unauthorised training caused the death of a national service
-
theres always 2 sides 2 a coin and its up 2 each individual to choose either heads or tails
some mayb more sympathetic while others simply believe tat they were just doin their job (albeit a little over zealous)
i do not deny da fact tat a life is precious but we must also understand tat those involved have a task 2 fulfil (in tis case 2 impart wat knowledge they have 2 da future generations of soldiers)
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?????
they did go over board when conducting trg but thousands have gone thru da same ting some even worse
ask ur selves y did they do tat?????
b coz they like it?????
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
i know many of u here dun tink so
but i do
some of u may tink "sg wun have such a situation tat calls 4 tis type of trg"
dun 4get tat SAF personnel r sent 4 U.N missions
can n e 1 safely say tat such a sittuation wun arise (in a foriegn land)?????
we wudnt know wats on others minds
lets face da facts nobody in their right frame of mind wans 2 take ppl's lives
but can we say da same for our captors?????
some may b thinkin tat y not just conduct da theory aspect of tis cse and skip da practical part
how do u know wat 2 do if u dun have 'hands on' experience?????
wat good izzit if u just talk da talk but u dun walk da walk
i know i'm not da most popular in here but wat i'm tryin 2 put across is tat we shld see wats on da other side of da fence and try not 2 b prejudicial
i know some of u r gonna make personal attacks
tats fine
i have nth 2 say as its ur choice
its ur mouth (in tis case ur hands doin da typing) and tat can only say so much
-
35MM gunner i agree with you 100%Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:theres always 2 sides 2 a coin and its up 2 each individual to choose either heads or tails
some mayb more sympathetic while others simply believe tat they were just doin their job (albeit a little over zealous)
i do not deny da fact tat a life is precious but we must also understand tat those involved have a task 2 fulfil (in tis case 2 impart wat knowledge they have 2 da future generations of soldiers)
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?????
they did go over board when conducting trg but thousands have gone thru da same ting some even worse
ask ur selves y did they do tat?????
b coz they like it?????
did it occur 2 u tat they r actually prolonging their lives?????
i know many of u here dun tink so
but i do
lets face da facts nobody in their right frame of mind wans 2 take ppl's lives
but can we say da same for our captors?????
some may b thinkin tat y not just conduct da theory aspect of tis cse and skip da practical part
how do u know wat 2 do if u dun have 'hands on' experience?????
wat good izzit if u just talk da talk but u dun walk da walk
i know i'm not da most popular in here but wat i'm tryin 2 put across is tat we shld see wats on da other side of da fence and try not 2 b prejudicial
i know some of u r gonna make personal attacks
tats fine
i have nth 2 say as its ur choice
its ur mouth (in tis case ur hands doin da typing) and tat can only say so much
but we will never know if that instructors is in the right frame of mind..as not in crazy..but in a sadistic nature?
there are not much cases in which where 5 hospitalise..n 1 dead..
and all got the same symptom of the decease..
it is not a coincidence...
unless everytime there are people kena hospitalise after the water treatment..after every course..maybe i can agree that the instructors are just doing their job n following their tradition..
but from the info ive got from my frens..n u guys..its either the course is a joke..or sometime too realistic..
but y the differential? sometime soft..sometime tough?
the only conclusion i get..its that every course is run by a different instructors..i might be wrong..but y the difference?
maybe difference standard is giving to Cdos,Gds and Recon troopers?
if the 81th CST course is for Recon troopers..the course will be softer?
82th will harder becos it Cdos?
so which is which? -
regarding tis pt i tink instructors r impartial (may b i'm wrong)Originally posted by NathanG5:maybe difference standard is giving to Cdos,Gds and Recon troopers?
if the 81th CST course is for Recon troopers..the course will be softer?
82th will harder becos it Cdos?
so which is which?
i admit diff batch has diff instructors and their trg methods may differ
but if u say tat personnel from diff units/voc r treated diff then wudnt u tink tat they will b harder on da CDOs?????
its a known fact tat every 1 tinks tat da CDOs r da best
every 1 plays an impt role in a war right down 2 da admin staff
its like if 1 part of ur body is not workin then ur not whole
i believe tat at da end of da day we wan our troops 2 attain 1 objective
and tats 2 defeat our enemies
and coz of tat all our SAF personnel r treated da same -
arrr..precisely thats what im gona say..Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:regarding tis pt i tink instructors r impartial (may b i'm wrong)
i admit diff batch has diff instructors and their trg methods may differ
but if u say tat personnel from diff units/voc r treated diff then wudnt u tink tat they will b harder on da CDOs?????
its a known fact tat every 1 tinks tat da CDOs r da best
every 1 play an impt role in a war right down 2 da admin staff
its like if 1 part of ur body is not workin then ur not whole
i believe tat at da end of da day we wan our troops 2 attain 1 objective
and tats 2 defeat our enemies
and coz of tat all our SAF personnel r treated da same
but the point now its not the toughness of the course..definitely the Cdos course will tougher..
it come right down to the instructors itself...the course might be tough..but the instructors might not be sadistic or vice versus..
most instructors i believe are impartial...but still there are some who are not.. -
i wudnt say tat they r not impartial
may b they r more passionate and enthusiastic bout their job resulting in them being hardcore. -
Originally posted by wuming78:ppl are advised to seek MP as last resort. and they wont get charged for seeking MP. anyway i think even at tt time, if they realli went to see MP they wont get charged. the MP wil be alerted the first time. if the MP finds out the person got charged for seeing him wat wil he do?
Thank you wuming78 & NathanG5. Anyway, its all in the past for me, but at least I know things better.Originally posted by NathanG5:alot of backside gona be fried...if that NSF kena charge..
there is nothing wrong with seeing the MP...at most u kena abit of harsh words while you are back in camp..
chain of command is break frequently..even in the senior command..
so there shld not be any double standard.. -
yea..seen some like that before...Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:i wudnt say tat they r not impartial
may b they r more passionate and enthusiastic bout their job resulting in them being hardcore.
-
disagreements not over yet ah????? wah piang oi~!
-
yah lor i tot it was over.Originally posted by kopiosatu:disagreements not over yet ah????? wah piang oi~!
aiyah.. unwittingly bumped this thread up again...
-
Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:
By your flawed reasoning, I ought to be siding with the instructor.
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?????some may b thinkin tat y not just conduct da theory aspect of tis cse and skip da practical part
By the same argument, we should issue faulty parachutes so that we can be sure that Airborne trainees know the reserve drill.
how do u know wat 2 do if u dun have 'hands on' experience?????
wat good izzit if u just talk da talk but u dun walk da walk
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. -
Originally posted by 35MM Gunner:its ur mouth (in tis case ur hands doin da typing) and tat can only say so much
-
just a note
to those who r composed enuff 2 listen 2 reasoning i thank u 4 ur time
as for those who stand by wat u believe in
hey tats ur choice
its wat ur entitled 2 -
Whoa, whoa, whoa, where do you think you're running off to? And what do you define as reasoning? All you've put down is a load of meaningless platitudes. Tie it up into a logical flow and it may be worth considering.
-
Gedanken
from your reply to 35mm Gunner..
i guess u mean that CST course is impractical?
or something else..pls correct me..thanx -
the way i see it, i think the 3 of u (gedakan,nathanG5, 35mm) (sorry abt spelling) are all assuming the other party is going the extreme.
maybe consider it this way, the CST course is a necessary 'evil' if u want the cdos to survive under trying conditions. however, it shouldn't be done to such an extreme that it goes beyond clearly stated restrictions to the extent of jeopardising the lives of the trainees. but i do agree with those above who stated that maybe 7 casualties indicates that something should not have been done during that particular course.
however, i may also be wrong: perhaps previous similar courses have similar casualty rates, just that there are no deaths, so the public wasn't informed.
anyway, if the regulations are such that they only cover the asses of the higher-ups, then perhaps the death of one trainee is that only way o ensure that regulations are in line with what takes place DURING the actual course itself. otherwise, why are those lines of words called 'regulations' in the first place?
just my POV, note that i'm 15, never been to NS (yet), so i may be wrong on everything. . . just voicing an opinion, thats all. -
well said my fren..Originally posted by laser51088:the way i see it, i think the 3 of u (gedakan,nathanG5, 35mm) (sorry abt spelling) are all assuming the other party is going the extreme.
maybe consider it this way, the CST course is a necessary 'evil' if u want the cdos to survive under trying conditions. however, it shouldn't be done to such an extreme that it goes beyond clearly stated restrictions to the extent of jeopardising the lives of the trainees. but i do agree with those above who stated that maybe 7 casualties indicates that something should not have been done during that particular course.
however, i may also be wrong: perhaps previous similar courses have similar casualty rates, just that there are no deaths, so the public wasn't informed.
anyway, if the regulations are such that they only cover the asses of the higher-ups, then perhaps the death of one trainee is that only way o ensure that regulations are in line with what takes place DURING the actual course itself. otherwise, why are those lines of words called 'regulations' in the first place?
just my POV, note that i'm 15, never been to NS (yet), so i may be wrong on everything. . . just voicing an opinion, thats all.
abt whether CST is a necessary evil at all..im asking Gedanken for his opinion..n others who went thru..does we need to feel how to be a POW at all...
if similar course have the same rate of casualty..another question..y the unneccesary injury in the 1st place?
we can just hope that 2nd Sgt Hu death is well worth it..to make things right again..
now a question..is 2nd Sgt Hu batch the 1st group to start the water treatment in the 80th CST course?
anyone knows? -
haha... yah loh... anyway i dun care what those ppl who keep trying to justify all this shit say..... MINDEF has declared the instructors wrong, and thats the last and final word. They WILL get punished heavily because they deserve it. There is no justification for taking a human life during training. So be it. They can debate with me as much as they want, but changes will be made... the course HAS been suspended, like it or not. AND the instructors WILL be punished, like it or not too.Originally posted by kopiosatu:disagreements not over yet ah????? wah piang oi~! -
Originally posted by HENG@:haha... yah loh... anyway i dun care what those ppl who keep trying to justify all this shit say..... MINDEF has declared the instructors wrong, and thats the last and final word. They WILL get punished heavily because they deserve it. There is no justification for taking a human life during training. So be it. They can debate with me as much as they want, but changes will be made... the course HAS been suspended, like it or not. AND the instructors WILL be punished, like it or not too.
Straight to the point. -
woah... so much has been said 8 ... here's my 2 cents worth. as a former sniper from 7SIB (3 batches before 2 SG Hu), who went thru CST too, i would say that for us snipers, CST is not a "necessary 'evil' " as mentioned by laser51088 earlier. mebbe for cdos, it is, but i say "mebbe" only becos i'm not from cdos. for us snipers, we r issued wif auto-injectors to prevent capture and becoming POWs. btw, the cse was an experience and IF u survive, it does make u feel like a stronger person.
laser51088 is rite, any cse "shouldn't be done to such an extreme that it goes beyond clearly stated restrictions to the extent of jeopardising the lives of the trainees" and the reason why we r all here is that "7 casualties indicates that something should not have been done during that particular course". so, let's just face the truth, even TCH has publicly admitted that the 'special treatment' was unauthorised.
i find it hard to justify if any life is worth it (i.e. KIT) at all, but at the very least, can we agree that 2SG Hu should be the last to be KIT? and after all that is said and done, can we remember what TCH said? Anyone who is responsible for soldiers should train them well, but also look after them well. let's not blind ourselves with arguing either sides. very imptly, how do we ensure that our guys get the best possible trg while ensuring that they return to civilian life safely after they have served the nation?
let's not forget Hu's ultimate sacrifice by merely arguing and pointing fingers. we have to live on from this tragic episode and honor Hu by ensuring that while SAF remains a "decisive force", it does not compromise the safety of our citizens. When I have a son in future, i wnat him to serve NS too, but like Hu's parent's, i want him to return home safely after serving his country.... -
I've been lurking around this thread for awhile reading the responses and all...seems to me that some of us don't know why there's a misconception regarding CST and the applicability of it.
The big reason why its conducted for specialized troops is because of the nature of their profession. Snipers are always in for a hard time when they are captured...history has proven that the enemy isn't very kind to snipers. You might have an auto-injector, but at that moment you might hesitate...no offence espanol_man...I was also from 7 SIB myself...
So goes the same for BRC-types and cdos. Why? They are regarded as the enemy that is small in concentration, but cause the most havoc. As a result, it requires that these types of soldiers need some form of realistic training to give them a taste of what they might experience 10-fold in a real situation. I'm not saying that it should breach training safety parameters. I went through CST myself...the treatment given to Infantry, Armour, and Guards is actually quite different. I believed for reasons of historical rivalry, Gdsmen actually get it a little worse than others...lol....those who have gone through CST might remember Staff Bala...
I made it through the course...hated being tied up, blindfolded and subjected to water torture, crawling in mud, being shoved around, staying dirty for days on end. But I came out of it realizing my endurance limits better, and knowing what to expect if my team was ever compromised. It made my team work harder during training exercises to prevent such an eventuality.
The CST was only one part of it. I even suggested back then that us specialized types should even go through a kind of 'hell week' and even the Airborne course. I'm not gung-ho or anything, but my logic is that since we are already trained to such an extent, we might as well go all the way...
Maybe the problem is that we don't properly screen the types of soldiers that are going into these vocations. I suggested in the other thread that maybe it might be better that they have a system of voluntary service...and the applicant should have an outstanding fitness, marksmanship (esp for snipers), high motivation, no psychological problems, no major health problems if any...the reward? a better vocation pay. I know it sounds highly theoretical, but I believe it might work better, irregardless of education level determining the years of service; much like the cdos...all serve for 2 1/2 yrs...
CST training has to be kept realistic. BUT it has to remain within certain safety parameters. The balance between realism and safety however, has to be redetermined from time to time. -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by wuming78:
ppl are advised to seek MP as last resort. and they wont get charged for seeking MP. anyway i think even at tt time, if they realli went to see MP they wont get charged. the MP wil be alerted the first time. if the MP finds out the person got charged for seeing him wat wil he do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by NathanG5:
alot of backside gona be fried...if that NSF kena charge..
there is nothing wrong with seeing the MP...at most u kena abit of harsh words while you are back in camp..
chain of command is break frequently..even in the senior command..
so there shld not be any double standard..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think u guys a bit naive, Mindef/SAF will not charge the soldier straight away after they hv seen their MP...
There r many ways that thay could make your life miserable in yr remaining NS time, for example post you out to a tougher unit, send you for tough courses etc All within their rights to do so , they could also have your CO & RSM to mark you so that every single violation you make will certainly be extra duties and even been charged if they r serious "violation". eg.every weapon inspection will yield you extra, every exercise you will get to do sentry, more standby bed ,more weapon inspection etc
They could also tekan to whole coy becos of u example more standby, more semura during exercise becos they said you r the cause so that the whole coy will hate you!!!
Therefore think twice b4 doing any stupid like complaining to the MP unless you have a very strong case, becos a pissed off SAF could & would do the thing stated above & even your MP also Lan Lan.
-
No, in principle, the course is not impractical - the current practice, however, is something I strongly disagree with.Originally posted by NathanG5:Gedanken
from your reply to 35mm Gunner..
i guess u mean that CST course is impractical?
or something else..pls correct me..thanx
laser51088 almost got it correct, except for one thing. I am not assuming that anyone has gone to the extreme. The fact that we have a dead trainee shows that things have already gone to the extreme - there is no assumption here. Anybody defending the instructor's perspective is by extension defending taking things to that extreme.
It seems that those who take a different view to Nathan or myself seem to be getting at the principle of "whatever does not kill you will make you stronger". Well and good, except that it operates upon the assumption that it does not kill you. In this case, the assumption has obviously been violated.
For those who argue for realism in training, the question is, what is the point at which increasing realism produces diminishing returns?
For argument's sake, let us go down the alternative line of argument. In the event of a real war, the enemy will try drowning POWs to get information out of them, so we train our troops to withstand that. Well and good. But wait, they might also try driving hot skewers into people to get information. Fine - we'll turn our trainees into kebabs. Hmm - they might also try skinning prisoners like the Lebanese do. Okay, let's string the boys up and peel them like oranges.
See where this is going?
Well and good that we prepare our troops for the realities of the situation. At the end of the day, the objective is to try to ensure that they don't sing like canaries when they are captured. Within limits, there is a point to CST training inasmuch as we have to get the troops prepared for the event that an enemy will not be civilised and respect the Geneva Convention. There is no utility in taking it to the point where one trainee is drowned and five others are hospitalised. That is just a waste of manpower, and it makes 2Sgt Hu's death pointless.
One point I take particular exception to is 35MM Gunner's question, "did it occur 2 u tat they (instructors) r actually prolonging their lives (trainees)????? ". I would have thought that the answer is fairly obvious - 2Sgt Hu was KILLED in the training. One would have to be blind, deaf or particularly stupid to not see that this is a case of SHORTENING lives, not prolonging them. -
Can anyone educate me what's an auto-injecter? Sounds like suicide pills to me .. yucks!
If my idea is right, in wartime, snipers are seldom captured. Someone told me the only way to retaliate is to send in mortar barrage in their direction. -
35MM Gunner's position is certainly badly flawed, he attempts to appeal to emotionalism and shaky reasoning rather then viewing the entire thing from a objective point of view.
Though I have sympathy for those instructors whoes lives are not circling the drain, this is no way marrs my objective view that there is simply no way to condone what they did. There is no justification possible, no excuses of realistic training or over hardcoreness to justify an training session that took one live and nearly six others as well. If this is what 35MM Gunner wants to justify as an acceptable attrition ration for typical training, I shudder to envision what other things are possible when we apply his reasoning to other areas of the SAF.
Maybe we should shake up our troops with life arty rounds? To make sure they know how stressful it is like to dig foxholes under bombardment?
Why not go the full mile and use shock treatment, finger crushing and the like in POW training?
In the end, training is to prepare somebody for the actual event, not actually BE the actual event itself, which in itself will be the litmus test for what the trooper is made of. Training or whatever ranger commando nonsense course is not, and was never meant to be, as 35MM put it, the walk or the talk.
Training may be tough, but it must always be conducted with the safety of the trainee at the uppermost of the agenda, and checks and measures must be in place to make sure things do not go overboard. Trainee volunteer SEALs typically drop out of the course, they do not leave in bodybags. Much less for our conscripted personnel who want little part in all this but to get through without a scratch.
Showing these instructors and the ilk any mercy is to send out a message to any aspiring "combat simulators" that they can get away with implementing their own idea of training simulations. Let this be a lesson to them and all. The basic operating premise of the military is to STICK TO PROCEDURE because they are there for a reason. How would you like ICBM silo officers to get a little creative in following their own procedure? SSBN Captains?
Tough training does not have to equal dangerous training, and it would be good for 35MM Gunner to seperate the two. This death was not just tragic, it was sensless. And 35MM Gunner's impassioned defence of the instructors is an insult and a belitting of the true grostuque nature of the deed. -
ok then let ALL present and future soldiers b softies
inst can let trainees do wat they wan when they wan
and when its time 2 go 2 battle soldiers can choose 2 sacrifice or hide in da bomb shelter at home