14-year-old jumps to his death after unaccompanied police interrogation for Molest

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

SAF indemnified from being sued for negligence for deaths and injuries

http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...s-5315408.html

Dominique Lee's mother wrote a touching post on FB asking for her son forgiveness


http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...s-5315523.html



https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLee/

https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...01107319933865




My dearest Dom, my heart continues to bleed for you. It has been 3years and 10months since you were taken from me and still, I haven't been able to get any closure.

Today, Honourable Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh ruled that I have no case against those responsible for your death - the SAF and the 2 officers who did not follow the training exercise SOP. He also ruled that I have to pay for their legal costs. Dom, how can I possibly pay them for taking away your life? Where is the justice? It seems, the price I paid has not been enough. Your death has not been high enough a price for SAF and the 2 officers, and now, not enough for Honourable Remesh, it seems.

They must be right, of course - the judge, the ministers, the SAF and their officers. They are experts in their fields. Individuals who studied and trained for years to be in their current positions. What do I know? I'm only a mother to two sons. I only know to love my sons, to nurture them to become young men who will do right by others, to live with dignity, decency and human compassion. What do I know? They are the experts in their fields. They must know best. They do no wrong.

Dom, in these past 3+ years, I have been worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very government I taught you to trust; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very system I counseled you to have faith in; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very people I advised you to respect and honor.

Dom, forgive me. I taught you wrong.

https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...10102995700969

Let us stand together to protect our Sons and keep our Families intact.

*PLEASE HELP US TO HELP YOU.
Please "like" and share this post so that MOD and MINDEF will hear our collective voice and undertake comprehensive,effective and genuine measures to ensure the safety of our Singaporean Sons

The verdict delivered at the Coroner’s Inquiry on 30 August 2013 baffles me; Dominique’s death was not a result of an asthma attack, but an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride fume. It baffles me because I already knew this a month after my poor son’s life was mindlessly cut short. I had already received the pathology report in May 2012 that stated clearly in print, that the cause of death is an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride.



Did the authorities doubt the pathologist’s report? Did they not trust that the pathologist did his job thoroughly in ascertaining the cause of death? Was that why the Coroner’s Inquiry was launched? If that is so, should we not have exhumed Dominique’s body to have other experts investigate his cause of death?



If the pathologist’s report was not in doubt, could the authorities please enlighten me on the verdict? I waited for more than a year for answers to why my son was placed in harm’s way. I endured thenumerous court sessions that renewed and deepened my pain in having my son so cruelly taken away from me. At the end of it all, I am told what I have already known for more than a year. Ican’t help but wonder if I have been taken for a ride,for I am back to where it all started, or rather, back to when it all ended for Dominique and me.



If I were to accept the verdict of the CI, wouldn’t it suggest then that his asthmatic condition was immaterial to his cause of death? Then following this line of argument, wouldn’t it be redundant to ascertain the date of his last asthma attack? Whether it had been 3 weeks, 3 months or 3 years prior to his enlistment, it would not have made a difference to the situation, would it? Yet, much of the hearing was spent determining that fact. Unless they are suggesting that the allergic reaction is linked to his asthmatic condition, in which case,would mean that there was negligence on the part of the training officer, wouldn’t it? He should certainly have known of Dominique’s condition,especially as Dominique was wearing a wristband that indicated his condition throughout the training sessions. Yet, the officer was absolved of thatresponsibility!



At the same time, the CI also concluded that the medical treatment rendered to my son was timely, adequate and appropriate. Based on the testimony given in court by the attending SAF medical officer, my son had no vital signs when the medical officer first attended to him; that was 19 minutes after Dominique had collapsed. The medical officer further testified that the mere application of oxygen on Dominique was not appropriate treatment to save him. The final submission by MINDEF concluded that SAF NSF medics are not comparable to SCDF paramedics. SCDF paramedics are trained for 18 months compared to SAF medics who undergo only 3 months of training. Yet, despite the testimony and submission, the CI concluded that the medical treatment rendered to my son was timely, adequate and appropriate.



I am unable to understand the logic in this entire CI and the verdict delivered.



Soldiers are subjected to strenuous and testing conditions but the first line of medical support is not comparable to those available to their civilian counterparts. The burning question that I have is whether Dominique would still be alive today had he been attended to immediately by an SCDF paramedic or someone equally trained.



Let us not forget that the NSF medic was so nervous in court that he forgot he was trained to handle asthma attacks. I can only imagine how calm he was when he attended to my dying son. I do not blame nor fault him; SAF placed him in a situation he was not capable of handling. It is ironic that the Minister for Defense has set aboutemploying more safety officers, when it is precisely the failure of such an officer that resulted in myson’s death. Would it not be more prudent to install more and better equipment at SAF medical centres and employ better-trained medics and medical officers to deal with medical emergencies?



Those involved in my son’s death have told their stories. They have defended themselves. They are alive. My son, Dominique Sarron Lee Rui Feng, was silenced on 17 April 2012. He is no longer here to tell his story.



Dear parents of Singaporean sons, let my tragedy be a lesson for all. The verdict delivered on my son’s death clearly indicates that the onus is on us to ensure our children’s safety. The State Coroner has advised in court, that it is difficult to accept that (SAF) doctors at the pre-enlistment screening ought to thoroughly investigate every enlistee. Hence, we are expected to take full responsibility of our children’s lives (and death) even when they have been entrusted into the care of SAF.



Parents, if you have a son due for enlistment, do ensure that you obtain from the SAF a comprehensive list of allergens and/or harmful substances that your son may be exposed to for the duration of his national service, so that you can send your son for tests at private or public hospitals, to ascertain that he is not susceptible to any of those allergens or materials. Remember, it is difficult to accept that (SAF) doctors at the pre-enlistment screening ought to thoroughly investigate every enlistee.



Additionally, ensure that you have records and copies of your son’s medical history up to 3 years before his pre-enlistment screening, so that the SAF doctors have the necessary literature to help them do their jobs. Remember, it is difficult to accept that (SAF) doctors at the pre-enlistment screening ought to thoroughly investigate every enlistee.



As a necessary precaution, do ask to be present at the pre-enlistment screening so that you can assist in supplying the necessary information to the doctors to help them determine the PES grading of your son. You may also want to consider seeking a second opinion of your son’s PES grading if you do not agree with the grading. Remember, it is difficult to accept that (SAF) doctors at the pre-enlistment screening ought to thoroughly investigate every enlistee.



If the Singapore Armed Forces and its doctors will not take responsibility and defend the safety and well-being of our sons, then we who send our sons to them in defense of the country must first defend those sons ourselves. Let it not be our fault that our sons should fall before they even have a chance to defend their country.



Parents, let’s bring our sons home safe.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...10102995700969

Bernard Tan

I'm sorry for your loss and can feel the pain of losing a son. I know because my wife and I could have loss our son if not for my wife's insistence to seek proper medical attention and treatment of our son when he was a recruit. I agree with you that it's up to us parents look after the well being of our sons when they serve the nation but I'm afraid it's not enough and neither can we, firstly we can never be with our sons all the time(especially when they are in the field or camp) and secondly parents may not be knowledgable enough to do the right thing.

After my son's case I have come to form the opinion that we are all being exploited just like our ordinary working Singaporeans are being exploited without minimum salary hence the influx of cheap labour. Let me explain why. When our son was a recruit he was given anti-malaria drugs. Our son have record of allergy to some medication. Each time he was given anti-malaria drugs he would fall ill, developing fever and skin rashes. Instead of further investigation they loose no time in sending our son home.

As parents of course we want to be able to care for our son but it also daunt on me that they are as quick to relief themselves of responsibilities because once my son leaves the camp all the responsibilities in getting medical attention and the fate of our son is left to us. Those earlier few times our son's condition was not as severe and recovered after a few days but the army did not look into if its a case of allergy to the drugs given in the camp. Then in the days before our son could complete his basic military training he fell ill again after given anti- malaria drug, if I remember correctly it's called maloprim. Again he was sent home, we have to go to fetch him.

This time our son's allergic reaction was severe, in fact fatal. He was bedridden for many days with bulging rashes all over his body, fever, breathless and other symptoms. He had to be hospitalized but doctors there could not properly diagnose his illness but pass it off a some kind of virus. As this time it was so severe it prompted my wife to research on what might be causes of our son's problem. My wife felt strongly it was due to our son's allergy to maloprim and shared this information with the doctors but they all brushed her aside. Subsequently our son was not recovering and was transferred to Tan Tock Seng hospital and isolated for observation.

There my wife again seeked out the hospital's specialist and again prompted them to investigate the plausible cause of my son's medical problem being due to the reaction to maloprim again they brushed my wife aside. We were desperate and concerned for our son as we feel they have not diagnosed our son's illness correctly. At that time a junior doctor ( a pinoy) was attending to our son. In desperation my wife printed out documents( from Internet) to support her opinion that all the symptoms that my son developed is typical side effects of consuming maloprim. After that the pinoy doctor was convinced and it was after this episode that the hospital acknowledge that my son's illness was due to reaction to maloprim given by the camp.

After that luckily our son recovered. Since then we have also heard of some NS men died after consuming maloprim. After this episode I am convinced that we the citizens of Singapore are just being exploited. No one in the G or the army bothers to look after the well being of our sons while they serve the nation. No one bothers to check if anti-malaria drugs are safe for every NS men. Even when we prompted them to check they brushed us aside. The only way to protect our sons is to vote wisely in the next GE. We need to have strong opposition in parliament to enforce protection for our sons

19 · 4 September 2013

[kuasimi]

How sub judice works in Singapore

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/how-sub-ju...010322557.html


Yahoo Singapore
March 3, 2016


by Nurul Azliah

Home Affairs minister K Shanmugam on Tuesday spoke about sub judice during his ministerial statement on the Benjamin Lim case in Parliament.

Before he began to lay out the facts leading to the death of the 14-year-old student, he explained that he had consulted the Attorney-General’s Chambers for advice on what he could say in his ministerial statement, as the Coroner’s Inquiry into the death was still pending.

“Sub Judice principles set out what can and cannot be said when a court hearing, inquiry, is pending,” he said.

He added that statements which imply the five officers had interviewed Benjamin, that the police had intimidated the deceased into wrongly admitting to guilt, that the officers were not wearing plain clothes, and that these were some of the reasons that could possible lead to the suicide, may possibly infringe the principles of sub judice.

So what is sub judice?

According to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), sub judice is a form of contempt of court, is “essentially conduct that may impede the functionality of the court”.

Sub judice comprises a range of acts which risk “prejudicing or interfering with particular legal proceedings”.

For example, on 11 February 2015, the AGC published a release to remind the public not to post comments online that could affect the ongoing proceedings relating to a case of three men who were charged on 7 February 2015 for an incident during a Thaipusam proceeding.

Lawyers that Yahoo Singapore spoke to said the objective of sub judice is to prevent people from making public statements that could influence the minds of decision makers in court.

In the past, these decision makers included the jury. However, the jury system had already been abolished in 1969. Today, the only decision maker in court is the judge.

When can one be liable for sub judice?

Generally, one can be liable for sub judice contempt after court proceedings have commenced.

When a crime has taken place and the media report on it, sub judice infringement is not possible. However, a member of the media could be liable if he or she publishes an article that could risk prejudice after the accused related to the crime has been charged in court - this is when court proceedings have commenced.

Court proceedings refer to any action that happens in court, including the Coroner’s Inquiry (CI).

A coroner is a judge appointed by the state court, and has the duty to determine the cause of death after holding an inquiry, according to the Coroners Act. The chief executive of the Health Sciences Authority will appoint a forensic pathologist to investigate the cause of and circumstances connected to the death of the deceased.

If a coroner wishes to not hold an inquiry, the coroner will have to report the facts to the public prosecutor with reasons for not holding it.

Shanmugam spoke in Parliament on Tuesday about Benjamin Lim before the CI concluded. He will not be liable for sub judice as the minister is also a public official. He said in his ministerial statement on Tuesday that public officials can make statements “if they believe it to be necessary in the public interest - even if there is a hearing pending”.

With that said, it is up to the court to assess whether there is sufficient basis to have the person alleged to have committed contempt be brought to court, or whether the application should be dismissed.

The penalty under the supreme court of judicature act is imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or fine not exceeding $2,000.

Related stories:

No intention to imply that Benjamin Lim’s death was caused by ‘police intimidation’: Lawyer Thio Shen Yi

Nothing suggests that Benjamin Lim was mistreated by the police: Shanmugam

We cannot forgive the way my son was treated: Benjamin’s father in open letter

[kuasimi]

No intention to imply that Benjamin Lim’s death was caused by ‘police intimidation’: Lawyer Thio Shen Yi

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/no-intenti...081417103.html



Nurul Azliah
March 2, 2016


Several people have reacted to the ministerial statement on the Benjamin Lim case, which was delivered by the Home Affairs minister K Shanmugam in Parliament on Tuesday.

In his statement, Shanmugam laid out the timeline of events leading up to the police investigation, explained police protocol for investigations with young persons, and also slammed parties who publicised what he claimed were “falsehoods”. On 26 January 2016, Benjamin was found dead at the foot of his block in Yishun, after he was taken to the police station to assist in investigations.

Lawyer and member of the Law Society of Singapore (LSS), Thio Shen Yi, was highlighted in the minister’s statement, in which Shanmugam pointed out what Thio had earlier written in LSS’ Law Gazette.

According to the minister, Thio wrote that “the police should have behaved in a less intimidating way”, adding, “he seems to make the assertion of intimidation, based on his other statements which are themselves untrue”.

In response, Thio said in a statement to Yahoo Singapore, “There was no intention to imply that Benjamin’s tragic death was caused by police intimidation. In fact, the article specifically states that we will never know why Benjamin took his life that day.”

He also said that the focus of the Law Gazette message was that the criminal justice system should provide quick access to counsel, especially for the more vulnerable members of the public.

The Online Citizen reacts to statement

Socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC) was also slammed by the minister for publishing “falsehoods” pertaining to their coverage of the Benjamin Lim’s saga.

Shanmugam said that TOC had gone on a “planned, orchestrated campaign using falsehoods, and has published about 20 articles or so as part of its campaign”. He also labelled their coverage as “dishonest”.

The blog reacted in an editor’s letter published on its site on Wednesday, saying that they were “puzzled” by the statement. They had also clarified some of the “inaccuracies” which the minister had highlighted in Parliament.

In response to the minister’s claim that Benjamin’s family had wanted privacy from the public, including the media, TOC said that they had clarified with the father after the Parliament session, who said, “The confidentiality that I want is for our family, for our identity to be kept confidential to better protect my two school going children. Whether the media report on the case, we have no question except that we urge the reports must reflect the truth.”

A TOC article also mentioned that the police officers had worn outfits with the word “police” on them, which Shanmugam said was false, as the officers had arrived in plain clothes. TOC said the article was written after speaking to a woman named Mary Anne Pereira.

TOC responded, “We made the additional effort to reach out to Ms Pereira to verify what she said through messaging her on [Facebook]. Ms Pereira told us that her son, who is attending Benjamin’s school, had seen men with the word ‘POLICE’ on the back of their t-shirts on the day Benjamin was taken away.” It added that it understood Pereira later retracted her statement, but at the time it published the article with her comment, there was no indication it was incorrect.

It also said they had reached out to the authorities for comment, but did not receive a response. To date, no authorities have contacted the site’s editors to take down any articles, it added.

“We are happy to correct any mistakes we might have made in our articles. However, the word ‘falsehoods’ implies a deliberate attempt to mislead. TOC rejects any such suggestion,” said a statement on the site.

TOC co-founder Remy Choo spoke to Terry Xu, the TOC writer covering the Benjamin Lim case after hearing Shanmugam’s speech. He wrote on Facebook, “Am confident that he’s (Terry Xu) done his due diligence and groundwork to shed light on a tragic story where almost no official input was given until the salvos in Parliament last night.”

Singapore politicians have also chimed in with their views on the minister’s statement.

Chee Soon Juan from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) said that the public had the right to know about what happened to Benjamin, and that the authority’s delay in response was “unacceptable”.

“In any matter that is of public interest, the people have every right not just to know about the facts of a case but to also have it in a timely matter. The fact that there was such a delay in the government’s response over the Benjamin Lim episode is unacceptable. To blame other parties for its tardiness is even more reprehensible,” he said in a media release.

Goh Meng Seng from People’s Power Party said he was “utterly disappointed” by the minister’s statement. He wrote, “Instead of addressing the many valid pertinent concerns raised by the public, on and off-line, he has put up a barrage of fire attacks at The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of Law Society, Mr. Thio Shen Yi with totally irrelevant petty details of bickering.”

Stay updated. Follow us on Facebook.


https://www.facebook.com/YahooSingapore/

[kuasimi]

Nothing suggests Benjamin Lim was mistreated by the police: Shanmugam

Bryan Huang

1 March 2016

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nothing-su...120024706.html

Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam gave his first public comments on the death of Benjamin Lim, outlining in Parliament on Tuesday (1 March) that police procedures were properly followed in the case of the 14-year-old student.

Shanmugam began his ministerial statement with the facts of the case, which began when a police report was filed on 25 January against the boy for alleged molestation of an 11-year-old girl. The minister followed up with a detailed account of the police protocol for interviewing a young person and criticisms of the “falsehoods” that have blemished the police.

Benjamin was found dead on 26 January at the foot of his HDB block, hours after he was interviewed by the police over the allegation. His father later wrote an open letter castigating school authorities and the police for the way his son was treated.

“There is nothing so far to suggest that Benjamin was mistreated by the police,” said Shanmugam. “At this stage, we cannot say, based on the facts which are currently available, that the interview was the specific reason for the suicide.”

Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister, said among other things, the police had retrieved CCTV footage showing both Benjamin and the alleged victim of molestation after the report was filed.

Subsequently, five officers who were not in police uniform went to Northview Secondary School, Benjamin’s school, in unmarked cars. Three, who had ground knowledge of the local area, were from the Yishun North Neighbourhood Police Centre, while the other two were divisional officers.

Only one officer spoke to Benjamin about the incident at the school, said Shanmugam. The student was brought back to Ang Mo Kio Police Station by three of the officers, one of whom alighted along the way.

Shanmugam later responded to a question asked by Bukit Timah GRC MP Christopher de Souza as to why five officers had gone to the school.

“Let’s focus with what happened with the boy, not saying one is the right number. Point is, he must be interviewed in a way conducive for fair neutral approach to obtain the facts,” the minister replied.

Shanmugam showed the House a photo and a floor plan of the open office cubicle where Benjamin was interviewed by an officer at the Ang Mo Kio Police Station.

Benjamin was co-operative throughout the police interview, and afterwards, he had been offered food and drink, which he declined, Shanmugam said. He had not been handcuffed at any time, the minister added.

Based on the evidence available, Shanmugam said, it was likely that Benjamin would have received not more than a warning, and it was unlikely he would have been charged in court.

[Related: Ng Chee Meng: Not a practice to allow teachers in police car with a student]

The minister also slammed the “deliberate falsehoods” that were put out by The Online Citizen (TOC) to “tar the police unfairly”.

“It (TOC) has gone on a planned, orchestrated campaign, using falsehoods and has published about 20 articles or so as part of its campaign,” Shanmugam said.

The impression conveyed by the various TOC articles was that the police were lying for saying that the officers went to the school in plain clothes, that the police had intimidated the boy, and that they put pressure on him to admit guilt, he added.

The allegations in the TOC articles implied that they were among the reasons why Benjamin probably committed suicide, Shanmugam said. These allegations may possibly infringe the principles of Sub Judice before the Coroner’s Inquiry is concluded, he added.

Shanmugam also criticised Law Society president Thio Shen Yi for making “some comments which should not have been made”. Thio had said that five police officers spoke to Benjamin, which was false, Shanmugam stated.

Thio’s statements “effectively imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation,” the minister added.

Writing in the society’s Singapore Law Gazette for February, Thio questioned the manner of the boy’s arrest at school. He believed that
“early access to counsel is a necessity in ensuring sustainable confidence in our criminal justice system”.

Shanmugam said he refrained from speaking out on the case until today for two reasons. Firstly, he had done so out of respect for Benjamin’s family and to give them time and space to grieve. Secondly, the Coroner’s Inquiry is “the right forum for relevant facts to be dealt with”.



He said the police could have rebutted the family’s statement in an open letter by setting out their version of events, releasing CCTV footage and the statements taken.

“But is that the right thing to do? To have a public trial by media, at this stage? Rebut the family in public? And add to the family’s grief? The answer is clearly no,” said the minister.

He said Benjamin’s father told the police that the family felt pressured by the public and media attention, with photographers and reporters loitering around their house.

His father requested the police to tell the media that the family did not want their identity and pictures published. The family had also requested for the coroner’s inquiry proceedings to be held in private, which Shanmugam said would be up to the court to decide.

Given the current circumstances, which included repeated “assertions which go to the integrity of the Police Force” and the filing of parliamentary questions by MPs, the minister said he had chosen to speak out now because it was in the public interest to do so.

Shanmugam reiterated that he had asked the Ministry to review the protocol for interviewing minors. Among the suggestions being considered include conducting video interviews and extending the ‘Appropriate Adult’ Scheme, which is to help suspects with mental and intellectual disabilities communicate more effectively with the police, to all minors.

“My Ministry has the responsibility for this protocol that is in place. And ultimately, responsibility is with me, as the Minister… If there are issues with the protocol, the responsibility is mine. Let’s not attack the police officers, who cannot defend themselves. They are doing their job, every day, in difficult circumstances,“ he said.

Stay updated. Follow us on Facebook.

[kuasimi]

On Inaccuracies and Distractions
LYNN LEE·THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016


https://www.facebook.com/notes/lynn-...53443403918499


Fourteen-year-old Benjamin Lim is dead. Some facts are not in dispute. He was found at the bottom of his block of flats. Earlier that day, he had been interrogated by police over allegations he molested an 11-year-old girl.

But many questions remain. Benjamin’s grieving family want the truth. And yet, debate over the past two days has focused more on those drawing attention to the case, than on the events leading to the tragedy itself.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam took the first swipe. And as if on cue, the usual suspects piled in. Singaporeans had been expecting clarification on police procedure involving minors called in to assist in investigations.

But the Minister appeared far more interested in castigating sociopolitical website, The Online Citizen, for its coverage of the tragedy that led to public scrutiny of the issue (full disclosure: I was asked by TOC Editor, Terry Xu, to help cut down his first article).


TOC interviewed Benjamin’s family and devoted a large part of its coverage to presenting their point of view. It also reached out to the Police Commissioner and various ministries for comment. No one responded to those requests.


In Parliament on Tuesday, Mr Shanmugam accused TOC of a “planned orchestrated campaign, using falsehoods” to discredit the police.

The Minister singled out one article alleging that the five officers who went to pick Benjamin up from his school were seen wearing t-shirts with the word “POLICE” emblazoned on them. A statement released earlier by the police had asserted that the officers were in plainclothes.


In its report, TOC relied on information provided by the mother of a student at Benjamin’s school. Mr Shanmugam informed Parliament that she had changed her mind after being contacted by the authorities.


The mainstream media swiftly released a string of articles parroting the Law Minister’s assertion that TOC was “dishonest”. The words “falsehoods” and “inaccuracies” were used almost interchangeably in some of the articles.

This is ironic, given the focus on TOC’s alleged misreporting. One word suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead. The other points to a misapprehension of fact. How accurate are reports that fail to make the distinction?


And so in two days of intense coverage, attention has shifted away from Benjamin and the circumstances surrounding his death – to TOC and its so-called “campaign” against the police.


Some websites have also weighed in, none with more glee than The Middle Ground. Bertha Henson used the opportunity to congratulate herself for not ever facing the same kinds of accusations TOC is now facing.

This might have less to do with Ms Henson’s abilities as a reporter, than with her sense of what qualifies as good journalism - she once declared that when she interviewed former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew for an article for the Straits Times, he got to read her story, and suggest changes before publication. It speaks volumes that she called the interview, a “scoop”.


Ms Henson’s piece on The Middle Ground is fascinating, if only because it offers insight into how journalists working within Singapore’s mainstream media operate. She might have left the Straits Times, but the conditioning is plain to see – something is sub judice because the government says it’s sub judice.

Journalists shouldn’t raise questions unless the government says questions can be raised.


This then, is the landscape where alternative websites like TOC operate. The government doesn’t like scrappy journalists to cross imaginary lines. Access to information and officials is granted to only a handful of media outlets.

Mr Xu’s questions to the police and various ministries were met with silence. He did have access to Benjamin’s family though, and he published their version of events. Given the lack of an “official response”, should TOC have held back?

Ms Henson offered up some unsolicited advice:
“The journalistic phrase is this: when in doubt, leave out. There is no such thing as fully accurate. They are accurate or not.”

This makes sense only where the mainstream media doesn’t operate as an extended arm of the government, and information is freely available. Mr Shanmugam characterised TOC’s attempts at reaching out to the police and government officials as “tactics” to solicit comments.

But this is simply good journalism. Asking questions is part of the job even though the Minister sees it as something sinister. Are our leaders so insulated that a few queries from a poorly funded independent website can trigger a rant in Parliament?

To be clear, TOC’s coverage of Benjamin’s case wasn’t perfect. It has admitted as much and emphasized that this was because the story was still developing. There was also a dearth of information from relevant authorities.


For its report on clothes worn by officers who went to Benjamin’s school, TOC based its story on information provided by a student’s mother. Mr Xu said he contacted the woman after seeing her post on Facebook.

But he could have done more to ascertain if the information was indeed true – for instance, by speaking to the principal, or interviewing other students at the school.


But this is an oversight borne perhaps, out of inexperience and a lack of personnel. It is unfair to accuse TOC of dishonesty. It is not as if Mr Xu conjured his stories out of nothing. Compare the timeline laid out by Mr Shanmugam and events cited in articles written in-house by TOC – they are largely similar.


Government officials, it seems, are equally prone to inaccuracies. Benjamin’s father has disputed Acting Minister for Education Ng Chee Meng’s version of some of the events leading up to his son’s death.

‘Today’ had this quote from an MOE spokesperson:
“The account given by the Minister in Parliament was based on the facts as we know them at this stage.”

There appears to be a gap in MOE’s investigation. Did the Ministry attempt to contact Benjamin’s family in order to ascertain the truth? Should citizens now accuse Mr Ng of spreading falsehoods? Obviously not.

Singaporeans are sensible enough to know that a person can be inaccurate without being dishonest. Hopefully, the Law Minister realises this too. His attack on TOC is an unnecessary distraction.


Amid the noise, we are losing sight of far larger issues. Why did Benjamin die? Is the tragedy linked to events that took place earlier in the day? Do we have adequate procedures in place to protect minors who are being questioned by the police?

[Watiwati]

Mods & admins, please take note that the spammer is back again.

Seriously, can you guys just do a P-ban on him, please?

[kuasimi]

Minister Shanmugam’s criticism of Thio Shen Yi contained a falsehood
POSTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 BY RENCH00


http://crazyrandomchatter.com/2016/0...d-a-falsehood/


Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Shanmugam, spoke in Parliament about the death of Benjamin Lim. In the speech, Minister presented the facts of the case from the perspective of the police, he talked about the police protocol for interviewing a young person, he criticised the falsehoods that he felt were deliberately spread by some people to blemish the police, and explained why he waited till now to make a statement about the whole incident.

About the falsehoods. Minister specifically identified TheOnlineCitizen. They have since responded. Minister also criticised Mr Thio Shen Yi, who is the President of the Law Society of Singapore, for what he wrote in the Law Gazette.

Minister said that that Mr Thio’s statements contained three falsehoods:

i) Five Police Officers spoke to Benjamin. That is false.

ii) And that the five officers took him to the Police Station. That is also false.

iii) And that Police should have behaved in a less intimidating way. He seems to make the assertion of intimidation, based on his other statements which are themselves false.

Minister felt that Thio’s statements “imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation.” Minister further asserted that Thio “needed only to have referred to the Police Statement of 1 February to know that many of his assertions he is making were untrue.” This part is false. Why?

So let’s check what the police statement on 1 February said:

In this case, a Police report was lodged about a molestation. Based on CCTV evidence, Police officers went to conduct enquiries at a school. To keep investigations discreet, the officers went in plainclothes and in unmarked cars. After discussions with the school officials, and the viewing of the CCTV records, Benjamin was identified as the boy in the CCTV records. He was brought to the Principal’s office by a school official and was spoken with in the presence of a Police officer. Before he was brought back to Ang Mo Kio Division, he contacted his mother to inform her of the Police’s investigations. The Police officer also spoke to the mother.

While at Ang Mo Kio Division, he was interviewed by one Investigation Officer at his workstation in an open plan office with other workstations. He was fully cooperative during the interview. He was then released on bail and went back with his mother.

The Police have been asked whether it should review the procedure to allow an appropriate adult to be present when a young person is interviewed. The Police will review and address this issue.

Police investigations have not been completed. A Coroner’s Inquiry will be held upon the conclusion of investigations, where all the relevant facts will be presented to the State Coroner. At the inquiry, the family will also be able to raise all questions that they may have.

Benjamin’s passing was tragic. The Police have expressed their deepest condolences to the family. They have met the family to address their questions on the case and provide clarifications on the actions of the Police officers during their interaction with Benjamin.

Looking at the statement by the police on 1 Feb, Thio could have only found that one of his “assertion” (that five police officers spoke to Benjamin in the Principal’s office) was false. Thio could not have concluded simply based on that police statement of 1 Feb that Benjamin wasn’t taken away by five policemen. Neither could Thio conclude simply based on that police statement of 1 Feb that the police officers interviewing Benjamin weren’t intimidating, or that Benjamin wasn’t intimidated by the police officers.

In other words, it is false to say that Thio could have known just by referring to the police statement of 1 Feb to know that “many” of his assertions were false. He could have only known that one of his assertions were false. And “one” is very different from “many”. So that statement by Minister is false. Or at least lacking in logic.

More importantly, I believe that to say that what Thio wrote amounted to implying that Benjamin committed suicide because of police intimidation, is really twisting Thio’s words.

No where in what Thio wrote implied that the police deliberately set out to intimidate Benjamin. What he did, was ask if the police could have approached the investigation in a less intimidating way. He did also specifically state that intimidation is often unintentional – i.e. someone can be intimidating and result in intimidation even if he had not intended to.

Now is that really possible? Can someone be intimidating without intending to to be? Of course. I have a friend who used to be a vice-principal of a school (he is retired now). He can be walking down the corridor of the school, happily minding his business, not paying particular attention to any students around him, and most of the students around him would still have been intimidated by him.

So it is possible that Benjamin felt intimidated by the police, by the whole situation of being hauled into a police station for questioning, even though the police officer didn’t intend to intimidate Benjamin. And that was the point that Thio was trying to make – unless you are a hardened criminal, being called up to be interviewed by the police can be a stressful process. Even if you know you aren’t the one that they are going after.

I know this because I’ve had friends who were called up to assist in an investigation. They weren’t the one to be charged. But some of them still found the process to be stressful. And this wasn’t because the police did anything wrong. It’s just that being summoned to the police station to be interviewed isn’t something that most people are used to. And there’s a certain… preconception of the process that predisposes people to be stressed by the process. This isn’t casting any aspersions on the police. It is just the way it is.

So it is clear, if we read what Thio wrote in its entirety, that Thio wasn’t accusing the police of doing anything wrong. Neither did he conclude or assert that Benjamin jumped as a result of police intimidation. In fact, Thio was emphatically clear that we will never know the truth about what motivated Benjamin to jump: “Why did he jump? Could his death have been prevented? We can never know for certain but that shouldn’t stop us from pursuing a deeper inquiry into what happened to Benjamin that day.”

It is clear that Thio was just asking whether things could have been done differently and whether that would have led to a different, less tragic outcome. Even if Benjamin felt intimidated by the police and the whole process (notwithstanding the fact that the police officer interviewing Benjamin didn’t intend to intimidate Benjamin), Benjamin probably didn’t commit suicide just because he felt intimidated by the police. I think it’s therefore reasonable to conclude that the police wasn’t the sole reason why Benjamin committed suicide.

But could whatever the police have said and/or done unwittingly contributed in part to Benjamin deciding to end his life? We will never know for certain. But even if nothing they said and/or done unwittingly contributed in part to Benjamin’s decision to end his life, could the police have done something that could have prevented Benjamin to decide to end his life?

For example, could the police officer, after Benjamin’s statements, spoke to him about the possible next steps in the process? Perhaps the police officer could have told Benjamin, in a reassuring tone, the same facts that Minister presented to Parliament – of the young persons who have assisted police for investigations, “7 out of 10 were either warned or placed on a Guidance Programme or had no further action taken against them”. Perhaps the police officer could also, in a reassuring tone, tell Benjamin that even if investigation concludes that he’s indeed guilty, he is young, he has a whole life ahead of him, he will be able to move beyond this youthful folly.

Doing all of those would have, I think, automatically made the police officer and the process a whole lot less intimidating. Would that have stopped Benjamin from taking his own life? No one will know for certain. But if the police could show that they have done that, I am sure that the public would be far less critical of the police.

Ok. Perhaps it is unfair to put the burden of counselling a young person on the police. Then perhaps there is a case to be made for putting in place a system where there is a trained counsellor to counsel the young person after the police is done with interviewing him/her. The counsellor can also talk to the parents and advise the parents about what to watch out for and what they should do to provide appropriate emotional support for the young person.

And I think that is the crux of Thio’s article in the Law Gazette – that we need to provide timely and sufficient support for the young person assisting in police investigations. I think the fact that Minister’s reaction completely missed the point of Thio’s article. In fact, that Minister reacted to Thio’s questions and suggestions so negatively and defensively says loads about our government – don’t criticise, we know best, what we are doing is the best possible option already.

But even if the police didn’t do anything wrong, didn’t contribute at all to Benjamin’s decision to take his own life, could they have done more to prevent this tragedy? Can the system be improved so that we minimise the chance of similar incidents from happening? Can we do better by our young persons?

I am convinced we can. I am convinced we must.

[kuasimi]

Calvin Cheng, Internet troll extraordinaire, throws stones in glass house
POSTED ON MARCH 3, 2016 BY RENCH00


http://crazyrandomchatter.com/2016/0...n-glass-house/



Calvin Cheng, Internet troll extraordinaire, has done it again. He jumped into the fray of the already heated discussion over the Benjamin Lim’s case by calling for Mr Thio Shen Yi to step down as the President of the Law Society Singapore:





How quickly he forgot that his own “killing children” remarks (CNA’s words, not mine) that so offended people so much that they went to make police reports against him! Even the chairman of the Media Literacy Council (MLC), which Calvin Cheng is a member of, admitted that those remarks were inappropriate, and appeared not be upholding the values of the MLC. I think that it was quite clear that his remarks sparked greater controversy amongst members of the public compared to Mr Thio’s article.

In fact, if Calvin Cheng had read Mr Thio’s article in its entirety and had half a brain, he would have concluded that Mr Thio didn’t imply that Benjamin’s death was caused by any specific reason. Let me quote the specific part of Mr Thio’s article that would have helped Calvin Cheng come to that conclusion: “Why did he jump? Could his death have been prevented? We can never know for certain…” And in case Calvin Cheng (or anyone) is too lazy to use their brains, I have explained in detail here why Minister Shanmugam’s accusation of Mr Thio was erroneous.

Judging by the online chatter that I’ve seen about Mr Thio’s very well-written article in the Law Gazette, most people think that Mr Thio was justified in calling for giving young persons assisting in police investigations timelier access to legal counsel. It also seems that most people didn’t think that Mr Thio implied that police intimidation caused Benjamin to commit suicide. So from what I’ve seen from online chatter, one can argue that Mr Thio’s article improved the reputation of the Law Society Singapore as a champion of justice tempered with compassion with Singaporeans.

Conversely, I think it was quite clear that Calvin Cheng’s “killing children” remarks (CNA’s words, not mine) brought disrepute to the MLC. I mean… police reports! And many emails flooding the chairman of the MLC calling for Calvin Cheng to step down! Then countless online comments condemning the MLC for keeping someone who did not demonstrate the upholding of the values of the MLC!

Yes… I agree. I came to the conclusion only through the online chatter that I’ve seen. Not necessarily statistically representative. But I doubt Calvin Cheng came to his conclusion that Mr Thio brought disrepute to the Law Society of Singapore through a rigorous and statistical study of Singaporean’s reaction to Mr Thio’s article. It is more likely that Calvin Cheng came to that conclusion simply based on his opinion and what Minister Shanmugam said.

But of course Calvin Cheng is free to call for Mr Thio to step down. Freedom of speech and all. But if we were being logical and rational, then if Mr Thio is to step down for his arguably justified remarks in his Law Gazette article, then Calvin Cheng should be booted out of the MLC for his “killing children” remarks (CNA’s words, not mine) which definitely brought disrepute to MLC.

Alas, not all of us are truly logical and rational. Least of all the Internet trolls.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus/


Shanmugam Defames A Dead Child and is The Pot That Calls LS President Thio Shen Yi, “Black”


https://sonofadud.com/2016/03/02/sha...shen-yi-black/


I called the apparent suicide of Benjamin Lim, the 14 year old boy who was arrested and interrogated by the police without his parents or a lawyer being present a “wholly tragic and unnecessary death“. In Parliament yesterday the Law Minister Shanmugam entered the fray in what can only be described as The Pot Calling The Kettle Black. Shanmugam hit out at those who have criticised the police treatment of and lack of safeguards for suspects and particularly juveniles like Benjamin. He singled out the President of the Law Society, Thio Shen Yi for his statements in the 17 February edition of the Singapore Law Gazette which he said “effectively imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation” (see CNA report here).

Shanmugam said that Thio had no insight into the boy’s state of mind when he allegedly committed suicide and was not qualified to comment since he was not a psychologist. I say that Mr Shanmugam is even less qualified to comment. Only the Attorney General can decide whether a case will proceed to prosecution after SPF has passed on the results of their investigations. Poor Benjamin was dead within hours of being interrogated yet Shanmugam seems to profess insights into the state of mind of those who would have reviewed the case. Worse than this Shanmugam decides that a dead teenager whose case never went before a judge or the AG and who never stood trial stood trial was in fact guilty and would have been found guilty. Mr Shanmugam’s lack of professionalism and ignorance of the law doesn’t stop there. He goes on to tell us what the theoretical outcome of decisions not made by him would have been.

To quote the man himself according to the state media report, Shanmugam said that “based on the evidence available in Benjamin’s case, it is likely that he would have received no more than a warning, and would not have been charged in court, adding that the police would have taken into account his young age and clean record prior to the alleged offence.” He went on to say “While all molests are taken seriously, the nature of the alleged molest here can probably be characterised as being in the less serious range, based on CCTV footages”.

It must be extremely upsetting to Benjamin’s parents to have statements made in public by a double portfolio Minister that have judged Benjamin and found him guilty without trial. As a lawyer Shanmugam knows that his comments are protected by Parliamentary privilege and that as Benjamin is dead he is free to defame him. I note that the freedom to defame a dead person did not apply to Amos Yee, another child who suffered rough justice at the hands of the authorities in Singapore, when he called LKY a horrible person. I don’t quite agree with M Ravi that Shanmugam is committing sub Judice as this is not a case that is going to court but he is clearly defaming a dead boy.

In attacking the President of the Law Society, Shanmugam also reminds us of the shameful way our Law Society has been hobbled and prevented from speaking up ever since Lee Kuan Yew’s attack on the Law Society in 1988 during the detentions of the so-called Marxist conspirators. It is an encouraging sign that things may finally be changing after so many years when one spineless Law Society President after another has failed to speak up to protect our fundamental rights and prevent abuse of the rule of law.

This is what the internationally respected human rights lawyer and Reform Party GE 2015 candidate M. Ravi had to say about Shanmugam’s speech in a Facebook post today:

“The law minister threatens the public particularly the online media with sub judice rule yet in the same breath why is he discussing the case and presenting the State’s version whilst the Coroner’s Inquiry is underway.

Why is he even saying that Benjamin would be likely to be let off with a warning . Is Benjamin already guilty?Benjamin is innocent until a guilty verdict is pronounced by the court. Shanmugam who is legally trained should know best but instead he chooses to accuse the law society’s President for writing on the case. The Law Society President was merely echoing the prevailing concerns among criminal lawyers.

Shanmugam is also proposing a change in the legislation to preclude public discussion on high profile cases. Good grief! I don’t think any democratic country has come out with extra regulations to curb free speech surrounding high profile cases.”

I have looked at the pictures on CNA reproduced below which show the actual spot where poor Benjamin was interviewed. Shanmugam says only one policeman interviewed Benjamin and that his statement was recorded in an open plan office with another policeman sitting a few feet away. It looks like a very public place in an open plan office.

This is a boy who has already been hauled away from school by men who were clearly identified by his peers as policemen. Being questioned by the police in the open with everyone no doubt staring must have been humiliating for him. I can see he was made to sit on a small stool which may have been a police technique to rob him of dignity (see picture below from CNA) and it looks like he was on that stool for several hours.




Shanmugam is certainly trying his hardest to exonerate the police of any culpability in Benjamin’s death whilst playing the blame game himself and pointing the finger at others. He is doing what the PAP have always done best which is to employ smoke and mirrors to divert Singaporeans’ attention away from the fact that Singaporeans of any age lack basic rights and the protections of a Rule of Law. I hope this tragic death has caused Singaporeans to stop and think and maybe realise that there is something wrong with our Institutions both the educational ones and the criminal justice system. So what can we do to put it right? I know that most Singaporeans get bored with any talk of Rights but I’m not advocating Gay marriage here just the standard protections of Rule Of Law and a Youth or Vulnerable Person Code. After all our children deserve a better society and one that has Institutions which protect their rights whether they are innocent, guilty or just plain obnoxious.

The first rights our children need, as do our adults, is the right not to be detained without trial. Remember that Amos was detained before his trial and if he had been found innocent he would not have been able to get that time back nor to sue for false imprisonment because we don’t have that right either. The three men on death row in 1989 (the so called coffee-shop murders) whose innocence my late father proved, were not able to sue for three years of wrongful imprisonment although I suppose they were happy to get out with their necks unbroken.

Our legal system is based on the UK system and the UK provides all suspects, not just a juvenile, with the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation and to have access to a lawyer immediately in most cases. You have the right not to answer questions without a lawyer present and the State pays for a lawyer if the suspect can’t afford one. (Here only capital case defendants get a pro-bono lawyer.) However children are usually questioned in a less formal setting such as at the school with an appropriate adult alongside. The US system has similar safeguards and Juveniles have the right to have a parent or appropriate adult present as well as their Miranda rights.

CONTINUE.....

[kuasimi]

CONTINUE


https://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus/


Shanmugam Defames A Dead Child and is The Pot That Calls LS President Thio Shen Yi, “Black”


https://sonofadud.com/2016/03/02/sha...shen-yi-black/



A case concerning a 13 yr old burglary suspect in the US

This case was recently ruled upon by the Supreme Court. A police officer went to the 13 yr old boy’s school, removed him from class and placed him in a conference room with the door closed and two school administrators present. However the officer failed to give the boy a Miranda warning or inform him that he could leave the room at any time prior to beginning the questioning. The boy later wanted to get the statements he made in the conference room thrown out and the Supreme Court agreed with him.

“The Court recognized the fact that, because of their relative immaturity and lack of experience, children “cannot be viewed simply as miniature adults”.

Since minors’ comprehension of their situation differs from that of adults, the Court reasoned, their understanding of when a questioning constitutes custody will also differ. Minors may experience more acquiescence to authority, and so may require Miranda notifications in situations that would not trigger the Miranda requirement for adults.”

http://criminal.findlaw.com/juvenile...of-minors.html

Here is some advice given by the Queensland Government to citizens who are arrested:

• You have the right to remain silent, whether you have been stopped in the street, have agreed to go to the police station or are under arrest.
• You must go with police only if you are formally arrested for an offence or formally detained for questioning about an indictable offence.
• Otherwise, if police ask you to go with them to the police station, you can refuse
• The police can’t force you to go to the police station without arresting you. If they insist that you go with them, you can ask if you’re under arrest. If not, you don’t have to go.

Even if you agree to go to the police station, you have the right to remain silent.

Police have to:

• provide an interpreter where needed
• have a parent or an independent person present when questioning a child about a serious matter
• allow a person with impaired capacity to speak with a support person and not continue with questioning if the person does not have the legal capacity to be questioned. If police realise that a person has impaired capacity only part way through the interview, they must suspend questioning to organise a support person
• Police must allow you to contact a support person (a friend or relative) and a lawyer, and arrange for them to be with you during your formal interview. Police can’t listen to your conversations with your lawyer.

Children should always ask if they can have an adult (who they like and trust) present with them in an interview.

Sometimes police can question children without another adult present. However, if a child has been charged with an indictable offence, the court can refuse to consider statements from children (16 years and under) if an independent person was not present at the interview.

Finally this is a ruling from the UK courts on the treatment of 17 year olds and how they must also be treated as children.

17 year olds in police custody to be treated as children, says the High Court

In a judgment which strongly upheld children’s rights under the UNCRC, Lord Justice Moses (sitting with Mr Justice Parker) has held that the UK government’s practice of treating 17 year olds as adults, the failure to inform the parents of their child’s arrest and the failure to provide an independent, appropriate adult to 17 year old children when detained and questioned at a police station about alleged criminal offences is “inconsistent with the UNCRC and the views of the United Nations Committee of the Rights of the Child.”

The judgment concluded that:

“… it is inconsistent with the rights of the claimant and his mother, enshrined in Article 8 [European Convention on Human Rights], for the Secretary of State to treat 17 year-olds as adults when in detention. To do so disregards the definition of a child in the UNCRC, in all the other international instruments to which the Strasbourg Court and the Supreme Court have referred, and the preponderance of legislation affecting children and justice which include within their scope those who are under 18. The Secretary of State’s failure to amend Code C is in breach of her obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998, and unlawful.”

I think it’s clear that Singapore treats its children like miniature adults and its adults already enjoy very few rights compared to other advanced democracies. The President of the Law society was quite right to bring up the lack of protections in our system for children. As Benjamin was only 13 years old it is clear that in a country with Rule of Law his confession would have been thrown out by a Court because there was no Independent adult present at the Interview. This is what Shanmugam does not want you to know. That the manner of Benjamin’s detention, removal from school, questioning and statements obtained would all have been thrown out by a proper court, in a proper decent democracy and therefore the seriousness or not of any CCTV images is completely irrelevant.

We urgently need legal reforms to safeguard the rights of suspects and further protections for juveniles, the mentally incapacitated and specially vulnerable. More immediately Shanmugam owes Benjamin’s parents an apology. I hope Thio Shen Yi stands up for his principles and pushes back on Singapore’s breaches under the Human Rights Act 1998.






Rest In Peace Benjamin

[kuasimi]

High Court: Deceased NSF family not allowed to sue SAF despite safety breach
By admin - March 3, 2016


http://statestimesreview.com/2016/03...safety-breach/



Despite having found breaching safety regulations, the Singapore High Court ruled that the family of the deceased National Serviceman (NSF), Private Dominique Sarron Lee, will not be allowed to sue the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for negligence.

On 17 April, 2012, Pte. Dominque Lee collapsed after suffering breathing difficulties from the six smoke grenades used in the exercise. A Committee of Inquiry (COI) in 2012 delivered their judgment confirming that the SAF breached safety regulations because only a maximum of two smoke grenades were allowed to be used in the exercise. A state coroner’s inquiry in Aug 2013 later confirmed that Pte. Dominque died from inhaling the smoke in the smoke grenades.

Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh dismissed the family’s argument that there was a contract between SAF and Pte Lee and so, his family was entitled to claim damages from SAF for breaching its contractual duty to ensure the highest standards of training safety.

According to a statement by the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), the family of the deceased serviceman received a lump sum death gratuity, equivalent to 12 months of the last drawn monthly gross salary of a regular of equivalent rank. A regular with a private rank is estimated to earn around S$2,000 a month. Although undisclosed, the compensation for Dominique’s death the family got is estimated to be around S$60,000 after factoring a “special award” which doubles the compensation amount in the event the death happened during training.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/35875932751...type=3&theater


Shanmugam is a political bully. Period.

[kuasimi]

HEARTBREAKING LETTER FROM MOTHER OF NSF WHO DIED FROM SMOKE GRENADE TRAINING
Submitted by farhan on Fri, 04/03/2016 - 12:40am


http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/art...enade-training





The High Court struck down a lawsuit brought upon the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) by the grieving family of a full-time national serviceman (NSF) who died in 2012 after suffering an extreme allergic reaction to smoke grenades during a military training exercise.

On 17 April 2012, Private Dominique Sarron Lee had participated in an exercise at Lim Chu Kang, which involved the use of 6 smoke grenades. He passed out after suffering an allergic reaction to zinc chloride, one of the compounds used in the grenades. He was evacuated to Sungei Gedong Medical Centre before being warded at National University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at about 2PM the same day.

The SAF, his platoon commander and the chief safety officer of the exercise applied to have the case of negligence struck down on the grounds that there is no reasonable cause of action and that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh accepted the arguments and ruled that the provision applied to Pte Lee's case and dismissed the arguments of Pte Lee's family, who said that there was a contract between SAF and Pte Lee and so, his family was entitled to claim damages from SAF.


In response to this verdict, Dominique's mother, Felicia, has written a heart wrenching open letter to her deceased son to express her grief and sense of injustice. Read her letter here.

My dearest Dom, my heart continues to bleed for you. It has been 3years and 10months since you were taken from me and still, I haven't been able to get any closure.

Today, Honourable Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh ruled that I have no case against those responsible for your death - the SAF and the 2 officers who did not follow the training exercise SOP. He also ruled that I have to pay for their legal costs. Dom, how can I possibly pay them for taking away your life? Where is the justice? It seems, the price I paid has not been enough. Your death has not been high enough a price for SAF and the 2 officers, and now, not enough for Honourable Remesh, it seems.

They must be right, of course - the judge, the ministers, the SAF and their officers. They are experts in their fields. Individuals who studied and trained for years to be in their current positions. What do I know? I'm only a mother to two sons. I only know to love my sons, to nurture them to become young men who will do right by others, to live with dignity, decency and human compassion. What do I know? They are the experts in their fields. They must know best. They do no wrong.

Dom, in these past 3+ years, I have been worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very government I taught you to trust; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very system I counseled you to have faith in; worn-down, beaten and defeated by the very people I advised you to respect and honor.

Dom, forgive me. I taught you wrong.

Felicia

Taken from the In memory of Dominique Sarron Lee Facebook page.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...01107319933865

[kuasimi]

20160302 SPF should be depoliticised, slamming social media in Parliament doesn’t help
March 2, 2016 by Phillip Ang


https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.c...t-doesnt-help/


https://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus/



I wrote about Benjamin’s suicide almost a month ago and had expected a PAP wayang. (No justice with a bullying police force)

It therefore comes as no surprise when Law Minister K Shanmugam ‘acted out his wayang script’ with the mainstream media giving full support subsequently.

According to Shanmugam, the police had followed protocols. Without admitting the police officers could have been intimidating and instilled fear in innocent youths, he told Parliament there would be a review of protocols. Why waste tax dollars on a review if, after more than a month, the SPF had still found nothing wrong?

Shanmugam kept Parliament rooted on police protocols in dealing with young persons. The protocols are of course perfect in print but when it comes to execution, it’s another matter, eg mishandling of the Little India riot, Mas Selamat, etc. Many personal accounts have been highlighted by TOC but it had to take a tragedy for Shanmugam to realise the need for a belated review.

Intimidation by the police can take many forms such as a child being in the presence of fierce-looking police officers during questioning,ie their body language, tone of voice, etc.

My son had a brush with the law and was similarly picked up in school by 5 police officers. During the trip to the police station, the driver was spewing as much vulgarity as Ah Beng in a coffee shop. My son was traumatised by the police: he was in primary school. Wasn’t the police behaving in an intimidating manner Mr Law Minister?

Shanmugam should go talk to political prisoners to find out the truth. The police had been given the go ahead to be intimidating so why should they differentiate human beings according to their age groups?

Shanmugam then framed the issue into one of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” when he said ““If the police wait, and he molests someone else in the meantime, then the question would be: Why did the police not move in faster?”. Shouldn’t this have already been thought through before implementing the protocol? Is the SPF only starting to think about this, now, after a tragedy?

The Law Minister claimed Benjamin’s father had told the authorities that the family had “felt pressurised by the media and asked for privacy”. However, Benjamin’s family members had passed an open letter to TOC, published on 4 Feb, 9 days after his death. What “privacy” was Shanmugam talking about? Did MHA refrain from making substantive comments “out of respect” for Benjamin’s family? Really?

The problem with the SPF and its negative public image is largely due to its politicised nature. For example, TOC had published an article on Feb 5 contradicting the police: SPF officers were not in plainclothes when they arrested Benjamin.

After the police had verified the article had erred factually – police officers were in plainclothes – this information was withheld until Parliament sat on 1 March, almost 1 month later.

The SPF had therefore not acted in public interest and was not bothered by its reputation being tarnished by the increasingly negative image created by an erroneous article. Perhaps Shanmugam would like the public to believe the reputation of the police was sacrificed out of respect for Benjamin’s family?

This wasn’t material information which could not be publicly disclosed and, clearly, SPF was serving its political master.

Shanmugam: “If there are issues with the protocol, the responsibility is mine. Let’s not attack the police officers, who cannot defend themselves.” Talk is cheap Mr Law Minister and of course we know what will happen to those who ‘take responsibility’. After slamming social media, Shanmugam wants to become a punching bag for the public? Is Shanmugam willing to apologise if police protocols are found wanting? Is keeping the same job and taking the same pay and bonuses “responsibility”?

If Shanmugam has to take responsibility for wrong protocols implemented by the police, should the government continue to employ the highest-paid permanent secretaries, statutory board CEOs, etc?

The takeaway from this Parliament wayang:
– Police followed protocol, don’t blame the police.
– Blame social media for spreading falsehoods, aka factual errors in other countries.
– Public information belongs to PAP, up to them to disseminate for political mileage.
– Government can only learn lessons at the expense of citizens/from tragedies.

Public perception of the SPF is at an all time low and this cannot be corrected by mere words, advertisements, propaganda and blaming others. Shanmugam shouldn’t divert the attention on his own tardy actions by slamming TOC and social media. A review of police protocols doesn’t really address SPF’s shortcomings. What we really need is a depoliticised SPF.