TR EMERITUS

Minister Lui confirmed that SQ351 was about 90km away from MH17 Minister Lui Tuck Yew A few MPs asked Minister Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament today (4 Aug) about the MH17 incident over Ukraine airspace and if an SQ flight was indeed in the same airspace when MH17 was shot down by a missile on 17 Jul: NCMP Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether any Singapore-owned airlines have flights over conflict zones; and (b) whether the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore has a process to constantly review and advise the re-routing of flights to avoid flying over such zones, even if such flights are permitted by international civil aviation authorities. NCMP Lina Chiam: To ask the Minister for Transport whether any SQ planes crossed over the war zone in eastern Ukraine en route to Singapore at about the same time when MH17 was shot down. NMP Eugene Tan: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether Singapore Airlines (SQ) had been flying over Ukraine until the MH17 incident on 17 July 2014; (b) if so, which SQ flights had flight paths that used Ukrainian air space, and why SQ was flying over eastern Ukraine given Ukraine's heightened conflict with Russia and that Ukraine had closed its airspace between ground level and 32,000 feet; and (c) whether the Ministry exercises oversight over Singaporean airlines as to their flight paths, especially over or near zones of armed conflict. NMP Tan Su Shan: To ask the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will take any new precautionary measures to ensure the safety of passengers flying in and out of Singapore especially on routes flying over areas of conflict following the recent downing of MH17. NMP Nicholas Fang: To ask the Minister for Transport what are the regulations governing Singapore flag carriers when it comes to the use of flight routes over war zones around the world. PAP MP Irene Ng: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) whether measures are taken to ensure that Singapore Airlines (SQ) would avoid flying over zones of conflict; and (b) whether any SQ flight was using the flight route over Ukraine where MH17 was shot down on the day the incident happened on 17 July 2014. Minister Lui explained that under today’s international civil aviation system, States are responsible for the oversight and management of the airspace for which they are providing air traffic services. "From time to time, a State providing air traffic services may restrict or prohibit aircraft from flying over certain parts of that airspace. These restrictions may be imposed for various reasons, including military requirements and meteorological events such as the presence of volcanic ash or adverse weather conditions. All such restrictions must be publicly communicated to airlines, other States and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) as soon as possible," he said. He said that the Ukrainian authorities on 1 July 2014 issued a prohibition for commercial flights from ground level to 26,000 feet in the Eastern region of Ukraine. On 14 July 2014, this prohibition was extended to 32,000 feet. "No reason was given by the Ukrainian authorities. They continued to allow commercial flights in this airspace above 32,000 feet," Mr Lui said. "The Ukrainian authority is in the best position to assess the threat to commercial flights over its airspace. Indeed, under international law, Ukraine is responsible for putting in place measures to ensure the safe passage of civilian aircraft." He added, "No national aviation authorities, no regional aviation bodies, nor ICAO, had provided any advisories to avoid that part of the Ukrainian airspace." In other words, Mr Lui is saying it was the Ukrainian authorities who allowed commercial aircraft to fly over its airspace above 32,000 feet. Mr Lui further justified by saying the Ukrainian airspace lies on the most optimal route for aircraft travelling between Europe, and the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia. He said that other airlines were also using the route, including: Qatar Airways，Emirates, Etihad, Air India, Finnair, KLM, Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, Swiss Air, Thai Airways, as well as SIA. Still, despite Mr Lui’s explanation, many other world’s best-known airlines – including British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – have avoided Ukrainian airspace altogether due to safety fears, for months before the downing of flight MH17 [Link]. Mr Lui also explained that flight planning lies with airlines. He said, "Singapore carriers, such as SIA, utilise sophisticated computer-based flight planning systems to help them in their flight planning." Singapore carriers will always put safety first and will never compromise the lives of its passengers and crew, he said. He explained that for several years now, SIA has "proactively avoided flying over certain conflict areas in the Middle East", even though the airways there have been available for commercial flights, and even though various other carriers continue to use them. However, with regard to the airspace in which MH17 was flying, SIA had relied on the information available and kept its flights clear of the restricted heights. "As there were no restrictions for flights above 32,000 feet or any information suggesting threats to aircraft at those heights, SIA, like many other airlines plying between Europe and Asia, had continued to use that airspace," he said. Mr Lui confirmed that at the time of the downing of MH17, flight SQ351 from Copenhagen was estimated to be approximately 90km away. "As soon as SIA received news of the incident, they immediately re-routed all their flights to avoid Ukrainian airspace entirely," he said. When the MH17 incident happened, SIA initially denied using the Ukrainian airspace but later, changed its position and admitted using the airspace ('SIA: We use Ukraine airspace cause its Govt clears it'). In terms of regulations by the government, Mr Lui said that following the MH17 incident, CAAS has requested Singapore carriers to "review their risk assessment of flight operations over conflict areas". "CAAS is looking into measures to enhance the sharing of safety and security information among national aviation authorities and airlines. Airlines can then plan their flight routes and assess the risks involved, more robustly," he said.    Read More →

Huge 30-year Medisave M S increase to support privatisation of public hospitals, GIC The CPF Medisave Account Minimum Sum (MA MS) has increased at an insane rate since it was introduced in 1984. The government says that the yearly increase is to adjust for ”healthcare inflation”. But the “healthcare inflation” was clearly government-induced through the privatisation (corporatisation) of our public hospitals. Our highest consumer price index (CPI) since MA MS was introduced was only 6.6% recorded in 2008. However, the MA MS increased more than the highest inflation rate in 22 years! The increase in MA MS has nothing to do with the increase in the cost of living. If fact, there is no yardstick and the PAP can suka suka increase MA MS by any amount. (see table and chart below) 1 - The MA MS increase hit double digit in 1985, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2000 and 2001. (inflation nowhere near its increase) 2 - The difference between the CPI and MA MS increase during these 6 years ranged between 7.7% and 10.5%. 3 - In 3 years when the CPI was negative, the MA MS continued to increased. 4 - The largest increase when the CPI was negative was in 1986 - the MA MS increased by 9.1%, CPI minus 1.4%. YEAR MA MS MA % INC CPI YEAR MA MS MA % INC CPI 1984 5000 2000 19000 11.8 1.3 1985 5500 10 0.5 2001 21000 10.5 1.0 1986 6000 9.1 -1.4 2002 23000 9.5 -0.4 1987 6500 8.3 0.5 2003 25000 8.7 0.5 1988 7000 7.7 1.5 2004 25500 2 1.7 1989 7500 7.1 2.4 2005 27500 7.8 0.5 1990 8000 6.7 3.4 2006 28000 1.8 1.0 1991 9000 12.5 3.4 2007 28500 1.8 2.1 1992 10000 11.1 2.3 2008 29500 3.6 6.6 1993 11000 10 2.3 2009 32000 8.5 0.6 1994 12000 9.1 3.1 2010 34500 7.8 2.8 1995 13000 8.3 1.7 2011 36000 4.4 5.2 1996 14000 7.7 1.4 2012 38500 6.9 4.6 1997 15000 7.1 2.0 2013 40500 5.2 2.4 1998 16000 6.6 -0.3 2014 43500 7.4 1999 17000 5.9 0.0 From the chart below, there is obviously no correlation between the upsized MA MS and inflation. Corporatisation of public hospitals The only reason for the double digit MA MS increase in the 1980’s appears to be in anticipation of the ‘restructuring’ (privatisation) of all public hospitals in the 1990’s. When public hospitals are operated as government-owned corporations, costs always escalate and the government must have already factored this into the MA MS increase. (see chart above) It is a fact the PAP government makes money off its citizens whenever possible. Public housing, public transportation, community club tuition, etc The PAP’s MO has remained unchanged: 1  Increase prices at its whim because there are no checks in Parliament. 2  Offer some subsidies but ensure the system is complicated. 3  The subsidies are splashed across the mainstream media to gain political mileage. (eg Medishield Life) 4  Citizens will resign to their fate after some time and adjust to the system. Channel CPF into GIC As is evident, there is no logic for the huge increase in healthcare savings. The MA MS doubled thrice: -  6 years from 1984 -  8 years from 1990 -  11 years from 1998 And why did the government also increased the total CPF Medisave balance by $19 billion during the last 4 years? The actions of the government do not make any sense. If healthcare inflation needs to be checked, the solution is to bring down costs and not make citizens pay. And pay. Conclusion The MA MS initial huge increases were meant to support the privatisation of our public hospitals. The annual increase has no correlation with inflation, no yardstick and is based on the whims of the government. Subsequent increases appear to channel billions into GIC for state investment. No democratic government is able to pull a fast one on its citizens in such a manner. The insane increases in the MA MS, coupled with the OA MS, have already robbed Singaporeans of our retirement savings. The government has to be a limit of tolerance has been breached. Phillip Ang *  The author blogs at likedatosocanmeh.  Read More →

My 78 years old Grandma (mother's mother) was just admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital on 2 August 2014 (Saturday) around 11 am to A&E due to having fallen down and unable to walk. She was given X-ray and found out that she got a crack at her hip plate. However she will need to undergo treatment and she will need to stay at the hospital. Initially we were told there was not enough patients wards when we ask for a ward B2 type and later on we received a SMS from the hospital on her bed and ward number. Here is where the problem starts; when my uncle went down at night 9pm to visit and pass her some of her stuffs like jackets and her favorite mug, he was not happy that she was placed at the corridor in front of the nurse counter, instead of a ward: He was told that there was NO available ward or room for her, and so she had to sleep at the corridor of the B1 type ward. Why is this happening when the hospital send us an sms of her ward and bed number, but she is to sleep at the corridor, where every other patients' family and relatives, and nurse are all passing by. Is she meant for them to just watch and look at? What happened to the promised available ward that claimed by Minster Gan Kim Yong on news and newspaper? For that one day for her to sleep at the corridor, my family was able to take it that there was no available room for her at moment, and were understandable. The next day at noon, my 2nd uncle and his family went down and was told that there was an AVAILABLE B1 type ward, which he agreed to pay more as long as there is a ward/room for her. They were told to wait as the patient was awaiting discharge and they will push her bed in afterward. At 4 pm, my uncle went down and was shocked to see her to be outside at the same corridor, and not the promised ward. When he went and raised the issue to the nurse at the counter, he was told that they were trying to grab hold of a available wards for her the soonest possible, and he went to Square 2 to grab some bite. At 5 pm, my mother, along with my sister and I, met up with my uncle to go and visit my grandma. We were shocked to see her bed still at the same corridor, and when we ask them, they told us there IS an AVAILABLE ward for her and will transfer to the ward by 6 pm. As we continued to wait and prepare for the transfer, we were getting impatient and angry as the time passed by. We were told again the same ward and bed number by another nurse and will need to wait for the transfer. Wait till 8pm, when my grandma asked us to go back, we asked again when is the transfer and that is when we were told there is no available wards for her. When we asked again if there really no available wards/room, they just told us there is none. Just imagine this, having a going 80 years old grandma sleeping at the corridor for 2 night straight. If one was to give an excuse that she is given the extra care since she is at the counter, since she had a crack in her hip plate and unable to walk properly, and having the fall risk tab on her. What would you feel if you were the one sleeping at that corridor for 2 night straight and having one passing and watching you. We were promised that she will be given a wards, but if this go on, den what are we paying her bills for? For her to sleep at a bed at the hospital at one of the ward corridor? We do not mind the paying for the care given by the nurse and food and bed, but what kind of ward payment are we paying for? Please help me Share this post and let people know of what happened to my grandma at TTSH.   Ng Yong Yao [Source]: https://www.facebook.com/MadaWalker/posts/10152607053054441   UPDATE: About 3:30pm, 4 Aug:   Editor's note: This letter has been forwarded to TTSH and MOH (including Gan Kin Yong) for comments.    Read More →