For the deceased, his act dies with him but his survivors suffers. If he had spared a thought for his survivors, he would not have done it despite the enormous amount of education that was poured in and to nurture him to be a scholar. There are always setbacks in life and it is how you face and handle it. It is understandable that his parents are bearing the brunt of his action.
But society and government has to take a public stand that they cannot celebrate and condone such an action. Imagine if we are in a war and the soldiers in the SAF instead of defending the country chose to commit suicide when they are confronted with the enemies and yet the SAF has to "celebrate" their death in the Obituary section as though they are national heroes.
The crime stays even if he is dead for history will always remember that the crime was committed by him. Decades and centuries later, history will still remember that he has committed a crime and there is no doubt about it. If he has descendents, they have to live with that fact.
I believe you have digress quite a lot from your original post. You had originally asked the rhetoric question, that is,"
Why is Mindef Chief of various forces advertising in the Obituary Section of The Straits Times sending their condolences to the late Dr Ooi when he is a wanted criminal for AWOL in the army."
I was merely telling you that the condolences were not sent to the deceased but his parents and siblings. There was accolades or encomium for the deceased in those condolences. SAF did the right thing. We have to take care of the living who are innocent.
I cannot imagine any soldier would rather kill himself than join the battle. With due respect, your illlustration is a bit far fetched.
I do not see in any of the condolences that there is a celebration (?) and condonation of the suicide. It would have been ideal had he been persuaded by the thought that the survivours whol loved him woud suffer by his death and thereby refrain from committing suicide. Sadly, this has not been the case