Wednesday 9 March 2016

Smoke-grenade case: NSF's fatal allergic reaction

Duo convicted of negligence
2 officers found guilty in 2013; Eng Hen says MINDEF should waive legal costs for lawsuit
By Jermyn Chow, Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 8 Mar 2016

Two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officers were convicted for being negligent during a 2012 training exercise, in which full-time national serviceman Dominique Sarron Lee died after an allergic reaction to the smoke grenades that were used.

They were found guilty in a summary trial in 2013, even though a Coroner's Inquiry and an independent Committee of Inquiry did not find them "directly responsible" for Private Lee's death, said the Singapore Army.



The SAF, however, did not indicate the punishment meted out to the training exercise's chief safety officer Chia Thye Siong, and the platoon commander who threw the smoke grenades, Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal.

Revealing this yesterday, Brigadier-General (BG) Chan Wing Kai, commander of the army's Training and Doctrine Command, also pledged to "remain committed" to assisting and providing support for Pte Lee's family.

Besides disbursing welfare grants since the incident, the SAF has also offered the family compensation which is "generally two to four times that of amounts" provided under the work injury compensation law for incidents arising from training and operations, BG Chan said in a post on the army's Facebook page.

The Defence Ministry also waived the legal costs from a previous case which Pte Lee's family eventually withdrew.

In his post, the general sought to clarify issues following a public outcry on social media after the High Court last Thursday struck out a lawsuit brought against the SAF and two officers by Pte Lee's family.

The court also ruled that Pte Lee's family has to pay legal costs of $22,000 to the three defendants.

Last night, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen announced in a Facebook post that MINDEF "should waive the costs to the family".

He explained that while the High Court's judgment in awarding MINDEF costs is based on sound legal grounds and precedents, there was no need to "add to the pain and anguish of the family of the late Pte Lee".

Dr Ng added that the SAF "must learn from every accident, fix lapses and improve". "This is the way we honour all those who have given their all to build a strong and honourable SAF," he said.

<<“My note”>> I wrote this note to MINDEF and SAF staff: When emotions are running high, we must respect the...
Posted by Ng Eng Hen on Monday, March 7, 2016


Pte Lee's mother, Madam Felicia Seah, had put up a Facebook post last Thursday questioning the decision. It triggered an outpouring of sympathy from the public, who called for more to be done to press charges against the defendants.

Addressing the debate yesterday, BG Chan said the SAF took "administrative and disciplinary action" against Chia and Najib.

Based on the size of the training area, no more than two smoke grenades should have been used. But Najib threw six, flouting the SAF's training safety regulations.

BG Chan said they were convicted in a summary trial "for negligent performance of lawful order or duty" and punished according to military law.

Citing the Coroner's findings, he said Pte Lee, 21, had died from an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride, a key compound used in smoke grenades, adding that this acute allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted".

"As Pte Lee's acute allergic reaction to the smoke grenades thrown by the platoon commander was not reasonably foreseeable, no criminal charges were brought against the two officers," explained BG Chan.

He also highlighted that SAF servicemen can be charged and punished in the criminal courts for offences of committing rash and negligent acts, "even during the course of their military duties".

"The Attorney-General's Chambers, not the SAF, decides if the evidence warrants this course of action." BG Chan cited previous cases to back his point.

"Those responsible through their rash and negligent acts will be held accountable under our Military Court and Criminal Law Courts," he added. BG Chan pointed out that besides stepping up safety measures, the SAF had also changed the smoke grenades used in training, adding that the SAF "values the life of every soldier and recognises that we are responsible for the sons of Singapore placed under our charge".

When contacted, Pte Lee's uncle Sean Seah told The Straits Times that the family is disappointed in the SAF's response, saying that questions remain unanswered.

"There is no contrition... If the officers are found to have been negligent in their duties, how can they not be directly responsible for Dominique's death?"





Family of NSF who died will get legal bill slashed
MINDEF, one officer involved in drill that led to soldier's death to waive $16k in legal costs
By Jermyn Chow, Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 9 Mar 2016

The family of the late Dominique Sarron Lee, who failed in a bid to sue the military over his death in 2012, will see their $22,000 legal bill slashed.

Relatives of the 21-year-old full-time national serviceman attempted to sue the Singapore Armed Forces and two officers in relation to alleged lapses in a 2012 training exercise in which he died after suffering an allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades.

The High Court threw out the lawsuit last Thursday, ordering Private Lee's family to pay the legal costs for the three defendants.


But the Defence Ministry and one of the officers, Captain Najib Hanuk Bin Muhamad Jalal, said last night they would waive legal costs amounting to $16,000.


Pte Lee's family may still have to cough up the remaining $6,000 if the other officer, Major Chia Thye Siong, decides to enforce the cost.


The family of the late Dominique Sarron Lee will see their legal bill slashed by $16,000 after one of the officers...
Posted by The Straits Times on Tuesday, March 8, 2016


The case sparked a public outcry on social media, with many calling for legal costs to be waived and stiffer penalties for the defendants, found guilty in 2013 of negligence in their duties during the exercise.

MINDEF confirmed it would waive the $10,000 bill owed, a day after Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen urged his ministry to do so in a Facebook post on Monday.


Dr Ng said though the judgment in awarding MINDEF costs is based on sound legal grounds and precedents, there was no need to "add to the pain and anguish of the family of the late Pte Lee".

Responding to media queries, MINDEF said it provided a one-off welfare grant, usually given to families of servicemen who die or become totally disabled, amounting to $20,000 to Pte Lee's mother in 2012. In addition, MINDEF has offered compensation awards to Madam Felicia Seah based on the "full extent of the compensation network". This is generally two to four times the amount provided under the Work Injury Compensation Act, said a MINDEF spokesman. "We understand that no amount of compensation will be sufficient."

Mr R. S. Bajwa, the lawyer acting for Capt Najib, the platoon commander who threw the smoke grenades, said his client agreed to waive the cost because "he feels the loss of Pte Lee's family".

It is not clear if Maj Chia, then the exercise chief safety officer, will also waive the remaining $6,000 in legal fees. His lawyer, Mr Laurence Goh Eng Yau, could not be reached.

A Committee of Inquiry and Coroner's Inquiry found that Capt Najib threw six smoke grenades instead of two, flouting the SAF's training safety regulations.

On Monday, the Singapore Army sought to clarify issues regarding Pte Lee's death and said both Maj Chia and Capt Najib were convicted of negligence in a summary trial in 2013. No criminal charges were brought against the men because Pte Lee's allergic reaction was "not reasonably foreseeable". It was the first such death since the SAF started using smoke grenades in the 1970s.

MINDEF said last night both servicemen were redeployed to appointments that did not supervise soldiers in training or operations.

Pte Lee's uncle, Mr Sean Seah, said the family has not been approached on the cost waiver and are still considering whether to appeal against Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh's decision.

They also clarified in a Facebook post yesterday that they have not accepted any compensation offer from MINDEF or the SAF, and rejected offers from the military to discuss monetary compensation.

"We would like to clarify that this law suit has never been about money. It has always been about getting answers to our questions," the family added.




Following the Facebook post by Dominique’s mum, we have been surprised and touched by the show of support and words of...
Posted by In memory of Dominique Sarron Lee on Monday, March 7, 2016





Netizens question officer's promotion
The Straits Times, 9 Mar 2016

The promotion of the Singapore Armed Forces officer found guilty of negligence in a training incident has sparked intense discussion online.

Army regular Chia Thye Siong, was found guilty and punished in 2013 for his role as chief safety officer during the exercise in which Private Dominique Sarron Lee died after an allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades used. Yet a year later, the then captain, was promoted to major.

The move drew fire from the public, who asked about the punishment meted out, with some wondering why he got off lightly and was even promoted.

Pte Lee's family questioned Maj Chia's promotion on Facebook yesterday, saying: "This seems to be a contradiction of the assurances by MINDEF and the SAF that the negligent officers have been duly dealt with, that justice has been done."

When contacted, MINDEF did not elaborate further on the promotion.





JUST IN: The 2 officers involved in NSF Dominique Sarron Lee's death were punished in accordance with military law, says SAF (The Singapore Army).
Posted by Channel NewsAsia Singapore on Sunday, March 6, 2016






"What we want is justice, what we want is closure," says the mother of full-time national serviceman Dominique Sarron...
Posted by The Straits Times on Thursday, March 3, 2016






High Court strikes out lawsuit against SAF, 2 officers over NSF who died during smoke grenade exercise
NSF's family, who sued SAF and 2 officers for negligence, ordered to pay defendants' costs
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 4 Mar 2016

The High Court yesterday struck out a lawsuit brought against the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) by the family of a full-time national serviceman who died in 2012 after an allergic reaction to smoke grenades during a military exercise.

The family of Private Dominique Sarron Lee had also sued his platoon commander and the chief safety officer of the exercise, alleging negligence on their part.

All three defendants applied to strike out the lawsuit, which was filed last year.

They relied on a provision in the Government Proceedings Act, arguing that it grants them immunity from being sued for negligence.

Under the Act, a member of the armed forces who causes the death of another while on duty cannot be held liable for a civil wrongdoing. Neither can the Government.

Mr R. S. Bajwa, who acted for platoon commander Captain Najib Hanuk Muhammad Jalal, and Mr Laurence Goh, who acted for safety officer Captain Chia Thye Siong, argued that their clients were protected as they were carrying out duties as members of the SAF.

My dearest Dom, my heart continues to bleed for you. It has been 3years and 10months since you were taken from me and...
Posted by In memory of Dominique Sarron Lee on Thursday, March 3, 2016


Mr Irving Choh, acting for the family, argued that immunity did not apply as their actions fell outside the scope of their duties; Capt Najib detonated six smoke grenades when safety regulations specified two.

Mr Choh also argued that there was a contract between SAF and Pte Lee, and his family is entitled to damages as SAF had breached its contractual duty to ensure the highest standards of training safety.

But the SAF, represented by the Attorney-General's Chambers, argued that the legal relationship between SAF and Pte Lee was not contractual.

Yesterday, in a chambers hearing, Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh found the Act applied in Pte Lee's case. He also rejected Mr Choh's argument that SAF and Pte Lee had a contractual relationship.

Pte Lee's family has to pay costs of $22,000 to the three defendants.

On April 17, 2012, Pte Lee suffered breathing difficulties and passed out during an exercise in Lim Chu Kang.

The 21-year-old, who was asthmatic, was evacuated to Sungei Gedong Medical Centre before being hospitalised at National University Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at about 2pm the same day.

A coroner's inquiry in August 2013 found he had died from an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride, a key compound used in smoke grenades.

Mr Goh told The Straits Times yesterday that Capt Chia is also saddened and affected by the incident.

"My client sincerely hopes that the family of the late Dominique will finally have a closure over the matter and move on with their lives," he said.

Pte Lee's mother Felicia Seah told The Straits Times: "What we want is justice, what we want is closure. For four years, we cannot get any closure."

In a statement last night, the Ministry of Defence said it and the SAF will continue to provide support to Pte Lee's family.





Family's failed bid to sue SAF sparks debate
Some call for more transparency in case of NSF's death after smoke-grenade training
By Jermyn Chow, Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 10 Mar 2016

The failed bid by the family of the late Private Dominique Sarron Lee to sue the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and two of its officers has sparked a public debate on whether the Government has done right by the full-time national serviceman (NSF). Netizens have taken to social media to air their grievances over what they deem as missteps by the SAF and the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF).

Some labelled the SAF's handling of the case as callous, calling for more transparency and accountability for Pte Lee's death after a 2012 training exercise in which he suffered an acute allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades. Six grenades were used when only two would have sufficed.

Others questioned why those who were found negligent could not be sued.

It also did not help that last Thursday's High Court decision to strike off the lawsuit by Pte Lee's family against the SAF and the two officers ended with an order for the family to pay $22,000 in costs to the defendants, prompting a fund-raiser set up by two young men.

Six days after the ruling, at the behest of Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, MINDEF and the two officers decided to waive their costs.

Before that, MINDEF remained reticent, saying only that it will support the 21-year-old's family, and that disciplinary action had been taken against the officers involved - without going into any detail.

Not surprisingly, this has given rise to public unease, not least since this is a society where half the population does national service. Being tight-lipped has been seen by some as a reflection of how the military looks out for its own.

OFFICERS WERE PUNISHED

The two officers - the exercise's chief safety officer Chia Thye Siong and Pte Lee's platoon commander Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal - were cleared of all criminal charges.

The coroner's inquiry found that Pte Lee died from an acute allergic reaction to the zinc chloride fumes from the smoke grenades, adding that this was "unlikely to have been predicted". Pte Lee's death is, in fact, the first such death here since the SAF started using the smoke grenades in the 1970s.

Since Pte Lee's allergic reaction was "not reasonably foreseeable", the officers were not "directly responsible" for his death.

Still, they did not get away scot-free. A Committee of Inquiry found that both men were negligent during the training exercise and both were punished in a summary trial in 2013.

MINDEF still has yet to reveal the exact punishments. Even Pte Lee's family say they are in the dark.

Then earlier this week, it was revealed on social media that army regular Chia was promoted from captain to major a year after being punished. When asked to explain, the SAF would say only that both Major Chia and Captain Najib are no longer in supervisory positions.

Inevitably, questions remain. Why was the captain promoted so soon after the unfortunate incident?

On the flip side, it also needs to be asked just how much punishment might be sufficient, given that the officers were not found to have directly caused the soldier's death. How much pain, and for how long, should the system impose on a first-time offender?

The Straits Times understands that Maj Chia's promotion was already held back by more than a year. If that is not enough, what is?

The failed bid by the family of the late Private Dominique Sarron Lee to sue the SAF and two of its officers has sparked...
Posted by The Straits Times on Wednesday, March 9, 2016


IMMUNITY AGAINST SUITS

The defendants relied on a provision in the Government Proceedings Act which holds that a member of the armed forces, and also the police, who while on duty causes death or injury to another cannot be held liable for a civil wrongdoing.

The law was inherited from the United Kingdom's Crown Proceedings Act, which was enacted in 1947 to remove the government's total immunity from being sued. But it kept the immunity for the police and armed forces as an exception. The British government amended its Act in 1987 to erode this immunity. But Singapore has kept the law intact. And this ensures that the ability to train a conscript into a credible defence force is not undermined.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who in 1986 was minister of state for defence, said during a Budget debate: "You have to have the absolute confidence that you can make the judgment correctly. You cannot afford always to have at the back of your mind the thought that, 'If I do it wrong, will I be sued? Will the Government not back me? Should I have to appear in court?'"

But does it mean that the likes of Pte Lee's family cannot get justice or fair compensation?

Not true, said defence lawyer Amolat Singh. The veteran, who has represented many military men, said out-of-court settlements are based on "set principles and rules", adding that he has not yet encountered a situation in which his clients ended up with a raw deal.

And offenders can also be subject to criminal action.

As Brigadier-General Chan Wing Kai, commander of the army's Training and Doctrine Command, reiterated on Monday: "Those responsible through their rash and negligent acts will be held accountable under our Military Court and Criminal Law Courts."

There have been previous cases in which servicemen were charged and convicted in court for causing deaths because of recklessness.

Four commando officers were jailed in 2004 for causing the death of another serviceman who was put through unauthorised dunking sessions during combat survival training. More recently, a senior instructor was jailed for instigating an NSF to commit a rash act and trying to pervert the course of justice after an overturned jeep resulted in the death of another NSF.

JUSTICE NEEDS TO BE SEEN

MINDEF's response to the current uproar has left some observers asking if it could not have been more transparent.

Initially, it issued only a pithy statement last Thursday about supporting Pte Lee's family through their ordeal, but stopped short of addressing any of the swirling speculations about its investigations. Go through the forums and you will find pictures of Maj Chia's new rank and the stoking of anti-SAF and -NS sentiments.

The Singapore Army finally broke its silence four days later when it put up a lengthy post on Monday, detailing what it did in the aftermath of the incident and clarifying issues about the legal process. The same evening, Dr Ng addressed the issue, urging his ministry to waive the legal costs owed to it.

MINDEF and the officers have announced that they will waive the legal bill owed to them.

There are those who will cheer MINDEF's commitment to assisting Pte Lee's family. But there will also be some who wonder if the good intentions were simply to avert a public relations disaster which resulted from the very public pleas made by an anguished mother who lost her son. Questions remain.

How much compensation was offered to the family for Pte Lee's death? What were the punishments handed to the officers found guilty? What requests from the family did MINDEF reject and why?

Parents today are far more supportive of national service than in the past. They entrust their sons to the armed forces to defend the country. While everyone knows that this cannot be done without risks to life and limb, parents expect that the utmost will be done to keep their sons safe. And when things go wrong, as they sometimes will, parents will demand answers.

Defence analyst Ho Shu Huang, an associate research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said: "By allowing the conversation to be a free-for-all, handled without nuance outside of the context, generalised conclusions can be quite easily arrived at, with detrimental consequences."





* MINDEF explains stance on NSF Dominique Sarron Lee's death

It would 'overstep its powers' if it punished officers involved beyond their level of offence
The Straits Times, 18 Mar 2016

The military would have overstepped its powers and be legally challenged if it had punished two of its officers beyond the level of their offence in a 2012 training exercise in which full-time national serviceman Dominique Sarron Lee died from an allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades.

The Ministry of Defence said it would also be unfair to the two Singapore Armed Forces regulars - the exercise's chief safety officer Chia Thye Siong and Private Lee's platoon commander Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal. The latter threw six grenades, instead of two, flouting training safety rules.

Pte Lee's family tried to sue the military over his death but failed as the High Court threw out the lawsuit on March 3. This sparked a public outcry on social media.

In a forum letter published in The Straits Times today, Ms Lim Chuen Ni, MINDEF's director of public communications, said that key findings were released during a 2013 coroner's inquiry, a transparent process that was open to the public.

During the hearing, Pte Lee's relatives and their lawyer were also allowed to ask questions relating to Pte Lee's death and question the two officers.

She noted that some members of the public, including Pte Lee's family members, have disagreed with the coroner's findings. "They feel instead that the two SAF regulars should bear greater liability for the cause of death and receive greater punishment," said Ms Lim.

"It would be wrong to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. MINDEF/SAF would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged."

The level of punishment, Ms Lim noted, has to take into account the coroner's findings that "the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted". Arising from those findings, she said, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to prosecute anyone.

But the AGC informed MINDEF to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached training safety Regulations.

"MINDEF has done so, with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, including fines and delay in promotions," said Ms Lim.

While each death of a servicemen is "greatly regretted", Ms Lim said it is even more important when such incidents arise that "we maintain societal trust and integrity in respecting the due independent judicial processes to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required".

"The AGC has in the past prosecuted SAF servicemen who have been responsible for causing death due to rash acts or negligence."

And when found culpable, these servicemen were jailed.

She reiterated that a compensation package based on "the maximum extent of the compensation framework" was offered to Pte Lee's family.

Such compensation is generally two to four times that of the amount provided by the Work Injury Compensation Act for incidents arising from training and operations and is "no less than what would have been awarded by the court in cases where compensation was ruled to be payable", she said.

"We recognise that it is difficult for the family to find closure in this case and will continue to support them wherever possible."





The military would have overstepped its powers and be legally challenged if it had punished two of its officers beyond...
Posted by The Straits Times on Thursday, March 17, 2016






NSF's death and family's bid to sue: MINDEF replies


We refer to the recent reports and letters relating to the late Private Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron ("Family's failed bid to sue SAF sparks debate"; March 10 and "Family of NSF who died will get legal bill slashed"; March 9).

The key findings leading to the death of Pte Lee had been released during the coroner's inquiry in August 2013.

This was a transparent process, taking the form of an open hearing fully accessible to the public and media. The family of the late Pte Lee and their legal counsel were also present, and given opportunities to address any questions that they may have relating to his death to the court.

As part of the process, they were also allowed to pose questions to the two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) regulars concerned.

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

The coroner found that Pte Lee had died from "acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes" and that the allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted". All these were extensively reported by the local media.

Arising from the coroner's findings of fact, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted.

As such, the AGC informed the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached training safety regulations. MINDEF has done so, with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, including fines and delay in promotions.

In the recent High Court hearing, the court struck out the legal suit by Pte Lee's family against MINDEF.

While MINDEF recognises that no amount of compensation will make up for the loss of a loved one, a package of financial compensation based on the maximum extent of the compensation framework was offered to the family.

Such compensation is generally two to four times that of the amount provided under the Work Injury Compensation Act for incidents arising from training and operations and is no less than what would have been awarded by the court in cases where compensation was ruled to be payable.

Some members of the public, including the late Pte Lee's family members, have disagreed with the coroner's findings.

They feel instead that the two SAF regulars should bear greater liability for the cause of death and receive greater punishment.

It would be wrong to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. MINDEF/SAF would be overstepping its powers and would be legally challenged.

Most importantly, it would be unfair to the two SAF regulars. In particular, the level of punishment has to take into account the coroner's findings that Pte Lee's fatal allergic reaction was unlikely to have been predicted.

Each death of our servicemen is greatly regretted but when these incidents arise, it is even more important that we maintain societal trust and integrity in respecting the due independent judicial processes to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required.

The AGC has in the past prosecuted SAF servicemen who have been responsible for causing death due to rash acts or negligence. When they were found culpable, the courts have sentenced them to jail.

In this particular case, the AGC decided not to prosecute anyone.

As we expressed in Parliament in 2012, we extend again our deepest condolences to the family of Pte Lee and are deeply sorry for the untimely and tragic loss of Pte Lee.

We recognise that it is difficult for the family to find closure in this case and will continue to support them wherever possible.

Lim Chuen Ni (Ms)
Director, Public Communications
MINDEF Communications Organisation
Ministry of Defence
ST Forum, 18 Mar 2016





Parliament: Officers punished by setbacks in careers, fines, over NSF Dominique Sarron Lee's death: Ng Eng Hen

2 officers lost sum worth 'half their annual salary'
By Rachel Au-Yong, The Straits Times, 25 Mar 2016

The two army officers involved in the incident in which a 21-year-old full-time national serviceman (NSF) died from a reaction to a chemical in smoke grenades lost an amount worth half their annual salary when their promotions were delayed.

And these punishments, which included fines, were commensurate with their level of culpability and the severity of the offence, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen told Parliament yesterday as he stressed the judicial processes involved were fair and transparent.

Responding to Non-Constituency MP Dennis Tan who wanted to know how Captain Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal and Major Chia Thye Siong were punished, Dr Ng said both men suffered a setback in their careers. "The monetary cost of the promotion delays is significant, amounting to about half of their total annual salaries," he disclosed, and added it would be wrong and unfair to punish servicemen beyond the level of their offence.

"Both officers have suffered a setback in their careers. The monetary cost of the promotion delays is significant, amounting to about half of their total annual salaries," said Dr Ng Eng Hen.
Posted by The Straits Times on Thursday, March 24, 2016


In the incident on April 17, 2012, Cpt Najib, the platoon commander, allowed the use of six grenades even though he knew the safety regulations put the cap at two. Maj Chia, then a captain, was the safety officer for the training.

Private Dominique Sarron Lee died after being exposed to zinc chloride in the smoke grenades.

His case came under the public spotlight again after the High Court struck out a lawsuit brought against the two officers and Singapore Armed Forces by Pte Lee's family.

Yesterday, Dr Ng stressed that SAF servicemen can be, and have been, charged and punished in the criminal courts for acts committed during their duties. The decision to pursue a criminal case lies with the Attorney-General's Chambers, which will take into account the findings of a Coroner's Inquiry - both of which are "judicial processes outside the SAF".

"All these processes were applied in the tragic death of the late Pte Lee. The Attorney-General decided not to prosecute the two officers as the Coroner had found they were not reckless or negligent," he said.

This was because the allergic reaction suffered by Pte Lee was unlikely to have been predicted.

Dr Ng also explained that an allergy to zinc chloride from smoke grenades is known but rare, which is why militaries in many countries, including the US and South Korea, still use them. Pte Lee's death from the allergy was the first recorded case here after more than 30 years of regular use of the smoke grenades.

Nevertheless, the SAF switched to alternatives in March 2014 following a safety review of Pte Lee's case. "Our safety standards are among the highest for militaries globally," said Dr Ng.

He added: "This is a tragic loss of life, unexpected and unintended. The two SAF officers involved will carry with them the pain of this incident for the rest of their lives. But I do not believe that they started that fateful day intending at all to harm the soldiers under their charge."





* Security forces need protection from civil suits: Ng Eng Hen

Minister defends law, saying they won't be able to respond to threats effectively if they always have to second-guess
By Rachel Au-Yong, The Straits Times, 25 Mar 2016

While there are countries which no longer give their police and soldiers protection from civil suits, many have come to regret the decision.

And a similar move here could leave Singapore with a security force constantly second-guessing itself, reducing its effectiveness.

This was the response from Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen to Parliament yesterday after Non-Constituency MP Dennis Tan suggested weakening Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA).

The provision was inherited from the British and holds that a member of the armed forces, and the police, who causes death or injury to another member of the security forces while on duty, cannot be sued for negligence.

It was this provision which two army officers and the Singapore Armed Forces relied on when sued by the family of a full-time national serviceman who died in 2012 after an allergic reaction to smoke grenades during a military exercise.

The High Court dismissed the suit, and many members of the public questioned the fairness of Section 14 of the GPA.


“It would be wrong and unfair to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence committed”: Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen says the Coroner’s findings have to be taken into consideration in punishing the 2 SAF officers for the death of PTE Dominique Sarron Lee. http://bit.ly/1Pt4GnZ
Posted by Channel NewsAsia Singapore on Thursday, March 24, 2016


But Dr Ng explained the need for the provision which lets officers respond to threats effectively instead of wondering whether their actions could lead to them being sued.

Citing a hypothetical example of servicemen being tasked to patrol Jurong Island and spotting a significant threat, Dr Ng said: "Do they stop the person, or will they hold back, thinking, 'If I make the wrong decision, then I'm on my own?'

"A civil suit is not a trivial matter."

Mr Tan said the provision might lead to a moral hazard in which officers might be less inclined to take precautions, thinking they are protected by the GPA.

But Dr Ng replied that the Act actually reduces moral hazard, since it gives immunity only in less serious cases. If servicemen commit rash acts, they are not protected.

They can be prosecuted in the criminal courts and end up in jail, said Dr Ng.

Mr Tan also suggested that the GPA apply only during actual operations and be waived during training.

But Dr Ng said that training must be realistic for it to be effective. Singapore's armed forces cannot be expected to train at one pace and be expected to ramp up their capabilities in real operations.

"There is a saying, 'When you don't train and sweat, you will spill blood in real operations'," he said.

He added: "Can you get a level of proficiency if servicemen think they are not protected during training?"

Dr Ng did invite Mr Tan to table a motion for the House to debate an amendment to the GPA if he felt strongly about it. "Do you want to give our security forces the confidence that when they do their job, and when they do it without recklessness or negligence, that the Government Proceedings Act protects them?" he asked.

Referring to the case of Private Dominique Sarron Lee, who died after being exposed to zinc chloride in the smoke grenades, Dr Ng said: "I looked at the facts very carefully. I think we have done right by everyone. We're of course sad, but I think we still need to do what is right for the entire system."





* NSF's death: High Court says why it dismissed suit against SAF

SAF needs to protect nation without being burdened by civil liability, judge says
By Ng Huiwen, The Straits Times, 29 Jun 2016

The High Court has explained why it dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) over the death of full- time national serviceman Dominique Sarron Lee, saying it was "without reasonable prospect of success".

The family of the 21-year-old private tried to sue the SAF for breach of contract of service and two of its officers for negligence after he suffered a fatal allergic reaction to fumes from smoke grenades used during a military exercise in 2012. The case was thrown out in March.

In written grounds released yesterday, Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh accepted arguments by the defendants, who relied on a provision in the Government Proceedings Act indemnifying them from being sued for negligence for deaths and injuries if the acts are certified to be attributable to service.

The judge noted that such an immunity has imposed on the SAF and its officers "an even heavier moral burden" to ensure the utmost care of its charges.

"I am entirely convinced that the SAF and all who command it fully recognise the weight of that burden and do their very best to sedulously discharge it," he wrote.

"However, despite the best intentions and careful and meticulous planning, mistakes can and unfortunately sometimes do happen."

Calling the circumstances of the case "undoubtedly tragic", he added: "I am mindful of the anguish, pain and grief that this has caused Mr Lee's family and all those who cherish him."

But he stressed that the case also concerns the ability of the SAF and its officers to "safeguard our nation and her security" without being "burdened" by civil liability. "It is the responsibility of the courts to give effect to that legislative intention," he wrote.



The court ruled in March that Pte Lee's family would have to pay costs of $22,000 to the three defendants, which the judge yesterday reiterated was "reasonable".

This contributed to a public outcry, with some calling the SAF's handling of the case callous. A fund-raising drive was started to help pay the family's legal costs.

However, six days after the ruling, and following a Facebook post by Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen, the ministry and the two officers decided to waive their costs.

Dr Ng explained at the time that while the High Court's judgment in awarding the costs was based on sound legal grounds and precedents, there was no need to "add to the pain and anguish" of Pte Lee's family.

He said the SAF "must learn from every accident, fix lapses and improve", adding: "This is the way we honour all those who have given their all to build a strong and honourable SAF."

The SAF also revealed in March that the two officers had been found guilty of negligence in a summary trial in 2013, even though a Coroner's Inquiry and an independent Committee of Inquiry did not find them "directly responsible" for Pte Lee's death.

It said "administrative and disciplinary action" was taken against the two, though it was not clear what punishment was meted out.

Pte Lee's family filed the civil suit last year. Platoon commander Captain Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal was defended by Mr R.S. Bajwa, while safety officer Captain Chia Thye Siong was defended by Mr Laurence Goh.




Related

Reply by Minister for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen, to a Parliamentary Question on Punishments Given to Two SAF Officers Who Caused the Death of a National Serviceman in Training Exercise in 2012 at Parliament House

No comments:

Post a Comment