Military Nuts forum makes it in the local news
-
INSIGHT: The Internet: The new political ward?
By Lydia Lim
A WEEK after a rather parsimonious Ministry of Defence statement said that a young soldier had 'collapsed' and died, someone put up an online posting offering a shocking explanation.
The person, also a national serviceman, alleged that Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai had died after being dunked in water. About five other people also nearly drowned during a combat survival training session, he claimed.
His posting on the Military Nuts forum at www.sgforums.com sparked an online discussion that drew thousands of page views.
Some others, who said they were commandos, also posted messages confirming that water torture had been part of training sessions for some time.
This thread, which began in late August, was later removed by one of the forum's moderators.
Still, about two months later, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean told Parliament that 2nd Sgt Hu had indeed died from drowning during the dunking, an unauthorised training practice at the School of Commando Training.
His friend, speaking for the first time to the press, tells Insight that he started the discussion thread to counter any wrong impression created by the first Mindef statement.
'They claimed that he had collapsed during training, as if it was due to his own health problems. There was no mention that he had drowned.
'I felt it was an injustice and decided to post an account of what really happened online, to let as many people as possible know,' he says. 'I let them know he drowned, that his head was forced under water and held there for a long time.'
This person, who asked not to be named, says he based his account on a conversation he had with another NSman who was at the scene.
After that first posting, he says he watched and waited to see what Mindef would do.
'I was just hoping that they would come out with the truth and admit that it was negligence on their part,' he says.
He still remembers Oct 15, the day Rear-Admiral (NS) Teo spoke for the first time about his friend's death.
'When I heard the minister's statement, I felt happiness and relief that his death had not been in vain, that there would be steps taken to prevent other people from dying in the same way.'
OUTING THE TRUTH
HOW the online discussion figured in Mindef's decision to make public the cause of 2nd Sgt Hu's death is difficult to establish.
The closest the Government came to acknowledging the Internet as a factor was on Oct 19, when Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told reporters that Mindef would be transparent.
'Nobody should be left in any doubt that there is a cover-up or that Mindef will be kind to its own people... If we did not tell the truth, then people will start believing what is on the Internet uncritically,' he said.
What is clear is that, this time round, Mindef has been far more open than it was in 1991, when it also faced public pressure to be more forthcoming about three accidents that left eight servicemen dead.
At that time, Member of Parliament Charles Chong had asked for more information on the cases.
But then Second Minister for Defence Yeo Ning Hong said legal and security reasons required that findings by committees set up to investigate military accidents had to be kept secret.
Insight asked Rear- Adm (NS) Teo about the difference in Mindef's response then and now, and whether the Internet was a factor.
He would say only that his ministry's 'open approach' this time round 'ensures that the high level of public support and trust in the SAF is maintained'.
He also said in his e-mail reply that Mindef seeks feedback and monitors views from both soldiers and the public because the SAF is a 'citizen's army'.
It is interested in all 'serious discussions', regardless of the medium. And it responds when an issue 'merits a response', he added.
Although the Government may not like to admit it, the Internet has definitely limited its ability to suppress information, say media watchers.
As Mr Arun Mahizhnan, deputy director of the Institute of Policy Studies, notes: 'When serious issues are outed in the Internet first, the Government would find it exceedingly difficult to completely cover up.'
-
hm. i haf a feeling its Heng@ who did it.
in any case, we shud not be surprised tt this forum is being watched by ppl frm ST - we haf been mentioned several times in the sundae times b4 this. -
not only dat...recently we even had a ST insider pop-by...if you know who i'm refering toOriginally posted by wuming78:in any case, we shud not be surprised tt this forum is being watched by ppl frm ST - we haf been mentioned several times in the sundae times b4 this.
-
Originally posted by IAF:not only dat...recently we even had a ST insider pop-by...if you know who i'm refering to
no i dun. tell me! -
check this thread..Originally posted by wuming78: no i dun. tell me!
http://military.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=62643 -
hm! din noticed!
actualli its not surprising. when someone pours through the net for singaporean military info using search engines, one will inevitably be pointed to this site.
and tt was how i found this site in the first place too! -
typed in military nuts in google and came up with this forum first on the list..surprising as i'm pretty sure there are military nutcases the world over.
now m pretty sure our minister of defence and his minister of state have buttons on their browsers linking to this forum -
no lah. mabbe their sons.Originally posted by IAF:typed in military nuts in google and came up with this forum first on the list..surprising as i'm pretty sure there are military nutcases the world over.
now m pretty sure our minister of defence and his minister of state have buttons on their browsers linking to this forum -
sigh...... i wonder when will our bar forum make it in news.
-
Originally posted by boy in blues: sigh...... i wonder when will our bar forum make it in news.
-
Well, it's not just the mods who are looking at this website as there are a few "technical officer" who scans the sg website for OPSEC everyday.
-
its most likely [email protected] least some justice is done from his help..Originally posted by wuming78:hm. i haf a feeling its Heng@ who did it.
in any case, we shud not be surprised tt this forum is being watched by ppl frm ST - we haf been mentioned several times in the sundae times b4 this. -
clad that the truth is out.
Somethings cannot tell though...haiz....not transparent enough...SAF... -
Originally posted by boy in blues: sigh...... i wonder when will our bar forum make it in news.
wat. hmmm, according to the activity rating in singapore's biggest online discussion network, there has been a rise in erm, discussion about erm, sexual issues.
-
tts cos singaporeans are now more open abt it!Originally posted by MooKu:
wat. hmmm, according to the activity rating in singapore's biggest online discussion network, there has been a rise in erm, discussion about erm, sexual issues.
or they oni dare to discuss such issues when they are assured of anonymity. -
bahahahahaOriginally posted by wuming78:tts cos singaporeans are now more open abt it!
or they oni dare to discuss such issues when they are assured of anonymity. -
Kinda like my comments on Speaker's Corner forum that also came out on the side bits during one of the Sunday Times..I believe that this place can have some impact, if not a lot on people out there..If you know what I mean.A free gathering of ideas always throws up more useful tips and tricks than a closed-door powwow of Indian chiefs!.
-
Originally posted by wuming78:tts cos singaporeans are now more open abt it!
or they oni dare to discuss such issues when they are assured of anonymity. Mwahahahah. dats so sad. -
kinda surprising when i read that
-
Maybe some of us may fret or be "alarmed' that this forum is under observation....but look on the bright side, they may actually find some of our observations/analysis useful, sort of like an alternative view (though I doubt anyone will ever admit it!!!)
-
if the REMFs find something which is viable, they'll steal it for themselves so that they can get themselves promoted...Originally posted by warspite:Maybe some of us may fret or be "alarmed' that this forum is under observation....but look on the bright side, they may actually find some of our observations/analysis useful, sort of like an alternative view (though I doubt anyone will ever admit it!!!)
-
I see no reason to fear the observation by the authorities or anyone else. If one's intention is not malicious and one feel that his or her idea is worth sharing then put it on here.
Likewise if there's issues that one feels need to be raised in case the establishment try a cover up then go ahead.
Just so long as it's for Singapore's benefit.
Of course there are some secrets that is ahem not internet appropriate......black weapons program etc.
BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY!!! -
What I'd like to know is which mod removed the thread(s)? And his reasons for doing so.Originally posted by IAF:This thread, which began in late August, was later removed by one of the forum's moderators. -
it happen during the time a few thread were remove?Originally posted by Viper52:What I'd like to know is which mod removed the thread(s)? And his reasons for doing so.
its still mystery... -
cant rem who removed. but basically the thread kept getting revived, and there was no progress in the discussion when it got revived - the same arguments were made. the latest additions inflamed some other members as well. so it was decided tt the thread outlived its usefulness. anyway it was too long - no one could possibly finish reading the entire thread. ppl will prob den jus post something without reading if it has been covered b4. hence the situation.Originally posted by Viper52:What I'd like to know is which mod removed the thread(s)? And his reasons for doing so.