- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 23,837
- Points
- 113
Everyone seems to be missing the point of this court martial. I don't give a damn if they took the cars out for a test drive, but why are they guarding Sembawang Wharves? Why is Sembawang wharves considered a "key installation"? Are there tanks, secret jet planes, etc there? No, it appears to be just like any other working wharves in the world where by companies store their goods before shipping them out. In this case, Kia Koups. I would say it would make more sense if they were guarding Mercedes S500 reserved for the Ministers and what not. But a fucking Kia piece of shit car?
Why aren't marine police or regular police guarding this place? Does the SAF ask the police to assualt a position for them in times of war? Than why is the SAF doing the police's job. This kind of installation should be guarded by a private security firm employing gurkhas or something like this. I understand that Sembawang naval base was at one time an important defence base, but the only thing I can think off that needs military security is the US Navy Logistics base. I am not too expert on the navy in Sembawang, but timber, car, imports Are hardly warranting SAF protection in my opinion. Maybe PSA is paying SAF for security? Is SAF working as a security firm now?
Appeals of 3 soldiers dismissed
Sentences must be sufficient to emphasise need for operational discipline: Judge
by Leong Wee Keat
04:46 AM Apr 08, 2011
SINGAPORE - A five-member Military Court of Appeal yesterday unanimously dismissed the appeals of three soldiers, who took cars they were guarding for a joyride.
The trio - Third Sergeant (3SG) Chiam Toon Chong, 23, Lance Corporals (LCP) Tan Yong Cheng, 21, and Tan Fu Ning - were on duty guarding a key installation, Sembawang Wharves, on Aug 6 last year.
When the cars were unlocked, the group took three of the new Kai Koup cars for a 15-minute joyride at the suggestion of 3SG Chiam, during which two collided. Damage to the cars amounted to S$13,056.
During the appeal, 3SG Chiam's lawyer, Mr A P Thirumurthy, argued whether there was actual theft and permanent loss of property involved, as the cars were returned to the places from where they were removed.
However, Justice Choo Han Teck said the Court was satisfied with an earlier Subordinate Military Court decision which convicted the soldiers of the offences including theft and driving without a licence and insurance.
In this case, "other factors militate against leniency", he said. First, the soldiers were "detailed to guard the very property that was stolen". Not only were the owners' property rights violated, but so was the trust imposed on the Singapore Armed Forces and the soldiers, said Justice Choo, president of the Military Court of Appeal.
Second, the soldiers' offences were committed not long after a similar case where another soldier abandoned his guard post and stole a motor vehicle. Thus, their sentences "must be sufficient to emphasise the need for operational discipline" while deterring future offences.
The Court also explained why the sentences given to the three soldiers were not "manifestly excessive".
Justice Choo said 3SG Chiam's sentence of 15 months' detention was "fair and appropriate" as he was the instigator. The 23-year-old, who was a regular at that time of the incident, was also the highest-ranked solider in the group and had led his lower-ranked subordinates into trouble, added the Judge.
3SG Chiam's attempt to "suborn witnesses" during investigations was also regarded by the Court as "serious misconduct". He had told the other soldiers not to report the matter about the joy rides. Furthermore, 3SG Chiam was involved in another incident at Maju Camp on Oct 28 last year, for which he was convicted on other charges, including riding without a valid motorcycle licence and theft of a motorcycle.
The Court felt the nine- and 10-month detention terms given to LCP Tan Fu Ning and LCP Tan Yong Cheng were not "manifestly excessive". The latter left his guard post to join the joyrides, which amounted to "dereliction of duty", Justice Choo said.
Why aren't marine police or regular police guarding this place? Does the SAF ask the police to assualt a position for them in times of war? Than why is the SAF doing the police's job. This kind of installation should be guarded by a private security firm employing gurkhas or something like this. I understand that Sembawang naval base was at one time an important defence base, but the only thing I can think off that needs military security is the US Navy Logistics base. I am not too expert on the navy in Sembawang, but timber, car, imports Are hardly warranting SAF protection in my opinion. Maybe PSA is paying SAF for security? Is SAF working as a security firm now?
Appeals of 3 soldiers dismissed
Sentences must be sufficient to emphasise need for operational discipline: Judge
by Leong Wee Keat
04:46 AM Apr 08, 2011
SINGAPORE - A five-member Military Court of Appeal yesterday unanimously dismissed the appeals of three soldiers, who took cars they were guarding for a joyride.
The trio - Third Sergeant (3SG) Chiam Toon Chong, 23, Lance Corporals (LCP) Tan Yong Cheng, 21, and Tan Fu Ning - were on duty guarding a key installation, Sembawang Wharves, on Aug 6 last year.
When the cars were unlocked, the group took three of the new Kai Koup cars for a 15-minute joyride at the suggestion of 3SG Chiam, during which two collided. Damage to the cars amounted to S$13,056.
During the appeal, 3SG Chiam's lawyer, Mr A P Thirumurthy, argued whether there was actual theft and permanent loss of property involved, as the cars were returned to the places from where they were removed.
However, Justice Choo Han Teck said the Court was satisfied with an earlier Subordinate Military Court decision which convicted the soldiers of the offences including theft and driving without a licence and insurance.
In this case, "other factors militate against leniency", he said. First, the soldiers were "detailed to guard the very property that was stolen". Not only were the owners' property rights violated, but so was the trust imposed on the Singapore Armed Forces and the soldiers, said Justice Choo, president of the Military Court of Appeal.
Second, the soldiers' offences were committed not long after a similar case where another soldier abandoned his guard post and stole a motor vehicle. Thus, their sentences "must be sufficient to emphasise the need for operational discipline" while deterring future offences.
The Court also explained why the sentences given to the three soldiers were not "manifestly excessive".
Justice Choo said 3SG Chiam's sentence of 15 months' detention was "fair and appropriate" as he was the instigator. The 23-year-old, who was a regular at that time of the incident, was also the highest-ranked solider in the group and had led his lower-ranked subordinates into trouble, added the Judge.
3SG Chiam's attempt to "suborn witnesses" during investigations was also regarded by the Court as "serious misconduct". He had told the other soldiers not to report the matter about the joy rides. Furthermore, 3SG Chiam was involved in another incident at Maju Camp on Oct 28 last year, for which he was convicted on other charges, including riding without a valid motorcycle licence and theft of a motorcycle.
The Court felt the nine- and 10-month detention terms given to LCP Tan Fu Ning and LCP Tan Yong Cheng were not "manifestly excessive". The latter left his guard post to join the joyrides, which amounted to "dereliction of duty", Justice Choo said.
