- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
In a rare case, a civilian who walked out on her Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) job and was not found for 13 years has been sentenced by a subordinate military court to 33 months' jail for desertion.
V. Mariammal, 48, is appealing against the sentence and when her case comes up this week, a key issue will be whether a civilian offender should be dealt with in the same manner as a uniformed long-term deserter.
The logistics supply technician was employed on a six-year contract until 2001, under a scheme for non-uniformed staff now known as the Defence Executive Scheme, or DXO.
She claimed she left for India in 1998 after being stressed over personal financial problems. She was 34 and married at the time.
She settled in Chennai, obtained an Indian passport and entered Singapore three times between 2004 and 2007.
She was picked up by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority when she returned again last year.
The mother of three was jailed for eight months for immigration offences in April and subsequently charged with desertion by the SAF.
At the court martial convened in June, she pleaded guilty and an important question was whether she should be dealt with like a uniformed military offender.
Her lawyer, Mr K. Rajendran, told The Sunday Times he had looked for precedents and believed that this could be the first in recent times involving a civilian who deserted the army.
He noted that the SAF prosecutor had cited five past cases of desertion involving uniformed staff, and the court took them into account for sentencing.
There have been no cases of desertion in the past six years, noted court martial president Lieutenant-Colonel Lim Keng Yeow in the court's grounds of decision issued in June.
Desertion, unlike going absent without leave (AWOL), carries a maximum jail term of 10 years compared with two years for the latter offence.
Desertion involves a permanent intention on the part of the offender to not return to the SAF.
The three-member court acknowledged that Mariammal's circumstances could be different from cases of desertion "where a male serviceman, compulsorily conscripted and bound to serve the nation at a relatively small allowance, deserts so as to avoid such liability".
The court said it was even possible to look at her breach "more from a contractual, than a criminal, perspective.
"After all, there is no real loss to the SAF or gain to her. She did not appear at work, she did not receive her pay."
But the court also pointed out that the SAF is not comparable to a civilian entity, given its role in protecting the nation, and it was necessary to ensure SAF staff "keep their stations at personal risk, especially in the hour of need".
The court added that staff, uniformed or non-uniformed, are subject to military law for good reason in this context.
"Desertion on the part of any service personnel in the SAF will hamper operations, weaken the SAF and could potentially affect morale," it said.
It added that desertion had to be treated as a grave matter whether in times of peace or amid hostilities.
As such, the penalties are aimed at "ensuring something very fundamental to the effectiveness of the SAF: the very viability and existence of a defence force".
The court took into account Mariammal's mitigating circumstances and discounted what it said should have been a minimum 36 months to 33 months in jail.
It also noted that she did not surrender herself and had previously entered the country three times.
The jail term was backdated to run concurrently with her sentence for immigration offences.
Mariammal's appeal against the jail term is due to be heard on Friday before Justice Choo Han Teck, who will preside at the five-member Military Court of Appeal.
Her brother, Mr V. Ramesh, 43, said yesterday he was "hopeful" the court would re-examine her case, given that she was a civilian.
[email protected]
V. Mariammal, 48, is appealing against the sentence and when her case comes up this week, a key issue will be whether a civilian offender should be dealt with in the same manner as a uniformed long-term deserter.
The logistics supply technician was employed on a six-year contract until 2001, under a scheme for non-uniformed staff now known as the Defence Executive Scheme, or DXO.
She claimed she left for India in 1998 after being stressed over personal financial problems. She was 34 and married at the time.
She settled in Chennai, obtained an Indian passport and entered Singapore three times between 2004 and 2007.
She was picked up by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority when she returned again last year.
The mother of three was jailed for eight months for immigration offences in April and subsequently charged with desertion by the SAF.
At the court martial convened in June, she pleaded guilty and an important question was whether she should be dealt with like a uniformed military offender.
Her lawyer, Mr K. Rajendran, told The Sunday Times he had looked for precedents and believed that this could be the first in recent times involving a civilian who deserted the army.
He noted that the SAF prosecutor had cited five past cases of desertion involving uniformed staff, and the court took them into account for sentencing.
There have been no cases of desertion in the past six years, noted court martial president Lieutenant-Colonel Lim Keng Yeow in the court's grounds of decision issued in June.
Desertion, unlike going absent without leave (AWOL), carries a maximum jail term of 10 years compared with two years for the latter offence.
Desertion involves a permanent intention on the part of the offender to not return to the SAF.
The three-member court acknowledged that Mariammal's circumstances could be different from cases of desertion "where a male serviceman, compulsorily conscripted and bound to serve the nation at a relatively small allowance, deserts so as to avoid such liability".
The court said it was even possible to look at her breach "more from a contractual, than a criminal, perspective.
"After all, there is no real loss to the SAF or gain to her. She did not appear at work, she did not receive her pay."
But the court also pointed out that the SAF is not comparable to a civilian entity, given its role in protecting the nation, and it was necessary to ensure SAF staff "keep their stations at personal risk, especially in the hour of need".
The court added that staff, uniformed or non-uniformed, are subject to military law for good reason in this context.
"Desertion on the part of any service personnel in the SAF will hamper operations, weaken the SAF and could potentially affect morale," it said.
It added that desertion had to be treated as a grave matter whether in times of peace or amid hostilities.
As such, the penalties are aimed at "ensuring something very fundamental to the effectiveness of the SAF: the very viability and existence of a defence force".
The court took into account Mariammal's mitigating circumstances and discounted what it said should have been a minimum 36 months to 33 months in jail.
It also noted that she did not surrender herself and had previously entered the country three times.
The jail term was backdated to run concurrently with her sentence for immigration offences.
Mariammal's appeal against the jail term is due to be heard on Friday before Justice Choo Han Teck, who will preside at the five-member Military Court of Appeal.
Her brother, Mr V. Ramesh, 43, said yesterday he was "hopeful" the court would re-examine her case, given that she was a civilian.
[email protected]
