This is a Singapore Airline (SIA) blog . The stories are written by an ex cabin crew. The stories are about the crew of SIA, especially concerning cabin crew and pilots.
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
The above messages on WhatsApp have gone viral. I've edited part of it to avoid pointing the finger at any particular airline. Also, I cannot independently verify the contents. Btw CCN = Cabin Crew News
Some kaypoh views for discussion. In the molest case, and in a normal process, a Disciplinary Inquiry (DI) will be convened if the investigation determined that the defendant was at fault. Is this the route taken by SQ?
My humble view of the procedures as follows:-
1. In the event the case is sent to a DI, and whilst it tries to give the impression that it would an opportunity for the Defendant to clear himself, it is actually far from the objective. This is because the DI is not a criminal trial in a court of law, and the DI is not obliged to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A DI hearing operates on a balance of probabilities. This means that the DI only has to show that it is more probable than not that the events were correct. In a Court of law, the Prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt and the case is dismissed.
2. The law/rules of evidence does not apply in a DI. In a court of law, evidence to be tendered must be properly obtained, corroborated before admitted as evidence. Victim(s) can be questioned under examination and, if necessary, again under cross-examination. In many DIs, these are absent and the panel comes to a conclusion in its own wisdom.
3. I've come across a few DIs where, when the panel is unable to come to a "conclusion". The company then exercise a HR move to terminate employment by giving X months of notice (which is provided in the letter of employment where both parties can terminate employment). This is tantamount to "double jeopardy" which goes against the doctrine where a person cannot be tried twice for the same matter.
Does SQ operate along the above lines? Are there any instances where any SQ CC members got "acquitted" and continue with their job?
In the drunken driving/refusal to stop when requested by police case, good luck to the defendant. Even the favourable rules in a Court of Law won't help much if Breathalyser tests were positive, coupled with police officers' testimony.
3 comments:
Some kaypoh views for discussion. In the molest case, and in a normal process, a Disciplinary Inquiry (DI) will be convened if the investigation determined that the defendant was at fault. Is this the route taken by SQ?
My humble view of the procedures as follows:-
1. In the event the case is sent to a DI, and whilst it tries to give the impression that it would an opportunity for the Defendant to clear himself, it is actually far from the objective. This is because the DI is not a criminal trial in a court of law, and the DI is not obliged to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A DI hearing operates on a balance of probabilities. This means that the DI only has to show that it is more probable than not that the events were correct. In a Court of law, the Prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt and the case is dismissed.
2. The law/rules of evidence does not apply in a DI. In a court of law, evidence to be tendered must be properly obtained, corroborated before admitted as evidence. Victim(s) can be questioned under examination and, if necessary, again under cross-examination. In many DIs, these are absent and the panel comes to a conclusion in its own wisdom.
3. I've come across a few DIs where, when the panel is unable to come to a "conclusion". The company then exercise a HR move to terminate employment by giving X months of notice (which is provided in the letter of employment where both parties can terminate employment). This is tantamount to "double jeopardy" which goes against the doctrine where a person cannot be tried twice for the same matter.
Does SQ operate along the above lines? Are there any instances where any SQ CC members got "acquitted" and continue with their job?
In the drunken driving/refusal to stop when requested by police case, good luck to the defendant. Even the favourable rules in a Court of Law won't help much if Breathalyser tests were positive, coupled with police officers' testimony.
KayPoh aka BusyBody.
KayPoh you write like a lawyer. Are you one?
Hi, BT, no lah, I am not a lawyer and thanks for your kind words. Just a kaypoh/busybody who goes around and put nose into everything.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
Post a Comment