Debated in Parliament on 24 Mar 2016.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Defence what are the punishments that have been given to the two SAF officers for their roles during a training exercise in 2012 in which a National Serviceman died as a result of an allergic reaction to smoke grenades after their conviction under military law.
Mdm Speaker, let me first describe the general approach and then answer the specifics that the Member has asked for, in relation to injuries or deaths that occur during training in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).
Every injury or death to one of our Servicemen is an occasion marked by sadness and regret for the whole SAF family. Our SAF commanders know that the sons of families entrusted to them during National Service (NS) are precious. Even as they are responsible to train them to raise and maintain a credible and decisive SAF to defend Singapore, our commanders are clear that they need to do this as safely as possible.
Our safety standards are among the highest for militaries globally and I am not talking just subjective assessments. If you look at training injuries, training deaths and you compare them with similar militaries in a peacetime posture, our safety standards are credible. SAF will endeavour to do its utmost to train safely but, realistically speaking, all of us recognise that in military organisations, injuries and deaths can happen despite the best efforts. Each time an injury or death occurs, we must ensure that independent and impartial investigative processes are instituted to determine the key facts, arrive at appropriate conclusions, take the corrective measures to ensure that mistakes, if any, are not repeated. This includes punishing those held responsible for reckless and negligent acts that have led to the death or injury.
Like civilians, SAF Servicemen can be charged and punished in the civilian criminal Courts even if the acts were committed in the course of duties but amount to criminal offences under general law. So, they are not protected.
Let me cite two recent cases as examples. The names are on public record for these two cases but I shall not repeat them today, so as not to resurrect painful memories for the families involved. In 2011, a Lance Corporal was killed when a truck reversed into him. He was unloading stores from that truck. The driver of the truck was charged in the criminal Courts for an offence of causing death by a negligent act under section 304 of the Penal Code. He was tried in Court and the Court fined him $3,000 – no detention. The Company Sergeant Major involved in that accident was not prosecuted by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). The Attorney-General decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him in the criminal Courts. SAF charged him under military law for failing to ensure that the Servicemen kept a safe distance away from the vehicle as the supervising officer. He was fined.
A second example: in 2012, an SAF vehicle overturned during an exercise, causing the death of a passenger. The Conducting Officer who appointed a Serviceman to drive the military vehicle even when he knew that the Serviceman did not have a driving licence, was convicted in the criminal Courts and sentenced to six months' imprisonment as he was found to have committed a rash act and attempted to pervert the course of justice.
Let me reiterate that in these two cases, in all cases, prosecutions of SAF Servicemen in criminal Courts are based on findings and conclusions as determined by judicial processes outside SAF, namely, the Coroner's findings of the factual cause of death, and AGC which decides if there are sufficient grounds to prosecute Servicemen. It is then up to the criminal Courts to determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and, indeed, deems them necessary so that our SAF Servicemen are held accountable for their actions. All these processes were applied in the tragic death of the late Private (PTE) Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron.
In the case of PTE Lee, which the Member has asked about, Mdm Speaker, a Coroner's Inquiry was held in August 2013. The death occurred in 2012. The Coroner's Inquiry is an open hearing, accessible to the public and the media. The family of the late PTE Lee and their legal counsel were also present and were given opportunities to address any questions that they might have relating to PTE Lee's death to the Court. They were also allowed to pose questions to the two SAF officers involved during the hearing.
The Coroner's full findings and conclusions are open for public viewing upon application and approval by the Court. The family has a copy of the Coroner's full findings and conclusions. Let me provide some details. The Coroner concluded that PTE Lee's death was due to "an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes." It "could not be definitive whether in the deceased's case the reaction was due to the inhalation of excessive fumes or the mere inhalation of fumes" at paragraph 77 of the Coroner's findings. In his findings, the Coroner also opined that it was clear that the deceased's allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted", at paragraph 66 of the Coroner's findings. Because of these findings and conclusions, AGC decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted.
AGC informed the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) to consider taking disciplinary action against the Servicemen who had breached Training Safety Regulations (TSR). If there were sufficient grounds to deem the Servicemen criminally liable for PTE Lee's death, they would have been prosecuted in the criminal Courts, as the AGC had done in previous cases cited above.
Following the AGC's decision not to prosecute, the two SAF officers were charged under military law in November 2013 for breaching safety regulations. They were also punished with penalties consistent with other Servicemen who have committed similar offences, through fines and delay in promotion. Both officers have suffered a setback in their careers. The monetary cost of the promotion delays is significant, amounting to about half of their total annual salaries.
For MINDEF and SAF, when training incidents occur, we have to rely on our judicial system to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required. It would be wrong and unfair to punish SAF Servicemen beyond the level of offence committed which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. 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.
Let me give Members some details about allergy to zinc chloride – the cause of death for PTE Lee. Allergy to zinc chloride from smoke grenades is known but rare, which is why till today, many militaries still use this type of smoke grenade, including the US military and the Republic of Korea. In the SAF's own history, we have been using this type of smoke grenades. Members of the House here who had done NS would have tested it. We have been using this type of smoke grenade for over 30 years and hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been exposed to it and this is our first and only case.
Unfortunately, there is no reliable test recommended by health experts to diagnose allergy to zinc chloride. After the safety review following this case, SAF switched to alternatives which do not release zinc chloride fumes. We did that in March 2014. While SAF has decided to do so, let me point out that there is no safety requirement internationally that precludes the use of such smoke grenades. Indeed, other militaries, as I have said, continue to use it and this underscores the fact that allergy to zinc chloride is rare so that the militaries have chosen to continue their use and accept that risk.
Mdm Speaker, this is a tragic loss of life, unexpected and unintended. The two SAF officers involved will carry with them the pain of this incident for the rest of their lives. But I do not believe that they started that fateful day intending at all to harm the soldiers under their charge. These are not the values of our SAF commanders. But regardless of their intent, over the course of an open inquiry where the family was present, all the findings presented, the Coroner's Inquiry (CI) did not find that their actions were reckless and negligent, but that the allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted". Therefore, AGC decided that the officers would not be prosecuted in criminal Courts.
As sad and tragic as this incident has been, we must do right for all involved. I feel very sad for the family members of PTE Lee and I know that all Members here feel that. Some of us have experienced losing a loved one and we can feel and empathise with the pain losing someone so young in his life. We feel very sad for them for their great loss. My personal prayers go to the family for peace and comfort, even as they continue to deal with this difficult and tragic loss of a loved one.
Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answers. I have a few supplementary questions.
First, the Minister mentioned about delayed promotion. Can the Minister explain to the House, normally, after an officer has been convicted under military law, what would be the time period that he would be held back for promotion?
Secondly, will the Government consider amending section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act to allow certain situations of liability instead of the current absolute waiver from liability for all claims attributable to service? I can give a few examples for consideration: the waiver can be limited to actual operations and should not apply to training, or when a death or personal injury occurred as a result of omission from observing Training Safety Regulations (TSRs), or when negligence of an officer has some causal connection with the death or personal injury. Would MINDEF amend this law at least to reduce the possible moral hazard of any officers not taking sufficient care and caution in abiding by established TSRs during training exercises?
Mdm Speaker, the Member has asked about the punishment in terms of delays in promotions. I do not have the full slate of details, but the general rule is the punishment must match the offence. The Member is a lawyer. So, it is quite self-evident that there are equivalents to determine the level of culpability, the severity of the offence and the delays in promotions and fines are commensurate. I presume that in law, in the Courts, they have to stack it against a whole range of offences that makes sense as an overall system. I have tried to give one measure in which the delay in promotion amounted to half the annual salary.
The Member has asked about the Proceedings Act. That is something which, if the Member feels strongly about, he can put up a Motion to amend the Act.
The nub of the issue is this: how much protection should we give to our security forces when they are doing their job? The Member gave examples. Members can think of their own. A policeman chasing a potential suspect whom he thinks is going to commit harm, discharges a firearm, hits someone else. If our military officer or military Servicemen who now make patrols in Changi Airport and Jurong Island, and if they see a significant threat, and they are tasked to protect that place or island, do they discharge the firearm? Do they stop the person? Or will they hold back, thinking, "If I make a wrong decision, then, I am on my own." And there is a civil suit; not trivial. Think about what happened at the Shangri-La Dialogue.
Twenty-eight defence ministers in that hotel; either defence ministers or deputy defence ministers. I went to Shangri-La Dialogue that year, early in the morning, 7.00 am, my car was diverted. They said, "Possible incident". They were not sure of the facts, possible bomb explosion because despite all the concrete barricades, a car had attempted to rush through the concrete barricade. What do you do if you were in charge; if you are meant to secure the place? You think, "Well, I am not protected if I make a mistake." Our Home Team did the right thing. And I said so in my Facebook post after that; I commended them. Think of the consequences.
In this case, the facts came out subsequently. It was a drug offence-related incident. For whatever reasons, they were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. How do the guards know? Suppose it was an explosive in the trunk of the car, gone through the barricades, crashed into the hotel. The loss of lives, the loss of reputation, the loss of confidence in our ability. You want to give our security forces the confidence that when they do their job and when they do it without recklessness or negligence, that the Government Proceedings Act protects them.
This is not the place to fully discuss this. As I have said, if the Member feels strongly, he can put up a Motion. Central to the question is what the Member talked about – moral hazard. There is less of a moral hazard because the SAF Servicemen know that if they act in a rash and negligent way, they are not protected. I have shown you the examples. The AGC can prosecute them in the criminal Courts. If you look at the cases that have been prosecuted, they have gone to jail. I have cited two; there are others. It does not give us joy when there is a fatality and our Servicemen go to jail. Because we know that they were trying to do the job, yet, somewhat enthusiastic. We send a signal that this is wrong and they get on with their lives after that. They are discharged from service.
There is always a balance to maintain. The Member says, "Why not lift it from training?" You can train at one place and expect your security forces to ramp up their capabilities when in real operations. There is a saying, "If you don't sweat in training, you will spill blood in real operations." You have to make your training realistic so that when they meet those circumstances – like the guard who fired at the car and stopped the car in time. Do you think you can get that level of proficiency if they think they are not protected during training?
This is something for the House to debate and for Singaporeans to decide. To be fair, other countries have done away with it and many of them have regretted it. There is always a balance. For this case, it is tragic, it is unexpected, it is unintended, full processes were complied with. If the Member feels that other aspects can be looked at, he can raise it. I have looked at the facts very carefully. I think we have done right by everyone. We are, of course, sad, but we need still to do what is right for the entire system.
PAPERCUTS