unauthorised training caused the death of a national service
-
Don't go getting your hopes up. The wrongness of the act is independent of the units of the perpetrator or victim.Originally posted by 35MM Gunner: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?????
-
No my desk friend, the views will be the same.Originally posted by 35MM Gunner: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?????
Unlike you, many people here have a sense of objectivity rather then blind and illogical sympathy towards the wrongdoers.
Unlike you, many people here know that the commandos are after all, just soldiers in the end, elite as they may be. There is no excuse for such an "accident". Even if the victim was a Commando, or the instructor from dunno where, the fact remains that this is wrongdoing, and should be punished to the fullest extent of military and civillian law, AND MADE SURE nothing like that happens again.
Unlike you, many people here have the intergity to distinguish right from wrong, when to sympatise, and when to rebuke, irregardless of position or unit.
Unlike you, many people here have walked the walk and have been through what you can only fantazise and talk in the forum about. They know what they are talking about.
Unlike you, people here are not given in to blind and illogical emotionism that seeks to defend blindly and justify wrongs and turn black to white.
Unlike you, people here are objective, knows what is required to be done, and have logical steps for implementing them. They do not keep baying for this thing to be swept under the rug and the army to toughen training (and hopefully train desk dudes like you to sweep mines as well)
Lets say even if a lowly personnel like you push paper and file them in an unauthorized way that causes an chopper to crash because of some problem going unnoticed, you can be assured our response to you will be just as scathing as it is to those two "commando" trainers.
After all, while some red berets and desk dudes here may claim lofty ideals of siding and supporting the wrongdoers via blind brotherhood, most others see the big picture and support the armed forces, and nation as a whole by upholding the values and ethos that had been thought to them as soldiers. To be people who protect, uphold and build the nation, not as rambo wannabe gunslingers who think of Singapore and the SAF in terms of "them and us". -
ok so i din know tat i wuz pushing papers my whole NS life
thanks 4 da enlightentment
if tats ur perception of personnel wit such a PES status r weaker compared 2 u then *shrugs*
as i've said in an ealier post
i'm not here 2 make enemies or offend any 1 regardless of whos side they r on
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 -
The articles are for you. Read it. For all the this and that dished out here, be very rest assured that some JI fanatic is reading.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur: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.
I have never say that the trainers were right. I have stated that they were wrong. I stood by those who don the red beret, even those who did wrong. You were not there, I was not there. I am not qualified to judge them. If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of believing in the fraternity of the red berets. My chief went down with HIS men. I will stand by mine.
Heads have rolled for the cdos. If you think that you just have to jump into the wagon and dish out to the cdos trainers by name calling, thanks a lot. I guess you have just contributed to the psy-up of the JI fanatics. -
By the way, in my earlier posts I have asked about taking responsibilities. The naval vessel incident, two officers were on charge, not the captain.
The CST incident, all cried "bastards" "sadists" "not professional". My chief was relieved. Responsibility went all the way up. For Honour and Glory. -
Geez, ST, that's a bit rough, lumping sorrowz together with Walter Mitty here. Not that I'm defending sorrowz's stance, of course - there are just some mitigating circumstances to be considered here.
Despite our differences in views, I will accord sorrowz with the credence that his role as an active Commando demands. Unlike 35, he is not talking out of his arse.
To some extent, the emotional part of me even agrees with sorrowz. If I were currently in that environment, I would be inclined to close ranks as well.
The perspective I take is different because it has been tempered over time, by the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the integration of my experiences in Commandos with my other professional activities in the ten years since.
I have complete confidence that in the same period, my contemporaries who stayed on have developed similarly, and will be perfectly capable of doing what Commandos do best - excelling in, rather than just surviving, the most adverse conditions. It will take a lot of soul-searching and the acknowledgement of some very unpleasant truths, but the fellows I know have the nerve and the strength to take a good, long, hard look at themselves and tell themselves what they really see. -
All depends - what are you apologising for? Please expand on this.Originally posted by 35MM Gunner: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
If you see why your posts are offensive, and apoligise for that, fine - apology (grudgingly) accepted. If this is your way of saying "Get off my back", you know where you can stick that apology. -
Unfortunately, you fail to see the illustration, but this is expected. Considering you have now resorted to appealing to emotionism and one liner replies to post question you wouldn't be asking had you bothered to stop, read the posts and really think for even a pisosecond.Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:ok so i din know tat i wuz pushing papers my whole NS life
thanks 4 da enlightentment
As a matter of fact, to call you a desk dude would be a major insult to so many of those who keep the SAF's weightly and sometimes unnecessary beucracacy moving in order for things to work by their hard and dedicated work.
These people know their place and purpose in the military and know what is expected of them and what to do.
To call you one of them would be a major insult. As a matter of fact, despite having served your NS, you strike as a one of those rare WOs that got through relatively unimpressed or unscathed by sheer fortune of events, and emerged with a lofty ego to think that you should dictate how things should be tougher. Telling people to walk the walk you yourself have not even taken even a flatering step of.
Of course, having run out of anything useful to say on your part, we eagerly await the birth of your next apparently wittly, but ultimately fultile and worthless reply that only serves to display to the world the spendour of your amazing ability to spurn illogical statements and dress them up with petty emotionism to make them look good, all concieved by your deflated ego.
Have a nice day. -
sorrowz, what exactly do you mean by "standing by" your men? Please define this.
-
Hmm - kind of quiet around here .....
All right - who farted?! -
There is no wagon jumping here, the prevailing culture of the cdos. had it coming for it long time now. It is patently obvious that they are in for a big shake up and the time is now.Originally posted by sorrowz:The articles are for you. Read it. For all the this and that dished out here, be very rest assured that some JL fanatic is reading.
I have never say that the trainers were right. I have stated that they were wrong. I stood by those who don the red beret, even those who did wrong. You were not there, I was not there. I am not qualified to judge them. If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of believing in the fraternity of the red berets. My chief went down with HIS men. I will stand by mine.
Heads have rolled for the cdos. If you think that you just have to jump into the wagon and dish out to the cdos trainers by name calling, thanks a lot. I guess you have just contributed to the psy-up of the JL fanatics.
Do I still retain my belief that they are an elite unit? Yes. Do I think they can still protect us? Of course. Do I think they are in general an effective fighting unit? Certainly.
Do I however, think that some cdos. have betrayed the trust and ethos invested to them by the unit and have gone out to abuse that very trust invested in them by the wearing of the red beret?
Yes.
And that's what the bottom line is now. Some people have betrayed that very trust. The only way for this unit to be effective is if it responds to its own flaws not by covering them up or going on an mission of damage control, but by dealing with it ruthlessly as they would with the enemy. After all they are no country club.
Going down with your men, for honour and glory may be good in battle, but I'm afriad for such a crime like killing a trainee, there is no glory to be found there other than that which had been self-manufactured to butter over the true paethetic nature of the while event. Your chief goes in shame, not glory for serving the nation. If anything, a disservice has been done. Call a cat a cat and a dog a dog. Ultimately your loyality is still to the nation and not your chief. That's something prehaps big unit peronnel get better then elite outfits. We serve the nation and not the other way round. If my CO. is proven to be inadequate or wrong, sympatise as I might, ultimately I will have to take the right side and do what is correct, rather then go down in blind loyality.
Again your mentioning of the JI threat displays prehaps your lack of understanding of the true nature of the beast here. Would they be psyed up by our denouncements here? It would be good to note that the Cdos have been doing a far better job of psying up terrorists recently with their recent blunders.
Anyway, it's almost certain that the JI people still have quite a bit of sense in them and are more likely to view the whole thing objectively to acess the real nature of the issue before making their move, something unfortunately some red berets are unable to do.
It would behoove the Cdos. to take a hard look in the mirror and stop defending themselves but rather see how they should rebuld themselves instead of constantly point fingers at the anger of the general public now rightfully directed at them.
After all, you are all supposed to be an elite outfit ready for anything. So live up to that and stop whining that the G.P is bashing your rightfully for your blunders. If anything, such childish behaviour of mindless blind defending, finger pointing and going down with my men along with the inability to deal with their own mistakers would be the thing giving the JI people the most incentive to view you all as a unit which is growing soft and unprofessional.
Why are the comments here so harsh? Because if you claim to be the best and fail to live up to them, you better be prepared for some storm headed your way. If some cdos here can't take the heat and demands of their profession and ethos, prehaps they should consider 35MM's Gunner's job. -
I agree with you on most points, ST, except for the part about the CCO. IMO, the course commander and the instructor can reasonably be argued to have directly contributed to 2SG Hu's death, but the CCO is too far removed from the situation.
I'm not sure what the prevailing culture is that you mentioned - could you expand on this? -
Anytime bro...opinions are good; we all should learn from ppl who correctly point out our flaws.Originally posted by Blockhead:Interesting points Tango. But i am concerned about a few things.:
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.
Regarding your first point, about too much testosterone and too little brain...I guess i didn't make this clear enuff, but in previous posts, I suggested that it is not just simply volunteering to get yourself through. It should include recommendations/references from your BMT OC and Plt Cmdr based on initiative and performance. I realize that most of these BMT trainees might wanna go SISPEC or OCS, but there are others that are just as capable, only that it doesn't show till later. Take for example a unit needs to replenish its ranks with these types of troops...which is later reflected in the postings we receive...wat I'm saying we change is that it should not be a fixed/rigid system of posting...change along the lines like..."a unit needs to fill xxx number of specialized places and we are looking for volunteers. People who wash out will be rotated back to their original postings." No shame, no questions asked...
Second point. that unfortunately, we cannot really resolve...the Navy SEALs has a high drop-out rate, and the SAS even higher. The numbers of trainees do not have to be substantially higher, but just a little more to compensate for losses due to injury or DOR (Drop On Request). But there is a big difference between volunteering and being posted...even if an individual washed out from the course, he can at least say that he tried and had a taste of wat it was like...
Third point, aahhh....isn't it the point in time when we ask ourselves whether are we still boys or men? lol
Eventually, who makes the decision for us? Ourselves or someone else? Remember, there's no consent form to sign here...lol jk...
Fourth point, correctly so. And I may not have made it clear, but like you said and I totally agree, like many others here do, that realistic training has to have certain safety parameters...although I've gone through it before, head-dunking should be banned...replace it with icy cold trickle showers....that should keep the trainee awake and yet not breach TSR....
Fifth point, true...a death is still a death...many of us know from training, that accidents/incidents do not respect rank, age or status as NSF or Regular. However, I'm not suggesting that by being an all-volunteer outfit, we ask for a free trip to Hell and back...what I'm simply stating is that the individual who volunteered for this knows what to expect of himself and what kind of training is involved. On the other hand of cos', I refer back to the 4th point in that there is a difference between being too realistic and training safety....
SIxth point...There is already an existing "us" and "them"...you don't see support companies or recce companies mixing with line companies do you? Except for exercises of cos'...again with the exception of BRC and battalion scouts...Most of us might know that those from BRC, Snipers, etc, seldom wear the unit tee-shirt, instead wearing our own tee-shirts procliaming the status of our vocations. Second, some units allow their scouts to wear floppy hats around the camp (except on guard duty) like a badge of honour. Third, and this only applies to those that have carried it...the carbine/sniper rifle is like a distinction of elitism within units...I always liked to tease line troops about how compact it is to have a carbine as compared to their M-16s...of cos'...its the SAR-21 now. Last, scouts in particular (dunno about snipers, but maybe you guys can fill me in on that) are always used in unit-level training exercises to simulate enemy cdo attacks...why? For reasons being that they are seen as the "elite" of units...
My point? There is already a heightened sense of "us" and "them"...elitism is more than just putting on a fancy tee-shirt or wearing flop hats...it is earned through the hard way, therefore it comes as a part of the 'territory' of being in a specialized outfit...irregardless of volunteerism or otherwise.
Good points you've got though...its just that I think such changes are possible to achieve, albeit some modifications have to be made... -
some recommended readings that may explain how such kind of training can go out of control.... Stanford Prison Experiment.http://www.prisonexp.org/.
In this instance, Teo Chee Hean was right to put the responsibility squarely on the instructors for being unprofessional.
Why was CCO to be blamed too ? You can't only depend on the instructors professionalism, this form of training is extremely dangerous and can go out of hand easily even if the instructors happen to have 'buddha-like" personalities in real life. Checks and supervisions are very important. Being the CCO, he is responsible to ensure that such supervisions were effective.
Just my opinion. -
deleted . double post.
-
Yes, I am familiar with the Stanford study and the thought had occurred to me early on. However, it fails to apply when you consider that the instructors a) do it as a profession and b) are dealing with trainees, not prisoners.
Given that the shortest chain of command involved here goes instructor - course commander - CO SOCT - CCO, the supervision provided by the CCO would be based would be affected by three degrees of separation. While it is entirely possible that the CCO was negligent, it is also possible that that the CCO's directives could have been altered as they went down the line, like a game of Chinese Whispers. The prudent course of action would be to determine which of these scenarios has taken place in the course of the investigation and pinpoint the source of the problem, rather than wiping out the whole chain of command in one fell swoop. If this principle is applied, th Chief of Army and Chief of Defence Forces may as well be removed too. -
yes, trainees are not prisoners but the study was conducted using students....students as guards and students as prisoners.
the experiment was disrupted after a few days coz Zimbardo was surprise how quickly people change their stripes.
I quote...""These guys were all peaceniks," he recalled of the students chosen to be guards. "They became like Nazis.
"It shows how easy it is for good people to become perpetrators of evil."
So if the instructors were not professional and were allowed to conduct their training "unrestrained", the studies indicates that it could easily go out of control.
1 dead, 6 injured was the result in this instance.
About the CCO being responsible, i stand corrected coz i did not know that there were several layers separating him from the instructors.
Perhaps for the inquiry to investigate thoroughly and make proper recommendations , having a new management team in charge would be better coz the old team could be the obstacle to change ie. "traditionally we have always done it this way, no problem etc"
A mindset change, requires new blood ? -
Stanford fails to be mitigation because the instructors were under a different set of directions from the student guards. If anything, they should have been all too aware of what could happen.
-
Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:
No that's nobody's perception here that people with lower PES status are in any way inferior. What I am simply and blatantly pointing out, which would not have been necessary, that such people who ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE OUT THERE IN THE GAME SHOULD NOT BE THE ONES MAKING BIG TALK ABOUT HOW THINGS SHOULD BE RUN OUT THERE. In short, you have no place and idea about what you are talking about to be so pompus, reactionary and emotional as if you were the father of SAF.
if tats ur perception of personnel wit such a PES status r weaker compared 2 u then *shrugs*
Simply put, [b]"know your role and shut your mouth."
Unfortunately since people have given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you are in no way dim witted, they have tried to put it across to you nicely. Sadly, it appears the only way to get the point across is to expose the true ugliness and flaw of your entire conduct in this debate.s i've said in an ealier post
Nobody wants to make enemies with you, and obviously, nobody should even bother to. I'm hardly offended by your illogical ramblings and emotional post. I am just duifully serving my position to expose your fallacies for they really are.
i'm not here 2 make enemies or offend any 1 regardless of whos side they r on
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
There would be no conflict if you would obviously stop churning out your illogical and patently absurd ideas on how to reform the SAF to be a tougher army without even knowing one yard of the actual groundwork in the first place.and like i've said in an earlier post
You still don't get it do you? Nobody is making personal attacks on you one bit. What we are doing is simply exposing the fallacies and the true nature of you right here and right now with logic and reason. Which one of the so called personal attacks can you pull out which have no basis in the way you have conducted yourself here?
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
[/b]
The sad truth is, the only person insulting and making a spectale out of you is yourself. Had you swallowed your pride and bothered to see the obvious, it would have been long telling to you that your worst enemy is actually yourself.
There you go. -
wow... fanaticsm is dangerous... JI or CDO...Originally posted by sorrowz:By the way, in my earlier posts I have asked about taking responsibilities. The naval vessel incident, two officers were on charge, not the captain.
The CST incident, all cried "bastards" "sadists" "not professional". My chief was relieved. Responsibility went all the way up. For Honour and Glory.
oh its JI not JL -
i will still be what i feel now..i will still feel angry n sadden..Originally posted by 35MM Gunner: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?????
im just a RP in a Airbase...the most pai mia RP in the whole of SAF..
but we are not as Pai Mia as the other vocations..
i see a Cdos as a brother in arm..i see a Guardsmen as a brothers in arm too..n all the other vocation..
i see them as brothers because we all wear green..we are all the same..
i still remember when i was doin night duty a few years back..the commandos and some SOF are coming in..in the early morning to do their jump..after ive check the nominal roll..when the 3 ton drive past me..i do a butt salute(izit call butt salute??)...there are not even officers..i do that becos i respect them..they even return a salute to me...one even shouted.."hey we are not officers"..n i shouted back.."i know"...n they wave me goodbye..
i still remember it clearly what happen that night... -
honestly... ppl like 35mm thinks they should be made CDF or something... and well... why not? make him one... and see how things goes.... we would prob have 10-fold fatal training accidents per year and always have roughly 25% personnel who are unfit due to injuries... and low moral.... then we'll see how effective a crippled army can be when the enemy comes.
-
Yo! my hommies,
it's just another death in the history of Singapore's SAF! Caps of many dudes have been busted over the years and compared 2 all those things, i think this ain't nothing man.
Just pay our respects and carry on. Hope the future is bright for the new recruits. Hola!
-
No, wait, let me guess - we're supposed to get jiggy with holding funerals?
Back you go in your little box. -
I think everyone here believe that the tough realistic training for our boys is impt to turn them from a young boy to a tough soldier.
Tekan sessions are to break them , toughen them up & to endure the pain & sufferings so that they could perform & fight in a real war which could have a soldier fighting for non stop 48 maybe even 72hrs b4 being relieved.
Therefore tough realistic training is a must but with all safety precaution is taken to a certain degree wihout losing it realism. Therefore training accident will happen becos military training itself is inherently dangerous.
The problem are our boys fit enough to endure it? (with respect to the two cases where soldiers died after a run especially the obese recruit)
Why I ask this is becos the SAF has been upgrading the fitness status of our boys from PES C to B & even with older NS men since the decreasing male cohort in the SAF. Will this make the SAF having softer training so to compensate for weaker soldier or will it increase the training accidental rate? Maybe both.
One example that I have encountered :I remember one big guy with a slight degree of high blood pressure who is PES C but is certified to undergo combat training( nowsaday PES C has many levels, some is certified to undergo combat training) was attached to our coy as a PC runner.
On the first day of our ICT, my unit did a relaxed tactical march (maybe 5km)thru the forest so to let us get use to our uniform again.
Less than half a hour into walk & take cover etc, this big guy pengsan & has to be send to the medical centre & we never see him again most probably got downgraded.