你自己評論吧！

NewFuture

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com ... ominique-lees-death

SAF CAPTAIN CHIA PROMOTED TO MAJOR DESPITE NEGLIGENCE IN DOMINIQUE LEE'S DEATH
Submitted by farhan on Mon, 07/03/2016 - 6:43pm


Dear All Singapore Stuff,


I feel that a grave injustice is done to private Dominique's family. The public deserves to know that the two officers were not "punished" despite what MINDEF claimed. One of them, Captain Chia Thye Siong Jeffery was even promoted one year seven months after the incident.

Now many people thought they were court martialled and case closed. Please let the public know that's not the case and for one of them, he was in fact promoted. Please let there just a little bit of Justice be done.

Date of Dominique Lee's death: 17 April 2012
Date of Captain Chia's Promotion: Est. 22 November 2014

Duration in Between: Approximately 1 year 7 months

Nat Tey
A.S.S. Contributor



SAF CAPTAIN CHIA晉升為少校，儘管疏忽DOMINIQUE李的死亡


親愛的所有東西新加坡，


我覺得，一個嚴重的不公平做是為了私人多米尼克的家庭。公眾有權知道這兩名軍官並沒有“懲罰”，儘管國防部什麼要求。其中一人，隊長謝THYE菘杰弗瑞1年甚至被提拔事件發生後七個月。

現在很多人認為他們軍法法院和結案。請讓公眾知道這是不是這種情況，並為他們中的一個，他在事實上促進。請讓那裡只是司法的一點點來完成。

2012年4月17：多米尼克·李的死亡日期
斯：正大隊長的促銷日期。 2014年11月22日

持續時間之間：約1年7個月

ohia2016

沒人會蠢到punish自己的鷹犬吧。

NewFuture

ohia2016 发表于 8-3-2016 07:45 AM
沒人會蠢到punish自己的鷹犬吧。

可能拉耳朵，
蹲上下10下。。。

ohia2016

NewFuture 发表于 8-3-2016 08:01 AM
可能拉耳朵，
蹲上下10下。。。

當然是賞骨頭唄

NewFuture

ohia2016 发表于 8-3-2016 08:05 AM
當然是賞骨頭唄

素金做的。

kcchiew

他们两个只是不按规定放烟雾弹，这样放应该不是第一次，其他普通/哮喘病战备军人没事，也没有证据显示两名军官要害死者。

法庭判他们没刑事罪，请问军事法庭应该要定他们什么罪名？ 两年内不能升职？

花心大萝卜

好羡慕。老板花钱请楼主来上cari吹水。Senang senang 过日子。

NewFuture

花心大萝卜 发表于 8-3-2016 12:45 PM
好羡慕。老板花钱请楼主来上cari吹水。Senang senang 过日子。

sama-sama...
中文。

三言两语

犯 过 错 误 以 后 就 不 能 升 职 哦 ， 原 来 马 国 人 这 么 自 诩 清 高  。
可 是  为 了 拯 救 马 国 毒 贩 ， 马 国 人 却 可 以 什 么 猴 戏 都 演 得 出 。

NewFuture

http://www.tremeritus.com/2016/0 ... -promoted-to-major/

‘Punished’ SAF Captain promoted to Major

In a statement issued on Monday (7th Mar), the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) said that the platoon commander and the chief safety officer of the exercise that resulted in the death of full-time national serviceman (NSF) Dominique Sarron Lee were punished in accordance with military law in 2013.
Dominique’s platoon commander during the exercise was Captain Najib Hanuk Muhamad Jalal, while the safety officer was Captain Jeffery Chia Thye Siong.
According to a Facebook post by Commander of Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Brigadier General (BG) Chan Wing Kai, both the Captains were disciplined in 2013, even though they escaped criminal charges.
While the CI and COI (Committee of Inquiry) 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.
However, BG Chan did not elaborate on what the punishments were.
‘Punished’ officer promoted to Major

According to a reader who contacted TRE, it is revealed that one of the officers involved in the exercise which resulted in NSF Dominique’s death was promoted within a year or so of his “punishment”.
TRE verified the information from MINDEF’s official website and true enough, safety officer Captain Jeffery Chia Thye Siong was promoted to the rank of Major per this official army news publication, which was released on 14th July 2014.
From information available from official sources, here are the dates and chain of events.
Date of Dominique Lee’s death: 17 April 2012
Date the officers were punished:  Year 2013
Date of Captain Chia’s Promotion:  July 2014
TRE understands that in uniformed civil service, promotion within a year or so of a “punishment” for a major breach is practically unheard of. Normally one’s promotion would be halted or suspended for years before being re-considered.
Besides, promotion to a Major rank is not automatic and time-based, it has to be endorsed by those at the top and CSC.
Maybe “negligent performance of lawful order or duty” resulting in death is a minor breach, maybe Captain Major Jeffery Chia must have been one hell of an officer who has performed beyond excellence or maybe its just a coincidence that there is another Captain Chia in the SAF with the same name.
What do you  think?

NewFuture

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/ ... nse-safs-statement/


Open letter by Dominique’s family in response to SAF’s statement


The below post is made on the Facebook page that was created in memory of Dominique Sarron Lee who passed away due to an accident during a routine army training exercise in April 2012.  This was made in response to an earlier statement made by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to clarify issues surrounding the lawsuit that was struck out by the High Court. (read original post here)

By Family of Dominique Sarron Lee

Following the Facebook post by Dominique’s mum, we have been surprised and touched by the show of support and words of encouragement from members of the public. We, the family, would like to sincerely thank those who have given their support and encouragement.

The family would like to clarify our position and address some of the misconceptions that have arisen due to lack of accurate information.

CI AND COI FINDINGS

MINDEF in its Facebook posting today (Key Findings from the Death of PTE Dominique Sarron Lee, 7 March 2016), stated that Dominique’s death was “unlikely to have been predicted”. If this was the case, why then is there a Training Safety Regulation to limit to 2, the number of smoke grenades to be used in the specific exercise that Dominique was involved in to begin with? How did SAF decide on this limit as being within safety regulation of such an exercise?

MINDEF has also repeatedly reiterated that the coroner had noted that Dominique “had under played and under declared his asthmatic condition.” Yet the coroner had also opined that asthma had a weak correlation to the allergic reaction that Dominique suffered in the exercise. Furthermore, the Minister for Defence himself had said that even those without asthma may be affected by the effects of zinc chloride. So our question is, did Dominique’s alleged under play and under declaration of his condition contribute directly to his untimely demise? Our layman conclusion is that it does not.

In the Facebook statement, MINDEF stated that “the coroner noted that more smoke grenades than necessary were used during the exercise, but could not ascertain whether the acute allergic reaction was due to concentration and/or the mere exposure of zinc chloride fumes”. We had learnt anecdotally from SAF personnel, immediately after the tragic incident, that Dominique had taken part in a similar exercise before where the TSR had not been bridged. This to us, suggests that the fatal allergic reaction occurred due to concentration of rather than mere exposure to zinc chloride fumes, which brings us back to the question of MINDEF’s TSR of 2 smoke grenades as being within safety limits.

If the safety hazard has to do with mere exposure to zinc chloride fumes, then the regulation on the number of smoke grenades would be irrelevant as the grenades should not even be in use at all. In that regard, we would like to ask MINDEF about the new N452 smoke grenades that have be introduced since the incident. How are they an improvement to the previous smoke grenades? Has any test been done to ascertain if the concentration and/or mere exposure to the fumes would result in acute allergic reaction? Can MINDEF/SAF share the safety aspect(s) of such an assessment (if any) with the public? What are the chemical compound(s) found in these new smoke grenades?

NewFuture

It is a fact that Dom died from the effects of the smoke grenades thrown. It is also a fact that the number of smoke grenades thrown exceeded thrice the safety limits. We do not know how more direct a link one can infer from this, about the factors leading to Dominique’s untimely death. The Coroner’s Inquiry is to ascertain the cause of death. The Coroner’s Inquiry does not determine whether or not the 2 officers or MINDEF is/are culpable or not. Can MINDEF kindly make this point clear in its statement? The Minister for Defence, in his Parliamentary Statement in November 2012, stated that the COI concluded that the two officers were negligent. But in the Facebook statement, BG Chan stated that the COI “did not find that the two officers were directly responsible for PTE Lee’s death”. Can MINDEF again, kindly clarify if the Ministerial Statement or the Facebook statement was erroneous?

ACCOUNTABILITY OF MINDEF/SAF

MINDEF/SAF has not apologized formally to the family for the incident resulting in Dominique’s death. We had previously requested that the Minister for Defence offer the apology directly to Dominique’s mum as acknowledgement of the negligence on their part, and of the grief she has suffered, but we were rebuffed. We were told by the MINDEF representative, in no uncertain terms, that the Minister will never apologise for the incident, nor will any senior official from MINDEF/SAF.

Subsequently, we offered an olive branch to MINDEF. Instead of the personal apology, we requested for MINDEF to pay for Dom’s tomb as a symbolic gesture, but this was again rejected. Legal constraints were cited as the reason for the rejection. It is only today (7 March 2016) that we see the first statement of apology from MINDEF in their Facebook statement addressed to the general public.

We have repeatedly asked for details on how the two officers have been dealt with as the Minister for Defence had said in Parliament in November 2012, that they had been negligent in their duties. The COI had also found that they did not comply with safety regulations.

We are not out to persecute the two officers, nor asking for them to be crucified. We do not believe in an eye for an eye. We are only asking for MINDEF/SAF to be accountable. Minister K. Shanmugam himself had said in Parliament in May 2012, that “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”. But MINDEF/SAF has thus far, refused to show us how the justice has been done.

All we know for sure from recent Facebook postings by netizens, is that one of the officers was promoted in July 2014. To our layman understanding, this seems to be a contradiction of the assurances by MINDEF/SAF that the negligent officers have been duly dealt with, that justice has been done.

Could MINDEF kindly clarify their statement in the Facebook posting, that ‘‘administrative and disciplinary action against the two officers” have been taken? Please inform the public how the two officers have been “punished according to military law” so that the public can see for themselves that the justice has been served, and not just know it to have been served.

IMPROVEMENTS TO SAFETY

It is of small comfort to the family to know that following Dominique’s death, improvements have been made to ensure the safety of all National Service men, with “the setting up of a Safety and Systems Review Directorate, the convening of a Respiratory Medicine Specialist Advisory Board to review medical classification Asthma, and the deploying of more safety officers on the ground as full-time Unit Safety Officers”, as well as the introduction of “new N452 grenades … to replace the smoke grenades used in that training exercise”. We wish all these safety measures had been in place sooner so that it would not have taken a death, Dominique’s death, for the SAF to realize their lapses in ensuring the safety of all National Service men.

NewFuture

SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILY

MINDEF’s statement revealed that we had “previously taken out a pre-action discovery application, which [we]subsequently withdrew” and that the court had “awarded costs to MINDEF”, which they had waived. What the statement does not mention is the fact that the said application was withdrawn because we accepted the AGC’s request to enter a mediation with MINDEF, and the agreement was made on the condition that the legal fees were waived. The mediation did not go as planned as MINDEF was not willing to accede to our request for either the Minister to apologise to the family or MINDEF to pay for Dominique’s tomb. Left with no other recourse, the family made the difficult decision of seeking redress in a civilian court.

We would like to clarify that this law suit has never been about money. It has always been about getting answers to our questions. We would not have taken the legal route had MINDEF been fully “committed to assisting and providing” us with the answers we seek.

To concerned members of the public, we would like to clarify that to date, we have not accepted nor received any compensation from MINDEF/SAF for Dominique’s untimely demise. The family has repeatedly rejected offers from MINDEF/SAF to discuss monetary compensation. We have only accepted a funeral grant to defray the cost of the funeral, on the same day Dominique was sent back home in a coffin. This grant, according to the SAF, is not part of the compensation.

Finally, we would like to appeal to the public be fair to Dr Chee Soon Juan. We had initiated the meeting with Dr Chee as we are at our wit’s end. We do not intend nor wish for this to be a political issue. We had, over the past 3 years, approached no less than 4 PAP MPs, including an anchor Minister and a GPC Chairman for their assistance. We had even written to the Prime Minister several times, pleading for help in getting answers. All they did was to direct our questions to MINDEF for their reply. Such help is as useful to us, as a comb is to Michael Jordan. We are not siding with any political party; we are just seeking answers to get some closure. We only seek accountability from MINDEF and SAF.

We are not asking Singaporeans to change the government; We are asking Singaporeans to demand that the government change the laws to achieve “justice and equality” for all. How can we continue to trust the government when we now know that they have set lower standards of accountability for themselves in law, when In fact they should set higher standards for themselves?

Unlike MINDEF, we do not have a team of lawyers or PR personnel to craft out statements. While their spin doctors spin ambiguities to manage the fiasco that they have created for themselves through their high-handed handling of our case, we can only rely on our own heartfelt responses to speak about what we intrinsically know to be an injustice to not just us, but the people of Singapore. We lay all our cards on the table. MINDEF, we ask that you do the same. Please be transparent. We do not think that Dominique’s death is in any way a matter of national security that requires secrecy. While you at it, kindly, with our permission, reveal to the public the compensation that you had intended to offer the family, so that all Singaporeans will know how much the life of a promising young man is worth to MINDEF.

kcchiew

NewFuture 发表于 9-3-2016 07:25 AM
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/03/open-letter-dominiques-family-response-safs-statement/


Open letter by Dominique’s family in response to SAF’s statement


...

这种情况是： “我怀疑你刻意造成我孩子死亡，请你证明你没故意让我孩子送死”

其实，全新加坡的人都知道，那是意外。 法律上，无意疏忽的意外，究竟能有什么罪名？

NewFuture

上次學生跳樓事件，
說受害者是被非禮的女生。
這次事件的受害者，
肯定是涉案又升職的官員吧？
呵。。。
anyway為人父母與父母官做到醬，
只要一個字：呵。。。
等你孩子孫子NS死掉了再來說風涼話吧！
呵。。。

kcchiew

NewFuture 发表于 9-3-2016 08:21 AM
上次學生跳樓事件，
所說受害者是被非禮的女生。
這次事件的受害者，
肯定是涉案又升職的官員吧？
呵。。。
anyway為人父母與父母官做到醬，
只要一個字：呵。。。
等你孩子NS死掉了再來說風涼話吧！
呵。。。

我相信，你把孩子放在大马的风险，会比我孩子进ns的风险大得多。

你信吗？

我信。

NewFuture

kcchiew 发表于 9-3-2016 08:25 AM
我相信，你把孩子放在大马的风险，会比我孩子进ns的风险大得多。

你信吗？

我信。

不知從什麼時候開始，
偶對新加坡已冷感，
也懶得與人爭辯。
看到靈異事件就post出來就好。
是非冷暖對錯，
身處此處的自己最清楚。
就醬。
恕不奉陪。

kcchiew

NewFuture 发表于 9-3-2016 08:33 AM
不知從什麼時候開始，
偶對新加坡已冷感，
也懶得與人爭辯。
。。。。。

没事，你放你的贴，我答你的贴，你不一定需要深入探讨一个话题；只要转贴然后叫人评论就行了。

kcchiew

挖了一些“历史”，一开始还有人在怪说军方救援不力，后来军方给了这个时间表：

According to the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), Lee experienced breathing difficulties at 12.30pm. Three minutes later, he lost consciousness. A Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) medic attended to him immediately.
At 12.46pm, he was evacuated via a safety vehicle to Sungei Gedong Medical Centre, where an SAF doctor attended to him at 12.52pm.
At 1.03pm, he was conveyed in an ambulance to the National University Hospital (NUH), with an SAF doctor continuing to resuscitate him en route to the hospital.
Lee arrived at the NUH at 1.22pm. He was pronounced dead at 2.05pm.

然后，就怪放太多烟雾 （因为验尸庭说致命原因是对化学物的反应）。。。

我想到的问题是，当年进入那充满烟雾的建筑物时，只有她儿子一个人吗？  

如果是一群军人一起进去里面，一个人呼吸困难致命， 我们能归罪于那违规放太多烟雾的长官吗？

NewFuture

kcchiew 发表于 9-3-2016 09:27 AM
挖了一些“历史”，一开始还有人在怪说军方救援不力，后来军方给了这个时间表：


然后，就怪放太多烟雾 （因为验尸庭说致命原因是对化学物的反应）。。。

我想到的问题是，当年进入那充满烟雾的建筑物时，只有她儿子一个人吗？  

如果是一群军人一起进去里面，一个人呼吸困难致命， 我们能归罪于那违规放太多烟雾的长官吗？

因為死者與母親選擇相信。
所以才有他們今天面對的局面。