Sammyboy RSS Feed
19-03-2016, 02:10 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Obscenities free version
Quote:
Mindef explains stance on NSF Dominique Sarron Lee's death (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mindef-explains-stance-on-nsf-dominique-sarron-lees-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 BG Chan 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 Ms Lim Chuen Ni from MINDEF that those two Captains were given nothing more than a slap on their wrists. This dishonest reply is audacious and breathtaking in its attempt to mislead the public, as BG Chan had done earlier, with half-truths, misleading statements and duplicities.
The AGC's decision not to prosecute Captain Najib Hanuk Muhammad Jalal and Captain Chia Thye Siong for a criminal offence under the Penal Code has nothing to do with the SAF's absolute and independent right to prosecute these two Captains 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".
BG Chan’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 officers 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 Captains 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.
Quote:
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
Ms Lim Chuen Ni is clearly blind and hence, unable to see the obvious. The "punishment" meted out to Captain Najib Hanuk Muhammad Jalal and Captain Chia Thye Siong 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.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?226844-The-quot-Punishment-quot-of-the-two-Captains-and-why-MINDEF-is-so-secretive-about-it-–Part-II&goto=newpost).
Obscenities free version
Quote:
Mindef explains stance on NSF Dominique Sarron Lee's death (http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mindef-explains-stance-on-nsf-dominique-sarron-lees-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 BG Chan 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 Ms Lim Chuen Ni from MINDEF that those two Captains were given nothing more than a slap on their wrists. This dishonest reply is audacious and breathtaking in its attempt to mislead the public, as BG Chan had done earlier, with half-truths, misleading statements and duplicities.
The AGC's decision not to prosecute Captain Najib Hanuk Muhammad Jalal and Captain Chia Thye Siong for a criminal offence under the Penal Code has nothing to do with the SAF's absolute and independent right to prosecute these two Captains 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".
BG Chan’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 officers 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 Captains 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.
Quote:
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
Ms Lim Chuen Ni is clearly blind and hence, unable to see the obvious. The "punishment" meted out to Captain Najib Hanuk Muhammad Jalal and Captain Chia Thye Siong 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.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?226844-The-quot-Punishment-quot-of-the-two-Captains-and-why-MINDEF-is-so-secretive-about-it-–Part-II&goto=newpost).