???

  10. #490
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner View Post
    HHHMmmm

    why the supervisor did not set the speed to 0 ? they were already walking towards the affected area.

    Whether they step on the track or not, shouldnt the protocol be that the speed be set to safety level as long as HUMAN is on any park of the rail ?

    very interesting ..

    thanks for the report ...
    I believe that was addressed in that report.....

  11. #491
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    To be fair to SMRT, they did mentioned in their investigation concluded that there was a lapse in safety protocol.

    Our argument here is that I believe based on SMRT statements, there is no physical driver actually driving the train, and this was disputed strongly by minority and ilikeu, and the 2 insisted that the "captain" was the driver in the driver seat driving the train!

    Yet, no where did I see SMRT said explicitly that the "captain" was driving the train, although their statements seemed to imply that the "captain" was driving the train, but yet they emphasized that the train "was driven / routed in automatic mode", Mmm, strange isn't it? Furthermore, in their investigation report conclusion, no where did they refer to a "driver" and what responsibility he/she need to bear (if the captain on the train they mentioned was indeed really the physical driver in the driver seat).... I believe this strongly indicated that there is NO DRIVER really physically driving the train at that time!

    And this bring us to the next point: SMRT is trying to bring in "unmanned" driverless pod for transporting people, so when these vehicle banged and killed people (like this SMRT train), who is going to be responsible? Are they going to blame the dead people again for violating safety protocol???

    I think the driver was possessed . it could have been a alien abduction you know.

    Retard.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  12. #492
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    "driver"?
    Ha ha ha!
    Face it! There was NO DRIVER in the driver seat physically driving the train that banged and killed the 2 SMRT engineers! If there was a real physical driver, they may not have died innocently!


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    I think the driver was possessed . it could have been a alien abduction you know.

    Retard.
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    proud owner,
    Glad to hear at least that you share the same opinion as me.

    Ilikeu has provided you the SMRT investigation report, but it still doesn't not answer your question (as well as mine):
    Why "no further reports or statements from the Captain (or driver, if any)"?

    As far as I see, SMRT made these statements:
    (1) The train was driven /routed in automatic mode.
    (2) There was a captain on the train.
    (3) The captain or driver cannot apply e-brake in time and the train was estimated to be travelling at 60km/h when it banged and killed the 2 engineers.

    SMRT never ever made the statement that the captain on the train was driving the train, since they said "the train was driven in automatic mode" (which I postulate means "no driver")!

    Yet minority and Ilikeu insisted that the "captain" was the driver driving the train! Strange indeed! SMRT didn't said so, and they insisted? They hallucinating that they saw the captain driving the train??? Ha ha ha!

    Why no detail driver's statement?
    If there is indeed a driver, it is really questionable why the train was still travelling at 60 km/h when it banged into the 2 engineers!
    Strange indeed, and yet SMRT investigation said nothing about the "driver" and what responsibility he need to shoulder for banging and killing the 2 engineers at 60 km/h!

  13. #493
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    "driver"?
    Ha ha ha!
    Face it! There was NO DRIVER in the driver seat physically driving the train that banged and killed the 2 SMRT engineers! If there was a real physical driver, they may not have died innocently!
    PROOF? TO SUPPORT YOUR BULLSHIT? BO..... COZ ITS JUST PLAIN RETARD BULLSHIT
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  14. #494
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    The proof is every where!

    Rather, since you are insisting about your claim, go PROVE to us that the captain is indeed seated at the driver seat driving the train!

    Then all Sinaporeans can start to ask what responsibility he/she needs to bear for causing the death of 2 SMRT engineers!

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    PROOF? TO SUPPORT YOUR BULLSHIT? BO..... COZ ITS JUST PLAIN RETARD BULLSHIT

  15. #495
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    The proof is every where!

    Rather, since you are insisting about your claim, go PROVE to us that the captain is indeed seated at the driver seat driving the train!

    Then all Sinaporeans can start to ask what responsibility he/she needs to bear for causing the death of 2 SMRT engineers!
    Show us the so call PROOF LEH? We all show you PROOF Driver on train Spotted the team on track applied break. CAN YOU PLS SHOW YOUR BULL SHIT PROOF?
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  16. #496
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    What proof?
    Did SMRT claimed that the captain is in the driver's seat driving the train and then spotted the team on the track?
    NO! SMRT didn't make such claim, only you do!
    Ha ha ha! Don't come here with all your lie!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Show us the so call PROOF LEH? We all show you PROOF Driver on train Spotted the team on track applied break. CAN YOU PLS SHOW YOUR BULL SHIT PROOF?

  17. #497
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    What proof?
    Did SMRT claimed that the captain is in the driver's seat driving the train and then spotted the team on the track?
    NO! SMRT didn't make such claim, only you do!
    Ha ha ha! Don't come here with all your lie!!!!

    Dont be a RETARD LAH.

    U Are the one who keep saying dont have driver. SO I ASK YOU SHOW PROOF LEH. if not dont pull BULL SHIT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH EVERYTIME LAH
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  18. #498
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,

    Now the whole world know that there is NO DRIVER in the train that was allowed to drive on automatic mode and hence it resulted in the death of the 2 SMRT engineers!!!

    So despite the FACT that EW MRT line was initially designed to have train DRIVER to drive the train, now SMRT is able to drive the EW train in automatic mode WITHOUT DRIVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You can read the FACTS from the news here:

    Another safety lapse? Shocking, isn’t it.

    IF YOU work for SMRT, you must be pretty terrified.

    Well, at least not electrified – just yesterday (May 26), one worker suffered electrical burns on his left hand while working on a power-supplying third rail.

    It seems that even though approval was granted for the work, the young man who is in his 20s had wandered to another section of the rail where the power was not switched off.

    So he was electrocuted by 750 volts. Shocking, isn’t it.

    He survived and you have to wonder if he’s thinking he got lucky or unlucky.

    After all, just two months ago, two other SMRT employees were killed by an incoming train.


    On March 22, Nasrulhudin Najumudin, 26, and Mr Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari, 24, who were undergoing on-the-job training, were hit and killed by a train approaching Pasir Ris MRT station. In the investigation report, SMRT admitted that a failure to adhere to safety protocols – for example, in allowing the train to drive on automatic mode while workers were on the track – was a primary cause of their deaths.

    But back to the poor guy who got electrocuted – was this another safety lapse?





    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Dont be a RETARD LAH.

    U Are the one who keep saying dont have driver. SO I ASK YOU SHOW PROOF LEH. if not dont pull BULL SHIT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH EVERYTIME LAH

  19. #499
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    Now the whole world know that there is NO DRIVER in the train that was allowed to drive on automatic mode and hence it resulted in the death of the 2 SMRT engineers!!!

    So despite the FACT that EW MRT line was initially designed to have train DRIVER to drive the train, now SMRT is able to drive the EW train in automatic mode WITHOUT DRIVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You can read the FACTS from the news here:
    ITS ALIVE!!! ITS ALIVE!!! THE RETARD IS ALIVE!!!!

    My CAR ALSO CAN DRIVE IN AUTO GEAR CRUISE MODE. SO THERE IS NO DRIVER?

    WHAT A RETARD
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  20. #500
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default 1.54 million Singaporeans to get $890 million of GST vouchers and Medisave top-ups

    Look at the huge number, 1.54 MILLIONS adults, who can receive government subsidies (out of how many? 1.9M citizen adults? that is like 81%)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Is this telling us that government considered most Singaporeans (like 81%?) are poor??????????????


    1.54 million Singaporeans to get $890 million of GST vouchers and Medisave top-ups

    The Straits Times

    SINGAPORE - 1.54 million Singaporeans will receive GST Vouchers (GSTV), Medisave top-ups among other benefits as part of the Budget announced by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) today (June 20).

    ..................

    For more information, visit the Singapore Budget website.

  21. #501
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Look at the huge number, 1.54 MILLIONS adults, who can receive government subsidies (out of how many? 1.9M citizen adults? that is like 81%)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Is this telling us that government considered most Singaporeans (like 81%?) are poor??????????????


    1.54 million Singaporeans to get $890 million of GST vouchers and Medisave top-ups

    The Straits Times

    SINGAPORE - 1.54 million Singaporeans will receive GST Vouchers (GSTV), Medisave top-ups among other benefits as part of the Budget announced by the Ministry of Finance (MOF) today (June 20).

    ..................

    For more information, visit the Singapore Budget website.
    As usual lies and bullshit. Show proof leh.

    Let me debunk your lies , deceit and bullshit

    1st Singaporean Citizen population is 3.375M with a 576K or PR Forming 3.9M Residences.
    2nd No. of Residence Age 20-64 is 2.6M Age 64 above 459K.


    So where u pluck from your ASS 1.9M Citizens? So a pay out of GST to the middle and lower middle and low income is something wrong? And imply people are poor? Since when GST is only for POOR? Essentially its the wealth distribution of the top half of the population to the bottom half! and with the lower rucks of the bottom getting more of the distribution.

    So wat bullshit you spewing. SHOW some FACTS. TALK COCK AND BULLSHIT anyone also can spew.

    http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/defa...lation2015.pdf

    http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#17

    http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#17
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  22. #502
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,

    Again, more LIES from you...................

    The 1.9M citizens are eligible voters, who are then eligible for all those government rebates etc!
    Your 3.375M citizen got so many too young to vote or still studying, so not eligible for government rebates etc!
    Don't come telling lies here...............

    LKY said if Singapore become welfare state like UK, that is the doom and end of Singapore!
    Now you telling us that Singapore Government any how throw money to people earning high income and will soon be like UK???

    So minority,
    81% of citizens getting government subsidies and rebates, so either many citizens are considered too poor or government anyhow throw money at the upper income people so that Singapore will become welfare state????



    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    As usual lies and bullshit. Show proof leh.

    Let me debunk your lies , deceit and bullshit

    1st Singaporean Citizen population is 3.375M with a 576K or PR Forming 3.9M Residences.
    2nd No. of Residence Age 20-64 is 2.6M Age 64 above 459K.


    So where u pluck from your ASS 1.9M Citizens? So a pay out of GST to the middle and lower middle and low income is something wrong? And imply people are poor? Since when GST is only for POOR? Essentially its the wealth distribution of the top half of the population to the bottom half! and with the lower rucks of the bottom getting more of the distribution.

    So wat bullshit you spewing. SHOW some FACTS. TALK COCK AND BULLSHIT anyone also can spew.

    http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/defa...lation2015.pdf

    http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#17

    http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/latest-data#17

  23. #503
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    Again, more LIES from you...................

    The 1.9M citizens are eligible voters, who are then eligible for all those government rebates etc!
    Your 3.375M citizen got so many too young to vote or still studying, so not eligible for government rebates etc!
    Don't come telling lies here...............

    LKY said if Singapore become welfare state like UK, that is the doom and end of Singapore!
    Now you telling us that Singapore Government any how throw money to people earning high income and will soon be like UK???

    So minority,
    81% of citizens getting government subsidies and rebates, so either many citizens are considered too poor or government anyhow throw money at the upper income people so that Singapore will become welfare state????

    Dont talk cock lah of the 3.9M residence 20-64 yrs form 2.6M and above form 459K population.

    so dont come say still studying not eliagable. SHOW US YOUR PROOF WHICH ASSHOLE U PULL OUT THE 1.9M no. ? PROOF ?? I CHALLENGE U.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  24. #504
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,
    Don't come lying here............
    The number of citizens who are working is MUCH LESS than 3.375M...........
    Out of those working, 1.54M eligible for government subsidies!
    Considering that Singapore is not supposed to be a welfare state like UK (LKY said over his dead body to do so), then about 1.54M or 81% of citizens eligible for subsidies and rebates etc (which is a kind of welfare), that means the government believe these people are considered "poor" enough to need their aid or Singapore has become a welfare state???

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Dont talk cock lah of the 3.9M residence 20-64 yrs form 2.6M and above form 459K population.

    so dont come say still studying not eliagable. SHOW US YOUR PROOF WHICH ASSHOLE U PULL OUT THE 1.9M no. ? PROOF ?? I CHALLENGE U.

  25. #505
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,
    Don't come lying here............
    The number of citizens who are working is MUCH LESS than 3.375M...........
    Out of those working, 1.54M eligible for government subsidies!
    Considering that Singapore is not supposed to be a welfare state like UK (LKY said over his dead body to do so), then about 1.54M or 81% of citizens eligible for subsidies and rebates etc (which is a kind of welfare), that means the government believe these people are considered "poor" enough to need their aid or Singapore has become a welfare state???
    Then so us the proof in number. don't beat ard the bushes with vague bullshit assumption on wat ifs un truth. SHOW US ! I Challenge u! show us with actual factual no. not some fictitious pull of of the ass number to justify your slander bullshit crap. SHOW US THE FACTS LIAR!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  26. #506
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Greatest joke of all time in Singapore?

    Wow! "HDB faces more than $100m yearly loss without parking fee hike"!
    I was wondering whether this is the Greatest joke of all time in Singapore?

    Let's see the logic:

    1) the two agencies earning a total of $667 million from their carparks in their latest financials for 2014/2015.

    2) HDB alone spends over $700 million a year operating carparks - building, maintaining and improving them.

    3) "Without the increase in the carpark charges, HDB will face an average shortfall of more than $100 million for its carpark activity".

    So, we now know that HDB and URA earned $667M in 2014/2015 from their car parks.

    They spent $700M operating the car parks (let's just cast aside the so-called "accounting" issue, just like HDB states that they lose "accountingly" $Billion building and selling HDB flats (while SLA earning multiple $Billions from HDB selling their land at 99-years lease to HDB at possibly >$800 psf (or more) when SLA acquired those land at <$1 psf of land as FREEHOLD land from their compulsory land acquisition)).

    Suddenly, they said in next year, they will lose $100M operating the car parks, i.e. suddenly their operating car park expenses will increase by more than $(667+100)M next year, or 767/700 = 110% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Does that really make sense? Must be the Greatest JOKE of all time in Singapore?!


    HDB faces $100m yearly loss without parking fee hike

    The Straits Times

    THE rising cost of operating public carparks here would have spelt big shortfalls for the Housing Board (HDB) and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), if parking fees had not been hiked.

    Since 2002, when the rates were last raised, the cost of operating carparks has risen 40 per cent, the two agencies told The Straits Times.

    Without the latest rate increase, HDB stood to lose $100 million a year.

    This was despite the two agencies earning a total of $667 million from their carparks in their latest financials for 2014/2015.

    Last week, both agencies said short-term parking charges will increase by 20 per cent islandwide from December.

    This means that outside of the restricted zone (RZ) in the city area, parking will cost $1.20 an hour, up from $1.

    Within the RZ, parking will cost double that - at $2.40 an hour, up from $2. Season parking rates will also go up.

    In a joint statement, the agencies said operating costs "which include maintenance, financing, depreciation and overall operating expenses" have risen by 40 per cent since 2002, and at current carpark rates, they would not be able to recover the full cost of parking provision.

    They pointed out that HDB alone spends over $700 million a year operating carparks - building, maintaining and improving them.

    "Without the increase in the carpark charges, HDB will face an average shortfall of more than $100 million for its carpark activity in the coming financial years," said the agencies.

    In the financial year ending in March 2015, HDB reported an income of over $595 million from its carparks. This has risen gradually from $523 million in the 2009/2010 financial year.

    Over the same period, URA has seen its income from parking fees and related charges rise from $62 million to $71 million.

    Last edited by teddybear; 05-07-16 at 20:57.

  27. #507
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default 'Nothing wrong' with doc's separate billing for 2 illnesses - MOH

    Oh no no, MOH said 'Nothing wrong' with doc's separate billing for 2 illnesses, which are just stomach pains and a sore throat!
    I don't know what to say!

    Soon these clinics with MOH blessing, they can also give you 3 or 4 or more separate bills for multiple illnesses, because we know these illnesses are related/or may come together:
    1) Sore throat (throat problem)
    2) High temperature (high temperature problem)
    3) Running/block nose (nose problem)
    4) Difficulty in breathing (lung problem)
    5) Headache (head problem)
    6) Stomach pains (stomach problem)
    7) Diarrhea (backside problem)

    So for above cases, the doctors can soon charge you 7 separate bills for 7 separate illnesses (problems) or 7x$40 = $280?!!!!!!!!!!

    I don't know how stupid these people can be............

    'Nothing wrong' with doc's separate billing for 2 illnesses, said MOH

    Salma Khalik
    Tuesday, Aug 09, 2016

    When finance officer Adeline Kang went to her neighbourhood clinic to see the doctor about stomach pains and a sore throat, she was not expecting to pay more than $50 for the consultation fee.

    The fees displayed at Wee's Family Clinic & Surgery in Whampoa Drive state that it costs $40 for a short consultation and $50 for a long one.

    However, she was charged $80.
    When the 41-year-old queried the cost, she was told it was $40 to address each medical issue. She also had to pay $32 for medicine.
    As it was her third visit to Dr Wee Chee Chau for her sore throat, she had expected to be charged less because it was a follow-up visit for the same problem.

    However, Dr Wee told The Straits Times there had been no mistake. "When you have two problems, it's like seeing a doctor twice," he said.
    His fees vary according to the number of medical conditions, their complexity and the duration of the consultation, he explained.
    Asked if there was a cap to the consultation fee, Dr Wee said: "I can't tell you offhand, but it won't be in the thousands of dollars."
    He added that he is a family physician and not just a general practitioner, so his charges are higher.

    A check with other clinics found that their normal practice is to charge for one consultation, no matter how many medical problems the patient has.
    A spokesman for the Parkway Shenton chain said: "The consultation charge at our clinics ranges from $25 to $38 per visit.
    "This is a one-time charge regardless of the number of ailments presented by our patients."
    The Raffles Medical chain of clinics also said its clinics levy only one consultation charge per patient, regardless of the number of medical problems that need attention.

    The Ministry of Health (MOH) said there is nothing wrong with the way Dr Wee charges.

    ....................................................................................

    Ms Kang said that she does not plan to visit the clinic again, even though her company picks up her medical tab.

  28. #508
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Should be the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) that regulates and governs the professional conduct and ethics of medical practitioners. Although it is a statutory board under the MOH.

  29. #509
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Median salary to rise 4.7% next year(?) - REALLY?!

    Last edited by teddybear; 10-12-16 at 15:59.

  30. #510
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    That's why it's called median...

    Mine is probably 2-3%.

    My wife though has a raise of close to 20%...




    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

Similar Threads

  1. Bear News - Singapore Total Deposits
    By Arcachon in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 2
    -: 16-05-20, 11:55
  2. Significant Property News & Discussions
    By teddybear in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 871
    -: 05-06-17, 01:38
  3. Here’s why Brexit is bad news for Singapore property
    By reporter2 in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 9
    -: 20-06-16, 23:39
  4. Replies: 0
    -: 19-01-14, 17:44
  5. Straits Times Singapore News flash
    By KTKW in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 34
    -: 21-06-12, 20:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •