Military Detention - A Day in the Life of a Detainee
-
For any NSF contemplating mischief or confronting the SAF norms, here is an article from ST 7 October 2003 publication:
I wasted 7 years fleeing National Service
Every year, several hundred national servicemen find themselves in lockup for running away from military service or drug abuse. Rehabilitation helps to make sure they stay out when they get out.
GOH CHIN LIAN reports
-----------------------------------------
WHEN he first landed in detention in May 1996 for running away from military service, the first thing he was made to do was strip from head to toe in 30 seconds.
For every button or boot lace he left done, he had to do 20 push-ups.
Later, the daily physical regime was so tough it killed his appetite for food. But the rigorous discipline did not break him.
'I used to be a devil here,' confessed Jarrod (not his real name), 26, a full-time national serviceman.
'I wouldn't greet the sergeants. When they told me to sit, I would say, go fly kite. I was arrogant, very hot-tempered.'
He would get thrown into solitary confinement in a 3m by 1.5m cell with no windows for three days at a stretch to cool down.
It took Jarrod a long time to cool his hot head. He has spent seven terms in detention over seven years.
His current sentence is for 18 months, which can be reduced to 12 for good behaviour.
He could have got out after a year during his sixth term, but got three extra months for possessing a razor blade.
He said: 'I signed the extra sentence smiling.'
Jarrod is a repeat offender, one of more than 230 servicemen in detention today who experience the sharp end of the military justice system.
Every year, about 8,000 minor offences, such as poor conduct, are tried in summary trials by officers in the individual military units, who have the authority to send offenders to detention for up to 40 days.
Not every case ends in detention.
Offenders can be fined and given extra duty, among other punishments.
Reports of summary trials are sent within 24 hours to the Singapore Armed Forces' Legal Services Department to make sure they are in order, although it is rare that sentences are overturned.
The more serious offences, such as repeated absence without official leave (AWOL) and drug abuse, go up to the more powerful court martial.
The heaviest punishment the court has given in more than three decades is three years' imprisonment in a civilian jail for desertion and repeated drug use, although it has the power to sentence a man to die, for treason.
But checks are in place to make sure that due process is done in the court, which hears about 500 cases a year.
It is helmed by NSmen who are magistrates, district judges or registrars in the civil courts.
Two other court members are selected from regular or NSmen officers, and decisions are arrived at by consensus.
The accused can hire civilian lawyers, but most opt for a military officer who knows them because most cases like AWOL and drug use are so clear-cut that the best a lawyer can do is to mitigate the sentence.
The court will help defending officers who are unfamiliar with the process.
Not surprisingly, offenders pleaded guilty in 443 out of 461 cases last year, rather than claim trial.
Appeals can also be made, either before a reviewing committee of the Armed Forces Council - headed by a permanent secretary for defence - for a lighter sentence on compassionate grounds, or the five-men Military Court of Appeal, now helmed by former Supreme Court judge Goh Joon Seng, to dispute the sentence on legal grounds.
Nine cases went up to the Armed Forces Council committee last year, but only one was successful.
A full-time serviceman had his 12 months' detention for using a military jeep without proper authority and licence reduced to five months when the committee found the sentence too severe.
One case went up to the court of appeal last year, involving a full-time national serviceman who had been sentenced to four months' detention for AWOL a third time in about five months.
The military prosecutor argued that this was not severe enough based on sentences handed out in other court-martial cases. The court of appeal increased the sentence to 10 months.
Sometimes, cases are heard in civilian court instead, even though a court martial has the power to try those who come under SAF law for both military and civilian offences, and mete out prison sentences.
What counts is whether civilians are involved and 'whether the public will perceive it fairer to try the case in a civilian court', said Mr Han Neng Hsiu, a manager with the Defence Ministry handling military justice matters.
For example, drug trafficking and rape cases involving SAF personnel would go to the civilian courts, but not drug use and molestation within the SAF.
The military court is open to the public and the media.
Usually, relatives and superiors of the accused will turn up at the three-year-old court martial centre on Choa Chu Kang Way, a few minutes' walk from Yew Tee MRT station.
Once the accused is sentenced to detention, a military policeman escorts him out by a back door.
It is just a five-minute drive down the road to very long nights in the detention barracks.
Ah Seng (not his real name), 19, had trouble sleeping when he was first put in detention in January for getting high on a cough mixture he had obtained illegally.
'I'd think about the life outside, how my family and my girlfriend are doing,' he said.
'I'd lose my temper and get into arguments with my cellmates, when they kept turning about while I was trying to sleep.
'I just hope the time can pass quickly, so I can get out in January next year.'
JARROD is finally determined not to return to detention ever again.
His turnaround has come about partly because of a rehabilitation programme introduced three years ago to deal with repeat offenders.
Detainees carry out lighter physical exercises twice a week instead of a daily march with an 18kg load on their backs, a form of deterrence now reserved for first-timers.
They are allowed to study and take the N, O and A levels while behind bars. Six did so in 2001, 24 last year and 42 this year.
Girlfriends can now also visit, once a week.
Backing these changes is Lieutenant-Colonel Sim Teck Siong, 45, commandant of the SAF Detention Barracks.
He makes it a point to walk among the cells every Thursday to hear complaints. He has made allowances for detainees to go out under escort to get married, file for divorce and visit a dying grandparent in hospital.
This is compassion for a purpose; carrots sometimes work better than sticks.
'When we care for them and are prepared to go to this extent, it will touch their hearts,' said Lt-Col Sim, who has been with the barracks for three years.
'They find that they can't say no to authority.'
But there is no let-up in discipline, he said, and those who disobey the rules would still be punished.
Privileges, such as visits from girlfriends, can be easily revoked, which sends a very clear signal on where the real power lies.
'That's powerful. They will see that it's of great priority and would then cooperate with the regime,' said Ms Ellen Heng, the in-house counsellor. Ms Heng, who has counselled drug abusers in the SAF since the 1970s, tries to get detainees to work through the personal problems which sent them to detention in the first place, either individually or in groups.
The majority are there because they ran away from national service.
Some do it to work, so they can earn money for pressing reasons, such as paying a relative's medical bills. She gives them advice on where they can get financial help.
While in detention, many feel guilty for not being able to provide for the family, or worry about debts, or relationships with girlfriends.
Ms Heng teaches the detainees techniques to de-stress and control their thoughts, and has plans to introduce more sessions, from managing anger to dealing with gambling habits.
Some will see reason and focus on getting out through good behaviour.
But others remain in denial, and keep trying to get out of national service by telling all kinds of stories.
They tend to come from broken homes, and are continuing a pattern of running away from home or school, she said.
Jarrod too was a school dropout and a former secret society member who was brought up by his aunt after his father died.
He rarely saw his mother.
He was a recruit in the army for barely a few weeks when he decided not to return to camp one weekend, but to work to pay off his debts instead.
He juggled two jobs, as delivery boy by day and hotel cleaner by night, and stayed with friends until he was caught two months later. He was sentenced to 40 days in detention by a summary trial in his unit.
A few weeks after his release, he ran away from camp again for the same reason.
This time, a military court sentenced him to four months' detention. Still, he would run away four more times.
When he stepped out of the barracks for the sixth time in June last year, he met a girl who turned his life around.
They were to get married, but he had a run-in with his army unit over submitting a wrong residential address.
Fearful that he would be charged and have to postpone his marriage, he ran away again.
He surrendered himself 10 days after registering his marriage, and was sentenced to 18 months' detention.
He gets letters from his wife and in-laws, who also visit him every week.
His wife, 23, has just found a security job, and is trying to save money to buy a home.
'I see my wife's black eye bags. She doesn't get enough sleep and has lost a lot of weight,' he said.
He will be released in February if he behaves well, and then have another 11 months of national service.
Said Jarrod: 'There's not one minute a day that I don't think of my wife.
'I've wasted seven years here and now I just want to finish NS.' -
26 still so childish.
-
they wud rather sacrifice 2-2/12 yrs temp "confinement" then just suck it up , get it over wit and then freedom
instead they end up being confined even longer
dunno how these ppl think
its so fun 2 wear green not 2 mention so much pride
-
It is shocking that AWOL remains the top Military Offense since NS was introduced in 1967.
Below is an article from ST 6 October 2003 that was first posted in this "Military Nuts" but was vaporised for some reason.
WHAT'S THE NO. 1 OFFENCE IN THE SINGAPORE MILITARY?
Soldiers Absent Without Official Leave
Over half of those in detention barracks last year had gone Awol, but figures down since rehabilitation began 3 years ago
By Goh Chin Lian
HE ENLISTED in the army in 1991, yet when he left 12 years later, he had barely completed five months of his two-year national service training.
The 31-year-old former private at an air base is among the oldest serial absentees in the Singapore Armed Forces, having repeatedly been in and out of the military lock-up for 11 years for running away from his duty.
He was finally discharged in February this year on medical grounds.
His case is extreme, but going Absent Without Official Leave, or Awol, is the most common offence in the military here, according to Defence Ministry figures released to The Straits Times for a first-ever look at military justice.
Of the 461 military personnel court-martialled last year, 320 had gone Awol.
And of the 940 men serving their sentences in the military detention barracks last year, more than half or 509 were guilty of Awol, including reservists.
But based on a 50,000-strong active force, SAF's Awol rate is one in 116 full-time soldiers.
However, the numbers going Awol have been dropping, down 27 per cent in two years, since rehabilitation for repeat offenders began in 2000.
The figures put Singapore somewhere between Taiwan, which also has national service, and Britain. In Taiwan last year, one in 456 soldiers went missing while in Britain's professional army, the rate is one in 48 in 1999.
Professional armies count bullying, fear of being deployed and homesickness as some of the reasons soldiers go Awol.
SAF servicemen sometimes run away to find a job to pay off debts owed to loan sharks, said Major (NS) Louis D'Souza, a senior deputy director at the Legal Aid Bureau who has been a president of the court martial for 10 years.
Others want to sort out problems with their girlfriends or cannot bear the regimented life, he added.
They face up to two years in the detention barracks each time they go Awol, depending on how long they stay away and what led to it.
If it is proven that they never intended to return, they can be jailed for up to 10 years for desertion.
Said Major D'Souza: 'They can't escape their problems by running away. They would have saved themselves from more problems if they had asked for help.'
In the last three years, the military has been giving more help to these troubled servicemen. Instead of punishing detainees with a tough physical regime that includes marching with an 18kg load on their backs, repeat offenders undergo rehabilitation.
They do lighter physical exercises, may study and get to meet their girlfriends.
In short, more effort is being directed at addressing why servicemen get in trouble in the first place, rather than just trying to deter them from repeating the offence.
The results are telling. From 702 people detained for Awol in 2000, it went down to 605 in 2001 and 509 last year.
The same approach, used against offenders for drug abuse and for misconduct and disobedience, helped bring down the overall numbers behind bars from 1,329 in 2000 to 940 last year.
Since July this year, a counsellor has been stationed full-time at the barracks in Lorong Kebasi, Choa Chu Kang.
There are also plans to introduce art and craft classes to help build such qualities as patience, as servicemen tend to commit offences 'on the spur of a moment', said Lieutenant-Colonel Sim Teck Siong, 45, commandant of the SAF Detention Barracks.
'People are more educated nowadays, so we want them to think for themselves,' he said.
'When you use deterrence, you're making some of them more defiant.'
TOMORROW: Life in detention barracks -
they just wana act tough...its only 2.5 years..finish it n get on with our life..so easy..Originally posted by kopiosatu:26 still so childish.
ive once heard a 1st time AWOL Pte waiting to be send to DB..saying that those who stay for the 2.5 years are the fools..
n he is gona enjoy himself after he finish his sentence..
he tot that his sentence will be included in his 2.5years in NS..
so i tell him im gona ORD in a few mths time...he say SO!! he is gona ORD a few mth later after the sentence...
so i ask him how long is his DB sentence..he told me 7 mth...so i tell him that you are gona serve 7 mth more in Army to replace the time serve in DB..
obviously nobody tell him that -
If they want to AWOL, they should really AWOL to other countries.
Hope the officers tell them this... -
Hey, in today's newspaper report, they kinda mention the court martialled fella is allowed a lawyer leh .. even a civilian one?
-
if u r charged in the mil court u wil get a mil lawyer to defend u. (these ppl mabbe civilian lawyers volunteering for mindef).Originally posted by Icemoon:Hey, in today's newspaper report, they kinda mention the court martialled fella is allowed a lawyer leh .. even a civilian one? -
ayiah, take the lawyer lah...
siam then siam lor
the lawyer is probably a NSman who is thinking 'WTF, this idiot AWOL then put money in my pocket, muahhahahahahah' -
How's this different from JAG?
-
not as long winded as JAG?Originally posted by Icemoon:How's this different from JAG? -
Commander Harmon Rabb Jr (Naval Aviator) and Lieutenant-Colonel Sarah McKenzie (USMC)
others include
Rear-Admiral (Upper Half) A.J Chegwidden (USN Seal)
Commander Sturges Turner (USN Submariner) (Rabb's Coursemate in da academy)
Lieutenant Bud Roberts (USN)
Lieutenant Harriet Simms (USN) (Lieutenant Roberts's Wife)
Lieutenant Singer (USN) (Bitch in JAG)
(rumour has it tat she is Rabb's wife in real life)
Gunnery Sergeant Victor Galindez (USMC)
Petty Officer 1st Class Andrew Tiner (USN) (Admiral Chegwidden's yeoman) -
The SAF Military Lawyers do not get to play multi-roles of being a legal officer, investigator, counsellor, kung-fu fighter, wrestler, and having a broad shoulder for some teary eye to cry on.Originally posted by Icemoon:How's this different from JAG?
All of these activities happen only in 'movie land'. -
The following is an interesting observation made by a Singapore Straits Times reader, who wrote to the ST Forum.
COURT-MARTIAL
Accused at a disadvantage
I REFER to the article, 'I wasted 7 years fleeing national service' (ST, Oct 7).
In particular, I am writing in response to these paragraphs:
'But checks are in place to make sure that due process is done in the court, which hears about 500 cases a year. It is helmed by NSmen who are magistrates, district judges or registrars in the civil courts. Two other court members are selected from regular or NSmen officers, and decisions are arrived at by consensus.
'The accused can hire civilian lawyers, but most opt for a military officer who knows them because most cases like Awol and drug use are so clear-cut that the best a lawyer can do is to mitigate the sentence. The court will help defending officers who are unfamiliar with the process.'
With these paragraphs, the reporter has painted over some of the cracks that exist in the current legal process in the military.
Most servicemen who are accused in a court-martial opt for a military officer who knows them simply because that is the cheapest option: it's free. Many accused service-men cannot afford to pay for legal advice.
While officers are duty-bound to try their best in putting up a legal defence for their men, the fact of the matter remains that they are not professional legal advisers.
As far as I am aware, cadets undergoing training in Officer Cadet School do not undergo any sort of in-depth legal training, especially in defending an accused in a court-martial setting.
While I agree with the reporter that the current system works for the majority of clear-cut cases, the system does not work so well in cases where the truth is hidden in ambiguity. In such cases, a military officer can be completely useless, especially if he is inept due to inexperience.
Consider for a moment that military prosecutors are invariably full-fledged lawyers; consider as well that these prosecutors are on the 'other side', and are not there to help the defending officer conduct his defence.
In a civilian court, a defendant has the right of attorney - even at public expense - to ensure that the ensuing trial is balanced, and not lop-sided in favour of the prosecution. How is it that in the case of a military court, such lop-sidedness is not viewed with any alarm whatsoever?
Consider as well that a defending officer cannot possibly get any sort of help from the court in preparing for the court-martial hearing, as it is his responsibility, and not the court's, to do back-ground research into the case.
How, then, can the court help defending officers who are completely inexperienced in such matters? From what I can see, it seems like defending officers are left largely on their own to grapple with a large task.
I have a suggestion: perhaps the military should seriously look into the possibility of establishing some sort of military equivalent of a civilian public attorney, made available to defendants - at government expense - in select cases where the truth is not so clear-cut.
Alternatively - and preferably - the military could let defending officers make the decision to carry out the legal defence for the accused, or to let a professional lawyer from the SAF Legal Services handle the defence in cases where the officers think the accused stands a chance of being in the clear.
This would complement the existing system, while preventing any potential miscarriage of justice due to design flaws in the system.
TEH PEIJING -
Another reply to the previous reader's letter to ST Forum Page - on this subject of Military Law :
Let NSmen lawyers defend in military trials
I REFER to Mr Teh Peijing's letter, 'Accused at a disadvantage' (ST, Oct 10), which said that 'in a civilian court, a defendant has the right of attorney - even at public expense - to ensure that the ensuing trial is balanced... How is it that in the case of a military court, such lop-sidedness is not viewed with any alarm whatsoever?'.
However, in a civilian court, there is no right to a lawyer at public expense.
Article 9 of Singapore's Constitution does say that 'where a person is arrested, he shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice', but there is no provision for the right to legal aid. The position of the civilian accused is no better than that of the military accused.
The civilian accused who is facing criminal proceedings has no access to the lawyers of the Ministry of Law's Legal Aid Bureau (LAB), which deals only with civil matters, and has to turn to the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (Clas), which is run by volunteer lawyers and wholly funded by donations.
Both schemes administer a 'means test' before deciding if legal aid is to be granted.
Furthermore, Clas covers only cases where the accused claims trial, and not cases where the accused pleads guilty. It is only in death penalty cases that those accused are represented by state-assigned counsel paid for by public funds.
In fact, the military accused is, arguably, in a better position than the civilian accused, as there is no means test to representation by a military officer.
The downside is that military defending officers are usually young, legally untrained full-time national servicemen.
Given that the majority of cases are clear-cut offences such as going AWOL and drug use, which are mainly plead-guilty cases, the lacuna would lie in cases where the accused claims trial but does not have the benefit of a qualified defence counsel.
Mr Teh suggests that a professional lawyer from the Defence Ministry's Legal Services handle the defence where the accused stands a chance of being cleared of the alleged crime.
This would be tantamount to a single law firm playing the role of both prosecutor and defence counsel.
Legal aid is delivered through the 'compensated private counsel' or 'salaried staff attorney' modes. The LAB uses a hybrid system; it has salaried full-time legal officers and also enlists lawyers in private practice for a fee sourced from public funds.
The Government has shown its unwillingness for the LAB to undertake criminal cases. In 1995, Law Minister S. Jayakumar said in Parliament that it was 'incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the State has decided ought to be charged in court, and use public funds at the same time to get him off'.
If the LAB is to take on the extra function of defending the accused in military offences, this would contradict the Government's policy and the LAB's role of handling only civil cases.
If the LAB does take on military offences, this would, in all fairness, require an entire overhaul of the bureau to include the defence of criminal offences as well.
The solution could lie in asking Clas to expand its ambit to offences under the Singapore Armed Forces Act. Of course, this would entail an added burden and cost to the Law Society and it would be up to the goodwill of the legal profession to implement this.
Another solution could be for combat-unfit NSmen lawyers in private practice to serve as defence counsel in military trials (with the exception of plead-guilty cases), with such service contributing to their operational-ready national service liability.
Given that court martials are already helmed by civilian judicial officers who serve as NSmen court martial presidents, the same system could apply for the role of defence counsel.
This would bring in legal expertise for the accused and balance the legal training of the prosecutors and the court martial presidents in the courtroom, and leave the simpler task of mitigation for plead-guilty cases to the military defending officer.
Such a scheme could be the answer to Mr Teh's call for a 'military equivalent of a civilian public attorney'.
TOH SHIN HAO