View Full Version : Silkair MI185 update

24th Oct 2001, 16:29
Saw this in the Singapore Straits Times news update at http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/home

24 October 12:40PM -- Singapore Time

Families of six in SilkAir crash lose suit

No proof that pilot Tsu Way Ming crashed plane intentionally, said Justice Tan.

FAMILIES for the six people who died in the SilkAir Flight MI185 have lost their High Court legal suit against the regional airline.

In a 132-page written ruling, Justice Tan Lee Meng dismissed with costs, saying they 'did not discharge the burden in proving their assertions' that the crash was caused by intentional pilot action.

When contacted, one of the plaintiffs, Mr Thomas Oey, a lecturer at a Baptist seminary, said: 'I'm disappointed but I felt we needed to do right by bringing this law suit. It was a matter of public interest to know the truth behind the crash.'

Mr Oey, who lost his mother Berenice Braislin Oey, 71, and brother Jonathan Edward Oey, 39, in the December 1997 crash, added that he has not decided if he will appeal the ruling.



25th Oct 2001, 01:10
Singapore continues to lose all and any remaining respect in the aviation world with even the so-called legal system bowing to government pressure. This decision is shared by one other country, Indonesia, and the world knows who paid for that decision.

No doubt, the same lack of principles will apply to SQ006.

25th Oct 2001, 04:33
And so we move on to the next stage of this whole debacle. The US legal system...

Lets hope that the US Court system will shed yet more light and truth on crash of Silk Air MI185.

Down but not out !!!!

25th Oct 2001, 05:42
CASPER - no doubt that the Singapore courts are not always straight. In this case, sadly, the judge, IMHO, was right as it still cannot be proved that the captain did it on purpose, despite the circumstantial evidence that suggest he did it without a doubt, again, IMHO.
Regarding SQ006 I think the major legal battles will be fought in Taiwan's courts between the lawyers representing the insurers of SIA and the insurers of Taipei Airport. Just have to hope that the airport didn't opt for 'self-insurance' as that will mean the Taipei government are acting as their own underwriters and have a vested and conflicting interest in any court actions.

25th Oct 2001, 08:09

I am surprised that you expected anything different from the Singaporean system. But the most disgusting thing is the fact that the judge awarded costs, to Silkair.

The business meeting of SIA group should be coming up. It is not surprising that the judgement(committed) will be celebrated. The costs awarded plus the paycuts, should bring them back out of any losses!!

25th Oct 2001, 18:52
See comments at Australian Godzone forum.

26th Oct 2001, 00:43

You are mistaken...This is exactly what I expected to happen.. That is why I was not one of the six families represented in court.

In my opinion, it was obvious that there was no chance of winning this case and to be honest, I believe that some of the six families who went to court in Singapore knew the chances of winning were very remote indeed.

Remeber, it was also their intention to bring the facts/truth to the public's attention with the intent of promoting aviation safety.

I have a lot of respect for them, particularly given the heavy financial cost to them as a result of the judges findings.

26th Oct 2001, 04:40

I feel sorry for the familes who filed the case in Singapore. They should hav3e known that they were not going to get anywhere.

Maybe, the only plus point in their case is the fact that people in Singapore got to know more about the case than otherwise.

The rest of the world knows the truth but that doesn't concern Singapore, at all

26th Oct 2001, 14:23
There are any number of corporations that place issues of morality on their published set of core values.

There are perhaps half a dozen on this planet that understand the meaning of the word.

There are perhaps one or two who have the courage to practise it.

How many times do we read that organisation X is committed to the following core values:

Caring for others
Honesty in all dealings
Responsibility for actions
Respect for others

Whilst I suspect the Doc may wish to say that they are responsible, he is prohibited from doing so by the pinheads in legal and govt.

It may have been a different story if one of his own relatives was on the flight...but then again maybe not.

Regrettably the legal system is ill equipped to be the arbiter on issues of morality.

May the victims better RIP knowing some have tried to bring the truth to more people.. and may those guilty of a lack of moral courage feel just that little bit more uncomfortable now that more people know the truth.

Hooking Fell
26th Oct 2001, 14:53
..where else but in Singapore can you find the best judiciary and the best politicians that money can buy :D