1) You got into a strange bedfellow !Goingnon a priviledge travel and partaking a FC items.Reflect on that,totally irresponsible.Brushing off as dropping like stone,really shows entitled mind.
2) Once in CC,forever lopsided technocrat ,eye power only.Never lift a finger or trays,ultimately health will be gone.CC who works ,healthier.A blog is not a tri-log,it's gone to the dog.
3) Keep on deleting comments.164 have subsidies and deep pocket.Since this blog behaves like one ask for subsidies,monetary wise .Same same,no different.Or it alienate those who detest and detect right wing agenda like Trump and Putin,they are a league and out of this world.How to drive view to subscribe. to your u-tube when views do not coincide ?Good luck,you need tons of it !
4) You are forgetting about inhouse terrors aka Sexcy,Queenie from compliance and complain.How many junior crews were traumatised by their at all cost,no 1 or bust ,no eq and merciless seniors.Only death will set CC free,witness the 8th case,VY etc and many other due to ineptitude of manager.Payback time is when Sars,Covid,all employee at risk.The hands of God will mope up the rest,to bring them for redemption.
BT: Above are just a few examples of comments I have received. They are nonsensical, disrespectful and sometime incoherent. These people get upset when I don't publish their comments.
From my reading of the above comment, this person tries very hard to put his thought into it.
To understand him, u have got to realize that, 1: this person is incapable of being coherent in his writing. It's just not possible for him to do it.
2: You also need to be in the airline during the early years and then will there be a possibility that his writing becomes meaningful.
To most, it will be, what is this person rattling about? It makes no sense.
However to this poster, it is a masterpiece of his writing.
Let me address the Sexcy and Queenie episode. Simply explained, these 2 are devoid of the emotional intelligence factor in them, resulting in them being only capable of being task-oriented and not able to handle the human factor aspect, such as respecting the crew.
Their behavior is a top-down approach and strange enough, people lacking EQ just can't handle it any other way except being task oriented. If they r lacking EQ, u can try and try and try, it still will not work, bec they simply don't have the ability to realize that just being task-oriented and disregarding the human aspects in handling people makes a poor leader. They just can't, it's just not possible without the EQ in them.
Sadly, Nature can't produce a 100% perfect human.
Most of the time, it is high in IQ but low on EQ (resulting in Sexcy & Queenie kind of people) or high in EQ but lower in IQ (here u will get nice and understanding personality).
But what we r looking for is a person with 50 - 50 of each IQ and EQ for a balance. This person will make a good leader and will be a gift to humankind. Such a character is hard to come by, bec Nature itself is slow in fine-tuning the processes at hand.
Therefore there will always be a Sexcy and Queenie around till Nature catches up in its fine-tuning of the human species.
As for the saga of the "8", l do sympathize with the LS. Losing your job bec of the issue of bottles of mineral water is sad indeed.
Guess it's a long-story situation and waiting for karma can take a little while. Hope it works out well for u.
Here again, it's a situation of EQ. If u have it, it would have saved your job. Unfortunately.........
So here is a deciphering of the incoherent writing of a masterpiece that has been written.
Correction- the 8 saga is not cos of mineral water
Where did you get the info that the LS was CI-ed due mineral water? Was it mentioned in this blog or you have other sources? I know the LS personally and i am very sure it was not over mineral water.
Then what.?Need to end ,come out the truth ,,it's already years.He cannot be help,too dumb to fight back deserve to lose more than that,cannot explain,cannot blog lowest of the low.
I was in STC when the CI took place. If memory serves me correct, it was in 2012? It was raining cats and dogs that day even though the past few weeks were scorching hot. Case was not over mineral water.
3 anonymous above me: Don't come and BS! I've googled and can't find a darn thing about that joker. BT you should delete that anonymous comment because it is misinforming people reading this blog.
Ya. Jus post tik tok or google link instead of asking us to google
The mineral waters situation was an indirect consequence of him being forced out of his job. Not that he was put on C.I.
The irony of it all was that his was a " right become wrong and wrong become right" saga.
What do l mean by the a/m. statement?
Well, he was much against the off loading of bots of leftover min water by crew - here, he was in the right, but his action infuriated many people who were into the welfare and interest of the crew.
To offload the min water was wrong though.
And like l said, it's a long story with emotional moments coming into play.
Therein lies the sad saga of him leaving the job due to the pressure and stress that came upon him.
Poor LS. God bless.
This situation does highlight the importance of emotional intelligence to an unbeliever in life.
Sexcy and Queenie??
The story is true, but the name has been changed to protect the innocent.
Can pray inform me about what ?Just to help see the whole picture.Maybe raise fund for his son tablet.Every soul deserves to be remembered.Amen.
Ten years old saga,and not even one of the 8 dare to state what actually happened.How to have good karma in your living ,when one was misinforming or causes indirectly ,death of a child ?I am trying to raise fund for heaven sake,in memory of the late child nothing else.Sooner or later ,at death door,the eight will be identified one by one.Owning up helps to clear your conscience in the least
It seems the case of 8th involved the areas of cnb,so that's why everyone got tight-lipped.
The 8 case is not over mineral water. The LS vs the 8 was not CI over water. I know him personally as he was my batch boy. If you dont know the facts, best to keep quiet
I was P plate on the flight with the LS. It was a long flight. It was not over mineral water. The FSS started it and the IFS took statements from everybody to frame him. He even did some unmentionable things and took pics. I knew it was not right and I say I never saw when he tool my statement to VR. I was called up to attend the CI by Seth but at the time i was junior, i dare not voice out or attend the CI cos i know its v difficult to help the LS. The last i knew was he was sacked after the CI. He was a good person, not guilty of the thing he was alleged.
Guess we are into the wrong assumption of the saga.
The mineral waters situation was way back in 1999 or even earlier.
The saga here is the figure '8' refers to the 8 persons being involved in the take down of this crew.
As for the C.I. of the LS, did it involve 8 people??
Like l have stated, the saga of 8 did not involve a CI.
What l am stating is that there were 8 people who had given him a hard time and that he is hoping that Karma will befall them.
And it was all about offloading of the mineral waters in which he was not agreeable.
2012?? - this crew would have left for more than 12 yrs ago.
As comments on 9 stated,the ci was a sham,worse than kangaroo.Assumptions were not challenged,in legal term,led to the gallow,just like the medieval trial by fire.At least,the IFS fought in the Court,justice seen,justice served ,bought by moments of insanity,by lascivious thought.How to have normal thought when so many yardsticks need to be covered by SOP, losing it all .Solution ?Since sacking is inevitable ,be prepared to go beyond ci,civil court.8 against one,the table can be turned ,live by the sword die by the sword.Karma need to be rebuilt,step by step stone by stone by all concerned.
The 2012 CI case was 1 LS vs 8 crew on the flight for an allegation he did not commit. The 8 crew (ifs, css, ls, lss, several fss) testify against him. Its not over mineral water
In future,for any CI,DI case if they need support financially for engaging in lawsuit,please ask for fund or donation.Include pro bono lawyers willing to defend small fish against big fish.Underdog got the publicity bully got brickbat.Open court system favours the small fry.
Like l have stated, 2012, the crew have left almost 12 years ago.
This CI is a totally different saga.
The 8 crew (ifs, css, ls, lss, several fss) testify against him. Its not over mineral water.
One more thing to add: l have been stating over and over again, the mineral water saga did not involved C.I. There was no Inquiry convened.
Do u understand??
The 2012 is a totally different episode. I did not claimed the 2012 CI involved a mineral water circumstances, so why u keep on harping that the CI was not over mineral water when l have clearly states it's a different episode??
I guessed u have not been in the airline long enough to know about the mineral water case.
This emotion situation: only the 8 and the LS will know what its all about.
The rest r facing a high and dry spell and wondering what its all about the 8 saga. Lol.
Since there's some talk of Disciplinary Inquiries (DI), and the unhappiness over the process, and as my KayPoh style, let me give my humble opinion. I am of the view that anybody going before a DI is grossly disadvantaged. This is because a DI is not subject to the law of Evidence and Rules. I won't go into details but here's where the process could jeopardise the defendant in a DI:-
1. A Di allow the Chairman (similar to a Judge in a court case) to ask the defendant questions. In our (British) legal system, the Judge cannot ask any question but can seek clarifications.
2. In a Court process, the Judge probably has no prior knowledge of the case. It will begin with Prosecution outlining the case, calling the Prosecution witness(es), followed by the Defense counsel questioning them and then presenting the defense witness(es). The Judge can only seek clarifications but no questions. After hearing both sides and their submissions, the Judge make a decision. Either party can appeal against his decision.
3. On the other hand, the Chairman of a DI can ask questions, which goes to show he is probably already familiar with the case, has more or less made up his mind, and asked the questions to confirm him doubts. Also, as he will probably be a Management staff, he would have been briefed by the respective departments, including HR, and I would not be surprised if some sort of consensus decision had been made.
4. In a DI, it is also unlikely that a defendant are represented although, in some companies, union representation allowed. So, the defendant is, by himself, up against a big organisation out to get him, so to speak. He will need to ask the witness relevant questions and cast doubt on their testimonies. Hence, unless he is being represented, or advised by someone very familiar with the processes, a defendant would have a daunting task to defend themself.
Given the disadvantages against the defendant, it is not the end of the road though, even if found guilty. One way is to overturn the DI's decision by proving one of the following:-
1. There was some procedural injustice, like the DI relying on irrelevant witnesses and testimonies.
2 DI's decision was taineted by bias. This can be proven when the Chairman's line of questioning implied that the defendant was guilty.
How, then does the defendant go about? During the hearing, he take notes of the questions asked to determine "leading questions". For example, instead of asking a witness where he was on this date and time, the witness was asked, "When you were there on this date and time, what did you see the defendant do?". On Chairman's question, look out for his biased questions, like "how could you, someone with so many years of experience, do this?"
Let me add that the above is not my view of SIA's DI processes. Sorry for being long-winded, as always.
KayPoh aka Busybody
PS: by the way, there was some mention of CI. What does it stand for?
Company Enquiry,from lower form,suppose to be same as DI,leading to freed from allegation to proven as charge.Loss of annual increment etc.Like Henry Teo case the 35mil allowance case of phantom cc,feeding to his account at uob.I still got his signature he was in charge of allowance etc.He should be out now providing his many properties buried cash amd so on.His immediate handler,being blur,become a walking dead no duties moving around cc,everybody avoiding eye contact.This phenomena of invisibility cloak as seen in the safety demo IFS guy,quietly replaced due to his affliction with you guess what.Then cartoonised.Either way CI or DI,be good do good,or be gone.One might ask,Union?All staffs at mercy of extention,doubt they will fight like Suresh Anandan, the late lawyer who defended Cindy Neo from the gallow.
Hi, Anonymous of 10/1/23, thanks for clarifying CI was Company Inquiry. For a moment, I thought it was Coroner's Inquiry, ha ha. In the case of Henry Teo, and if I am not mistaken, most of the property he acquired were recovered as it could be easily traced. But he probably got away with cash.
As I said earllier, most companies won't allow representatives at a DI. So, the next best thing for a defendant is be alert to, and record, all questions and answers and discuss with legal counsel to see if leading questions were asked to incrminate him or the DI was biased.
My humble views.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
Only coroner's inquiry were from the tragic case of the Twnn Fss ,who did not report for flight ex Lax.The big hotel in the Avenue of the Star,the site of the incident of course was using US coroner.Not forgetting the horrendous take off in stormy rain of wrong runway in TPE,after the Lax incident.Those who passed include CSS Irene,and Suresh Anandan,the late football playing brother of Subash Anandan the famous lawyer who defended Cindy Neo pro bono from a capital charge.She should be doing well now and hopefully have a family.On the technical side they found that the upper deck storage space beside the stairs to be weak.Subsequently,storage of bags was reduced,The serviving C's,with scars got fast lane promo to IFS.In essence,these were real life lesson in serviving a jumbo crash,life and death learning experiences,much better than the Mh which have zero survivors.Coming back ,the point is that experienced and trained crew are essential for paxs to survive aircraft crash.so do not dissed your saviour just because the drinks did not come faster,or other small matters ,crew saves live including yours.
In view of 164 imminent fake circulation figures,blogs and other media will rise to give truthfull news.Viva citizen's news.
Due to current changes in ST,blogging and other citizen,s news will be fully read.Viva free press !
When a Department Inquiry (DI) or Company Inquiry (CI) has been
convened, the employee is as good as guilty and will have
Only in extreme and rare instances it may not happen.
Such inquires serves to satisfy the Employment Act which
states that a "fair" hearing be conducted prior to termination
There is no stipulated "due process".
It takes up resources, manpower to convene such inquires.
It is entirely up to the employer to decide the manner
and mechanism for such process.
Far more productive to terminate than to allow 2nd chances.
The decision is made early on during the investigation, with
many statements recorded from anyone involved.
Transparency has never been a hallmark in Singapore, and neither
are disciplinary proceedings within companies.
The Union ?... hah!.. let Boh Tong chip in on that.
In my opinion,the employee were unduly,and unfairly,not given the full protection of the fage innocent till proven guilty.Depending on each individual circumstance,mostly sexual and molestation the 'regret','remorse' and 'crime of passion' defence could be used in legal cases.Entrapment and blackmailing with premeditations and intent by the victims could ,until proven could be used.Satistifying the employee's act only serve to throw the accused under the bus,so to say.A panel of juries of your peers could think differently,a well endowed employee could raise doubts,unsafe testimony challenged,and be acquitted but the resources ,especially finances a big challenge.Just as the 8th Case show,they are salivated,fearfull,possible expecting some goodies in return for saying so and so happens ,when the employer leaned strongly ,heavily,on their future with the co.Historically,in the Noni's case,the defendant being almost white a base of jury of white ,will side their kind.In overseas cases,crowd can react differently as BLM,etc.The only strong unionist who act fearlessly on the employee side was the late Doraisamy,a true giant among Unionist.The rest seems to be vushing up their nest,promoting themselve to top rank,and having plum flight with 2 time IFA.Sad,if the covid is danger enough ,internally,job security seems insecure.Jmo.
Hi, Anonymous of 11/1/23, yes, the scenarios you presented are happening in most DIs and, as I had mentioned earlier, the stack are against a defendant for various reasons - he is up against an organisation out to get him, the DI comprising Management staff would have been briefed and some kind of decision taken (and DI is to go thru motion). Whilst the DI has the company's resources behind them, the defendant is alone, and which was why I said it was important to take notes of the proceedings and to consult legal representatives if the DI had been unfair to him.
What next if, indeed, the DI was biased and defendant unfairly dismissed? One way is to sue. But it is important to note that our legal system is such that losers pay all. In other words, if one sue and lose the case, he will have to pay his own legal fees as well as the other party's. And a Court Judgement can be either way. So, is there any other options? Well, there is. Take the case to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Per MOM's website, "about 350 employees seek MOM's help for wrongful dismissals annually. About half these cases are valid and have resulted in compensation to the employee after Tri-partite Alliance for Dispute Management/MOM intervention. The rest are usually withdrawn or unsubstantiated".
My humble views and sharing of info after some kayPoh research.
KayPoh aka Busybody
In short,if one is wrongly accused,on weak grounds,SOP on board hardly CC friendly snd circuitous,and keep on pratas flipping procedures,full load basis,the paxs will demand on the max their entitlement.Turnaround flights,and MAA,TPE were key complaint sectors.With Queenie's customer is always right ,pp almost come out gospel truth,next to ten commandmants,handle by Sexcy, the end is nigh.However,with the current media savvy facilities ,those entitled, will be outed,ss in the case of the "peegate" the whole set of crews from Captain down,should go looking for another jobs.Theur response ,should be fair to the victims,and if the crew wronged,come on in and ask for donation.A little will add up to a tsunami of cash,for those wronged,yet blamed.My 2 cents.
My batch boy (the one vs 8) went to seek legal advice after he was sacked. He was told by lawyer there was no basis for unlawful dismissal as there was a CI convened. How to prove wrongful dismisaal. He spent abt 2k for 2hr consultation and gave up his cause cos no more bullets.
Should shop around.Invictus like Josephus,Ravi,etc.more capable and full od drive.The famous US Lawyer,Clarence Darrow had 20 over appeal on a case and finally got his acquital for client.Statues of limitation applys,he should have open up to donation like high powered,some lawyer never lose some pro bono,he should have seek out to break up the 8 witness one by one.Some fight are good fight,like for your child who need to grow up.Of course,the union head was Sunny,who was jogging in ecp during the CI.Basically,you got what one asked for,by grace of God it was not you.Hereon,go fundraising,enough to cover loss of jobs ,tiding over the rough its like a war on terror,but a different stage it makes you s man when you win,victory for all.
Hi, Anonymous of 12/1/23, I think we all know that, when a lawyer takes on a case, he must have sufficient info and proof of any wrongdoing. In the case of unfair dismissal, the lawyer will have to be sure that his client was unfairly treated and the DI was biased. We do not know what your batch boy told his lawyer.
Unfortunately, we do not have veteran labour law lawyers, which is why we do not see many being disputed in Court.
On the lawyer's comment that there was no case because a DI was convened, it was probably because your batch boy could not provide any evidence to prove that he was unfairly treated at the DI or the DI was biased. Which was why I had suggested that a defendant should record the proceeding to seek advice. Go to any Court of Laws and you will see all parties recording the proceedings (almost verbatim). Even the Magistrate/Judge do so. This is to prepare for an appeal.
At the end of the DI, your batch boy would probably he asked if he has anything to say or any objection to the proceedings, etc. There might be some trick questions and an improper reply would be recorded as the defendant having no objection to the proceedings/finding. Anyway, all these are water under the bridge, but I think we should learn from past and similar incidents to take the right course of action.
On the legal cost of $2k incurred by your batch boy for nothing, well, I am not surprised. As I'd said earlier, our legal system is one where losers pay all. At least there is now another option - seek assistance from MOM/Tri-partite Alliance for Dispute Management.
My humble views.
KayPoh aka BusyBody
Post a Comment