http://news.xin.msn.com/en/singapore/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4953584
SMRT had actually referred to the $5000 offered to the Thai as goodwill. However, to the Thai parent, it is a form of compensation. So by whichever accounts, which are which? In the accounting stance, the money is to be classified as goodwill. Since goodwill=offer out of good gesture, often non-obligatory in legal aspect. That mean this $5000 is in actual fact, not a must (in the sense of accounting). Since SMRT has yet to task by the authorities to pay any compensation.
By offering compensation, it would be rather to like admitting that SMRT is at fault. Now, how could a world-class transport operator be at fault? Accordingly, the girl sort of fell by her own accord. She had giddy spells and thus fall into the train tracks. While on the tracks, she was knocked by a train. It's that simple, right? Now, there are 2 points into the case. First being she fell on her own accord. It is not because the floor is slippery or station marshals pushed her down. Second, she was "langa" by a train.
The first point, no argument. If you are sick, stay at home or consult your family GP. Now, in Singapore, there is at least 1 clinic within a 200m radius. Thus, no excuses you need to use the train.
Second point…there's some room for some argument. Like are there sufficient infrastructure in place? After x no of people had either died or injured at MRT, are there any infrastructure in place to prevent such incident. Like did the train have sensor to detect any obstruction on train track? If, for the elevated tracks, a dead bird (like pigeon or crow) was at the tracks and the train just ram over it, will there be an accident? Same theory. Does LTA actually believe that the girl's fate could be different if SMRT response faster? There are numerous CCTVs at MRT platforms…just how many are being monitored by station marshals? I'm sure a girl is much bigger and conspicuous than a small, suspicious looking bag. Are there any time lapse in between? If there are, how long?
Imagine some suicide bomber come to Singapore with a small pouch…or even a small handphone(that contain explosives). He/she (not being sexist here) jumped onto the tracks when train is arriving. Then the explosive exploded, killing and injuring many people. The bomber died (anyway, suicide bomber expect to die, so being crushed by MRTs is an option).
Ultimately, does SMRT have any terms and conditions binding that it is "at consumer risk" if anything happens to them, injuries and otherwise? If there isn't, then SMRT will be partially at fault. If there is, then SMRT is not at fault. So, now, in legal aspect, who will prevail?
