Shanmugam response to Dominique's death. WTF!

[Leongsam]

Ok let's debate. When we talk about safety, we r referring to a system not just one piece. Car design is one piece and u r rite, it's not designed to survive a crash at 100km/hr.

Design is only one part of the safety equation. How the part is manufactured plays a much larger part in the overall outcome.

Let me give you the best example regarding how safety is compromised for the average consumer.

I used to work in manufacturing. For consumer grade components, we took samples using an AQL of 0.1% to inspect for quality.

However for military grade products we did 100% inspection. Military grade components were 10 times more expensive because of the additional overheads but they had a huge budget and were willing to pay.

This means that regardless of how the component was designed, we knew full well that when it came to consumer products, some would fail as a result of manufacturing defects because we never tested the whole lot. Many went out the door with the manufacturer knowing full well that they were defective.

Safety has become more and more important as the years have gone by but the principle is still the same. Manufacturing has to fit into an overall business budget and it simply impossible to inspect everything for every possible criteria for consumer grade stuff.

Defects will ultimately cause systems to fail and result in injuries and death but it is cheaper for companies to compensate accident victims than it is to manufacture products where safety ranks above all else.

Same applies to the airline industry. When a crash occurs airlines payout millions but it would cost them probably 10 times the amount to reduce the crash rate by 50%. An accountant and a risk assessor does the sums and a decision is made accordingly. It is always a business decision not a safety decision.

 

[scroobal]

I am beginning to wonder if folks know that we are training soldiers to handle war and such. We cannot allow ourselves to go down to the lowest common denominator to ensure that no injury or no one gets in harm's way. The training during the times of the Israelis were harder and has gone progressively softer. I think we should bear that in mind and relate this to general work activity.

I am fully aware that safety is a consideration and procedures have to be followed so no unnecessary risk is taken. Where procedures are not followed and injuries and fatalities occur there must be consequences. These consequences must be fair to all parties.

To ensure fairness where death has occurred, there are independent agencies that come into play. In this case the AG and the Coroner were involved. By law, if there is a Commission of Inquiry, the Coroner will stop all proceeding until the COI is completed. Both the Coroner and ultimately the AG have the final say and they are not part of Mindef. Both the Coroner and AG depend on the Police to complete their investigation and only the Police are involved. Mindefhas no say or sway on the conduct of an investigations and they have no access to the files. They can however make representation to AG if they disagree with the investigation and the manner that it is carried out. In this case, Coroner came to a different conclusion on the cause of the death from Mindef's COI. Common sense will tell you which finding AG will rely on.

AG based on the Police investigation has decided not to proceed with any criminal charges against the 2 Officers. VK Rajah has a track record of independence when he was Judge at the Appellate Court.

If there is a cover-up, it must involve Mindef, Police, AG, Judiciary and 3 Ministries or we are looking at a totally incompetent lot.

So lets be clear about Mindef controlling this case. They don't. Whenever these things occur, you can see and feel the tension between Mindef and MHA. Mindef will start playing games from the word go but the MHA will not let go because they have to explain to AG why they cannot get the answers and it is a not a pretty sight.

Now for the Government Proceedings Act. This is not first time in Mindef's history that this has come up. In 1986, JBJ raised the point and question in Parliament on why our soldiers, sailors and policemen are discriminated while the rest of the population have the right. This came as a result of pilot who died. There has also been similar attempts to challenge this law. Its a law that used to be common in many countries but some have repealed or amended it. The UK repealed it in 1987 but there are provisions where the Secretary of State can use it in times of war or in emergency situations. The primary purpose is to stop soldiers, sailors and policeman second guessing and wondering if they have air cover when something goes wrong. Once you have a overly cautious army or Police Force with men and women wondering when the next baseless lawsuits will come, you will end up with non functional unit.

What about compensation then? The Government really needs to re-examine their award system and increase its quantum. The compensation element should also be taken out from the protection that Government Proceedings Act provides. How much government coughs up in compensation will not reduce the effectiveness of a fighting force. Its the law suits against individual staff in carrying out their duty in genuine belief that they are right.

There is also one other consideration to take into account. Rich families can afford the best silks and likely get much higher compensation if law is changed. A mechanism must be in place that poor families get the right representation paid for by the state or ensure that compensation is fair to all. In the UK, legal aid is readily provided. No need to jump thru hoops as long as the means test is cleared.

How do you get the Government to repeal the clause on compensation. The only way is thru the ballot box. Make this campaign issue and it all takes is a couple more seats lost to the opposition.

 

[Leongsam]

I am beginning to wonder if folks know that we are training soldiers to handle war and such. We cannot allow ourselves to go down to the lowest common denominator to ensure that no injury or no one gets in harm's way.

I have found that there are far too many naive people in this forum.

I've replaced the term "stupid" with "naive" because if you read their posts they are educated and seemingly well read and well informed.

However they are idealists to the point of being absolutely irrational. Where and how they developed this trait is beyond me. It's as if they spent years in some sort of utopian commune and have just been unleashed to preach their value systems here.

 

[enterprise2]

Scroo is rite. The whole system need to change b4 we can see real justic. And we can change it in such a way we don't compromise safety of training effectiveness. The current system shroud the decision making and does not go far enough to compensate families for loss of limbs or loved ones. This is unfair and impose a very financial burden especially if the families r not well off. Come on, Mindef is giving like 2-3 time Workman Comm, how much is that?? Based on the NSF salary, can't be more than $100k rite. Just my Guess.

 

[borom]

Be it Ng before, Shan now or maybe Teo, in future-they will close ranks and say the same.

The best person to ask this is lawyer K. Muralidharan Pillai-in front of the man in the streets at election rally.
Let the residents of B Batok decide and see whether if SAF officers were to go against procedures and cause their sons to die during NS, they will Speak Now (and vote opposition) or Forever Hold Their Peace.

 

[Leongsam]

Scroo is rite. The whole system need to change b4 we can see real justic. And we can change it in such a way we don't compromise safety of training effectiveness. The current system shroud the decision making and does not go far enough to compensate families for loss of limbs or loved ones. This is unfair and impose a very financial burden especially if the families r not well off. Come on, Mindef is giving like 2-3 time Workman Comm, how much is that?? Based on the NSF salary, can't be more than $100k rite. Just my Guess.

Follow scroos recommendations and Singapore will end up like NZ where prison inmates get legal aid to seek compensation from the government because they were not served Xmas pudding on Christmas day.

 

[Leongsam]

Be it Ng before, Shan now or maybe Teo, in future-they will close ranks and say the same.

The best person to ask this is lawyer K. Muralidharan Pillai-in front of the man in the streets at election rally.
Let the residents of B Batok decide and see whether if SAF officers were to go against procedures and cause their sons to die during NS, they will Speak Now (and vote opposition) or Forever Hold Their Peace.

Sons die during NS because training is inherently dangerous. If no NS man died I'd be very worried. It would mean that trainees are in a holiday camp not an army camp.

 

[scroobal]

Not necessarily. The Government Proceedings Act need not be repealed but amended so that baseless claims do not see the light.

Follow scroos recommendations and Singapore will end up like NZ where prison inmates get legal aid to seek compensation from the government because they were not served Xmas pudding on Christmas day.

 

[Leongsam]

Not necessarily. The Government Proceedings Act need not be repealed but amended so that baseless claims do not see the light.

When you've lived in "democracy" as long as I have you'll get to realise that nothing is cast in stone. Every law can be challenged once legal aid is readily available.

In 2012 the government removed the right of inmates to vote in the elections. This amendment is now being challenged by an inmate because it supposedly violates some article of some UN declaration which NZ signed 5 decades ago.

Who pays for all these legal challenges??? I do along with all the other tax payers.

In life you must always be careful what you wish for because it can come back and bite you in the butt. The 70% realised that in the last election and decided that the PAP is not that bad after all.

 

[Asterix]

I don't think anybody in their right mind will accuse the Israelis of being unrealistic or soft in their army training, but they know the difference between unnecessary death due to negligence and necessary death due to the nature of war.


Israeli Army Dismisses Battalion Commander, 5 Officers Over Training Ground Death

The commander of an Israel Defense Forces battalion and five other officers have been dismissed following the death of a soldier during a training exercise in southern Israel earlier this month.

Capt. Yishai Rosales, 23, was killed and another soldier lightly wounded by shrapnel when a mortar round was fired in the wrong direction at the Tze’elim training base in the Negev, during a course for company and battalion commanders on January 5.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot made the decision to dismiss Lt. Col. Tal David of the 75th Armored Battalion, along with the major who served as deputy battalion commander. Eisenkot also dismissed a deputy company commander from the battalion who served as safety officer for the mortar position during the training exercise.

A military investigation into the incident found that the safety officer didn’t carry out his duties properly. The commander of the mortar team and two armored corps soldiers who fired the mortar round were also dismissed.

The investigation found that the mortar round fell 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles) from the planned target, and instead hit an observation post where Rosales was housed. Rosales wasn’t even involved in the 75th Armored Battalion’s exercise, but was serving as a safety supervisor for a different exercise being conducted in the urban warfare training center on the base. Rosales, from the religious moshav of Beit Meir in central Israel, was a platoon commander in the ultra-Orthodox 97th Netzah Yehuda Battalion, and was posthumously promoted to the rank of captain.

An armored corps officer with the rank of colonel had been appointed to lead the team investigating the circumstances of the incident. In addition, the Military Police Corps opened their own investigation, as well as the normal operational inquiry conducted in such cases.

The investigative team found that the accident was caused by the mortar team’s poor professional level. After the investigators presented their conclusions, Eisenkot decided that the battalion’s commanders were also guilty of negligence.

It was discovered during the probe that preparations for the exercise were poor, including the use of the safety officer and his supervisor.

Eisenkot also ordered Maj. Gen. Guy Tzur, the chief of Ground Forces Command, to examine the way mortar teams are trained in both the armored corps and infantry brigades.

The commander of the armored corps training center in Tze’elim, Col. Shimon Edri, was also censored. The incident will be noted in the personal file of Edri, who was the overall commander responsible for the exercise. In addition, the company commander of the soldiers involved received a reprimand from his division commander.

Eisenkot’s decisions apply to the operational, personnel and command aspects of the incident, a senior IDF officer said yesterday. These decisions aren’t linked to the Military Police Corps’ investigation into the affair, and any criminal or other disciplinary proceedings will be handled separately.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.700041

 

[scroobal]

The press, Mindef and even the Ministers have failed to explain to explain this case. It seems to be really bad with the press in particular. The fact that people continue to think the Mindef was in charge is quite telling.

Decades ago when the OCT recruit was shot dead in the back by his own platoon mate during an exercise I realised why training must be tough or else the weaker ones will be threat to the other platoon mates.

I have found that there are far too many naive people in this forum.

I've replaced the term "stupid" with "naive" because if you read their posts they are educated and seemingly well read and well informed.

However they are idealists to the point of being absolutely irrational. Where and how they developed this trait is beyond me. It's as if they spent years in some sort of utopian commune and have just been unleashed to preach their value systems here.

 

[maxxi]

Training of soldiers always carries a high risk of injury, no different from police or fireman training. SAF can implement all the safety measures they want and death will still inevitably occur.

They set out parameters [No. of grenades, etc] and not adhered to and death/injuries occurs how?

 

[scroobal]

AG has charged numerous Officer including pilots despite the high cost of training them since independence in the courts of Singapore. Some of gone to jail and all have lost their jobs. There are hundreds of others including senior officers from Mindef though not charged have been sacked due to training accidents.

I don't think anyone should walk away from this discussion thinking that we do not take actions.

I also have no doubt that Mindef has also covered up for some of them. I already named one Colonel whose Unit was caught falsifying their results and barred from the prestigious Best Combat Unit competition and that same year, 4 of his men were charged in court for death of a soldier but he got away. And the 4 of them followed the training procedure that was in place for 5 years. So we do have the blemishes as well.

I don't think anybody in their right mind will accuse the Israelis of being unrealistic or soft in their army training, but they know the difference between unnecessary death due to negligence and necessary death due to the nature of war.


Israeli Army Dismisses Battalion Commander, 5 Officers Over Training Ground Death

The commander of an Israel Defense Forces battalion and five other officers have been dismissed following the death of a soldier during a training exercise in southern Israel earlier this month.

 

[Papsmearer]

I don't think anybody in their right mind will accuse the Israelis of being unrealistic or soft in their army training, but they know the difference between unnecessary death due to negligence and necessary death due to the nature of war.


Israeli Army Dismisses Battalion Commander, 5 Officers Over Training Ground Death

The commander of an Israel Defense Forces battalion and five other officers have been dismissed following the death of a soldier during a training exercise in southern Israel earlier this month.

Capt. Yishai Rosales, 23, was killed and another soldier lightly wounded by shrapnel when a mortar round was fired in the wrong direction at the Tze’elim training base in the Negev, during a course for company and battalion commanders on January 5.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot made the decision to dismiss Lt. Col. Tal David of the 75th Armored Battalion, along with the major who served as deputy battalion commander. Eisenkot also dismissed a deputy company commander from the battalion who served as safety officer for the mortar position during the training exercise.

A military investigation into the incident found that the safety officer didn’t carry out his duties properly. The commander of the mortar team and two armored corps soldiers who fired the mortar round were also dismissed.

The investigation found that the mortar round fell 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles) from the planned target, and instead hit an observation post where Rosales was housed. Rosales wasn’t even involved in the 75th Armored Battalion’s exercise, but was serving as a safety supervisor for a different exercise being conducted in the urban warfare training center on the base. Rosales, from the religious moshav of Beit Meir in central Israel, was a platoon commander in the ultra-Orthodox 97th Netzah Yehuda Battalion, and was posthumously promoted to the rank of captain.

An armored corps officer with the rank of colonel had been appointed to lead the team investigating the circumstances of the incident. In addition, the Military Police Corps opened their own investigation, as well as the normal operational inquiry conducted in such cases.

The investigative team found that the accident was caused by the mortar team’s poor professional level. After the investigators presented their conclusions, Eisenkot decided that the battalion’s commanders were also guilty of negligence.

It was discovered during the probe that preparations for the exercise were poor, including the use of the safety officer and his supervisor.

Eisenkot also ordered Maj. Gen. Guy Tzur, the chief of Ground Forces Command, to examine the way mortar teams are trained in both the armored corps and infantry brigades.

The commander of the armored corps training center in Tze’elim, Col. Shimon Edri, was also censored. The incident will be noted in the personal file of Edri, who was the overall commander responsible for the exercise. In addition, the company commander of the soldiers involved received a reprimand from his division commander.

Eisenkot’s decisions apply to the operational, personnel and command aspects of the incident, a senior IDF officer said yesterday. These decisions aren’t linked to the Military Police Corps’ investigation into the affair, and any criminal or other disciplinary proceedings will be handled separately.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.700041

Wow, unbelievable, The 75th Armour Battalion is not even a reservist unit but a frontline unit, part of the 7th Armour brigade. For their mortar team to make such a bad mistake is frankly shocking to me.

 

[Papsmearer]

The press, Mindef and even the Ministers have failed to explain to explain this case. It seems to be really bad with the press in particular. The fact that people continue to think the Mindef was in charge is quite telling.

Decades ago when the OCT recruit was shot dead in the back by his own platoon mate during an exercise I realised why training must be tough or else the weaker ones will be threat to the other platoon mates.

To tell you the true, the training was tough in those days because the core of the professional officers were themselves trained tough by the Israelis and what not. The bottom line is you can have the best, toughest trained, most well equipped army in the world, all that is no use to you when the leadership of the army comprised of bespectacled scholar generals who studied math and engineering in their uni days and never fired a gun in anger.

 

[PTADER]

To ensure fairness where death has occurred, there are independent agencies that come into play. In this case the AG and the Coroner were involved. By law, if there is a Commission of Inquiry, the Coroner will stop all proceeding until the COI is completed. Both the Coroner and ultimately the AG have the final say and they are not part of Mindef. Both the Coroner and AG depend on the Police to complete their investigation and only the Police are involved. Mindefhas no say or sway on the conduct of an investigations and they have no access to the files. They can however make representation to AG if they disagree with the investigation and the manner that it is carried out. In this case, Coroner came to a different conclusion on the cause of the death from Mindef's COI. Common sense will tell you which finding AG will rely on.

AG based on the Police investigation has decided not to proceed with any criminal charges against the 2 Officers. VK Rajah has a track record of independence when he was Judge at the Appellate Court.

If there is a cover-up, it must involve Mindef, Police, AG, Judiciary and 3 Ministries or we are looking at a totally incompetent lot.

So lets be clear about Mindef controlling this case. They don't.

Let's not have a TPX obfuscation of a simple issue of a death caused by negligence, and a conflation of the different type of lnquiries held.

Firstly, NO Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act was held for this incident. What was held was:

1. A Coroner's Inquiry under the Coroners Act in 2013.

2. A Committee of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act in 2012.

​

1. The Coroner's Inquiry held in 2013

As I have already explained to you in Msg 14 of this thread, it is not the CI's role to determine the "level of offence" in any CI held. In fact, it is not permitted by law to do so. The CI's role is restricted (Sect 27 of the Coroners Act, Cap 63A) to inquiring only into "how, when and where the deceased came by his death". The CI is not allowed to "frame a finding in such a way as to determine any question of criminal, civil or disciplinary liability".

The CI's has no "final" say except within the tight frame of reference that he works within, i.e. to determine "how, when and where the deceased came by his death". Nothing more. Nothing less.

2. The Committee of Inquiry held in 2012

This was convened by the Armed Forces Council. It has a far wider term of reference than the CI. Clearly, the terms of reference included what Dr Ng Eng Hen stated in his Ministerial Statement in Parliament in November 2012, the most critical and damning of which was:.

[FONT=&amp] "The COI opined that “if the TSR had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident, and for as long as they were during the incident” and that “reduced exposure to smoke would have reduced the risks of any adverse reactions to the smoke.” The COI concluded that “the cause of death of PTE Lee resulted from inhalation of the fumes from the smoke grenades used in the incident”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it."
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]​

Your point about "let's be clear about MINDEF controlling this case, they don't" is hogwash.

Once the AG decided that no charges would be brought against the two under the Penal Code, the ball was back in MINDEF's court to deal with the two. That no "criminal charges were brought against the two officers" under the Penal Code does not mean the two Officers cannot be charged under the SAF Act. The fact that they were eventually charged under the SAF Act is proof of this. The COI's findings of "negligence" does not suddenly become invalid just because of the AG's decision.

So, contrary to your claim, MINDEF does control this case. And it has done so by deciding what charges to be laid against the two, whether they should be tried summarily or be court martialled and most importantly, the type of punishment to be meted out. This has nothing to do with the AG once the ball was back in MINDEF's court. It has everything to do with MINDEF.

 

[PTADER]

I have found that there are far too many naive people in this forum.

I've replaced the term "stupid" with "naive" because if you read their posts they are educated and seemingly well read and well informed.

However they are idealists to the point of being absolutely irrational. Where and how they developed this trait is beyond me. It's as if they spent years in some sort of utopian commune and have just been unleashed to preach their value systems here.

Cut the crap. Just because you have a different opinion or a different value system does not make everyone who do not share your opinion or "value system" "stupid", "naive" or "irrational".

 

[scroobal]

You are struggling with first principles and therefore you are muddling things. COI findings obviously did not carry weight with the AG. AG is not duty bound to Ng or Mindef.

Even if Mindef charged the 2 officers based on the COI findings, both officers will rely on the Coroner's findings and the benefit of doubt will given to them.

Pointless spamming the same things on multiple threads and wishing on quantity to make your case.

Getting personal not only diminishes your case but shows desperation.

Let's not have a TPX obfuscation of a simple issue of a death caused by negligence, and a conflation of the different type of lnquiries held.

Firstly, NO Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act was held for this incident. What was held was:

1. A Coroner's Inquiry under the Coroners Act in 2013.

2. A Committee of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act in 2012.

​

1. The Coroner's Inquiry held in 2013

As I have already explained to you in Msg 14 of this thread, it is not the CI's role to determine the "level of offence" in any CI held. In fact, it is not permitted by law to do so. The CI's role is restricted (Sect 27 of the Coroners Act, Cap 63A) to inquiring only into "how, when and where the deceased came by his death". The CI is not allowed to "frame a finding in such a way as to determine any question of criminal, civil or disciplinary liability".

The CI's has no "final" say except within the tight frame of reference that he works within, i.e. to determine "how, when and where the deceased came by his death". Nothing more. Nothing less.

2. The Committee of Inquiry held in 2012

This was convened by the Armed Forces Council. It has a far wider term of reference than the CI. Clearly, the terms of reference included what Dr Ng Eng Hen stated in his Ministerial Statement in Parliament in November 2012, the most critical and damning of which was:.

[FONT=&amp] "The COI opined that “if the TSR had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident, and for as long as they were during the incident” and that “reduced exposure to smoke would have reduced the risks of any adverse reactions to the smoke.” The COI concluded that “the cause of death of PTE Lee resulted from inhalation of the fumes from the smoke grenades used in the incident”.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it."
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]​

Your point about "let's be clear about MINDEF controlling this case, they don't" is hogwash.

Once the AG decided that no charges would be brought against the two under the Penal Code, the ball was back in MINDEF's court to deal with the two. That no "criminal charges were brought against the two officers" under the Penal Code does not mean the two Officers cannot be charged under the SAF Act. The fact that they were eventually charged under the SAF Act is proof of this. The COI's findings of "negligence" does not suddenly become invalid just because of the AG's decision.

So, contrary to your claim, MINDEF does control this case. And it has done so by deciding what charges to be laid against the two, whether they should be tried summarily or be court martialled and most importantly, the type of punishment to be meted out. This has nothing to do with the AG once the ball was back in MINDEF's court. It has everything to do with MINDEF.

 

[scroobal]

I know it was tough. It was BG Tan Ching Tiong, a scholar who began introducing the soft touch.

To tell you the true, the training was tough in those days because the core of the professional officers were themselves trained tough by the Israelis and what not. The bottom line is you can have the best, toughest trained, most well equipped army in the world, all that is no use to you when the leadership of the army comprised of bespectacled scholar generals who studied math and engineering in their uni days and never fired a gun in anger.

 

[PTADER]

You are struggling with first principles and therefore you are muddling things. COI findings obviously did not carry weight with the AG. AG is not duty bound to Ng or Mindef. Even if Mindef charged the 2 officers based on the COI findings, both officers will rely on the Coroner's findings and the benefit of doubt will given to them. Pointless spamming the same things on multiple threads and wishing on quantity to make your case. Getting personal not only diminishes your case but shows desperation.

I know is a habit of yours whenever you are shown up but you really need to cut the bullshit. You are still attempting to dishonestly conflate the issue of prosecuting the two for negligence with the CI's findings on the cause of death. Trying to do so through your usual insults does not strengthen your case.

BTW, aren't you the one struggling with the constant bullshit you spout, hence the ongoing shifts in your opinions and positions on practically everything, even on this one. No???

Aren't you the one who is constantly desperate to discredit forummers and postings when you are shown up to the extent that that you have to constantly lie and put up bullshit stories, the most recent of which was the one about the "Hero Canadian Major". No???

Ever wondered why forummers call you a lying fraud?