SAF: Military personnel can be charged for negligence while on duty

Nurul Azliah

March 7, 2016

ricky l32 seconds ago

The outcome of the investigation of this particular unfortunate incident is to achieve 3 goals :-

(1) thouse who found negligence in jeopardising the lives of NSmen while in training should be punished - so that they will pay for their negligent act of breaching safety rules and take away an innocent life - who are there to train and protect the Country - not to sacrifice their lives mindlessly due to safety officers breaching safety rules during training.

(2) compensation to be offered to the victim family as consolation to help the family tie over the grief and loss of the victim that gave his life to the Country during training.

(3) put in additional safety measures and safeguard so that no future NSmen will suffer from similar negligence act whereby conducting officers and safety officers breach safety rules.

In this case, the above 3 objectives seem to have been met - and look like the mother's personal action is extra-judical as :-

(1) the officers had been punished by the Military Court

(2) compensation had been awarded

(3) additional safeguard such as refrain from using similar smoke grenade and imposing estra safeguard to prevent conducting officers from breaching safety rules.

ricky l21 seconds ago

Military Court had meted out the punishment.

Compensation have been made.

So if a public sue again in a civil court - it means there are double punishment - punishment on top of punishment.

NETIZENS2 hours ago

Talking rots ! This is a mom who wants to seek justice for her son and also prevent such accidents and injustice from happening in our land ! Who are you to judge that the 3 objectives have been met ? You are the brother ???

ricky l11 seconds ago

Bear in mind, the mother had received compensation and she had accepted it.

On top of that, the 2 officers had been court-martialled - which is equivalent to prosecution in military court.

ricky l10 seconds ago

I am not siding with the 2 officers who have committed an unpardonable act that have taken a life.

But we need to be fair in administering justice - not excessive punishment that are not in accordance with the law.

ricky l30 seconds ago

If SAF can be bring to Courts by public, then SAF will lose its chief objective of safeguarding and protecting Singapore.

ricky l10 seconds ago

Unless it is a murder case not related to military training.

ricky l10 seconds ago

Eg. SAF need to respond to security threat, a public take up a court case against SAF for negligence for responding and jeopardising the lives of NSMen.

SAF become inertia until Court judgement. Then how does SAF perform the function and objective of protecting Singapore?

ricky l10 seconds ago

So SAF become toothless by court order.

Terrorists got more tooth by striking the inertia Armed Forces.

Wrong to further punish servicemen for NSF’s death: MINDEF


Nicholas Yong
March 18, 2016






Yahoo file photo

The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged if it sought to further punish the two officers involved in the death of the late serviceman Dominique Sarron Lee, said a ministry spokesman.

In letters to The Straits Times and Today, director of public communications for MINDEF Lim Chuen Ni noted that disciplinary action has already been taken against platoon commander Captain Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal and safety officer Major Chia Thye Siong.


Lee, 21, died in 2012 following an allergic reaction during a training exercise that involved the use of smoke grenades.

Lim noted that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was something that could not have been predicted, and recommended disciplinary measures against Najib and Chia for breaching 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,” said Lim.

“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.”


And while any deaths of servicemen is “greatly regretted”, it is vital to “maintain societal trust and integrity in respecting the due independent judicial processes to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required,” said Lim.

She added that the coroner’s inquiry into Lee’s death, conducted in August 2013, had been a “transparent process” taking the form of an open hearing fully accessible to the public and media. Lee’s family and their legal counsel were present and were allowed to pose questions to the officers.

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

And while recognising 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.

In a length Facebook post recently, Lee’s family had called for accountability from MINDEF and to reveal the punishment that had been meted out to the two officers.