-
-
Taiwan suggests SARS was China warfare plot
TAIPEI (Reuters) - Taiwan legislators wearing surgical masks and displaying banners with skull and crossbones took over parliament's floor on Tuesday after the country's security chief accused China of starting the global SARS epidemic six years ago as part of a biological warfare campaign.
Taiwan National Security Bureau Director-General Tsai Chao-ming told a legislative committee on Monday that sources in China suspected biological warfare, but that conclusive evidence had not surfaced.
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome originated in southern China in 2002 and went on to kill hundreds of people around the world -- including about 350 in China -- bringing Asian tourism and air industries almost to a halt.
An initial cover-up of the epidemic led to the sacking of Beijing's mayor and the health minister and led to scores of conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus.
"In the 2003 SARS period, there were deaths and injuries, and in addition China hid the patient count, causing panic in people's hearts," the security bureau said in a statement.
"At that time insider information indicated that SARS was a biological weapon." Tsai told the committee that SARS had "become a biological warfare formula" in China and that the bureau would "continue to monitor the situation," local media said on Tuesday, splashing the story across TV screens and front pages.
China has claimed sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. Beijing has vowed to bring the island back under mainland rule, by force if necessary.
Some legislators were unsure why the security bureau brought SARS up at such a crucial time in cross-strait relations, which have improved under the presidency of Ma Ying-jeou.
"The comment about biological warfare from China brings SARS back as a hot topic," the United Daily News said. "It raises questions about whether President Ma Ying-jeou's government can build citizen trust in its administrative ability."
Conspiracy theories about SARS have appeared before. After two Russian scientists said that SARS could have been manufactured in labs, Chinese activists pointed to the United States, saying Washington might be using it against China.
-
-
-
Originally posted by Scania:
As a kid I hated the B57s, especially when the bus has been running for the whole day, once you touch the engine cover (which is in front) accidentally, it hurts, though I like the simple interior. Luckily 238 got new (ok lah, around 4 or 5 years old) Scanias after the B57s left.
What about the other front-engined buses?Anyway, the last row of seats on the LAs were really hot. Maybe it was due to the radiator being next to it.
BTW, is the air intake manifold of the O405 next to the last row of seats?
-
-
-
Originally posted by sbs&tibs:
Stop being so naive. I don't think you have to comment on anything other posted. You seem desperate for criticisms.It is not about being kind or not. It is just a matter of time Mercz and Mk4 get wipe out of this fleet.
Stop your wishful thinkings. Wake up and live on with it. Don't make yourself an irritant. That's awful.
Already the venerable CRBs have started seeing their end in sight.Many buses have seen their era come and gone. I will not forget the Merc DDs, whose SD cousins are still proving useful as private charter buses in Oz.
Anyway, SBST maciam si bei pantang sia. All rego numbers ending with 4 kena rejected or something?
-
-
-
Hey guys, look at this cool site!

-
-
-
Originally posted by off_service:
You people should be glad that her company is still operating. Given the past duopoly situation, there's nothing we can do. If you think you are rich enough, get a car. If you live in SMRT area, find alternatives or live with it.
For me, I do the latter, though I have my fair share of complaints.
My cousin living in CCK got fed up and bought a car. NW sector went all hte way downhill post-1999, while NE ended up slightly better.
-
-
-
Originally posted by gorby107:
They can make good use of the ex-GLDEP.There is a petrol kiosk over there and can squeeze those buses that terminate at Geylang Lor 1 Ter, Marina Centre Ter and maybe even more.
GLBP last time someone said will make way for new developments. All bus routes terminating there will be amended to Kallang Park when CCL opens.Heck, I'd rather BBT and BPJ remained with their original depots as well as:
61 becoming maj KJ/min GL
853 becoming maj AM/min GL
854 becoming maj AM/min GL
961 becoming min WL/maj GL
980 becoming min AM/maj GL
985 becoming min KL/maj GL
-
-
-
Originally posted by off_service:
Way back in 2003, I overheard a driver saying that 857 was supposed to be extended to Sembawang via the "859 way", in which I presume they would be merge. But sadly, the amendment never take place.
Service 882 is charging feeder fare if taking one directional, but a loop is trunk fare. I think SMRT presumes hardly anyone takes round trip. Same for service 859, travel within Sembawang is feeder fare.
I suppose the extension of sv 852 is to help out with sv 169 as an alternative from Woodlands to Yishun and AMK. Sv 169 was often too packed to take pax during peak hours at Yishun Ind Pk A.
Eversince TIBS days, services 858 and 969 were often suggested to extend to Sembawang. However, TIBS shot down all requests (even SMRT) as that would breach the 1 hour travel time promise. However, in 2006, SMRT relented after MP Dr Lim Wee Kiak requested for service 858 to amend to ply Sembawang, but PTC shot it down citing reasons like increase in travel timing and fares.
So 852 is to help out 169 & 856? By making a big loop from WDL to BBT via SBW, YIS and AMK?
-
-
-
Originally posted by TIB1018B:
Should rename Sembawang services to 88x series, since there is a service 882. Eg:-Service 980
service 880
Service 981
service 881
Service 167
service 887
Service 859
service 889For the same case SMRT should also have renamed service 700 to a 97x series after integrate with feeder service 921
(just like 521
963, 185
985, 175
975)
859 is partly based in YIS, cannot renumber.700/700A can become 971/971A.
-
-
-
Originally posted by Scania:
Because...arbp doesn't have enough space for buses. arbp is just a satellite depot, nothing else other than being used as a bus park. Thats why, there isn't any difference between bbdep and arbp, amdep and bram, they are just simply bbdep and amdep.
Fair enough, but is there any reason for 14, 96 & 175 to be deployed from ARBP even though the rest of CLE route group is based @ BBDEP?
-
-
-
Originally posted by Airbus330Captain:
Lousy piece of scrap metal , the faster they go the better. I Sorry but this is how I feel about N113CRB Currently the worst bus in SBST's fleet.
Well, they have my deepest respect. They were one of the quietest buses around. Can't even hear the engine idling at times.
-
