• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

More BS from MINDEF

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
28,295
Points
113
Mindef explains stance on NSF's death

The military would have overstepped its powers and be legally challenged if it had punished two of its officers beyond the level of their offence in a 2012 training exercise in which full-time national serviceman Dominique Sarron Lee died from an allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades.

The Ministry of Defence said it would also be unfair to the two Singapore Armed Forces regulars - the exercise's chief safety officer Chia Thye Siong and Private Lee's platoon commander Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal. The latter threw six grenades, instead of two, flouting training safety rules.

Pte Lee's family tried to sue the military over his death but failed as the High Court threw out the lawsuit on March 3. This sparked a public outcry on social media.

In a forum letter published in The Straits Times today, Ms Lim Chuen Ni, Mindef's director of public communications, said that key findings were released during a 2013 coroner's inquiry, a transparent process that was open to the public.

During the hearing, Pte Lee's relatives and their lawyer were also allowed to ask questions relating to Pte Lee's death and question the two officers .

She noted that some members of the public, including Pte Lee's family members, have disagreed with the coroner's findings. "They feel instead that the two SAF regulars should bear greater liability for the cause of death and receive greater punishment," said Ms Lim.

"It would be wrong to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. Mindef/SAF would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged."


The level of punishment, Ms Lim noted, has to take into account the coroner's findings that "the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted". Arising from those findings, she said, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to prosecute anyone.

But the AGC informed Mindef to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached training safety Regulations.

"Mindef has done so, with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, including fines and delay in promotions," said Ms Lim.

While each death of a servicemen is "greatly regretted", Ms Lim said it is even more important when such incidents arise that "we maintain societal trust and integrity in respecting the due independent judicial processes to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required".

"The AGC has in the past prosecuted SAF servicemen who have been responsible for causing death due to rash acts or negligence."

And when found culpable, these servicemen were jailed.

She reiterated that a compensation package based on "the maximum extent of the compensation framework" was offered to Pte Lee's family.

Such compensation is generally two to four times that of the amount provided by the Work Injury Compensation Act for incidents arising from training and operations and is "no less than what would have been awarded by the court in cases where compensation was ruled to be payable", she said.

"We recognise that it is difficult for the family to find closure in this case and will continue to support them wherever possible."


MINDEF's Reply
We refer to the recent reports and letters relating to the late Private Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron ("Family's failed bid to sue SAF sparks debate"; March 10 and "Family of NSF who died will get legal bill slashed"; March 9).

The key findings leading to the death of Pte Lee had been released during the coroner's inquiry in August 2013.

This was a transparent process, taking the form of an open hearing fully accessible to the public and media. The family of the late Pte Lee and their legal counsel were also present, and given opportunities to address any questions that they may have relating to his death to the court.

As part of the process, they were also allowed to pose questions to the two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) regulars concerned.

The coroner's full findings and conclusion are open for public viewing upon application and approval by the court.

The coroner found that Pte Lee had died from "acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes" and that the allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted". All these were extensively reported by the local media.

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.

As such, the AGC informed the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached training safety regulations. Mindef has done so, with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, including fines and delay in promotions.

In the recent High Court hearing, the court struck out the legal suit by Pte Lee's family against Mindef.

While Mindef recognises that no amount of compensation will make up for the loss of a loved one, a package of financial compensation based on the maximum extent of the compensation framework was offered to the family.

Such compensation is generally two to four times that of the amount provided under the Work Injury Compensation Act for incidents arising from training and operations and is no less than what would have been awarded by the court in cases where compensation was ruled to be payable.

Some members of the public, including the late Pte Lee's family members, have disagreed with the coroner's findings.

They feel instead that the two SAF regulars should bear greater liability for the cause of death and receive greater punishment.

It would be wrong to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. Mindef/SAF would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged.

Most importantly, it would be unfair to the two SAF regulars. In particular, the level of punishment has to take into account the coroner's findings that Pte Lee's fatal allergic reaction was unlikely to have been predicted.

Each death of our servicemen is greatly regretted but when these incidents arise, it is even more important that we maintain societal trust and integrity in respecting the due independent judicial processes to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required.

The AGC has in the past prosecuted SAF servicemen who have been responsible for causing death due to rash acts or negligence. When they were found culpable, the courts have sentenced them to jail.

In this particular case, the AGC decided not to prosecute anyone.

As we expressed in Parliament in 2012, we extend again our deepest condolences to the family of Pte Lee and are deeply sorry for the untimely and tragic loss of Pte Lee.

We recognise that it is difficult for the family to find closure in this case and will continue to support them wherever possible.

Lim Chuen Ni (Ms)

Director, Public Communications

Mindef Communications Organisation

Ministry of Defence
 
The Ministry of Defence said it would also be unfair to the two Singapore Armed Forces regulars - the exercise's chief safety officer Chia Thye Siong and Private Lee's platoon commander Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal. The latter threw six grenades, instead of two, flouting training safety rules...."It would be wrong to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. Mindef/SAF would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged."

Unfair? These two officers are still alive ...one even enjoyed a promotion after a few months. A soldier died because they were negligent.
Were they not aware that the soldier had asthma? Why didn't the officers kept to the safety limit in use of smoke grenades? When they violated the safety regulation and that led to a death (even though the officers didn't anticipated that consequent), then a manslaughter charge is warranted.

MINDEF was protecting itself because if the two officers were found guilty in court, MINDEF would have to pay out huge compensation.
That is the main reason why it didn't want the officers charged.
 
In the MINDEF reply, she didn't even bother to address the main issue that MINDEF has NO legal obligation for the well-being of our soldiers.

Our soldiers are just dispensable. If MINDEF fails, that's it. We cannot hold MINDEF accountable. That is the biggest issue that the Minister should address.

If we want our soldiers to serve the country with commitment, then they need to know that MINDEF is legally committed to them. If MINDEF does not want to show that commitment, then our soldiers should refuse to serve because the PAP government is treating them like dirt.
 
if no bs from mindef, i worry. since it started in the 60s, bs is in their dna.
 
The level of punishment, Ms Lim noted, has to take into account the coroner's findings that "the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted". Arising from those findings, she said, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to prosecute anyone.

But MINDEF didn't say that the coroner also found that there was NO need to use six smoke grenades. He said there was already sufficient smoke.

It was unseen allergic reaction ...but in previous training exercises, the deceased did NOT have such reaction. Why? Perhaps it is because the safety usage limit was not breached. Did the coroner examine that aspect?
 
But the AGC informed Mindef to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached training safety Regulations.
"Mindef has done so, with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, including fines and delay in promotions," said Ms Lim.

This is total bs ...how many of those similar offence had a soldier dead? So, this case is different.
MINDEF could have court martialed them, let them serve some time in military jail and then give them a dishourable discharge.
MINDEF couldn't do that because it would be admission of guilty.

A soldier's life means nothing to MINDEF. They are protecting their fat ass.

This is how MINDEF should have dealt with this incident ...besides the two officers, the senior officers should have been punished. Only such strong actions would stop the lackadaisical attitude towards our soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Hung_Chung-chiu
 
She reiterated that a compensation package based on "the maximum extent of the compensation framework" was offered to Pte Lee's family.
Such compensation is generally two to four times that of the amount provided by the Work Injury Compensation Act for incidents arising from training and operations and is "no less than what would have been awarded by the court in cases where compensation was ruled to be payable", she said.

MINDEF is stating that it can control the court ...the court would not award more compensation than it pays for the death of a soldier.

Shows MINDEF has no brains. The government tells us that it does not interfere in the court, so I would like to believe that every case before the court is determined based on the merits of that case. Is MINDEF telling the public that the the court operates on a guideline determined by the government and that circumstances of each case does NOT matter? So a death caused by negligent is no different from an accidentally death. Then that is an acknowledgment that our courts are not independent and act according to the direction of the government.

Does this spokeswoman know the pandora box she has opened? Since when does she speak for the court? The Chief Justice should speak up and slap this woman.
 
Aiyoh, winnipegjets, kpkb-ing here doesn't change anything when 70% daft sinkies love PAP to screw them hard day in and day out.

Please accept the decision of the 70% to let SAF screw their sons and their future daughters. PAP is already setting the stage for girls to be conscripted.

If you go out to the streets to survey, probably nobody will give a fuck about this dead NSF. That's the reality in sinkieland.
 
The coroner's full findings and conclusion are open for public viewing upon application and approval by the court.

The government have released findings on major issues of public interests before, why can't it do for this?

How many sinkees would want make an application and then wait for the court to approve?

Goes to show that the government doesn't want to release the findings for public critique because the findings are full of holes.
 
As we expressed in Parliament in 2012, we extend again our deepest condolences to the family of Pte Lee and are deeply sorry for the untimely and tragic loss of Pte Lee.

This lady doesn't even know that MINDEF does not have a right to speak in Parliament. It was the Defence Minister.

She deserves to be fired.
 
69.8% are still unaware that the kangaroo court are ruled by the LEEgime :rolleyes:



 
It is simple, we all seems to have missed the point, no use arguing with SAF or the government. The point is they have killed somebody's son, through an act of negligence...PERIOD. They can explain till the cows come home & the deceased family can argue till they are blue in the face..that is the point...somebody's son is dead ( it maybe yours next).....but SAF or the government is not going to take responsibility for they are covered by laws.

Bad luck.....you voted for them...this is what you get....forget it.....stop arguing who's right or wrong....THEY ARE NEVER EVER WRONG...
 
MINDEF position in summary : Foot soldiers are dispensable. Period. End of discussion.
 
if no bs from mindef, i worry. since it started in the 60s, bs is in their dna.

BG did a lousy job on clarifying. Now, they get their spin mistress. She is just as bad.

They can't spin because the facts dispel all their lies.
 
Aiyoh, winnipegjets, kpkb-ing here doesn't change anything when 70% daft sinkies love PAP to screw them hard day in and day out.

Please accept the decision of the 70% to let SAF screw their sons and their future daughters. PAP is already setting the stage for girls to be conscripted.

If you go out to the streets to survey, probably nobody will give a fuck about this dead NSF. That's the reality in sinkieland.

Not kpkb ...just critiquing their defence.
 
BG did a lousy job on clarifying. Now, they get their spin mistress. She is just as bad.

They can't spin because the facts dispel all their lies.

hope this and the MOH incident gets the attention of voters in BB. these are issues that should win votes for the opposition. they sound more convincing (to me) in the schoolboy suicide case. in these 2 cases, their explanations are weak. and unbelievable for the MOH case. imo, the best cover-up in MOH's history. number 2 would be the suicide of pinky's first wife.
 
hope this and the MOH incident gets the attention of voters in BB. these are issues that should win votes for the opposition. they sound more convincing (to me) in the schoolboy suicide case. in these 2 cases, their explanations are weak. and unbelievable for the MOH case. imo, the best cover-up in MOH's history. number 2 would be the suicide of pinky's first wife.

Just sad that our Opposition MPs in Parliament are so afraid to ask questions that the heartlanders are freely discussing.
 
Mindef explains stance on NSF's death


Absolute bullshit. And I will explain why after updating the type of punishment that can be meted out in the thread "The "Punishment" of the two Captains and why MINDEF is so secretive about it"

In that thread, I stated this:

Powers of punishment of superior commander

70.—(1) A superior commander may upon conviction of an accused who is an officer below the rank of lieutenant-colonel or a warrant officer impose any one of the following punishments:

(a) forfeiture of seniority of rank and forfeiture of all or any part of his service for purposes of promotion;
(b) a fine not exceeding —
(i) in the case of officers who are of the rank of captain or major, a sum of $1,000 ; and
(ii) in the case of officers below the rank of captain and of warrant officers, a sum of $500 ; or
(c)reprimand.

(2) In addition to or in lieu of any other punishment, the superior commander may order that the accused shall suffer any deduction from his ordinary pay authorised by this Act.

This was taken from the Singapore Statutes Online webpage on the day I posted the message, i.e. 09 March 2016. On the morning of 11 March 2016, the website still displayed this same information. By and from the afternoon of 11 March 2016, the updated Act was uploaded to include the changes made on 23 November 2009 (Amendment Act 28 of 2009). It now includes "ME"("Military Expert") and the changes of fines for Captains from a maximum of $1,000 to $3,000 (see attached pic).

Either there was a technical problem with the SSO webpage, or just sheer coincidence that the webpage was updated with the latest SAF Act, or as I have stated before, MINDEF and other government agencies do monitor this forum (and others). So, it took Ms Teoh Ai Lin, Director Legal Services, MINDEF, 2 days to fix this up.

Bottomline, those two assholes could have been fined up to $3,000 instead of what I stated earlier, i.e. up to $1,000.

View attachment 25948
 
by not adequately punishing the criminals,isnt saf abusing its power or priviledges?the only power in the world i know of that can grant pardons is the president of the united states with executive priviledges,using his executive priviledges he can also act with confidentiality without revealing his sources when consulting his experts on matters of national security.

nina be ccb,diu lei lou mou ham ka chan saf.
 
Mindef explains stance on NSF's death

MINDEF's Reply

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.

As such, the AGC informed the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached training safety regulations. Mindef has done so, with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, including fines and delay in promotions....

...It would be wrong to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. Mindef/SAF would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged.

Most importantly, it would be unfair to the two SAF regulars. In particular, the level of punishment has to take into account the coroner's findings that Pte Lee's fatal allergic reaction was unlikely to have been predicted....

From the Chan of a Cunt who tried to mislead and deceive the public with technicalities, half-truths and duplicities, and refusal to specify what the "punishment" was to finally, a carefully crafted admittance by this Lim Chuen Ni from MINDEF that those two were given nothing more than a slap on their limp wrists. This dishonest reply is audacious and breathtaking in its attempt to mislead the public, as Chan had done earlier, with half-truths, misleading statements and duplicities.

The AGC's decision not to prosecute those two clowns for a criminal offence under the Penal Code has nothing to do with the SAF's absolute and independent right to prosecute these two pieces of shit under military law under the SAF Act (Cap 295).

Ms Lim Chuen Ni and MINDEF are being dishonest and disingenuous in trying to conflate these two separate Acts as being one and the same, and in attempting to conflate the separate offices of the AG and Director, Legal Services, MINDEF as being one and the same. In dishonestly trying to do so, they have misled the public. Whilst the SAF did eventually "prosecute" these two, it has chosen to do so, very suspiciously, through a "Summary Trial" instead of a "General Court Martial".

The Chan of a Cunt's Facebook statement on 7 March 2016 stating that these two were "summarily tried" for "negligent performance of lawful order or duty" would suggest that these two were tried under "Section 17, Disobedience of, non-compliance with lawful orders, etc" or "Section 21, Disobedience of general of orders" of the SAF Act (Cap 295). There's nothing to stop the SAF from court-martialing any serviceman under these two Sections (or any sections in the SAF Act for that matter) where the maximum penalty for these two Sections are a maximum of a 7 year imprisonment and 2 year imprisonment (respectively) and not a miserable maximum of a $3,000 fine or a delayed promotion.

An ST is generally for "light" offences, hence the "lighter" punishments. A GCM is for "heavier" offences", hence the "heavier" punishments that include imprisonment. Take an example of the common AWOL (Section 22 of the SAF Act). It can be dealt with summarily for a "short" AWOL of one week where a light punishment of a small fine, restriction of privileges, etc will be meted out. In a more serious AWOL case of say, one year, this very same offence of AWOL will be dealt with through a GCM where sentences of up to 2 years imprisonment can be meted out to the Awolee by the GCM.

Any offences under the SAF Act can be tried summarily or through a GCM. The decision to try a serviceman under ST or GCM largely depends on the severity of an offence or what the offence has led to. In this case, the offence has led to a death. It warrants a heavier punishment. The two clowns have not committed the equivalent of an AWOL of one week where a light punishment is adequate. They have committed an equivalent of an AWOL of one year where both should be sentenced to imprisonment.

The question that arises is why they have been tried in a "Summary Trial" and not through a "General Military Court (General Court Martial)". Ms Lim Chuen Ni's and MINDEF's latest misleading, dishonest and duplicitous reply is not good enough. There must have been a cover up of some kind and for some suspicious reasons which need to be unearthed.


Each death of our servicemen is greatly regretted but when these incidents arise, it is even more important that we maintain societal trust and integrity in respecting the due independent judicial processes to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required.

Lim Chuen Ni (Ms)
Director, Public Communications
Mindef Communications Organisation
Ministry of Defence

This is another thick skull who is clearly blind and hence, unable to see the obvious. The "punishment" meted out to those two fucks did not commensurate with their offence and the outcome of their offence, i.e. the death of a soldier. It's precisely because of this that there is public disquiet and a loss of "societal trust" in the integrity of MINDEF and its self-serving officers.
 
Back
Top