Court Martials Vs Summary Trials, Military Courts Vs A Commander's Personal Office

PTADER · Mar 30, 2016

Part I of IV

Court Martials Vs Summary Trials, Military Courts Vs A Commander's Personal Office

Whilst MINDEF is usually quick to correct erroneous reports in the media, this time around, they are happy for the media like the 147th and Today to continue with their ongoing errors.

The media's error, both in print and online, is in stating that these two were "court martialled" in a "military court". This conveys to the public that this case has been handled with a high level of no nonsense seriousness. This is absolutely and blatantly false. MINDEF's, Ng Eng Hen's and BG Chan's continued self-serving refusal to correct this glaring error point to their deceit and dishonesty.

In truth and in reality, MINDEF has contemptuously treated the soldier's death as nothing more than a minor incident. The evidence of this is in the manner the two were "prosecuted" in a "Summary Trial" which is reserved for minor disciplinary offences. This is the reason why the punishments meted out to these two were totally disproportionate to the very serious outcome of death caused by their unacceptable negligence.

MINDEF, Ng Eng Hen and BG Chan were reluctant to reveal what the punishments were until it appeared online through simple deductions and reasonings. But they are still too frighten to disclose to the public how much exactly these two Officers were fined. The reason is because the public will be shocked by how small the fines are in contrast to the gravity of their offence. From the statements MINDEF, Ng Eng Hen and BG Chan have made, it is evident that these two were not even meted out with the maximum $3,000 fine allowable in a Summary Trial for Officers holding the rank of Captain or Major. The inevitable questions which will then arise which the public will invariably ask is whether there was corruption involved, interference to cover up for a scholar, white horse, relatives, etc.

Remember, until today, the OC who is the Supervising Officer, has yet to be named nor was he ever charged or punished under the SAF's culture of "Command Responsibility" as explained by Teo Chee Hean.

Part II to continue...

PTADER · Mar 30, 2016

Re: Court Martials Vs Summary Trials, Military Courts Vs A Commander's Personal Offic

Part II of IV

This is the SAF's own description of a Summary Trial and General Court Martial. It's taken from "Military justice system treats all fairly and equally"

Summary Trial

The offences that can be dealt with by summary trial are essentially military offences, such as absence without leave (AWOL), non-compliance with lawful orders or insubordination.

Depending on the rank of the serviceman in question, and the type of the disciplinary body hearing the case, the possible sentences that may be imposed can vary, and these can include fines or detention.

The summary trial is carried out in accordance with relevant SAF regulations, and the records of the summary trial are sent to the office of the Director, Legal Services of the SAF.

General Court Martial

The General Court Martial exists as a separate forum from that of the summary trial. Unlike the summary trial, the GCM can deal with a wider range of offences, and can impose a wider range of punishments including imprisonment and discharge, on top of sentences like detention and fines. The GCM is also a more public and open forum, and its proceedings are conducted using similar legal rules and procedures as those used in a civil criminal court.

Generally, only serious offences investigated by the Military Police Command, and which are referred to the office of the Director of Legal Services, will result in the accused serviceman being charged in a GCM. In such a case, a military prosecutor will draw up a formal charge sheet and present it before the GCM.

General Courts Martial can be further sub-divided into two categories, namely the Panel Courts Martial - consisting of a President and usually two other members, and Judge Courts Martial - consisting of a single President only.

Currently, the practice is for military offences to be heard by Panel Courts Martial, while civil offences like misuse of drugs and penal code offences may be dealt with by a Judge Court Martial.

The current policy is also for an NSman, who is or was a District Judge in the Subordinate Courts, to preside in a GCM. There are currently 10 NSmen who have been appointed by the Armed Forces Council to perform duty as President of a court martial. They are rostered by the Registrar of the Subordinate Military Court to hear cases during their in-camp training. In the case of a Panel Court Martial, the other two members are rostered from among some 155 military officers appointed by the Chief of Defence Force.

PTADER · Mar 30, 2016

Re: Court Martials Vs Summary Trials, Military Courts Vs A Commander's Personal Offic

Part III of IV

The photos of the Subordinate Military Court in which General Court Martials are publicly held and open to the public will give the public some idea of the gravity with which offences are treated when they are prosecuted as a General Court Martial in the SMC as opposed to a Summary Trial held in privacy and in the personal office of the relevant Commander. In this case, these two would have been charged in the privacy of the personal office of their Brigade Commander, their "Superior Commander".

Due to the forum limitation, only two pics are posted here and the other two in Part IV of IV. Please click on links to go to the source if the pics do not load up.

Pic 1

Pic 2

PTADER · Mar 30, 2016

Re: Court Martials Vs Summary Trials, Military Courts Vs A Commander's Personal Offic

Part IV of IV

Pic 3

Pic 4

steffychun · Mar 30, 2016

Re: Court Martials Vs Summary Trials, Military Courts Vs A Commander's Personal Offic

Bit off topic, did BGs Lee HL and HY ever get close to committing acts worthy of court martials?

jw5 · Mar 30, 2016