In Singapore it is quite easy to tell the person behind the public mask. ‘Tell’ as in discovering who he is. Not advising him or giving him information for his own good or the good of the public. That it can’t be done: they are deaf to all criticisms. They have constantly, proudly and publicly, ever so just in case you have the mistaken notion they are receptive to suggestions.
In our country we have the elites and the rest. The elites never make any mistakes and the rest is incapable of not making mistakes. This is the narrative sold to the public by the people who earns ten times more than the leader of the greatest power on earth with a population that is 100 times larger: USA.
Don’t get me wrong when these unearthly people – they must be since they are sinless and incapable of making any mistakes in life – step on the wrong toes they do apologize. They are capable of being politically correct and making all the right sound bites. They may even cry publicly. But you have to wonder whether they are crying because they are afraid of losing their job or they see the errors of their way. In English those tears are called crocodile tears. Personally, I wouldn’t put it that way as it would be giving crocodiles a bad name. Crocodiles eat because they have to live. Our sinless leaders live to eat and will consume any free lunch.
Recently, SIA got into international hot soup gloating over Malaysian Airlines MH17 tragedy: Malaysian Airlines lost one of its plane after it was allegedly shot down by Russian surface to air missile. SIA was laughing Malaysian Airlines is so dumb and incompetent to be flying in a war zone and gotten its plane shot down from the sky. Gloating over other people’s misfortunes and tragedies is not cricket.
I guess our elites can’t help themselves. It is their nature. It is their only joy in life since they can’t find joy in accomplishments other than earning money the easy way through gerrymandering and absolute control of all media: public or otherwise.
Initially, SIA reported that they do not fly over the war zone where MH17 met its untimely demise. The manner they reported it in their Facebook could only be construed as gloating over another’s misfortune with strong hints they are not so dumb to make such an obvious mistake. All hell broke lose when the international audience pointed out the fact of the matter was that SIA actually flew in the same war zone and SQ351 was only 25km apart from MH17. SQ351 is serviced by Boeing 777-200, a twin-jet model doing 466 knots or 863 kph. At a distance of 25km this translate into 1 minute and 44 seconds. In other words SIA was only 1 minute 44 seconds away from disaster.
SIA’s faux pas, gaffe, gaucherie, blooper, solecism, boo-boos has a life of its own. It evolved from a culture of hubris initiated by leaders who earn obscene amount of money effortlessly, since they hardly ever show up for work, and have no fear of ever losing their job because they keep moving the goal posts while constantly declaring aloud they are honorable people who only wanted a level playing field. The initial blunder of adopting a holier than thou attitude towards other people’s unhappy situation and mistakes – after being exposed as callous at best and immorally fraudulent at worst – degenerated into the typical damage limitation exercise by people who proudly and regularly announce they are deaf to all criticisms.
And the best media for such a public relation stunt: none other than Straits Times, the official mouthpiece of the incumbent.
On 23rd July 2014, aviation correspondent Karamjit Kaur wrote a piece entitled “SIA ‘avoided parts of Ukraine airspace’ before crash”. I find it strange that she has been identified as an aviation expert. On what basis she is classified as such is not explained or enunciated. The obvious strategy is to influence the readers that she is an expert in her field and her views should be respected. The headline is a complete fraud. SIA actually flew in the same airspace and was only 1 minute and 44 seconds away from disaster.
The article started with a literal truth: “SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA), which has been criticised for flying over Ukraine before Thursday’s Malaysia Airlines crash, has confirmed that it had been avoiding parts of the country’s airspace even before the incident.”
The first four paragraphs of the article in question is a more advertorial than professional journalism.
The second paragraph noted that “It is this same area that the United States Federal Aviation Administration had banned its carriers from flying over in April.” So SIA is trying to give the public the impression that it is complying with international standard by declaring it is adhering to United States Federal Aviation Administration standard. The writer, a so-called aviation expert failed to mention that other international agencies like those in Europe have strongly advised against flying in the said war zone corridor.
Selective choice of rules to follow is the usual baggage of tricks employed by the incumbent to fool the public.
The third paragraph is classic: “But SIA had flown over other parts of the war-torn country, including the area where flight MH17 went down, where there were no restrictions against commercial flights, the carrier said.” It noted that SIA did fly in the war-torn country but quickly added there were no restrictions against commercial flights. They were advised not to fly there by European and International Aviation Agencies but they chose to do so because it is fuel saving and this would create more profits for SIA which is mainly owned by Temasek Holdings.
Noticed that more profits mean all the stakeholders would also benefit financially.
The two stakeholders that benefitted the most financially from a profitable SIA are Temasek Holdings (Pte) with 55.92% stake and DBS Nominees Pte Ltd with 9.36% stake. These two companies are owned by the Singapore government and they are also the largest shareholders of SIA. The senior positions in SIA are controlled by people with links to the incumbent’s higher echelon. Profits at all cost is their raison d’etre as long as they don’t have to bear the cost.
To add support to SIA’s defence that there are no laws expressly forbidding flights over the war-zone the writer wrote “Still, it also said it voluntarily avoids flying over some other parts of the world, even though the areas are open to its aircraft. It did not specify these areas.”
This fourth paragraph is trying to portray SIA in a good light by claiming it is a sane organisation that put the safety of the passengers first by not flying over dangerous areas although such areas are open to its aircraft. At all time you will note it is defending itself by claiming others are doing it: unfortunately others are not on trial here. Then it claimed there are occasions it didn’t take advantage of safety rules when it could.
SIA is utilising the usual tool of deception used to fool the gullible Singapore public for years: to be precise, 50 years. It is literally true that SIA had been avoiding other parts of Ukraine’s airspace before the incident. What is not disclosed and left unsaid is those other parts of Ukraine’s airspace is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The truth of the matter is SIA was flying in the same dangerous corridor that MH17 was flying in. You only get this information if you read carefully and has read widely prior to imbibing this propaganda piece initiated by unknown faces after being caught red handed in Facebook.
Even then it was implicit and you would notice that SIA still doesn’t admit that it was flying in the same corridor as MH17 and was only 25 km or 1 minute and 44 seconds away from disaster. It hinted here and there but no direct admission of guilt. It is very similar to the Japanese way of apologising for the atrocities they committed in Second World War: they very much regretted their action. Of that we are all quite sure. All losers, be it in war or love, will regret some or all of their actions. They regretted they didn’t succeed at it.
The first four paragraphs sounded like it was written by the public relation department of SIA. The actual reply by SIA is a classic exercise in obfuscation that has PAP DNA written all over it.
SIA replied that “decisions on the use of airspace are made based on numerous factors.” This is stating the obvious. Then it added these factors include “weather, safety and security conditions, advisories from international and regional bodies, and any restrictions that may be imposed by the national authorities responsible for the safety of the airspace”. Again stating the obvious as if the public need an education in standard operating procedures of the airlines.
The crux of the matter is SIA SQ351 was in that particular war-zone where it was only 1 minute and 44 seconds away from a national disaster of epic proportion. The writer, hell bent on portraying SIA in a good light, wrote it wasn’t only SIA that was flying there but other airlines were also doing it. More to the point SIA was the heaviest user of the said war-zone route a week before the crash. As a passing mention she admitted other carriers have taken a wide berth and not only avoided the war-zone but avoided Ukraine entirely.
Also, the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) clearly advised avoidance of Ukraine’s airspace weeks before MH17 was shot down. SIA didn’t obey the European nation’s misgiving on Ukraine’s airspace because they had an incentive not to do so: more profits on fuel saving. Also, SIA can always fall back on the excuse Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) didn’t restrict them on flight operation in that area. Basically, CAAS didn’t consider it unsafe when European authorities has recommended avoiding the Crimea area since April.
In the same breath she tried to justify SIA’s position by claiming “For those airlines that did not use Ukrainian airspace at all, it is possible they did not need to do so when flying the most direct route, aviation experts said.” This really take the cakes as it would be silly mentioning other carriers were avoiding the airspace when it doesn’t even have flights in the area in the first place. Only a convoluted mind with a constant eye fixed on providing excuses for every mistakes made can raise such a flimsy justification. And you know what kind of people indulges in such skulduggery!
Casting aspersions is the tool of trade for people who are deaf to all criticisms!
By claiming many other airlines such as Germany’s Lufthansa and Air India avoided only the closed airspace the writer implied that Lufthansa and Air India is as guilty as SIA who was 1 minute and 44 seconds away from a colossal mega blunder brought firth by greed of epic proportion. In fact Lufthansa’s security desk has 12 people who oversee a four-step risk analysis process that includes mapping general risks and assessing probability of their planes being shot down and since April Lufthansa had not only been avoiding the Crimean region, but also removed some airports in Ukraine from its alternative list of airports for emergency use. In short the writer has maligned and defamed Lufthansa.
The last paragraph quoted The International Air Transport Association (IATA). It is a ruse to hide behind an international aviation organisation claiming it didn’t forbid it from flying in the said war-zone. The organisation doesn’t dictate where aircraft can or cannot fly but will advise against flying in dangerous territories: which it did. It is governments and air navigation service providers that tell carriers the routes they can fly, and with what restrictions. I guess SIA selectively chose which government authority and which navigation service provider to adhere to for its own convenience and benefits.
The writer ended the article by quoting IATA’s chief executive and director Tony Tyler saying: “It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it’s closed you find an alternative route.”
I am at a loss for words: driving and flying are two completely different activities much like night and day. In the air there is no such thing as a closed road. There are no roads to begin with. The weatherman can warn carriers there is a thunderstorm ahead and it is up to the carrier to avoid it by rerouting or take a risk by going through it. If the carrier took the risk and it resulted in the plane going down with all lives lost I don’t think the relatives of the deceased would take kindly to being fobbed off with the excuse the aircraft flew within recognised legal limits and too bad, accidents happen.
I am quite sure if it really happened and SIA were involved the ‘accidents happen’ excuse would be proffered together with a statement claiming SIA has followed all rules diligently.
We are a nation of excuse givers because we have 50 years of indoctrination it is the right thing when something goes wrong. We are deaf to all criticisms!
Apolitical