To cut the story short, the Today paper reported, ‘A Committee of Inquiry convened after the incident found that the number of smoke grenades discharged (six), and the distance between the smoke grenades were in breach of training safety regulations.’ What does this mean?
In the mypaper, BG Chan Wing Kai, commander of the army’s Training and Doctrine Command was quoted to have said, ‘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.’
They were charged and found guilty of negligent. Was the act negligent, rash or something else? What does the word negligent imply? Let me use a simply analogy. If a soldier is only allowed to dunk a recruit in water for 5 seconds but instead dunked the recruit for 20 seconds. Is it an act of negligence or a rash act, or more serious?
Let me use another example, a medic is to inject some vaccine into a soldier. He is supposed to inject 10 ml but chose to inject 100ml and killed the patient. Is this an act of negligence or a rash act or something else?
If only two grenades would be allowed but six were thrown in, why, what was the intent? Unintentional, negligent?
What do you think?
How much is the life a Singapore son worth? Felicia handed her son to the SAF. The SAF returned her son in a coffin plus $50,000 or a bit more. Would $100k be enough, or $500k or how much you want? Obviously some people did not know the meaning of what a son meant to a mother and the family. It is priceless!
PS. ‘Contrary to misrepresentations, SAF personnel can be charged and punished in the criminal courts if they commit rash and negligent acts during the course of their military duties that lead to injuries or deaths…said the Army.’ Valerie Koh Today paper.