SAF suspends smoke grenade training

[Nolicense]

What goes through the officer's mind when he throws 6 smoke grenades in a confined space ? What was his objective and motive ? If it is a training need, what is it ? The motive determines the adequacy of the punishment. If you know how much smoke one grenade produces, to "need" 6 to effectively simulate a training scenario boggles the mind. if the intention is other than a valid training need, then the motive has to be explained. Cannot count maybe ? :)

 

The report said the smoke grenades were thrown outside the building.

Not sure if the smoke got too dense or if much of it drifted into confined space. I suppose it got bad enough.

 

I would like to play devil's advocate as to the motivation of the officer's vis a vis the competency.

I think most have watched HBO's band of brother's Capt Sobel and Lt Dike.. a highly motivated but incompetent person in charge gets soldiers killed, and loses battles.

 

Somehow you have to pass people for attending the course. not because they pass the standards.

[Kusje]

I am no lawyer, but I think for coroner, is to determine whether there is criminal negligence i.e. Can charge in court and go to jail...

COI is to determine what happened, make recommendations so that there is no future occurrence and whether those involved were negligent in carrying out their duties.

Similar to case when a person is killed... Road accident or pre meditated murder etc.

Dont worry about not being a lawyer since the duties of the coroner are states clearly on the state courts website so you can see why the def minister was definitely wrong to quote the coroner.

 

What Happens at the Coroner’s Inquiry? The Coroner will listen to the evidence of the witnesses. At the end of the Inquiry, he will record his findings. His findings will relate to the following factual matters: • the identity of the deceased; • where and when the deceased died; and • how the deceased died, namely, the circumstances connected with the death and the cause of death. The Coroner will not frame a finding in such a way as to determine any question of criminal, civil or disciplinary liability on the part of any person or persons. As such, his findings will be factual and neutral.

 

https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/CriminalCase/Documents/Coroner%27s%2520Court.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjWhsum3eDLAhURj44KHWGgD_8QFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNGTs89Okgnzgn1ekOliwIVVhgPqVQ&sig2=u8stAP_U9POJQsDN0gebaQ

Edited March 27, 2016 by Kusje

[Aukang]

Thanks. So coroner says he did not site from asthma attack but severe allergic reaction which nobody could foresee... That's the facts.

So objectively, the death was really unforeseen.

 

 

... "The cause of the demise is not due to severe asthmatic attack," said state coroner Imran Abdul Hamid on Friday, dismissing claims by Pte Lee's family that the full-time serviceman (NSF) died from asthma. He died because of an allergic reaction to zinc chloride fumes, Mr Imran added. - See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier#sthash.AUrp7xUL.dpuf

Edited March 27, 2016 by Aukang

[Playtime]

Thanks. So coroner says he did not site from asthma attack but severe allergic reaction which nobody could foresee... That's the facts.

So objectively, the death was really unforeseen.

 

 

... "The cause of the demise is not due to severe asthmatic attack," said state coroner Imran Abdul Hamid on Friday, dismissing claims by Pte Lee's family that the full-time serviceman (NSF) died from asthma. He died because of an allergic reaction to zinc chloride fumes, Mr Imran added. - See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier#sthash.AUrp7xUL.dpuf

Well. ..

 

Severe allergies are unforeseeable. . Fair statement.

 

But it will take a great leap of basic common sense to say that an asthmatic person can be safely subjected to way beyond TSR levels of smoke grenade usage.

 

Basically When TSR is blatantly broken, nothing can be dismissed as unforeseen anymore.

 

Mindef is simply not manning up to its mistake.

It's playing on technicalities to ask the victims family to take a hit when it really should be the other way round.

NSFs didn't ask to get drafted. . And shouldn be treated with more decency.

[Kusje]

Thanks. So coroner says he did not site from asthma attack but severe allergic reaction which nobody could foresee... That's the facts.

So objectively, the death was really unforeseen.

 

 

... "The cause of the demise is not due to severe asthmatic attack," said state coroner Imran Abdul Hamid on Friday, dismissing claims by Pte Lee's family that the full-time serviceman (NSF) died from asthma. He died because of an allergic reaction to zinc chloride fumes, Mr Imran added. - See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier#sthash.AUrp7xUL.dpuf

 

Don't change targets. Let's go back to what the def minister said.

 

He said the "Coroner had found they were not reckless or negligent".

 

So either:

 

1. State media SPH misreported what the def minister said in parliament

2. The def minister was talking rubbish and the coroner didn't find them not reckless or negligent and him saying so is to obfuscate the truth

3. The coroner was out of bounds (per the powers granted his office) when he found them not reckless or negligent and those comments should not have been taken into account by the AG

 

Can you come up with another alternative reading of this?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Kusje

[Kusje]

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I notice you focus on this sad incident is overly anti-gov and anti-institution that seems to cloud your judgement with intense distrust that was attempted cover up by authorities and govnt while cherry-pick information that suits your perception.

 

I am not saying you are wrong in your view, indignation and since of justice. What I am saying is don't allow your emotion override other publicly available facts and the legal process.

 

To let's work to decipher all these "snake talk" -

 

2012 Apr 17  - Accident and death.

 

2012 Nov - Committee of Inquiry found rules and regulations not followed during exercise.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/inquiry-finds-training-sa/515254.html

 

2013 Apr - Coroner’s Inquiry found combat med not sufficiently trained (later corrected as med confirm he lost nerve and forget the asthma-attack training) and other medical findings of Pte Lee.

Parents of Pte Lee were in attendance given full access to the reports and investigations.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/coroners-inquiry-into-nsfs-death-combat-medic-did-not-have-enough-training

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/nsfs-death-mum-still-trying-to-come-to-terms-with-loss

 

2013 Jun - Coroner’s Inquiry found Pte Lee’s allergic reaction was “not reasonably foreseeable” since was an "allergic reaction", not an asthma attack.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier

 

2013 Sep - Based above both inquires, AGC cannot press criminal charges against both Officers.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier

 

2013 Nov - SAF conducts its own military proceedings against both officers and all were charged for negligence (See 24 Mar Parliament speech by Mr Ng)

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/smoke-grenade-case-duo-convicted-of-negligence

 

2015 Dec - Lee family file civil suit against SAF and 2 officers

 

2016 Mar - High Court  threw out case because all defendants apply provisional law against the civil sue (not a criminal case)

 

2016 Mar 24 -  Defence minister Ng further clarify in Parliament

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/ps/2016/24mar15_ps2.html

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.

 

What next?

Lee family can proof Pte Lee death was caused by intentional act of malice to harm the trainee.

But as in any military operation, training and exercise, how can one ensure no "harm" is committed when the activities involved will always involved some form of risk ?

 

This is where many has failed to understand why the Provisional law came into play:

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/78526-saf-personnel-not-immune-to-being-charged-for-rash-criminal-acts.html

"..High Court judge ruled that the duo’s (both officers) actions fell within a provision under Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act, which indemnifies against negligence suits for deaths and injuries because of military duty. Lawyers interviewed said the Act can be invoked as a defence in civil cases, but not criminal cases.

 

 

 

Again, nothing wrong being emotional and wanting to be self-preserving. But the fact is due processes had been carried out, and continue to be so. We know Military operation is inherently dangerous, no  matter how much safety net being put out in the field, death and injury will happen.

Since Pte Lee's passing, there had been several other fatal SAF cases and will continue to happen..

 

That was why I supported Turboflat4  earlier suggestion of some of remembering our fallen NS men during peace time.

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/topic/2682620-saf-suspends-smoke-grenade-training/?p=5764254

 

The article you posted (highlighted in red by me) says they 2 officers were charged with negligence (the source being Def min Ng). This is at odds with his latest parliamentary speech saying they were not negligent.

 

Have you reviewed that?

[Aukang]

https://m.facebook.com/notes/the-singapore-army/key-findings-from-the-death-of-pte-dominique-sarron-lee/10153904465541063/

 

Read the full post in Facebook before you get so worked up... Let's try and put emotions aside as it may cloud judgement or what one reads...

 

I am not a lawyer, but surely there is a clear difference between causing death due to negligence and negligent performance of lawful order or duty?

 

"The SAF has however taken administrative and disciplinary action against the two officers. While the CI and COI did not find that the two officers were directly responsible for PTE Lee’s death, the two officers were summarily tried in 2013 for negligent performance of lawful order or duty, found guilty, and punished according to military law."

 

The first is punishable by law... Similar to causing death in road accidents and in the army Jeep incident, the other is a military offence.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Aukang

[L_club23]

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I notice you focus on this sad incident is overly anti-gov and anti-institution that seems to cloud your judgement with intense distrust that was attempted cover up by authorities and govnt while cherry-pick information that suits your perception.

 

I am not saying you are wrong in your view, indignation and since of justice. What I am saying is don't allow your emotion override other publicly available facts and the legal process.

 

To let's work to decipher all these "snake talk" -

 

2012 Apr 17 - Accident and death.

 

2012 Nov - Committee of Inquiry found rules and regulations not followed during exercise.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/inquiry-finds-training-sa/515254.html

 

2013 Apr - Coronerâs Inquiry found combat med not sufficiently trained (later corrected as med confirm he lost nerve and forget the asthma-attack training) and other medical findings of Pte Lee.

Parents of Pte Lee were in attendance given full access to the reports and investigations.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/coroners-inquiry-into-nsfs-death-combat-medic-did-not-have-enough-training

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/nsfs-death-mum-still-trying-to-come-to-terms-with-loss

 

2013 Jun - Coronerâs Inquiry found Pte Leeâs allergic reaction was ânot reasonably foreseeableâ since was an "allergic reaction", not an asthma attack.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier

 

2013 Sep - Based above both inquires, AGC cannot press criminal charges against both Officers.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/allergic-reaction-smoke-grenade-killed-soldier

 

2013 Nov - SAF conducts its own military proceedings against both officers and all were charged for negligence (See 24 Mar Parliament speech by Mr Ng)

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/smoke-grenade-case-duo-convicted-of-negligence

 

2015 Dec - Lee family file civil suit against SAF and 2 officers

 

2016 Mar - High Court threw out case because all defendants apply provisional law against the civil sue (not a criminal case)

 

2016 Mar 24 - Defence minister Ng further clarify in Parliament

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/ps/2016/24mar15_ps2.html

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.

 

What next?

Lee family can proof Pte Lee death was caused by intentional act of malice to harm the trainee.

But as in any military operation, training and exercise, how can one ensure no "harm" is committed when the activities involved will always involved some form of risk ?

 

This is where many has failed to understand why the Provisional law came into play:

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/78526-saf-personnel-not-immune-to-being-charged-for-rash-criminal-acts.html

"..High Court judge ruled that the duoâs (both officers) actions fell within a provision under Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act, which indemnifies against negligence suits for deaths and injuries because of military duty. Lawyers interviewed said the Act can be invoked as a defence in civil cases, but not criminal cases.

 

 

 

Again, nothing wrong being emotional and wanting to be self-preserving. But the fact is due processes had been carried out, and continue to be so. We know Military operation is inherently dangerous, no matter how much safety net being put out in the field, death and injury will happen.

Since Pte Lee's passing, there had been several other fatal SAF cases and will continue to happen..

 

That was why I supported Turboflat4 earlier suggestion of some of remembering our fallen NS men during peace time.

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/topic/2682620-saf-suspends-smoke-grenade-training/?p=5764254

Your post appears to think that it is ok to absolve all blame as long as intent isn't there...

 

Also, the issue on transparency is key here. The public wants to know if the penalty befits the crime... The silence on the punishment dished out and the "promotion" rumours is deafening...

Edited March 27, 2016 by L_club23

[1fast1]

https://m.facebook.com/notes/the-singapore-army/key-findings-from-the-death-of-pte-dominique-sarron-lee/10153904465541063/

 

Read the full post in Facebook before you get so worked up... Let's try and put emotions aside as it may cloud judgement or what one reads...

 

I am not a lawyer, but surely there is a clear difference between causing death due to negligence and negligent performance of lawful order or duty?

 

"The SAF has however taken administrative and disciplinary action against the two officers. While the CI and COI did not find that the two officers were directly responsible for PTE Lee’s death, the two officers were summarily tried in 2013 for negligent performance of lawful order or duty, found guilty, and punished according to military law."

 

The first is punishable by law... Similar to causing death in road accidents and in the army Jeep incident, the other is a military offence.

 

"Negligence" in common understanding simply means "failure to take proper care over something".

 

"Negligence" in legal terminology has a very specific meaning. And since the COI is a legal entity, this is the definition that should be looked at.

 

There are four elements to be satisfied in concluding negligence:

 

1) Duty of care: that the plaintiff (victim) was owed a duty of care by the defendant (accused)

 

2) Breach: that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care

 

3) Causation:  the breach of the duty of care led to harm to the plaintiff (victim)

 

4) Harm: harm or loss to the plaintiff (victim) resulted

 

 

Proving 1 and 2 is trivial. Officers have a very direct responsibility over the men they command. The breach in safety regulations is indisputable.

 

Proving 4 is also trivial. The victim died here.

 

3 is the somewhat tricky one. One of the key features of asthma is bronchial hyperreactivity. The airways close up much more readily than a normal person's when exposed to an inhaled irritant. This is not a true allergic reaction, but rather a greatly exaggerated physiological response to a respiratory toxin. Given that the serviceman had previously come through largely unscathed after an exercise involving just 2 smoke grenades (within the stipulation of the safety regulations), I believe that it is more likely that a dose-dependent airway closure is at play here. Hence, I feel that the third element is also satisfied.

 

But regardless of my opinion, the fact of the matter is that an authoritative legal entity (the COI) clearly used the word "negligence" meaning that they are satisfied that all the elements of (legal) negligence have been proven. The exact wording of the COI report also supports this:

 

 

 

The COI opined that “if the TSR had been complied with, PTE Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident, and for as long as they were during the incident” and that “reduced exposure to smoke would have reduced the risks of any adverse reactions to the smoke.” The COI concluded that “the cause of death of PTE Lee resulted from inhalation of the fumes from the smoke grenades used in the incident”.

 

The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Turboflat4

[Mikelcy1963]

Your post appears to think that it is ok to absolve all blame as long as intent isn't there...

 

Also, the issue on transparency is key here. The public wants to know if the penalty befits the crime... The silence on the punishment dished out and the "promotion" rumours is deafening...

The promotion is not a rumor. It is a fact. It was delayed by a year but he still got it. Is it fair in the face of a NSF death as a safety officer during that time ? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know If the reaction and actions of the safety officer was not disclosed as to why he did not stop more grenades was being thrown (say when the 3rd or 4th was thrown) and what he did or did not do after the grenades were thrown. Or maybe it's a norm actually to throw more than 2 in all previous training and just too bad for the chap.

If even such details are considered as national security and deemed as cannot disclose or deemed out of scope of the inquiry, then what's the relevance of such an inquiry I really wonder.

[Playtime]

"Negligence" in common understanding simply means "failure to take proper care over something".

 

"Negligence" in legal terminology has a very specific meaning. And since the COI is a legal entity, this is the definition that should be looked at.

 

There are four elements to be satisfied in concluding negligence:

 

1) Duty of care: that the plaintiff (victim) was owed a duty of care by the defendant (accused)

 

2) Breach: that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care

 

3) Causation: the breach of the duty of care led to harm to the plaintiff (victim)

 

4) Harm: harm or loss to the plaintiff (victim) resulted

 

 

Proving 1 and 2 is trivial. Officers have a very direct responsibility over the men they command. The breach in safety regulations is indisputable.

 

Proving 4 is also trivial. The victim died here.

 

3 is the somewhat tricky one. One of the key features of asthma is bronchial hyperreactivity. The airways close up much more readily than a normal person's when exposed to an inhaled irritant. This is not a true allergic reaction, but rather a greatly exaggerated physiological response to a respiratory toxin. Given that the serviceman had previously come through largely unscathed after an exercise involving just 2 smoke grenades (within the stipulation of the safety regulations), I believe that it is more likely that a dose-dependent airway closure is at play here. Hence, I feel that the third element is also satisfied.

 

But regardless of my opinion, the fact of the matter is that an authoritative legal entity (the COI) clearly used the word "negligence" meaning that they are satisfied that all the elements of (legal) negligence have been proven. The exact wording of the COI report also supports this:

 

 

 

The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it.

http://www.usmedicine.com/agencies/department-of-defense-dod/recruits-military-breathe-easier-with-relaxed-asthma-accession-standards/

 

A bit off topic.

I tot of checking how other armies deal with asthma and googling got this from the US army.

It seems they consider it serious enough to disqualify applicants.

 

Not sure if it's relevant to this case.

Maybe political considerations dictate that the SAF must do it differently.

But point being. . If Dominique and his type recruits are drafted to combat vocations, when the worst case happens, they need to be given a fair deal .. much better than what he got now. .. but this argument will lead to murky waters. .

[Nolicense]

"Negligence" in common understanding simply means "failure to take proper care over something".

 

"Negligence" in legal terminology has a very specific meaning. And since the COI is a legal entity, this is the definition that should be looked at.

 

There are four elements to be satisfied in concluding negligence:

 

1) Duty of care: that the plaintiff (victim) was owed a duty of care by the defendant (accused)

 

2) Breach: that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care

 

3) Causation:  the breach of the duty of care led to harm to the plaintiff (victim)

 

4) Harm: harm or loss to the plaintiff (victim) resulted

 

 

Proving 1 and 2 is trivial. Officers have a very direct responsibility over the men they command. The breach in safety regulations is indisputable.

 

Proving 4 is also trivial. The victim died here.

 

3 is the somewhat tricky one. One of the key features of asthma is bronchial hyperreactivity. The airways close up much more readily than a normal person's when exposed to an inhaled irritant. This is not a true allergic reaction, but rather a greatly exaggerated physiological response to a respiratory toxin. Given that the serviceman had previously come through largely unscathed after an exercise involving just 2 smoke grenades (within the stipulation of the safety regulations), I believe that it is more likely that a dose-dependent airway closure is at play here. Hence, I feel that the third element is also satisfied.

 

But regardless of my opinion, the fact of the matter is that an authoritative legal entity (the COI) clearly used the word "negligence" meaning that they are satisfied that all the elements of (legal) negligence have been proven. The exact wording of the COI report also supports this:

 

 

 

 

The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it.

Thanks. cuts right to the issues. praise you 50.

[Kusje]

"Negligence" in common understanding simply means "failure to take proper care over something".

 

"Negligence" in legal terminology has a very specific meaning. And since the COI is a legal entity, this is the definition that should be looked at.

 

There are four elements to be satisfied in concluding negligence:

 

1) Duty of care: that the plaintiff (victim) was owed a duty of care by the defendant (accused)

 

2) Breach: that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care

 

3) Causation:  the breach of the duty of care led to harm to the plaintiff (victim)

 

4) Harm: harm or loss to the plaintiff (victim) resulted

 

 

Proving 1 and 2 is trivial. Officers have a very direct responsibility over the men they command. The breach in safety regulations is indisputable.

 

Proving 4 is also trivial. The victim died here.

 

3 is the somewhat tricky one. One of the key features of asthma is bronchial hyperreactivity. The airways close up much more readily than a normal person's when exposed to an inhaled irritant. This is not a true allergic reaction, but rather a greatly exaggerated physiological response to a respiratory toxin. Given that the serviceman had previously come through largely unscathed after an exercise involving just 2 smoke grenades (within the stipulation of the safety regulations), I believe that it is more likely that a dose-dependent airway closure is at play here. Hence, I feel that the third element is also satisfied.

 

But regardless of my opinion, the fact of the matter is that an authoritative legal entity (the COI) clearly used the word "negligence" meaning that they are satisfied that all the elements of (legal) negligence have been proven. The exact wording of the COI report also supports this:

 

 

 

 

The COI is of the opinion that the actions of the Platoon Commander, a Regular Captain, were negligent as he was aware of the specific TSR but did not comply with it.

 

Well said and well written (way better than I could ever have articulated it). 

 

But may I add on the egg-shell skull rule which counters the assertions from the SAF apologists that the 2 officers cannot be considered negligent because the harm was unforeseen.

 

 

The Egg-shell Skull Rule

 

20.6.4 In all tort actions, a defendant must take his victim as he finds him. Under the egg-shell skull rule, which applies to personal injuries, this concept is adapted to allow recovery even for unforeseeable damage. The egg-shell skull rule applies in circumstances where, due to a claimant’s innate physical susceptibility to illness or injury, he suffers extreme and unforeseeable damage which is triggered by the initially foreseeable damage caused by the defendant’s negligence: Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405. When applied with respect to damage of an unforeseeable type (as opposed to merely an unforeseeable extent) the egg-shell skull rule operates as an exception to the Wagon Mound test.

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/commercial-law/chapter-20

About SingaporeLaw

 

The SingaporeLaw Committee, officially formed and supported by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Ministry of Law, devises and implements strategies and activities to increase the international profile of Singapore law and to promote Singapore as a centre for dispute resolution.