- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Training safety: More transparency in data needed
From Liew Kai Khiun TODAY
04:45 AM Nov 16, 2012
On the issue of training safety in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Defence Minister said in Parliament that more safety officers will be deployed on the ground.
A review board, helmed by a senior civil servant not from the Defence Ministry, has also been set up in addition to an inspectorate under the Chief of Defence Force.
However, these measures do not broaden the Ministry of Defence's level of transparency and accountability to the public. It is perhaps timely for the SAF to be more open with information on training safety statistics as seen in several Western armies.
For example, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) includes training safety assessments and statistics on its website. Its death rate is generally low, but there are about 15,000 incident reports, with an average of 1,200 "dangerous occurrences" a year.
Annual data sets on occupational health and safety within the British military can also be accessed publicly. The most voluminous data set, from pie charts to intricate tables, seems to come from the United States Army Combat Readiness/Safety Centre.
In contrast, MINDEF's website contains only vague, general statements about training safety. If other militaries that are engaged in real combat operations can publish data openly, there should be little reason for the SAF not to do so.
The health and safety levels in these militaries are also scrutinised by civilian bodies.
In Australia, all ADF personnel come under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act, and as a check and balance, ADF members are not allowed to be selected as a Health and Safety Representative.
Similarly, the civilian regulatory body in Britain is tasked with inspecting the standards of occupational health and safety within the military.
In this respect, I would suggest the possibility of bringing training safety under the umbrella of the Ministry of Manpower's Occupational Safety and Health Division.
From my experience as a National Serviceman, training safety officers are often fellow NSmen with little experience compared to MOM's professionally qualified inspectors.
With the latter's wealth of information from construction worksites to kitchens and hospitals, I am sure that they would look at training safety from more refreshing perspectives than their military counterparts.
A world-class army would have the most rigorous health and safety systems and cultures in place.
Public confidence in training safety standards is better cultivated with routine provision of information on fatalities, injuries and near misses within the military's different branches.
For the sake of our NSmen, MINDEF could study the occupational health and safety of its American, British and Australian counterparts more closely.
From Liew Kai Khiun TODAY
04:45 AM Nov 16, 2012
On the issue of training safety in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Defence Minister said in Parliament that more safety officers will be deployed on the ground.
A review board, helmed by a senior civil servant not from the Defence Ministry, has also been set up in addition to an inspectorate under the Chief of Defence Force.
However, these measures do not broaden the Ministry of Defence's level of transparency and accountability to the public. It is perhaps timely for the SAF to be more open with information on training safety statistics as seen in several Western armies.
For example, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) includes training safety assessments and statistics on its website. Its death rate is generally low, but there are about 15,000 incident reports, with an average of 1,200 "dangerous occurrences" a year.
Annual data sets on occupational health and safety within the British military can also be accessed publicly. The most voluminous data set, from pie charts to intricate tables, seems to come from the United States Army Combat Readiness/Safety Centre.
In contrast, MINDEF's website contains only vague, general statements about training safety. If other militaries that are engaged in real combat operations can publish data openly, there should be little reason for the SAF not to do so.
The health and safety levels in these militaries are also scrutinised by civilian bodies.
In Australia, all ADF personnel come under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act, and as a check and balance, ADF members are not allowed to be selected as a Health and Safety Representative.
Similarly, the civilian regulatory body in Britain is tasked with inspecting the standards of occupational health and safety within the military.
In this respect, I would suggest the possibility of bringing training safety under the umbrella of the Ministry of Manpower's Occupational Safety and Health Division.
From my experience as a National Serviceman, training safety officers are often fellow NSmen with little experience compared to MOM's professionally qualified inspectors.
With the latter's wealth of information from construction worksites to kitchens and hospitals, I am sure that they would look at training safety from more refreshing perspectives than their military counterparts.
A world-class army would have the most rigorous health and safety systems and cultures in place.
Public confidence in training safety standards is better cultivated with routine provision of information on fatalities, injuries and near misses within the military's different branches.
For the sake of our NSmen, MINDEF could study the occupational health and safety of its American, British and Australian counterparts more closely.
