unauthorised training caused the death of a national service
-
Read up a bit about the CST incident. First of all, I am not here to argue who is right and who is wrong. Afterall, a precious life have been lost. It is really pointless to discuss that. However it would be more constructive to suggest ways to implement CST in a safer manner.
Been a recce trooper (God, I miss my bike even though it was crappy), I have been through CST and there are number of ways that the instructor will "torture" a POW. Stress positions, face to face with a huge German Sherpard, pour icy water down the trainee during interogation and plenty of other ways. Most memorable one was a bamboo stick stuck behind the knees and asked the trainee to bend backwards. That was excruciating pain. However, the course did make me realise that the mind is stronger than the body. So for me, I agree that the tough training should continue, despite the setbacks that has occurred.
It is unfortunate that a trainee died during the course (I am not mentioning the Rank/name not because I don't respect the dead, but out of respect for his family to prevent more grief that is already surrounding them now). Heads have already started rolling and investigation is currently undergoing. So lets leave it to MINDEF and the police for the time being.
I shall start the ball rolling on suggestions.
1) Have a MO (NSMEN or NSF) attached for the CST. Having a medic is no longer adequate as the medical training provided might not be sufficient for the medic to recognise the symptoms of near drowning when water treatment is conducted. Afterall, even in an actual POW situation, a POW that is alive is more valuable than a dead POW and this has often been depicted in an actual POW camp as well as in movies.
2) Before setting the trainees off on the training exercise. Medical examinations must again be conducted to ensure that trainees are not in a poor state of health before start of exercise.
3) Instructors should discuss with CDO head honcho and S3 branch and brief them on what are the techniques they will be using before start of each course. Review at the end of each course should be conducted by the CST training wing.
Hope that with constructive suggestions put forward by people, SAF training can be conducted in a safer manner. -
by mfscrewu:
"the course did make me realise that the mind is stronger than the body. So for me, I agree that the tough training should continue, despite the setbacks that has occurred."
"Hope that with constructive suggestions put forward by people, SAF training can be conducted in a safer manner."
HEAR HEAR !!! i agree man! -
35mm, I think you should try to set the record straight. It's sad if your view on this incident taint your relationship with the rest, ie. they'll always view you as a REMF and a cold-blooded fellow.
Perhaps you'll like to answer these few questions. Others can answer too.
1). Do you think the instructors are legally wrong?
2). All along, what do you think is the state of mind, ie. mens rea, of the instructors? Mens rea is a legal term, do a search on googles.
Specifically, do you think they did it with good intentions but acted like sadists or were they mad and real sadists to begin with?
3). Do you think the POW treatment [those with physical contact and manhandling] should be scrapped? Or should we make them legal but with safety checks?
4). Do you think the instructors are remorseful? Put yourself in their shoes. If a trainee died and others nearly died, will you brush them off as training accidents? -
1st off i'm not here 2 offend n e 1 or 2 make enemies
all i did wuz 2 post my pt of view
regarding ur qns
1) its not right 2 say whos wrong and whos right as we outsiders 2 tis incident dun know wat REALLY went wrong
sure findings have indicated tat its da fault of da instructors but i'm sure deep down theres more 2 it than just tis
2) my opinion is tat da instructors might have been 2 passionate n enthisiastic bout their job resulting in their being over zealous
3) i personally dun tink tat it shld b scrapped totally
may b in future we can have a staff officer 2gether wit da safety officer present 2 supervise when tis cse is being conducted
if it pleases may b some 1 outside of CDO?????
4) i've said b4 no 1 in their rite frame of mind wans 2 take away some 1s life
i believe they r feeling da pressure now and they r sure havin low morale
they have oredi been suspended and who knows wat will happen
so may b we shld cut them some slack
ps: i heard those involved have or will b discharged (tis is just hear say)
last point:
as i've said earlier i'm not here 2 make enemies or offend n e 1
i'm now being da bigger man and i hereby offer my apologies 2 who eva feels he is offended
its up 2 u 2 accept or not
and like i've said in an earlier post
if u wish 2 make personal attacks and hurl insults tis way
hey tats ur wish if it makes u happy
and tat can only say so much
-
Have tried to stay out of this thread as I thought I've said what already needs to be said, but this post of yours really astounds me, and I really have to concur with some of the things Gedanken and others have said about you.
The difference here, is this. The friends of the instructors still know them. 2SG Hu's friends knew him, no thanks to the "instructors".Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:i know tat most in here will stand on da side of a fallen comrade some may even know him personally
but has it eva occured 2 u tat there r also ppl who know da instructors?????
Who's more deserving of sympathy here?
they did go over board when conducting trg but thousands have gone thru da same ting some even worse
Considering 1 died and 6 were injured to require hospital treatment, what makes you so sure what the previous batches gone through are worse? Were you there?
did it occur 2 u tat they (instructors) r actually prolonging their lives (trainees)?????
tis cse wudnt have evolved if SAF din tink theres a need 4 CST
and ys tat?????
coz of wats happening ard us tat calls 4 it
Again, you show a lack of understanding of the issue. I don't think anyone here is saying theres no need for CST. I for one think its necessary, and even think it should be madatory for all soldiers (albeit toned-down ones for non-frontline troops etc).
What we are condemning is the fact that in their attempts to replicate "realistic training", they killed a fellow soldier, and injured 6 others. Is it deliberate? I seriously doubt so. Did they get carried away? Most likely. But should they go unpunished because of this? NO! Call it making an example of them, but those guilty in this case MUST be punished, to mae sure others in their position will take extra case not to get "carried away", inadvertent or not.
How do you prolong someones life when you have already taken in away? -
just a word from me. . .
Gedankan, stop hurling personal insults at 35mm, REMF or not. Attack what he says, and the points if necessary, but i think personal insults can be left out. . .
35mm gunner, sometimes, we need to remember that all of us have heart as well. . . the fact is that the casualty rate for that partiuclar training is unacceptably high. arguing that the instructors were right is moot. it would be more prudent to
1. Review the way in which that course and similar courses are carried out in SAF, make modifications if necessary, ensure the guidelines and restrictions reflect and restrict what actually happens during course
2. Review role of instructors in general and find out if they have been given too much power or inadequate training, etc. if no, then find out what actually caused those particular instructors to take action that resulted in a death. if yes, then maybe some people should start shaking up the entire way inwhich all training is carried out.. .
- also to ensure that instructors roles are clearly defined and that they do stick to the guidelines as far as safety is concerned. instructors should not be allowed rights and 'powers' that are officially forbidden. however, must at this time state that safety guidelines should not limit creativity or initiative of instructors.
while it is expected that instructors will now adhere closer to the 'book' at least for awhile, SAF brass must also ensure tat vigilance does not fall after a period without incidence.
addtional:
perhaps some independent body is needed to check on the SAF if similar incidents occur. however, this may also not be practical since much of what takes place is vital to national security when the peace is threathened. at the end of the day therefore, the SAF had better keep itself in check because no one else can without compromise on security.
my two cents. once again, reiterate i haven't serve NS, these are just personal opinions. whack if desired. -
how to be one?
-
steriods, single digit IQ... and that's about it...Originally posted by i can do it:how to be one?
-
i need to carry this
-
Very sensible ideas, which generally cover the scope of remedial action that needs to be taken. Just a few points:Originally posted by mfscrewu:1) Have a MO (NSMEN or NSF) attached for the CST. Having a medic is no longer adequate as the medical training provided might not be sufficient for the medic to recognise the symptoms of near drowning when water treatment is conducted. Afterall, even in an actual POW situation, a POW that is alive is more valuable than a dead POW and this has often been depicted in an actual POW camp as well as in movies.
2) Before setting the trainees off on the training exercise. Medical examinations must again be conducted to ensure that trainees are not in a poor state of health before start of exercise.
3) Instructors should discuss with CDO head honcho and S3 branch and brief them on what are the techniques they will be using before start of each course. Review at the end of each course should be conducted by the CST training wing.
Hope that with constructive suggestions put forward by people, SAF training can be conducted in a safer manner.
1) There are a few pros and cons to this. The real strength of this suggestion, IMHO, is that an MO has the rank to intervene if things look like they are headed in the wrong direction. However, given the range of training activities that go on at Hendon, you would probably need a section, if not a platoon, of MOs to provide adequate coverage. Given that, we may have to stick with the Safety Officer route.
2) This raises the question of what course of action needs to be taken if the trainee is deemed unfit to attend the exercise. Would that trainee automatically be out of course? That would be the sensible thing to do, but it could get some noses out of joint and would of course affect the trainee's course completion schedule.
3) Technically speaking (emphasis on "technically"), such an approach is already SOP, given that course structures need to be subject to review. However, it would be more the rule than the exception that the course looks nothing like the way it is described in documentation. I would suggest a modification, in that an officer or NCO, who is not part of the training team and who is appointed by the CCO, follows and observes the course, providing a critique at the end. What is really required is a change in culture, where details (rather large ones in this case) are not glossed over in favour of maintaining a political balance. In such a critique, it would be handy to employ the Israeli Air Force's policy in after-action reviews, where the explicit understanding is that for the duration of the review session, rank is left at the door. -
/awards laser UN peacekeeper medalOriginally posted by laser51088:just a word from me. . .
Gedankan, stop hurling personal insults at 35mm, REMF or not. Attack what he says, and the points if necessary, but i think personal insults can be left out. . .
35mm gunner, sometimes, we need to remember that all of us have heart as well. . . the fact is that the casualty rate for that partiuclar training is unacceptably high. arguing that the instructors were right is moot. it would be more prudent to -
u want to be red "X's???Originally posted by i can do it:how to be one?
lol -
no. he wans to be californian governor.Originally posted by HENG@:u want to be red "X's???
lol -
hoo boy...do I remember those stunts.....Originally posted by mfscrewu:Read up a bit about the CST incident. First of all, I am not here to argue who is right and who is wrong. Afterall, a precious life have been lost. It is really pointless to discuss that. However it would be more constructive to suggest ways to implement CST in a safer manner.
Been a recce trooper (God, I miss my bike even though it was crappy), I have been through CST and there are number of ways that the instructor will "torture" a POW. Stress positions, face to face with a huge German Sherpard, pour icy water down the trainee during interogation and plenty of other ways. Most memorable one was a bamboo stick stuck behind the knees and asked the trainee to bend backwards. That was excruciating pain. However, the course did make me realise that the mind is stronger than the body. So for me, I agree that the tough training should continue, despite the setbacks that has occurred.
I think one of the first things we should do is to ask if these vocations (BRC, Recce, Sniper) should be made an all-volunteer? I mentioned it in earlier posts, but the logic behind this is that volunteers who do washout of the training imposed on them can opt for a return to line units. By making it a voluntary vocation, the volunteer knows and expects what he is going to be in for. Of cos' those does not mean that TSR is violated just becos' these individuals are volunteers, but at least they have a) prove that they are motivated, b) be physically fit, c) psychologically strong, etc....whether they will cut it is another matter when they go through CST.
Most importantly, the volunteer knows what he signed up for....
-
First, let’s get one thing straight – there are service personnel and there are REMFs. The REMFs stand out as wannabes who pretend to know what the combat side does.Originally posted by laser51088:just a word from me. . .
Gedankan, stop hurling personal insults at 35mm, REMF or not. Attack what he says, and the points if necessary, but i think personal insults can be left out. . .
35MM's posts are offensive in so many ways it is criminal, but the one aspect that really stands out is that he is a REMF who pontificates with absolute disregard for the concerns of those of us who do the real work. Of course he argues for tougher training – he doesn’t have to do it, does he? Certainly everybody is entitled to an opinion, but the fact that a REMF is giving out a whole lot of cock-and-bull about combat training is an insult to those of us who actually do the work. The utter hypocrisy of the things that he writes is so nauseating that he really ought to be posted in an emergency ward and used as a stomach pump. Some choice picks:
- "Talk the talk and walk the walk" - easily 35's greatest hit. Has he walked the walk? What would he know about walking, except for the path between his desk and the canteen? Until he has spent days hauling his own body weight in equipment through the boondocks, he can kiss my a$$ and call me Daddy.
- His signature - as far as I can tell, every day is an easy day for him.
- Let one’s actions speak for oneself – other posters are or were snipers, recce troopers, divers, commandos and so on – they have already done their speaking with their actions. The only one who seems to be all talk is 35 himself, and in saying this, his skin is so thick maybe the SAF ought to use it to beef up the armour on their AMX-13s.
- He craps on about the training becoming lax. What business does he have even thinking such a thing? ItÂ’s not that he has any firsthand experience of how lax the training is, just his impressions from what he sees out of his office window.
- He keeps talking in terms of “we” in regards to training. We? What does he mean “we”? He mans his desk while the rest of us sweat, bleed, and in this case, drown. He’s not one of us at all, and he has absolutely no business talking about “we”.
You want to talk about personal insults? What it comes down to is this: 35 carries on like a two-bob watch about how the training needs to be tough when he has no clue, not having been there himself. In bringing up the term “lax” and implying that training is easy, he spits on every fighting man in Singapore’s armed forces, and he certainly spits in 2SG Hu’s grave, no matter what he claims.
It's all sickening, and I have no compunction about telling it like it is. -
No, people would not expect you to side with the trainers who were wrong to push the trainees to the limit without giving due thought to the safety aspect.Originally posted by Gedanken:By your flawed reasoning, I ought to be siding with the instructor.
By the same argument, we should issue faulty parachutes so that we can be sure that Airborne trainees know the reserve drill.
By the same argument, we should use real mustard gas or sarin or tabun so that our boys know the NBC drill.
By the same argument, we should put the Armour boys in M113s and fire live Milans at them so that they can "talk the talk and walk the walk".
Try thinking - it's a good habit to get into.
But as a fellow cdo as you claimed to be, I don't see you standing beside the people who wear the red beret. Saturday Straits Times, quote " Hours after Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean briefed Parliament about the incident on Thursday, Colonel Noel Cheah (left) is said to have told a friend: 'At least I go down with my men. That's the way it should be.'" end quote
As a Cdo still serving my NS, I have discussed this issue with my fellow comrades. We all agreed that the trainers were GUILTY in enforcing harsh training methods without being mindful of the safety. But we stand by our trainers, our brothers in cdo family.
Yes the trainers did wrong in being negligence, I Concede to that. But You let others called the trainers names like "bastards", etc. I did not see you doing otherwise to correct the others.
You have been telling others here about REMFs and armchair Rambos and how you have "walk the walk, talk the talk". If you are what you claimed to be, I denounce you as a fellow cdo. I will not go into a mission with you. -
Gedanken, don't sound as if 35MM are the people who made policies about training with no chance of experiencing it themselves. Those people are the real REMF.
Those choice picks, aka personal insults, are they necessary? If you read his post, notice that he doesn't (not as much as you) hurl insults back at you. In fact I think his replies are quite "cool", though his logic can be crappy. In that sense, he has shown a higher level of maturity than you, though he's way below you in thinking logically.
I think some of you here seek satisfaction in mocking and insulting him with all those pictures and language. There's a hint of discrimination too, like how those CST instructors probably discriminate against guardsmen.
If you got so much time to type personal insults (they constitute the majority of your post), might as well run 2.4km to maintain your commando standard or keep fit? Probably you finish running before finishing the typing. -
Interesting points Tango. But i am concerned about a few things.:Originally posted by Tango1:hoo boy...do I remember those stunts.....
I think one of the first things we should do is to ask if these vocations (BRC, Recce, Sniper) should be made an all-volunteer? I mentioned it in earlier posts, but the logic behind this is that volunteers who do washout of the training imposed on them can opt for a return to line units. By making it a voluntary vocation, the volunteer knows and expects what he is going to be in for. Of cos' those does not mean that TSR is violated just becos' these individuals are volunteers, but at least they have a) prove that they are motivated, b) be physically fit, c) psychologically strong, etc....whether they will cut it is another matter when they go through CST.
Most importantly, the volunteer knows what he signed up for....
1) That having 'volunteers' may attract the wrong kind of people. (i.e. too much testosterone, not enough brains)
2) Even if unsuitable volunteers are washed out, the numbers that come thru may not be enough. (Probably the most impt reason i can think of)
3) If it was voluntary, parents may not allow their son(s) to volunteer, compounding (2)
4) Even if they had volunteers, it still wouldn't make a difference to if training may be any less dangerous if TSRs are ignored, which u pointed out, albeit indirectly. As such, the problem is not with who is doing it, or rather what is being done.
5) Any incident that results in a death is still a death, and doesn't bear any less weight, even if they are volunteers since they are still NSF.
6) Lastly, it would inadvertantly have an adverse effect within SAF itself, since a volunteer unit may result in a heightened awareness of "us and them" among units, and may prove to be too divisive. (Yes, maybe i am streching this a bit, but i hope u get what i mean.)
All that said tho, I think there is some credit to Tango's argument, and frankly speaking, i think SAF would rather have adopted such a volutary scheme if it was possible. Unfortunately, i think practical considerations makes it impossible. Just my opinion.
-
IÂ’m sorry you feel that way, sorrowz. However, do ask yourself this: am I not standing beside the individual trainer, or am I not standing beside the unit? In my posts, I have spoken about individuals in relation to the unit as a whole, and how some of these individuals uphold the Commando ethos and others fail to.
This is not about blind faith. I will not stand beside someone if he has done wrong, even if he does wear the red beret. If he has done something as wrong as this, it is he who has betrayed the unit, not me. What he has done is neither honourable nor glorious, and for the shame that he has brought on the formation, would it be entirely unfair if he was called a bastard? If you want to raise the issue about who one would choose to go on a mission with, I would not want to go on a mission with this instructor. His unprofessionalism is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. For what it is worth, I feel that the CCO and CO SOCT got a bum rap.
If you denounce me as a Commando, you may as well denounce some of your senior NCOs and officers as well. You see, you are not the only one discussing this issue with your contemporaries. Some of the fellows from my batch are dismayed at the situation, and you might just be surprised who these men might be. In their positions, they simply cannot afford to voice the opinions that I have. -
Those choice picks serve a purpose - they illustrate exactly what is wrong with the direction that 35 has taken and precisely why his posts are repugnant. His displayed language and supposed maturity are irrelevant - attempting to excuse the substance of what he writes by hiding it behind his presentation is intellectually dishonest. It is tantamount to covering yourself with deodorant after having failed to take a shower for a week.Originally posted by Icemoon:Those choice picks, aka personal insults, are they necessary? If you read his post, notice that he doesn't (not as much as you) hurl insults back at you. In fact I think his replies are quite "cool", though his logic can be crappy. In that sense, he has shown a higher level of maturity than you, though he's way below you in thinking logically.
I think some of you here seek satisfaction in mocking and insulting him with all those pictures and language.
If you got so much time to type personal insults (they constitute the majority of your post), might as well run 2.4km to maintain your commando standard or keep fit? Probably you finish running before finishing the typing.
I will happily own up to the language, but I will correct you in saying that I have posted any pictures. Check and you will see that I have not done so.
The circuit I use is actually 3.9 kilometres wrong, and I have already done that, thank you very much. You are right, though - taking fifteen minutes to complete it does indicate that I still have some work to do yet.
I do understand your perspective. However, keep in mind the origins of the word courtesy - the implication is one of falseness. Between being courteous and being logically consistent, I will happily take logical consistency any time. -
Kena tekan
...but survival training must be rough and tough, say NSmen
By Jason Leow, Jane Lee And Suzanne Ong
'WE'RE taking you prisoner now!'
With those words, the enemy blindfolded the soldiers and took them captive.
Their uniforms were turned inside out and they would be known just by the numbers assigned to them by their captors.
Some had their hands bound; others, their legs as well.
This was the start of two days of prisoner-of-war, or POW, training, to prepare the soldiers for what they might experience in enemy hands, all part of combat survival training on Pulau Tekong.
This is training for soldiers expected to operate deep in hostile territory - scouts, snipers and reconnaissance troopers - who must be trained to survive, evade or resist the enemy, and to escape if they are captured.
These details come from eight operationally ready national servicemen who were put through the same kind of training as the one that went wrong and resulted in the death of Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai on Aug 21.
His death and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's firm promise to get to the bottom of what happened have turned the spotlight on POW training.
The eight NSmen spoke on condition of anonymity.
All but one said that they never had their heads held under water - the treatment 2nd Sgt Hu and at least six others on his course were subjected to.
What they remember of POW training was that it tested them physically and mentally. Some soldiers might say they kena tekan (were put under mental and physical pressure), but all of them agreed it was essential.
Said a former reconnaissance trooper: 'Nothing except this would prepare you for the real thing. You realise that all those scenes in movies where a soldier goes into enemy territory and single-handedly saves the day are nonsense.'
One NSman said he had a water hose shoved into his mouth and he was 'fed' water until his stomach was bloated.
Another said he was put into a steel drum while his captors beat on the outside with sticks.
A third said that he and his fellow trainees were made to kneel on the rough surface of a basketball court all night.
They remained blindfolded throughout the two days, were forced to stay awake and given only small portions of food and water. These were designed to wear them down so that they would divulge military information to the enemy.
'It definitely felt very real. You can't see anything, you're tired and hungry. You really feel at the mercy of the instructors, as if they were really the enemy,' said a former scout who gave his name as Thomas.
'Only the thought of the exercise ending soon kept us going,' said the 28-year-old.
Trainees would be interrogated individually for information on their troops' whereabouts and the nature of their mission.
Sometimes, the 'enemy' would try the soft approach first, tempting the soldiers with candy and soft drinks. When that failed, they would graduate to more forceful means.
'They could rough you up a bit, a few slaps, a few punches and kicks,' said an NSman, who used to be a sniper.
But most of the time, things went by the book, said the NSmen. Tough but never life-threatening.
A posting on sgforums.com, an online discussion network, said this: 'Compare our training with those conducted by other armies - ours is definitely very, very tame.'
Only one of the NSmen interviewed, now a 28-year-old executive, witnessed a close call, when a trainee was doused with water while he had a sack over his head.
He said: 'He was struggling to breathe and the instructors stopped the exercise immediately. He was okay. That was the only close shave I remember.'
Another NSman who was in the scout unit said instructors did get carried away at times.
He said: 'Maybe it's because they are commandos training non-commandos so they feel like they want to show off a bit, or maybe they just want to make it tough for some soldiers they feel are slacking off.
'Also, the more senior you are, the tougher the torture is.'
This could mean a longer interrogation or more manhandling. 'But it's natural; that is what would happen in a real POW situation. They assume the seniors have more information so they would do more to get them to spit it out,' he said.
The exercise ends with the 'prisoners' being allowed to escape. They would have to trek through the jungle and join friendly troops in a designated area.
Said an NSman: 'It was tough but necessary as part of our training.
'After all, in a real war, there's a high chance we could be captured and so we need to know what to expect.' -
This is the exact kind of top-dog, code red attitude that sets the culture in the SAF that allows for these kinds of accidents to take place in the first place.Originally posted by sorrowz:No, people would not expect you to side with the trainers who were wrong to push the trainees to the limit without giving due thought to the safety aspect.
But as a fellow cdo as you claimed to be, I don't see you standing beside the people who wear the red beret. Saturday Straits Times, quote " Hours after Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean briefed Parliament about the incident on Thursday, Colonel Noel Cheah (left) is said to have told a friend: 'At least I go down with my men. That's the way it should be.'" end quote
As a Cdo still serving my NS, I have discussed this issue with my fellow comrades. We all agreed that the trainers were GUILTY in enforcing harsh training methods without being mindful of the safety. But we stand by our trainers, our brothers in cdo family.
Yes the trainers did wrong in being negligence, I Concede to that. But You let others called the trainers names like "bastards", etc. I did not see you doing otherwise to correct the others.
You have been telling others here about REMFs and armchair Rambos and how you have "walk the walk, talk the talk". If you are what you claimed to be, I denounce you as a fellow cdo. I will not go into a mission with you.
By zealously defending their comrades in arms in accordance to some ethos of brotherhood and "standing by them brothers" no matter what is indicative of the kind of mentality that spawns a breeding ground for such jokers that cause such death in the first place.
If anything, these trainers have betrayed the ethos, professionalism and high standards REQUIRED of them as Commandos, and by any useful measure, denounced that title the moment they decided to go on ahead to on their own way training in defiance of authority which led to the needless death of an innocent NSF which was at the wrong place at the wrong time.
This incident and these people are a stain on the otherwise distinguished reputation of the Commandos, and the apporiate response is to eject these jokers from the Commandos like they so truly deserve.
As Commandos, your duty is to protect the people, not the people protecting you. And hence it helps to be ruthless to those who betray the red beret, rather then go code red and turn on damage control. Thankfully, some cdos. are completely ready to call a cat a cat and a dog a dog and describe this as it really is: A terrible abuse of the Commando ethos that should not be unpunished.
As for the verbal abuse being heaped on those trainers, disagree as I might with these methods, unfortunately these are words they really deserve for the betrayal of the values and reputation of an elite unit, and the needless premature ending of a life. If anything, it's astonishing that some red berets are more interested in damage control then rooting out the cancer of loose cannons that seem to run wild in their insitution.
There are two possible outcomes for the Commandos from this incident. They can become a closed, elitist insitution that stands by their members no matter what and are more interested in themselves and their own little war games or an accountable, effective and transparent force that is above reproach in their conduct and reputation, a force that protects the people, not take their lives in undisciplined, unauthorised silly little CST games.
There's always a time and place to stand by your brothers-in-arms, this is not one of them. They have clearly betrayed the Commandos as a whole. -
so may b if it had been a CDO who died (b it nsf or reg) or da inst had been non CDO views in here will b diff?????
-
Extreme training vital to facing today's threats
By Dominic Nathan
IT COULD not have happened at a worse time. Public confidence in the Singapore Armed Forces has taken two major blows in less than a year.
Four lives were lost in the collision of RSS Courageous with a container ship in January, for which two officers face criminal charges now.
The second hit was delivered last Thursday, when Parliament was told of how a young soldier died after his instructors, all commandos, held his head under water four times.
For it to happen at a time when demands on the SAF - and the commandos especially - to meet the threat of terrorism are at their highest, makes this more than just the most serious incident of its kind in the military.
If not handled well, it could undermine confidence in national service, a key institution which helped guarantee Singapore's survival in the early days and ensures its continued success today.
As much as that sounds like a well-worn Total Defence slogan that gets glossed over too often these days, it's true.
While the Defence Minister has done the right thing by making the investigations public and transparent, the last thing Singapore needs is for a terrorist group to read this episode as a weakness in Singapore's defences.
Especially when the commandos, the very people who will be at the front lines repelling a terror attack, are facing the most severe blow to their morale.
Just as they were picking up the pieces after being barred from competing in the SAF's Best Unit competition for cheating on store-keeping and fitness test scores, now the top ranking officer has been removed, three others relieved of their duties and another five suspended for their part in carrying out the unauthorised training.
I am not about to defend what happened to Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai as an acceptable training loss.
There is no armed forces in the world, regardless of whether their ranks are filled with conscripts or professional soldiers, which will condone what happened on Pulau Tekong on Aug 21.
With a nephew being trained to be a commando, I also have a personal stake in holding the Defence Minister to his word when he spoke of taking seriously the SAF's solemn commitment to return every young man safely to his parents after training him well.
Investigations being carried out now by the Criminal Investigation Department may well end with criminal charges being brought against one or more of the commandos. Even if they do not, the minister has vowed that the guilty will be punished.
Heads have also rolled along the chain of command within the elite formation.
The minister posted in a new chief commando officer, Colonel Yeo Eidik, to 'put the commandos on the path of setting right what has gone wrong', and to rebuild themselves.
Hopefully, this entire process, well-intentioned as it may be, won't end up doing more harm than good.
As incomprehensible as this may sound, I want to know that the elite forces who sweat and sometimes bleed to earn that red beret will be able to get the job done, at all costs, when the button is pressed.
Little is known of the four lieutenants or the staff sergeant who carried out the training to simulate the treatment soldiers might endure if captured by the enemy. But overseeing them was a 44-year-old warrant officer, a 10-year veteran in the School of Commando Training, who in 1991 would have been 31 years old and in the prime of his fighting career.
On March 27 that year, just after 6.50am, a group of commandos stormed a hijacked Singapore Airlines plane and rescued 123 passengers, in a 30-second lightning raid that left all four hijackers dead and no one else injured.
Over the years, in many other operations conducted away from the glare of media scrutiny, the commandos have put their lives on the line for Singapore.
I have no idea if the suspended warrant officer, or any of the other eight commandos held responsible in some way for 2nd Sgt Hu's death, were among the group that was hailed in 1991 as heroes and bestowed national honours for their part in the SQ 117 rescue, or if they had taken part in any other high-risk operation.
But I suspect all of them went through some equally tough prisoner-of-war training at some point in their career, when training guidelines may have been bent if not broken altogether, and came out of it better soldiers.
It sounds like I have argued myself into a corner - while a training death is unacceptable, tough and sometimes extreme training is a necessity for armed forces, especially their elite troops, if they are to deal effectively with today's threats.
Where does this leave us then?
There was no doubt in Rear-Admiral (NS) Teo Chee Hean's mind when he said: 'I expect my commandos to be tough and mean, but I expect them also to be professional and to carry out their duties properly. The two are not inconsistent.'
I hope he is right. I also hope the shake-up within the commando formation and the minister's message to his senior commanders that they should take care of their men do not end up hurting the SAF's operational readiness. -
I do not know which tangent Sorrowz is now going off on, apparently he now seeks to justify CST by posting that lengthy, but ultimately irrevelant article that tells us again what we have already known and agreed on.
Which is patently bizzare, I doubt any true blue soldier here will regard CST as unneccesary. And I am one of them. What is the picking point here, is how exactly it is done.
What remains clear however, is the unprofessional and unauthorised actions of those pesudomacho commando trainers that took an aspiring life in its prime. And of course, the amazing ability of some here to play down this hedious crime and stand by the perps as if they were guilty of no more then a parking ticket. Thankfully, this will be no slap on the wrist, this is where heads roll.
Maybe it would help our commando friend here to engage his opponents where the debate is, rather then throwing down smoke.