Treatment of RSS Courageous victim's family - A disgrace
-
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/story/0,4136,55852,00.html?
Navy woman lost at sea: Grieving father get letter offering daughter chance to get degree. But he's waiting for another
By Alvin Chiang
All i want is her death certificate
A letter offering his daughter a chance to go to university is just a waste of paper to Mr Chua Chun. The only certificate Mr Chua wants is his daughter's death certificate.
Second Sergeant Chua Bee Lin was lost at sea after the RSS Courageous collided with the container carrier ANL Indonesia off Pedra Branca in January last year. But to date, there is nothing to certify her death. With her death cert, Mr Chua, 52, will be able to unlock his daughter's savings.
And life will be easier for him and his family.
Meanwhile, a letter from the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) was sent to Mr Chua's house last September. SIM sent the letter to inform Second Sgt Chua that she could make an application to study at the university.
But the lost chance for a degree in the family is the last thing on Mr Chua's mind.
For more than a year, he has been waiting for her death certificate.
MAY HAVE TO WAIT 7 YEARS
But he might have to wait for as long as seven years before he sees it.
This is because his daughter's body could not be found.
As such, Second Sgt Chua is technically not dead yet, but missing.
With no document to certify her death, Mr Chua cannot receive compensation for his daughter's accident for up to seven years, the time required for the law to recognise a missing person as dead.
Without the death certificate, Mr Chua cannot have access to his daughter's savings, which had been frozen since last year. Most importantly, receiving the document would give his family a sense of closure to a tragic chapter in their lives, more than the court verdict yesterday.
Mr Chua said in Mandarin: 'If she's alive, she would be back home already. It's been more than a year.
'The verdict has no impact on me since my daughter is already gone.
'It won't bring my daughter back.'
Before the incident, Second Sgt Chua played an important role in her family of four.
She was the main breadwinner in her family.
Second Sgt Chua earned more than $2,500 a month, her father said.
Mr Chua used to help out at a vegetable stall at a market near their Boon Lay flat.
He earned about $1,000 a month.
But in January this year, Mr Chua lost his job.
Madam Sow Kum Chot, 47, used to be a housewife when she lost her daughter, but now she does odd jobs to support the family and earns about $500 a month.
Mr Chua Wei Ming, Second Sgt Chua's younger brother, is a dispatch rider.
The elder Mr Chua said his 24-year-old son earns 'enough to support himself' without revealing exactly how much.
It has not been easy on the Chuas since the incident.
Second Sgt Chua was 24 years old at that time.
Mr Chua said: 'Our lives had not been good since then.
'Why? One person is gone from our family of four.
'It's not the same any more.
'We depended on her earnings to support the family.
'But now she's gone.'
The Chuas bought their four-room Boon Lay flat about three years ago.
For the next 28 years, they have to pay between $300 and $400 a month to complete repayment for the flat.
Mr Chua said his daughter was a quiet girl.
'She loved to read and study,' he said.
She seldom went out and preferred to stay at home.
Second Sgt Chua was a Singapore Polytechnic graduate.
She signed on with the Navy to get a tuition grant to support her studies, Mr Chua said.
He said his daughter dreamt of going to the university to further her studies.
He misses his daughter.
'How can I not think of her?
'She's my daughter and I raised her.'
Second Sgt Chua had registered her marriage to Mr Ng Chin Leong, 29, in 2001.
But they had not gone through the traditional Chinese wedding.
So Second Sgt Chua was still living at her parents' flat before the incident.
FAMILY TENSION
Now there appears to be some tension in the family.
Mr Chua was not happy that some had said Second Sgt Chua's funeral need not be elaborate.
Also, Mr Chua said he had been criticised by others for being slow in settling the problem of his daughter's death certificate.
As she was legally wed, there is also a dispute about how the compensation for her death should be shared.
Most of Second Sgt Chua's personal belongings were donated to charity, Mr Chua said.
'She loved dolls.
'But we decided to give them away to poor children in Thailand and Myanmar.'
The Chuas had also locked up Second Sgt Chua's room.
Perhaps it was their way of locking away memories of her.
Now, only a few personal items remain. -
It really distressed me, upon reading this story in yesterday's (Sat 28/03/04) edition of the New Paper. Its surprising that the standard 7 year rule to get a death certificate for 2SG Chua may still have to apply, even though the circumstances surrounding her disappearance are very different from the usual. I understand the need for the 7-year rule, but I think there are cases when an exception should be made. And this is certainly such a case.
At the very least, the RSN should push the relevant authorities to issue a death certificate for 2SG Chua, given the strong evidence of her deceased status. The RSN owes her, and her family this much.
How can we 'move on' from the Courageous incident, and yet leave 2SG Chua's family behind in limbo? -
Welcome to SingaporeOriginally posted by Viper52:It really distressed me, upon reading this story in yesterday's (Sat 28/03/04) edition of the New Paper. Its surprising that the standard 7 year rule to get a death certificate for 2SG Chua may still have to apply, even though the circumstances surrounding her disappearance are very different from the usual. I understand the need for the 7-year rule, but I think there are cases when an exception should be made. And this is certainly such a case.
At the very least, the RSN should push the relevant authorities to issue a death certificate for 2SG Chua, given the strong evidence of her deceased status. The RSN owes her, and her family this much.
How can we 'move on' from the Courageous incident, and yet leave 2SG Chua's family behind in limbo? -
RSN is not above the law...
even if the situation is unique... asking RSN to "PUSH" for a resolution in breech of the standing law is tantamount to setting a very bad precedence in the future.
as much as i emphathize the chuas... it must be noted that their desire to sink into their daughters' kitty and compensation is merely a temporary relief....
perhaps the ministry of community affair could lend them a hand given the sacrifice her daughter as made for the nation.
ohhh... i dont understand what you mean by "disgrace". -
I think it is the law about missing cases.
Mindef will still continue to pay the salary of Sgt Chua eventhough she is MIA I think in monthly basis to her account.
The problem is not just the money ,what happen if she is found, then all money in her account, the money pay to her when she is MIA might all be used up by the family.
Then who should take the blame if that happen, Mindef or the family.
In this way, Sgt Chua could continue have a salary from MIndef for7 yrs as the report stated which means $228k + bonsus + interest after 7 years.
Remember if she is certified with DC, Mindef will ceased to pay her.
-
RSN is not above the law, hell, thats right.Originally posted by tripwire:RSN is not above the law...
even if the situation is unique... asking RSN to "PUSH" for a resolution in breech of the standing law is tantamount to setting a very bad precedence in the future.
as much as i emphathize the chuas... it must be noted that their desire to sink into their daughters' kitty and compensation is merely a temporary relief....
perhaps the ministry of community affair could lend them a hand given the sacrifice her daughter as made for the nation.
But as I said, this is not a typical missing case. 2SG Chua did not go missing because she didn't come back from a shopping trip. She was lost at sea in a collision, all her bunkmates are dead. This, and everything else make it a special case. No one is saying the RSN should bend the rules, but the RSN should submit all relevant declassified documents to SIR(?) on the incident and the ensuing search for her in the seas around the accident site, and the sunken section of the Courageous.
The monies may be temporary relief, but it is relief nonetheless. And not to mention, it will bring about a closure for her family.
It is a disgace as the relevant authorities refuse to look into the circumstances of this case and use the law as an excuse for blaket treatment. Even a bureaucracy can, and must be flexible sometimes -
Gary, it is the law. But as I have stated, even a bureacracy can, and must be flexible sometimes.Originally posted by gary1910:I think it is the law about missing cases.
Mindef will still continue to pay the salary of Sgt Chua eventhough she is MIA I think in monthly basis to her account.
The problem is not just the money ,what happen if she is found, then all money in her account, the money pay to her when she is MIA might all be used up by the family.
Then who should take the blame if that happen, Mindef or the family.
In this way, Sgt Chua could continue have a salary from MIndef for7 yrs as the report stated which means $182k + bonsus + interest after 7 years.
The issue is not over how much it will be in 7 years. Like many families now, the Chuas are not in a good financial situation. Even if the money, as Tripwire flippantly dismisses it, may just be "temporary relief", it will alleviate their situation. Brings the mind the saying "A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush" -
The Law is to safeguard the interest of the missinig person, if she is found, then all monies belong to her will still be there.Originally posted by Viper52:Gary, it is the law. But as I have stated, even a bureacracy can, and must be flexible sometimes.
The issue is not over how much it will be in 7 years. Like many families now, the Chuas are not in a good financial situation. Even if the money, as Tripwire flippantly dismisses it, may just be "temporary relief", it will alleviate their situation. Brings the mind the saying "A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush"
But if she is not found after 7 years , the family will get the compensation, insurance payout as well as the salary/bonuses due to her for the last 7 years.
In the meantime, social svc might help the family in financial aids if they are qualified. I am sure Mindef has a similar aids for servicemem/women too. -
Well, my thoughts are even if the family decides to fight for a death cert, its going to take time, whether successful or not.
In the meantime, if Mindef and Community Devt Ministry are going to help out, all the better. Its Mindef duty to do so, and if the daughter is found (no offence to the family), the family isnt responsible for any such mishap or mistake.
These two (savings and ministries help) arent the only source of income, perhaps the family should also look at other solutions.
Things doesnt end at death cert, although issuing this will bring closure to this case, and help the family for the time being. However, the death cert will at least gives the dead the respect it deserves. -
what is disgraceful about upholding a law that protects the victim...
while merely conjecturing... there is a reason why the law states 7 years as a neccessity... people dont set law for the fun of it.
and even if the navy is "above" the law as viper seems to hint... they cant and will NEVER do such a thing openly in public view.
to challenge the law openly and in full public view is tantamount to mutiny! -
Its simple decency that is lacking here, all hindered by bureaucracy.C'mon, let the family have closure in their lives.Is that so much to ask for?I'm sure the relevant agencies can come up with something.Shouldn't be too hard right, after all we paid our top-class salaries with our blood and sweat.Time to work , fellas.
-
The problem with all this that is you all assumed that she has passed on.Originally posted by laurence82:Things doesnt end at death cert, although issuing this will bring closure to this case, and help the family for the time being. However, the death cert will at least gives the dead the respect it deserves.
What if she is still alive!?! Then who will safeguard her interest if she is found!?!
She could have been saved by a passing fisherman, and due to her lost of memory, she could not tell her rescuer who she is......
That is why the 7 years is in place!!!! -
What I have meant in my post was, whether she is alive or dead, cert or no cert, life goes on for the family. They want to fight for closure, whatever it is, gonna take time. Look for other viable solutions at the same time.Originally posted by gary1910:The problem with all this that is you all assumed that she has passed on.
What if she is still alive!?! Then who will safeguard her interest if she is found!?!
She could have been saved by a passing fisherman, and due to her lost of memory, she could not tell her rescuer who she is......
That is why the 7 years is in place!!!!
And what interest specifically is not safeguarded or in danger?
The family going to use the death cert to get hold of the monies, and waste it all away? Or to feed themselves.?
If Mindef going to hand out the dole, and she is found, they gonna sue her? Take back all the money? Or...?
With regards to the law, simply if its deemed to be too rigid and too generalised (now I am putting if, so dont flame me) and have room for contentions, then the law must be debated, if not changed.
We are using the law to protect ourselves, therefore its damn right we should uphold it. However, like I said above, if its there are room for discussions, and for changes, we wont want the law to strangle us in the end.
And if such laws can be changed to accomodate exceptional cases, why not? If such laws can changed after serious debates, why not?
I hope people would not just say "Nyet, the laws cant be changed, thats it." -
the law is set by man...
thus the law can be changed by man as well...
but tis is wrong to breech the law through "influence" or "pushing"... as someone might have suggested even on compassionate ground.
if the law is unjust... it should be debated and changed through proper channel... and apply to all.
its just not right for someone to be given "special" consideration in my view... unless this "special" consideration is applicable to all... thus "DESPECIALISTION" such consideration. -
Since she is MIA, I dun think Mindef has paid any compensation but I might be wrong.
I dun think the insurance will pay any too at this moment.
Therefore, I believe the family wanted the DC to have all these pay out and her account unfrozen.
Since she is considered to be MIA, Mindef will continue to pay her salary and bonuses into her 's account for next 7 yrs. And I dun think Mindef has a right to take this back even she is found.
I believe the family will be better off to wait, in the mean time, the family will get help from govt if they r really needed help.
As for the law, it should not be bent, otherwise it will not be a law anymore. Change the law but not bend it. -
singapore. what do u expect?
-
and what do you mean by that short sentence heng?
-
the '7 year' rule must be taken into perspective and it is there for cases where people have gone missing and you don't know if they are dead or not. in this case where it is quite clear cut that death has occured and it is only where the body has not been found, then I think it would not be 'above the law' for the death certificate to be issued. however, i must first say i'm not sure about the details and how certain it is that death had indeed occured.
come on govt... cut through the red tape and give the family of one who gave her life in the service of the country some relief. -
Erm okay, first, it's 'breach', not 'breech'.Originally posted by tripwire:but tis is wrong to breech the law through "influence" or "pushing"... as someone might have suggested even on compassionate ground.
its just not right for someone to be given "special" consideration in my view... unless this "special" consideration is applicable to all...
'Influence' or 'pushing' should not be used to break the rules. But although I haven't researched this area of the law, it should be entirely possible for the family to apply to a court for a special dispensation or waiver of the 7 year rule, due to the highly unusual circumstances of this particular case.
The law is not, and should never be treated as a rigid, inflexible construct beyond the pale of simple human compassion - the law, at the end of the day, is used to govern people, and as such must be (and, in civilised parts of the world, is) open to being influenced by principles that people hold dear, such as compassion, fairness and justice in individual cases. Every person coming before the law should be entitled to have his / her case decided on its merits (i.e. it should be done on a case by case basis), rather than have a blanket rule blindly and unthinkingly imposed on him / her.
I don't think that MINDEF and RSN legal services are doing their job properly. In the case of a bereavement, they should be working with the family to ensure that it is not subject to unjustified suffering as a result of the serviceman's / servicewoman's death. It should have visited the family, interviewed them, found out what effect the sailor's death would have on the family's livelihood, then done its best to put the family in the best legal position possible.
But maybe they can't be bothered. That's often how people in Singapore are deprived of their legal rights, because the non-English educated among them can't find their way around an English-based legal system (and they cannot be blamed for this), and because the system and institutions that should be helping them just can't be bothered to equip them with the right information and advice. That's why, in Singapore, justice is a right of only those who can afford to pay for it. -
Please, no more about telling me why the law is in place. As I've stated in my very first place, I've understood why the law is there, and fully agree with it.Originally posted by gary1910:The Law is to safeguard the interest of the missinig person, if she is found, then all monies belong to her will still be there.
But if she is not found after 7 years , the family will get the compensation, insurance payout as well as the salary/bonuses due to her for the last 7 years.
In the meantime, social svc might help the family in financial aids if they are qualified. I am sure Mindef has a similar aids for servicemem/women too.
My point, and it has not been addressed by either you, or Tripwire, is that in this case, it is almost certain beyond the whisker of a doubt, that 2SG Chua is deceased, and with the substantial evidence at hand (all crewmates who were in the same bunk had died, exhaustive search of the area of collision etc), the navy should make at least an effort to use this evidence as proof that there is little, if any reasonable doubt of 2SG Chuas deceased status and convince the Registrar of Births and Deaths, that a death certificate is in order. What I've been calling for, is a little flexbility on the application of the law. Not for anyone to break or bend it.
As I've said, it's not just about the money. Its about bringing closure to this episode to the family, and allowing them to 'move on' from this issue, like the RSN and the other families have.
Like I've asked, can we truly move on, when someone (the family) has been left behind? -
Again, I'm not hinting that the Navy is 'above' the law. I'm suggesting a little bit of flexibility is required in this case. Theres nothing disgraceful about this law. But as I've stated before, hiding behind a law as a blanket judgement of all cases, without considering the merits of each case (such as this), is simply wrong, irresponsible, brain-dead and downright lazy. And because of this, 2SG Chua's family has to suffer while the RSN conveniently 'moves on'.Originally posted by tripwire:what is disgraceful about upholding a law that protects the victim...
while merely conjecturing... there is a reason why the law states 7 years as a neccessity... people dont set law for the fun of it.
and even if the navy is "above" the law as viper seems to hint... they cant and will NEVER do such a thing openly in public view.
to challenge the law openly and in full public view is tantamount to mutiny!
As for setting a "bad precedent", whats so bad about having a system which is flexible and nimble enough to take into account the unique merits of certain cases, and not exercise blanket judgements just because "the law said so"?
You and gary1910 have totally misrepresented my point of view, while refusing to respond to my point about calling for a little human flexibility in the application of the said law. -
True, but what are the chances of that happening? Is it worth the agony of the family in being unable to declare closure on that slim chance?Originally posted by gary1910:The problem with all this that is you all assumed that she has passed on.
What if she is still alive!?! Then who will safeguard her interest if she is found!?!
She could have been saved by a passing fisherman, and due to her lost of memory, she could not tell her rescuer who she is......
That is why the 7 years is in place!!!!
Even the RSN has declared 2SG Chua "Missing, presumed dead". By this, it has acknowledged that she is lost at sea, and will most likely never be found. If thats the case, why stop there? And do the honourable thing and help the family. -
Thats exactly what I'm calling for! For ALL missing person cases such as this, where the missing has little, if any chance of being found alive, a mechanism should be set in place where official declarations of death can be expedited provided sufficient grounds can be provided showing proof beyond resonable doubt of death.Originally posted by tripwire:the law is set by man...
thus the law can be changed by man as well...
but tis is wrong to breech the law through "influence" or "pushing"... as someone might have suggested even on compassionate ground.
if the law is unjust... it should be debated and changed through proper channel... and apply to all.
its just not right for someone to be given "special" consideration in my view... unless this "special" consideration is applicable to all... thus "DESPECIALISTION" such consideration.
For the last time, for Tripwire's benefit, I'm not advocating that the Navy or Air Force or Army break or bend the rules. I'm suggesting that a more flexible application of this missing person's law.
It just so happens in this case, that the party able to provide proof of death is the Navy, thats why I'm advocating the Navy does the right thing, and take on this case with the Registrar of Births and Deaths. Not for special rights to be granted to the Navy or any other armed service.
-
Again, we're back to the "A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush". The family is in financial trouble now, fat a lot of use the money is going to be in 7 years time, be it $182,000 or 182 million.Originally posted by gary1910:Since she is MIA, I dun think Mindef has paid any compensation but I might be wrong.
I dun think the insurance will pay any too at this moment.
Therefore, I believe the family wanted the DC to have all these pay out and her account unfrozen.
Since she is considered to be MIA, Mindef will continue to pay her salary and bonuses into her 's account for next 7 yrs. And I dun think Mindef has a right to take this back even she is found.
I believe the family will be better off to wait, in the mean time, the family will get help from govt if they r really needed help.
As for the law, it should not be bent, otherwise it will not be a law anymore. Change the law but not bend it.
As for getting help from the government, have you tried it Gary? Do you think its as simple as stretching out your hand? Do you think its substantial enough to look after 2 unemployed elderly persons? Or maybe they're following our dear government's advice and not wanting to depend on government handouts on a whim?
Sure, change the law, by all means! Thats exactly what I'm advocating all this while isn't it? Keep the 7-year rule, but insert clauses to allow room for flexibility and to evaluate certain cases by their merits. God knows there isn't enough if it in the whole damned legal system we have. And in the rare event that theres already such a clause written in this law, the the RSN had better get off it's collective butts and use it! -
Thank you Jason, its nice to know there're people like you, laurence82, Heng and others who can think out of the box. Unlike someOriginally posted by Jason:the '7 year' rule must be taken into perspective and it is there for cases where people have gone missing and you don't know if they are dead or not. in this case where it is quite clear cut that death has occured and it is only where the body has not been found, then I think it would not be 'above the law' for the death certificate to be issued. however, i must first say i'm not sure about the details and how certain it is that death had indeed occured.
come on govt... cut through the red tape and give the family of one who gave her life in the service of the country some relief.