The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Part II

[enterprise2]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

There is a point where the risks are minimised sufficiently for all practical purposes. Going any further would be ridiculous.

This smoke grenade incident is one of them.

If the smoke had built up to levels which were lethal, more than one soldier would have succumbed to the fumes. However in this case only one soldier died and it turns out he was allergic to the smoke.

You can just as well blame the MINDEF medical team for not conducting allergy tests on ALL enlistees for ALL POSSIBLE chemicals that soldiers might come in contact with in the course of their duties. He was declared fit for NS and sent to the training frontline and the training officer is therefore just as much a victim as the soldier is.

Life is not about removing all risk. It's about being practical and rational in assessing risk and MINDEF has done a pretty good job in this regard.

U r rite in that u cannot eliminate all risks. But in this case, the risks is known and foreseeable therefore the safety rule of 2 grenade only. They broke the rule but only got a rap and worse can get promoted some more! And the deceased family got peanuts. This is crazy injustice!

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Because he was allergic to the smoke. That's his own fault it is not the government's fault or the SAF's fault.

Aiyoh ...why you ignore the facts ...too many smoke grenades were used, violating the safe amount, secondly, the officer didn't not take into account his condition.

Manslaughter should be the charge.

The biggest revelation of this incident is that MINDEF says that it doesn't care if soldiers die ...it is not their problem. On this account, those serving NS should shoot the bloody officers at the first opportunity because these officers will kill them.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

The SAF is one of the safest armies in the world. The chance of dying in the SAF is lower than dying from the flu or a car ride.

Says who?

Do unfortunate things happen? Of course they do but that's life. It can happen anywhere and at any time. You don't have to be doing NS to run the risk of death.

But we are forced to do NS ...when you die while doing NS, it is not of choice.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

trust me people are more easily brainwashed then u think,the gurkhas would not have to spill a drop of blood.if the saf has to execute 200 of their own people,200 traitors.they will do it.like the stanford prison experiment,u can get any group of people in the world to commit torture or even mortally kill if u tell them its part of the "system" or procedures,and they have no say over the process,they are merely following orders.human psyche is easily maellable and in any case BG loong wouldl probably set up a secret police within the military,a circle of the most trustworthy loyalist to the Lee Dynasty to carry out persecution,execution,extermination,

Let the world see the brutality of the PAP. Conscripts should boycott NS until the law is changed; commitment is a two-way street. If the government is not willing to legally commit to the welfare of the troops, then the troops should reciprocate likewise.

Let's have a coup.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

I believe it is because the WP sincerely believes that the PAP Government is a competent government and is managing all these issues very well.

The WP is a fake opposition, bought over by the PAP.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

The WP is a fake opposition, bought over by the PAP.

It wasn't when JBJ ran the show, though he was surrounded by fakes which led him to jail.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

There is a point where the risks are minimised sufficiently for all practical purposes. Going any further would be ridiculous.

This smoke grenade incident is one of them.

If the smoke had built up to levels which were lethal, more than one soldier would have succumbed to the fumes. However in this case only one soldier died and it turns out he was allergic to the smoke.

Even the coroner said that there was sufficient smoke, so there was NO need for six smoke grenades.
Two smoke grenades may not have triggered the strong reaction.

You can just as well blame the MINDEF medical team for not conducting allergy tests on ALL enlistees for ALL POSSIBLE chemicals that soldiers might come in contact with in the course of their duties. He was declared fit for NS and sent to the training frontline and the training officer is therefore just as much a victim as the soldier is.

If the training officer stuck to the safety quantity, he would be blamed. He didn't and a soldier die.

Life is about removing all risk. It's about being practical and rational in assessing risk and MINDEF has done a pretty good job in this regard.

When you die in NS, it is a bad loss and someone must be held accountable. NS is not a choice but forced upon our men.

 

[Leongsam]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Says who?

You can google the annual death rate for flu and motor accidents and see for yourself.

But we are forced to do NS ...when you die while doing NS, it is not of choice.

NS is given a rousing endorsement at every GE. In the last GE 70% volunteered for NS.

 

[PTADER]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Formatted version (Unable to format earlier version, Msg 60, posted via sing supplies)

Originally Posted by yahoo55
The reporter in the video said "police investigations are ongoing to determine whether to prosecute them in civil court". A good question to ask the police is why were they not prosecuted in civil court?

Apparently, it is due to this (MINDEF's 2nd reply on 18 March 2016):

"Arising from the coroner's findings of fact, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted." Lim Chuen Ni (Ms) Director, Public Communications Mindef Communications Organisation Ministry of Defence
​

Suddenly, zero mention was made in this reply about the COI or the COI's findings of negligence and that the death would (not "could" not "might" but "would") have been prevented. This was after the General's screw up 11 days earlier on 7 March when he selectively quoted from the COI in which he sought to blame the soldier by stating:

"The coroner also noted that PTE Lee “had under played and under declared his asthmatic condition” Brigadier General Chan Wing Kai Commander Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
​

What this little dishonest sneak conveniently omitted to mention was that his Minister had stated in Parliament in Nov 2012 that:

"The COI was unable to establish with certainty if PTE Lee’s history of asthma was a contributory factor to his death." Ng Eng Hen
​

As such, whether the soldier "underplayed" or "under declared" his asthmatic condition is of no relevance. That's the problem when these duplicitous dummies such as BG Chan, Ms Lim Chuen Ni and their ilk from MINDEF refuse to come clean, don't play it straight and start lying or telling half-truths. They get entangled in the web of their own lies, spins and dishonesty.

 

[AndyBogard]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

The WP is a fake opposition, bought over by the PAP.

diam diam oppo... take 15K but still many times better than PAPigz

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

diam diam oppo... take 15K but still many times better than PAPigz

They sold their soul to the devil.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Formatted version (Unable to format earlier version, Msg 60, posted via sing supplies)

Apparently, it is due to this (MINDEF's 2nd reply on 18 March 2016):

"Arising from the coroner's findings of fact, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted." Lim Chuen Ni (Ms) Director, Public Communications Mindef Communications Organisation Ministry of Defence
​

Suddenly, zero mention was made in this reply about the COI or the COI's findings of negligence and that the death would (not "could" not "might" but "would") have been prevented. This was after the General's screw up 11 days earlier on 7 March when he selectively quoted from the COI in which he sought to blame the soldier by stating:

"The coroner also noted that PTE Lee “had under played and under declared his asthmatic condition” Brigadier General Chan Wing Kai Commander Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
​

What this little dishonest sneak conveniently omitted to mention was that his Minister had stated in Parliament in Nov 2012 that:

"The COI was unable to establish with certainty if PTE Lee’s history of asthma was a contributory factor to his death." Ng Eng Hen
​

As such, whether the soldier "underplayed" or "under declared" his asthmatic condition is of no relevance. That's the problem when these duplicitous dummies such as BG Chan, Ms Lim Chuen Ni and their ilk from MINDEF refuse to come clean, don't play it straight and start lying or telling half-truths. They get entangled in the web of their own lies, spins and dishonesty.

The Coroner stated that there was NO need for more than two smoke grenades as there was sufficient smoke. The soldier died because of negligence and violation of safety code.

 

[yahoo55]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Bro PTADER, apparently WP's Dennis Tan has questioned Ng Eng Hen/MINDEF on this in parliament today. The so called "punishment" for the negligent officers is only a short "delay in promotion" amounting to "about half a year's salary".

No apology to the family from the negligent officers, the defense minister or MINDEF. And just a miserable pathetic sum for compensation.

What an injustice to the dead NSF and his family by PAP.


http://m.todayonline.com/singapore/nsf-death-parly0324

NSF death: Delay in officers' promotions amounted to half their annual salary

Updated: 2:31 PM, March 24, 2016


SINGAPORE – The delays in the promotions for the two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officers involved in the death of Private Dominique Sarron Lee was significant, with the monetary costs amounting “to about half of their total annual salaries”, said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen in Parliament on Thursday (March 24).

Describing the punishment as a “setback” for both officers, Dr Ng said the penalties are consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences.

Dr Ng was responding to a question raised by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Dennis Tan on the punishments meted out to the two training officers after their conviction under military law for their roles in Lee’s death.

Twenty-one-year-old Lee died in April 2012 from an acute allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades used during a training exercise. The number of smoke grenades used in the exercise was thrice the amount allowed.

Earlier this month, the High Court struck out a civil lawsuit brought by Lee’s family against the SAF and the two officers, with the judge agreeing with the defendants’ argument that they were indemnified from negligence suits if the deaths or injuries occurred during service, due to a provision under Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act. The decision sparked public outcry, prompting questions of whether the two officers involved were adequately punished.

Laying out the investigative processes involved when a death or injury occurs, Dr Ng said that prosecutions of SAF servicemen in criminal courts are based on findings and conclusions determined by judicial processes outside the SAF. The State Coroner looks into the cause of death, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) decides if there are sufficient grounds for prosecution.

“It is then up to the criminal courts to determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. The SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and indeed deems them necessary so that our SAF servicemen are held accountable for their actions,” said Dr Ng.

In Lee’s case, Dr Ng said the two officers would have been prosecuted in the criminal courts “if there were sufficient grounds to deem the servicemen criminally liable for Pte Lee’s death”.

“The AGC decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted…Following the AGC’s decision not to prosecute, the two SAF officers were charged under military law in November 2013 for breaching the Training Safety Regulations,” said Dr Ng.

 

[enterprise2]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Bro PTADER, apparently WP's Dennis Tan has questioned Ng Eng Hen/MINDEF on this in parliament today. The so called "punishment" for the negligent officers is only a short "delay in promotion" amounting to "about half a year's salary".

No apology to the family from the negligent officers, the defense minister or MINDEF. And just a miserable pathetic sum for compensation.

What an injustice to the dead NSF and his family by PAP.


http://m.todayonline.com/singapore/nsf-death-parly0324

NSF death: Delay in officers' promotions amounted to half their annual salary

Updated: 2:31 PM, March 24, 2016


SINGAPORE – The delays in the promotions for the two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officers involved in the death of Private Dominique Sarron Lee was significant, with the monetary costs amounting “to about half of their total annual salaries”, said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen in Parliament on Thursday (March 24).

Describing the punishment as a “setback” for both officers, Dr Ng said the penalties are consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences.

Dr Ng was responding to a question raised by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Dennis Tan on the punishments meted out to the two training officers after their conviction under military law for their roles in Lee’s death.

Twenty-one-year-old Lee died in April 2012 from an acute allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades used during a training exercise. The number of smoke grenades used in the exercise was thrice the amount allowed.

Earlier this month, the High Court struck out a civil lawsuit brought by Lee’s family against the SAF and the two officers, with the judge agreeing with the defendants’ argument that they were indemnified from negligence suits if the deaths or injuries occurred during service, due to a provision under Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act. The decision sparked public outcry, prompting questions of whether the two officers involved were adequately punished.

Laying out the investigative processes involved when a death or injury occurs, Dr Ng said that prosecutions of SAF servicemen in criminal courts are based on findings and conclusions determined by judicial processes outside the SAF. The State Coroner looks into the cause of death, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) decides if there are sufficient grounds for prosecution.

“It is then up to the criminal courts to determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. The SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and indeed deems them necessary so that our SAF servicemen are held accountable for their actions,” said Dr Ng.

In Lee’s case, Dr Ng said the two officers would have been prosecuted in the criminal courts “if there were sufficient grounds to deem the servicemen criminally liable for Pte Lee’s death”.

“The AGC decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted…Following the AGC’s decision not to prosecute, the two SAF officers were charged under military law in November 2013 for breaching the Training Safety Regulations,” said Dr Ng.

Well u don't need to promote!! Rubbing salt into the wound!

 

[Leongsam]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Well u don't need to promote!! Rubbing salt into the wound!

They deserve their promotions because they put in a lot of effort to make training as realistic as possible.

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Bro PTADER, apparently WP's Dennis Tan has questioned Ng Eng Hen/MINDEF on this in parliament today. The so called "punishment" for the negligent officers is only a short "delay in promotion" amounting to "about half a year's salary".

No apology to the family from the negligent officers, the defense minister or MINDEF. And just a miserable pathetic sum for compensation.

What an injustice to the dead NSF and his family by PAP.

Fuck, only now then the WP bring this up? And by one of their NMP? Lancheow lah. How many people in this forum already discussing this? They should have been front and centre whacking the PAP on this. I rather Dennis Tan ask this question "Minister, can you tell us how many deaths and serious injury has occurred in the SAF since the inception of NS, with a breakdown of the numbers by the year?" I think the whole country want to know this number and assess for themselves how really dangerous NS and the SAF is.

 

[PTADER]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Bro PTADER, apparently WP's Dennis Tan has questioned Ng Eng Hen/MINDEF on this in parliament today. The so called "punishment" for the negligent officers is only a short "delay in promotion" amounting to "about half a year's salary".

No apology to the family from the negligent officers, the defense minister or MINDEF. And just a miserable pathetic sum for compensation.

What an injustice to the dead NSF and his family by PAP.

Thank you for the news update.

Dr Ng relied on techniques used by magicians to trick their audience, namely misdirection. He executed a magical sleight of hand, misdirecting Parliament and the public by referring to the Coroner's Inquiry but not the findings of the COI report which he himself presented to Parliament 3 1/2 years ago on 14 November 2012.

He misdirected Parliament and the public by referring to "prosecutions of SAF servicemen in criminal court" in which "the AGC decided not to prosecute anyone". As I have explained earlier, the AGC's decision not to prosecute anyone in criminal court has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the SAF to prosecute these two under the SAF Act which is independent of the Penal Code and the Criminal Courts. The fact that the SAF has indeed prosecuted these two under the SAF Act is proof of this. However, the SAF has chosen to prosecute these two through a Summary Trial. STs are reserved for "lesser" offences. Offences that result in deaths are not "lesser" offences. They are serious ones. The two should have been prosecuted in a Military Court and not a Summary Trial.

Ng's third misdirection comes from the claim that the "penalties [for the two] are consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences". It is "consistent" only because these two have been charged either under "Section 17, Disobedience of, non-compliance with lawful orders, etc" or "Section 21, Disobedience of general orders". These two could well have been charged on an even lesser charge, "Section 25, Conduct to prejudice of good order or discipline" and it can then be claimed by Ng that the even lighter penalties these two "suffered" under this "lighter" and all encompassing Section "are consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences".

The facts, as determined by the COI, are very clear. "Negligence" was a contributory factor in the death of Pte Lee:

"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"
​

The COI further opined that Pte Lee's death would have been avoided if not for this "negligence". The key word here is a definite "would", not a tentative and iffy "could" or "might". To put it another way, Pte Lee would be alive today (not "could" or "might" but a definitive "would") if not for the negligence of the Officer/s concerned. Hence, the more relevant Section to prosecute these two is Section 41 (b) of the SAF Act which states:

Endangering life or property

41. Every person subject to military law who does an act in relation to any thing or substance that may be dangerous to life or property, which act causes, or is likely to cause, loss of life or bodily injury to any person or causes, or is likely to cause, damage to or destruction of any property shall —

(a) if he acted wilfully, be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction by a subordinate military court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or any less punishment authorised by this Act; and

(b) if he acted negligently, be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction by a subordinate military court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or any less punishment authorised by this Act.
​

The penalties the Military Court mete out can then be compared to see whether they are "consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences".

 

[GoldenDragon]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Fuck, only now then the WP bring this up? And by one of their NMP? Lancheow lah. How many people in this forum already discussing this? They should have been front and centre whacking the PAP on this. I rather Dennis Tan ask this question "Minister, can you tell us how many deaths and serious injury has occurred in the SAF since the inception of NS, with a breakdown of the numbers by the year?" I think the whole country want to know this number and assess for themselves how really dangerous NS and the SAF is.

bro, i support you! please contest the bb be. thank you.

 

[virus]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Let the world see the brutality of the PAP. Conscripts should boycott NS until the law is changed; commitment is a two-way street. If the government is not willing to legally commit to the welfare of the troops, then the troops should reciprocate likewise.

Let's have a coup.

dont worry, unconfirmed leeport says that both occifers participated in the PP incidents and helped to recover 2 dead bodies and rescue the remaining 13 trapped at the viaduct so this national day they will be getting their medals for bravery and before that they will also be promoted to generals

so please say cheers and give them a beard

 

[PTADER]

Re: The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it –Par

Next, to Ng Eng Hen’s misdirection on the “significant monetary cost” for these two officers.

SINGAPORE – The delays in the promotions for the two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officers involved in the death of Private Dominique Sarron Lee was significant, with the monetary costs amounting “to about half of their total annual salaries”, said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen in Parliament on Thursday (March 24).

The salary range of a Captain in the Army is $4,350 -$5,550 (Ref: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/arc/our-careers-officer.html#salary)

That Chia chap was promoted on 01 July 2014, a year after he was “punished” in 2013. Ng’s latest statement suggests that he was, in a best case scenario, slated for promotion a year earlier on 01 July 2013 before his “punishment”.

For Ng to claim that the clown lost “about half of [his] annual [salary]” would mean that he had forgone about $26K - $33K (50% of the annual Captain’s salary range) between the one year period, 01 July 2013 – 30 June 2014 (promotions are done on SAF Day on 01 July). Bear in mind that during this one year period, this clown was still being paid his then Captain’s salary. He was not drawing zero dollars.

For Ng Eng Hen to claim he lost “about half of [his] annual [salary]” would translate to this Chia chap having a phenomenal leap in his salary increment of about $2K - $2.7K per month, between his last drawn June 2014 Captain’s salary, and his newly drawn July 2014 Major’s salary (after his promotion). So if his last drawn salary as a Captain was $X in June 2014, his new salary as a Major in and from July 2014 would be $X +( $2K - $2.7K). This has to be blatantly false unless this chap was on some hyper salary scale, even higher than a scholar.

So why did Ng Eng Hen misled Parliament and the public that the “delays in the promotions for the two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officers involved in the death of Private Dominique Sarron Lee was significant, with the monetary costs amounting ‘to about half of their total annual salaries’ “?

In all likelihood, it is to prepare for the day when he and the Ministry he heads will have to finally come clean and reveal how much these two were fined. This will then allow Ng to claim that the fine below the maximum allowable of $3K was not the only “monetary” cost both “suffered”. (From the little that has been revealed thus far, it can be deduced that both were fined an amount no more than this maximum of $3K allowable under a Summary Trial. Both chaps were not even fined the maximum of $3K for their negligence which led to a death).

To recap, both clowns were charged on a “lesser” instead of a more serious and relevant charge. Both were charged in a “lesser” Summary Trial in their Superior Commander’s (Bde Commander’s) Office and not court martialled in a Surbordinate Military Court. And now, Ng has effectively admitted that they have not even been given the maximum fine of $3K under their “lesser” charge and “lesser” Summary Trial.

Now you know why MAJ Chia Thye Siong is smiling happily after his "punishment"?