Hospital/ Insurers not recovering compensatory costs from Ma Chi's (>S$3.4M) estate would be admission that crime in Singapore does indeed 'pay'.
PS: written from layman POV cos I'm not a lawyer.
Legally speaking, should Ma Chi's family really receive S$1.82Million compensation for causing fatal 'accident'?
In regard of 'PRC Ferrari driver runs red light, involving taxi and motorcycle in fatal accident' [STOMP, 13May2012], it has been suggested if not proven that at the point of impact, the Ferrari driven (and owned) by Ma Chi was traveling at 140 (+/-30)kph ('Ferrari crash: Physics teacher calculates that sports car was speeding at 140km/h' [STOMP, 17May2012])/ [YouTube:Singapore Ferrari Taxi Crash Enhanced HD Footage], far in excess of the 50kph speed limit typical of Singapore city roads, this in itself constitutes a serious and inexcusable traffic offense even if in defense, Ma Chi's legal team might deflect blame on the traffic lighting system for his fatal error in judgement. It could well also be argued that but for Ma Chi racing his Ferrari at such obscene speed and ignoring the traffic signals, the said accident would not have occurred.
So was it indeed an 'accident' or an act of 'terrorism'- the act being actually an act of road terrorism.
The reason for the necessity to use this odd classification of 'road terrorism' is due to the fact that from my perusal of the private car insurance [website] 'terms and conditions' [pdf] of NTUC income motor insurance (as an example of a typical car insurance company/contract), with " Page 4: GENERAL EXCLUSIONS> 1. Driving and Use> This Policy does not insure any accident, loss, damage, injury or liability where any motor vehicle in respect of which this Policy provides indemnity is:...
(c) being driven by anyone whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or medication" being the nearest in application to the fatal 12May2012 Bugis junction accident- which in fact fails to excuse the insurer from compensating Ma Chi's estate S$1.8M goven that 'Police: PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi (马驰) did not consume alcohol before accident' [TT, 17May2012].
According to 'State media defends PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi: He is not a ‘heavy drinker’ and has applied for Singapore PR' [TT, 14May2012], “Mr Ma’s wife,.. told Wanbao .. the Ferrari was a $1.8 million limited edition car that he bought for his 30th birthday last year”- the compensation for death to the driver by NTUCincome is $20k, would the insurer be liable to compensate Ma Chi's estate $1.82M.
That said, the 3rd party victims including the families of deceased taxi driver Mr Cheng Teck Hock and his passenger remain entitled to compensation according to NTUC of up to $5M in total.
Ma Chi's passenger, "(Ms Wu Wei Wei) was seriously injured in the three-vehicle crash that has claimed the lives of three people so far" ('Ferrari Crash - Mystery Woman is pte "student" who moonlights at naughty KTV' [A1news, 16May2012]), again presupposing an insurer such as NTUC, would only be responsible for "SCOPE OF COVER> SECTION III – MEDICAL EXPENSES> We will pay you, .. or passenger up to S$300 for reasonable medical expenses incurred by each person who is injured whilst in the Insured Vehicle...", begs the question of who would eventually bear the costs of her hospitalization.
It is thus my suggestion that perhaps either the insurer of the Ferrari note the loopholes in its insurance policy and if Ma Chi's family presses for compensation regarding damages to the Ferrari, press counter charges against Ma Chi for 'road terrorism' (flagrant disregard for the law) to dissociate itself from 1st party compensation and to reclaim compensation to 3rd parties such as the taxi driver and his passenger and other victims in the accident.
“Mr Ma’s wife, known only as Madam He, told Wanbao that her husband had bought a $3 million condominium in the East Coast and a $400,000 BMW. The Ferrari was a $1.8 million limited edition car that he bought for his 30th birthday last year.” [TT, 14May2012].
The public hospital to which Ms Wu is warded should also seek guarantees of payment from Ma Chi's estate for her payment of her medical bills given that an insurer such as NTUC income might only wish to cover $300 of these expenses- using his the illegality of his driving speed and methods as reason to cover for the hospitalization cost incurred in treating his passenger.
It would be travesty for Ma Chi's family to receive S$1.82M consequent to the accident as motor insurance should only cover genuine, unintentional 'accidents' and not Ma Chi's form of road terrorism (street racing and other criminal activities) for which all liabilities of the insurer ought be reclaimed from Ma Chi's estate- failure to do so would simple add to the insurers losses and predictably, an increase in premium for all other bonafide members since motor insurance is compulsory in Singapore.
Ma Chi's disregarded the traffic rules and laws of Singapore and treated it like a gangland paradise. For this, the Ma Chi's estate (BOTH China AND Singapore) must IMMEDIATELY be frozen in lieu of claims by either the insurer or the public hospitals for the damage that Ma Chi caused in flagrant disregard of the law.
Singapore's 'first class political leadership and judiciary', please do something about this, far too many times have foreigners on criminal charges gotten away scot free 'Kiwi bail jumper won’t return to S’pore to face charges' [YahooNews,30Dec2011], 'Two Romanian ‘foreign talents’ allowed to jump bail again' [TT, 18May2012].
PS: Pls note that I do NOT know who the insurer of Ma Chi's Ferrari is. Any reference to NTUC income insurance is only for the purpose of example since NTUC Car insurance seems to be a typical choice of Singaporeans from my anecdotal observation(s).
PS: written from layman POV cos I'm not a lawyer.
Legally speaking, should Ma Chi's family really receive S$1.82Million compensation for causing fatal 'accident'?
In regard of 'PRC Ferrari driver runs red light, involving taxi and motorcycle in fatal accident' [STOMP, 13May2012], it has been suggested if not proven that at the point of impact, the Ferrari driven (and owned) by Ma Chi was traveling at 140 (+/-30)kph ('Ferrari crash: Physics teacher calculates that sports car was speeding at 140km/h' [STOMP, 17May2012])/ [YouTube:Singapore Ferrari Taxi Crash Enhanced HD Footage], far in excess of the 50kph speed limit typical of Singapore city roads, this in itself constitutes a serious and inexcusable traffic offense even if in defense, Ma Chi's legal team might deflect blame on the traffic lighting system for his fatal error in judgement. It could well also be argued that but for Ma Chi racing his Ferrari at such obscene speed and ignoring the traffic signals, the said accident would not have occurred.
So was it indeed an 'accident' or an act of 'terrorism'- the act being actually an act of road terrorism.
The reason for the necessity to use this odd classification of 'road terrorism' is due to the fact that from my perusal of the private car insurance [website] 'terms and conditions' [pdf] of NTUC income motor insurance (as an example of a typical car insurance company/contract), with " Page 4: GENERAL EXCLUSIONS> 1. Driving and Use> This Policy does not insure any accident, loss, damage, injury or liability where any motor vehicle in respect of which this Policy provides indemnity is:...
(c) being driven by anyone whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or medication" being the nearest in application to the fatal 12May2012 Bugis junction accident- which in fact fails to excuse the insurer from compensating Ma Chi's estate S$1.8M goven that 'Police: PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi (马驰) did not consume alcohol before accident' [TT, 17May2012].
According to 'State media defends PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi: He is not a ‘heavy drinker’ and has applied for Singapore PR' [TT, 14May2012], “Mr Ma’s wife,.. told Wanbao .. the Ferrari was a $1.8 million limited edition car that he bought for his 30th birthday last year”- the compensation for death to the driver by NTUCincome is $20k, would the insurer be liable to compensate Ma Chi's estate $1.82M.
That said, the 3rd party victims including the families of deceased taxi driver Mr Cheng Teck Hock and his passenger remain entitled to compensation according to NTUC of up to $5M in total.
Ma Chi's passenger, "(Ms Wu Wei Wei) was seriously injured in the three-vehicle crash that has claimed the lives of three people so far" ('Ferrari Crash - Mystery Woman is pte "student" who moonlights at naughty KTV' [A1news, 16May2012]), again presupposing an insurer such as NTUC, would only be responsible for "SCOPE OF COVER> SECTION III – MEDICAL EXPENSES> We will pay you, .. or passenger up to S$300 for reasonable medical expenses incurred by each person who is injured whilst in the Insured Vehicle...", begs the question of who would eventually bear the costs of her hospitalization.
It is thus my suggestion that perhaps either the insurer of the Ferrari note the loopholes in its insurance policy and if Ma Chi's family presses for compensation regarding damages to the Ferrari, press counter charges against Ma Chi for 'road terrorism' (flagrant disregard for the law) to dissociate itself from 1st party compensation and to reclaim compensation to 3rd parties such as the taxi driver and his passenger and other victims in the accident.
“Mr Ma’s wife, known only as Madam He, told Wanbao that her husband had bought a $3 million condominium in the East Coast and a $400,000 BMW. The Ferrari was a $1.8 million limited edition car that he bought for his 30th birthday last year.” [TT, 14May2012].
The public hospital to which Ms Wu is warded should also seek guarantees of payment from Ma Chi's estate for her payment of her medical bills given that an insurer such as NTUC income might only wish to cover $300 of these expenses- using his the illegality of his driving speed and methods as reason to cover for the hospitalization cost incurred in treating his passenger.
It would be travesty for Ma Chi's family to receive S$1.82M consequent to the accident as motor insurance should only cover genuine, unintentional 'accidents' and not Ma Chi's form of road terrorism (street racing and other criminal activities) for which all liabilities of the insurer ought be reclaimed from Ma Chi's estate- failure to do so would simple add to the insurers losses and predictably, an increase in premium for all other bonafide members since motor insurance is compulsory in Singapore.
Ma Chi's disregarded the traffic rules and laws of Singapore and treated it like a gangland paradise. For this, the Ma Chi's estate (BOTH China AND Singapore) must IMMEDIATELY be frozen in lieu of claims by either the insurer or the public hospitals for the damage that Ma Chi caused in flagrant disregard of the law.
Singapore's 'first class political leadership and judiciary', please do something about this, far too many times have foreigners on criminal charges gotten away scot free 'Kiwi bail jumper won’t return to S’pore to face charges' [YahooNews,30Dec2011], 'Two Romanian ‘foreign talents’ allowed to jump bail again' [TT, 18May2012].
PS: Pls note that I do NOT know who the insurer of Ma Chi's Ferrari is. Any reference to NTUC income insurance is only for the purpose of example since NTUC Car insurance seems to be a typical choice of Singaporeans from my anecdotal observation(s).
Last edited:
