Shanmugam response to Dominique's death. WTF!

[PTADER]

The SAF did not cause the death of a soldier. It was his allergy to Zinc Chloride that caused his death. It is not the SAF's fault he had allergies. It was probably an inherited condition.

You have been repeating this line over and over in various threads. So once again, here's the same response that I have given to you all this while when you trotted out these lines.

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING DEATHS

(Statement [Extract] by the Minister for Defence)

(14 November 2012)

​

"The COI opined that “if the TSR had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident, and for as long as they were during the incident” and that “reduced exposure to smoke would have reduced the risks of any adverse reactions to the smoke.” The COI concluded that “the cause of death of PTE Lee resulted from inhalation of the fumes from the smoke grenades used in the incident”.

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."

 

[Leongsam]

You have been repeating this line over and over in various threads. So once again, here's the same response that I have given to you all this while when you trotted out these lines.

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING DEATHS

(Statement [Extract] by the Minister for Defence)

(14 November 2012)

​

"The COI opined that “if the TSR had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident, and for as long as they were during the incident” and that “reduced exposure to smoke would have reduced the risks of any adverse reactions to the smoke.” The COI concluded that “the cause of death of PTE Lee resulted from inhalation of the fumes from the smoke grenades used in the incident”.

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."

All it says is that if the density of smoke had been lower this defective soldier MIGHT have survived.

However I have all the evidence that if a soldier is fit and healthy thick smoke from a smoke grenade would cause no problems whatsoever. I should know because I PERSONALLY CONDUCTED exercises involving smoke grenades when I was in SAFTI and we never had any issues even though there absolutely no limits to the number of smoke grenades we could use at any given time.

If it was a calm day we could get away with a couple of grenades. On windy days we had to throw a lot more in order to achieve concealment.

In all exercises the objective of the mission should be paramount and safety issues should be secondary. If we put safety before all else the exercise is a waste of time. We might as well play soldier on a computer screen.

 

[PTADER]

How in hell is any trainer supposed to know that this lone joker is going to kick the bucket just from smelling smoke???

From the TSR.

If you breach the stipulated safety regulations that are clearly stated in the TSR for safe training, it means that the training then becomes unsafe.

When the training becomes unsafe, death or injuries can occur, as has occurred in this case.

 

[Leongsam]

From the TSR.

If you breach the stipulated safety regulations that are clearly stated in the TSR for safe training, it means that the training then becomes unsafe.

When the training becomes unsafe, death or injuries can occur, as has occurred in this case.

Training is inherently unsafe. All the TSR does is help reduce the odds of something bad happening. It in no way eliminates risk.

As I said in my previous post operational objectives need to take precedence over safety or we'll end up with an ineffective fighting force when the crunch comes.

If you look at the death rate caused by accidents in the SAF it is very low. I'm actually quite concerned that we are taking safety far too seriously and risk ending up like the USA where many major missions end in disaster because of unrealistic training.

 

[yahoo55]

These smoke grenades have been in use for the last 40 years. They are not made of some new fangled formula with unknown side effects.

I trained many batches of cadets and went through many exercises and training classes that involved smoke grenades. There was no limit to the amount that could be used. We drew the ammo based upon the logistics schedule for the class or exercise concerned and used up all the ammo before the end of the session.

Nobody died. Nobody had any allergic reaction of any sort. We aren't talking small numbers. We literally had hundreds of thousands of NS men go through conditions similar to what this defective soldier experienced.

How in hell is any trainer supposed to know that this lone joker is going to kick the bucket just from smelling smoke???

Earlier batches could have followed the safety regulations or have no asthmatics in the smoke grenades training exercise.

If the trainer had sticked to the SAF training safety regulation and threw 2 smoke grenades instead of 6, the concentration would've been 3 times less and the asthmatic could still be alive.

The trainer had left his backside exposed by not obeying the SAF training safety regulation, no one to blame but himself.

 

[PTADER]

All it says is that if the density of smoke had been lower this defective soldier MIGHT have survived.

However I have all the evidence that if a soldier is fit and healthy thick smoke from a smoke grenade would cause no problems whatsoever. I should know because I PERSONALLY CONDUCTED exercises involving smoke grenades when I was in SAFTI and we never had any issues even though there absolutely no limits to the number of smoke grenades we could use at any given time.

If it was a calm day we could get away with a couple of grenades. On windy days we had to throw a lot more in order to achieve concealment.

In all exercises the objective of the mission should be paramount and safety issues should be secondary. If we put safety before all else the exercise is a waste of time. We might as well play soldier on a computer screen.

The words used were "would". It's not "may" or "might" or "could". It's not a subtle difference. The definitive "would" is different from a tentative "MIGHT".

"Exercises" not "Operations". Different rules apply.

 

[Leongsam]

The words used were "would". It's not "may" or "might" or "could". It's not a subtle difference. The definitive "would" is different from a tentative "MIGHT".

"Exercises" not "Operations". Different rules apply.

Hindsight is 20/20. Based upon my experience with people who suffer from allergies it does not take much to set off an attack.

I'm not going to harp over this one defective soldier anymore because it is now water under the bridge.

However what I am going to do is campaign to make training far more realistic by removing ridiculous limitations that have crept into the TSR over the years because of "kiasuness" on the part of MINDEF. All it does it make the trainer's job ridiculously difficult.

A good example is in the conducting of running tests. In the old days there were no excuses. I made soldiers who claimed they were unwell run an additional kilometre or so. This prevented attempts at malingering and improved the morale of the troops because they knew that those who tried to pull a fast one ended up being even worse off.

Nowadays anyone who claims to feel under the weather is excused. It must be extremely frustrating for the commanders to see so many malingerers get off scott free.

 

[PTADER]

Training is inherently unsafe. All the TSR does is help reduce the odds of something bad happening. It in no way eliminates risk.

As I said in my previous post operational objectives need to take precedence over safety or we'll end up with an ineffective fighting force when the crunch comes.

If you look at the death rate caused by accidents in the SAF it is very low. I'm actually quite concerned that we are taking safety far too seriously and risk ending up like the USA where many major missions end in disaster because of unrealistic training.

Realistic and tough training does not mean that deaths need to occur. Your spurious argument is akin to claiming that a skyscraper can only be deemed to be a great construction only if some men died building it. By extension, you can now say that we have a fantastic and proven train system because a few deaths have occurred. Or make the startling claim that the Central Fire Station is not a genuine fire station as it has never caught fire and been engulfed in flames.

I know you are trying to play the role of a Devil's advocate here. All I ask is that you put in a little more effort and come up with less spurious arguments.

 

[PTADER]

Hindsight is 20/20.

No hindsight was involved or required since it was clearly stated well in advance as stipulated in the TSR.

 

[Leongsam]

Realistic and tough training does not mean that deaths need to occur. Your spurious argument is akin to claiming that a skyscraper can only be deemed to be a great construction only if some men died building it. By extension, you can now say that we have a fantastic and proven train system because a few deaths have occurred. Or make the startling claim that the Central Fire Station is not a genuine fire station as it has never caught fire and been engulfed in flames.

I know you are trying to play the role of a Devil's advocate here. All I ask is that you put in a little more effort and come up with less spurious arguments.

I'll give a perfect analogy... air travel.

Every year planes crash and people die.

The death toll could actually be halved overnight if safety regulations were tightened considerably but at the end of the day the cost of additional safety has to be balanced against practicality and profitability and that is exactly what the airline industry does. Make air travel 50% safer and you and I would not be able to afford to fly Europe every year for a fun filled holiday.

Another example is the rules regarding auto safety. If all cars were fitted with roll cages and full harness seat belts and drivers and passengers were required by law to wear fire proof vests and full face crash helmets, we could cut the death rate on our roads by at least 80% easily. However ask yourself whether this is practical. Would you don a racing suit and crash helmet every time you drove down the road for a cup of coffee?

There are always compromises when it comes to safety. In deciding where to draw the line, we have to look at the complete picture. Safety is only one aspect in any scenario.

 

[PTADER]

Blast in the open? Sound like what terrorists would do. Imagine in parleement. That would be terrible. Civilized folks should sit down and discuss compense.

No need for "terrorists" to be involved. Just whistle blowers and an intelligent opposition to blast the facts and any cover ups out into the open for the public to know exactly what the hell is going on.

 

[Leongsam]

No hindsight was involved or required since it was clearly stated well in advance as stipulated in the TSR.

I've already stated numerous times that the TSR is rubbish so why keep bringing it up.

Don't tell me that you have not driven at 65kph in a 50kph zone. How would like being sued for a million bucks if you happen to cause a death while breaking the speed limit?

 

[enterprise2]

I'll give a perfect analogy... air travel.

Every year planes crash and people die.

The death toll could actually be halved overnight if safety regulations were tightened considerably but at the end of the day the cost of additional safety has to be balanced against practicality and profitability and that is exactly what the airline industry does. Make air travel 50% safer and you and I would not be able to afford to fly Europe every year for a fun filled holiday.

Another example is the rules regarding auto safety. If all cars were fitted with roll cages and full harness seat belts and drivers and passengers were required by law to wear fire proof vests and full face crash helmets, we could cut the death rate on our roads by at least 80% easily. However ask yourself whether this is practical. Would you don a racing suit and crash helmet every time you drove down the road for a cup of coffee?

There are always compromises when it comes to safety. In deciding where to draw the line, we have to look at the complete picture. Safety is only one aspect in any scenario.

When it comes to safety, there can be no compromises! Thank goodness u r not in charge of safety!

 

[Leongsam]

When it comes to safety, there can be no compromises! Thank goodness u r not in charge of safety!

Of course there are compromises. The fact that safety tests on cars are done at speeds of between 30kph to 65kph is a huge compromise because these speeds are exceeded numerous times in our daily commute.

An F1 car can crash at 150kph and the driver can walk away unscathed.

The cars we use to get us to and from work could be made to a lot safer too but that would mean most of us wouldn't be able to afford them. Safety therefore has to be compromised for affordability and practicality.

 

[steffychun]

Of course there are compromises. The fact that safety tests on cars are done at speeds of between 30kph to 65kph is a huge compromise because these speeds are exceeded numerous times in our daily commute.

An F1 car can crash at 150kph and the driver can walk away unscathed.

The cars we use to get us to and from work could be made to a lot safer too but that would mean most of us wouldn't be able to afford them. Safety therefore has to be compromised for affordability and practicality.

and the driver's family doesnt sue.

 

[enterprise2]

Of course there are compromises. The fact that safety tests on cars are done at speeds of between 30kph to 65kph is a huge compromise because these speeds are exceeded numerous times in our daily commute.

An F1 car can crash at 150kph and the driver can walk away unscathed.

The cars we use to get us to and from work could be made to a lot safer too but that would mean most of us wouldn't be able to afford them. Safety therefore has to be compromised for affordability and practicality.

Actually I can safely say u know nuts about safety! When it comes to safety design and process there r no compromise. Accidents happen when u use something outside what it is designed or intended for. Or u never maintain according to instruction manual. As for car accidents and such, u can't guard against a crazy driver coming at u and u certainly don't want to drive a tank just to prevent that. But this does not mean that designers compromise safety over costs or practicality. They design in 100% safety within known parameters and that is a comfort to me.

 

[Leongsam]

Actually I can safely say u know nuts about safety! When it comes to safety design and process there r no compromise. Accidents happen when u use something outside what it is designed or intended for. Or u never maintain according to instruction manual. As for car accidents and such, u can't guard against a crazy driver coming at u and u certainly don't want to drive a tank just to prevent that. But this does not mean that designers compromise safety over costs or practicality. They design in 100% safety within known parameters and that is a comfort to me.

Cars are used regularly at speeds of 100kph or more. However if you crash at that speed you will probably die.

Cars are designed to the extent that you can walk away from a crash at 50kph nowadays if the car has a 5 star ANCAP rating and even that only applies to a head on collision.

When you drive a car at 100 kph, it is not safe.

I can safely say that you not only know nuts about safety but you also have a very poor understanding of how the capitalist system works.

 

[Papsmearer]

These smoke grenades have been in use for the last 40 years. They are not made of some new fangled formula with unknown side effects.

I trained many batches of cadets and went through many exercises and training classes that involved smoke grenades. There was no limit to the amount that could be used. We drew the ammo based upon the logistics schedule for the class or exercise concerned and used up all the ammo before the end of the session.

Nobody died. Nobody had any allergic reaction of any sort. We aren't talking small numbers. We literally had hundreds of thousands of NS men go through conditions similar to what this defective soldier experienced.

How in hell is any trainer supposed to know that this lone joker is going to kick the bucket just from smelling smoke???

I know some one who had a serious injury (a collapsed lung) from inhaling too much smoke grenade fumes. He was not asthmatic, he was very fit, a school athlete, and he was PES A OCT. Just because you have been lucky all those training sessions with your fucking smoke grenade does not mean that it can't kill or injure. Just like you have never seen it injure or kill anyone, I can tell you I saw it. You trained cadets, so did I. If I had ever catch you violating safety regulations, I would have fucked you upside down. See whether you out rank me or not. Dumb shit, come here and kay kiang.

 

[Leongsam]

I know some one who had a serious injury (a collapsed lung) from inhaling too much smoke grenade fumes. He was not asthmatic, he was very fit, a school athlete, and he was PES A OCT. Just because you have been lucky all those training sessions with your fucking smoke grenade does not mean that it can't kill or injure. Just like you have never seen it injure or kill anyone, I can tell you I saw it. You trained cadets, so did I. If I had ever catch you violating safety regulations, I would have fucked you upside down. See whether you out rank me or not. Dumb shit, come here and kay kiang.

I couldn't give as shit what rank you are. I did what I had to do in order to make sure my men were fit.

If the so called someone you know was very fit and a school athlete then you certainly can't blame the trainers for assuming that he could withstand a bit of smoke without his stupid lungs collapsing.

Shit happens. That's life. If you're so scared of risk go live in a glass bubble.

 

[enterprise2]

Cars are used regularly at speeds of 100kph or more. However if you crash at that speed you will probably die.

Cars are designed to the extent that you can walk away from a crash at 50kph nowadays if the car has a 5 star ANCAP rating and even that only applies to a head on collision.

When you drive a car at 100 kph, it is not safe.

I can safely say that you not only know nuts about safety but you also have a very poor understanding of how the capitalist system works.

Ok let's debate. When we talk about safety, we r referring to a system not just one piece. Car design is one piece and u r rite, it's not designed to survive a crash at 100km/hr. The other important component is the driver. The system dictates that the driver is trained and competent and rational. The other components are the roads, lightings etc..all these got the guidelines built in.
The system is robust enough that if one part fail, the other parts can compensate. For eg if u encounter prob at 100km/hr, your training and driving skills take over and u jam brakes or take evasive actions so in the event an accident do occur, the other systems like the car design and air bag will cover u.
That's why when a tragic accident happens, it's not due to one factor but a combination of factors.
Like in this case, when you have 6 grenades thrown instead of two. Is it negligence, poor training? How about design? Why did they pack more grenades than is required? Even if they need to pack more, can the extra grenades be packed in a different box so than additional authorisation is needed to use them.
Ok enough education for u. As I said, lucky it's been a hot and dull day!