Witness relates dunking death of soldier
-
SINGAPORE : The second commando officer charged with causing the death of Second Sergeant Hu En Huai has explained to the court how he interrogated the combat survival trainees.
Lieutenant Divanandhari is also facing a second charge for nearly drowning Captain Ho Wan Huo.
Lieutenant Diva testified that commando Captain Pandiaraj, who faces charges of instigating the drowning and near drowning, had indicated to him that one of the trainees was an officer -- Captain Ho.
When asked if Captain Pandiaraj had done that so he could confront the trainee, Lieutenant Diva said no.
The commando trainer claims asking a trainee his rank is part and parcel of the interrogation.
Lieutenant Diva also denied testimony from other witnesses that he had thrown Captain Ho's rank on the ground and stepped on it.
He said he would never insult a fellow officer in that manner.
Lieutenant Diva clarified that when he removed Captain Ho's rank, it wasn't to disrespect Captain Ho or his rank.
If that was the case, when the trainees' uniforms are worn inside-out during the prisoner of war training, it would also be a sign of disrespect to the Army.
He said it is all part of the training. At the end of the day, they are all fellow soldiers in the same army. - CNA -
Correct me if I am wrong. I think the debate going on 2 months ago was mainly about the charging of CPT Pandiaraj and Warrant Bala. In no way did any of the "chest thumpers" then, supported the trainers who had currently denied responsibility for the dunking.Originally posted by Moxie:So both trainers deny responsibility for the dunking? ~scarcasm~
Gee, where's the bunch of Teo Chee Hean-conspiracy chest thumpers from 2 months back .... -
ya loh. so i suppose they are gonna say my fren slipped on a banana skin n slipped n fell head 1st into the tub n drowned himself? and that the other trainees also did the same thing but din drown? hey want to lie lie better right? sheesh do they have a brain? oh wait! they don't! if they did this Shit wouldn't have happend in the 1st place!Originally posted by Moxie:So both trainers deny responsibility for the dunking? ~scarcasm~
Gee, where's the bunch of Teo Chee Hean-conspiracy chest thumpers from 2 months back ....
*SNORT* -
pui. more choir practice. big manyl commandos become sissy choirboys singing the nicest, and most well rehersed tunes in court. what balls what courage. They aren't facing death here, just couple of years in jail and maybe a screw up to their career and yet they already have no guts to admit like MEN that they Fucked up. Depend on THESE 2 jokers to die for their fellow comrade in arms? pah. but can depend on them to KILL their fellow comrade in arms wor...Originally posted by kwlee:SINGAPORE : The second commando officer charged with causing the death of Second Sergeant Hu En Huai has explained to the court how he interrogated the combat survival trainees.
Lieutenant Divanandhari is also facing a second charge for nearly drowning Captain Ho Wan Huo.
Lieutenant Diva testified that commando Captain Pandiaraj, who faces charges of instigating the drowning and near drowning, had indicated to him that one of the trainees was an officer -- Captain Ho.
When asked if Captain Pandiaraj had done that so he could confront the trainee, Lieutenant Diva said no.
The commando trainer claims asking a trainee his rank is part and parcel of the interrogation.
Lieutenant Diva also denied testimony from other witnesses that he had thrown Captain Ho's rank on the ground and stepped on it.
He said he would never insult a fellow officer in that manner.
Lieutenant Diva clarified that when he removed Captain Ho's rank, it wasn't to disrespect Captain Ho or his rank.
If that was the case, when the trainees' uniforms are worn inside-out during the prisoner of war training, it would also be a sign of disrespect to the Army.
He said it is all part of the training. At the end of the day, they are all fellow soldiers in the same army. - CNA
some "brotherhood" the involved ones show. at the 1st sign of Shit they start throwing the black pot around. U'd wonder if they bribed to get into CDO and OCS in the 1st place or not. or maybe they licked some 3 Star balls. -
Fuck la can we stop calling these few pieces of trash commandos? U wanna know what a real commando is, we've a few good examples here in the forums. Gedanken for one.
-
Correct me if I am wrong. I think the debate going on 2 months ago was mainly about the charging of CPT Pandiaraj and Warrant Bala. In no way did any of the "chest thumpers" then, supported the trainers who had currently denied responsibility for the dunking.
Nah, there's been a running battle within this sgforums network for quite a while, even before I showed up. Basically, I sensed the CDO posters/sympathizers to have close ranks, claiming other soldiers don't understand their values & the unconventional nature of their training.
That's fine by me, but I took exception to the wilder claims that the investigations & legal proceedings were an insidious fault-finding conspiracy by MINDEF, with the Defence Minister as the figurehead.
Well, the court proceedings have revealed a lot, eh? Aside from the actual alleged lawbreakers, that is. There's a lot of flawed institutional SOPs & execution when it comes to how the CST course was supposed to be conducted. Maybe some (misguided) posters went through the same training & thought it was accepted stuff, when they were in reality victimized by unauthorized practices. That or they wanna still claim legitimacy over it simply cuz they've survived it. -
They are part of a bigger problem, an institutional one.
One more question - why civilian court at all? Why not court martial but open to the public? SAF no balls to do it the right way? -
From what I understand from the topic, shortcut below:Originally posted by Moxie:Nah, there's been a running battle within this sgforums network for quite a while, even before I showed up. Basically, I sensed the CDO posters/sympathizers to have close ranks, claiming other soldiers don't understand their values & the unconventional nature of their training.
That's fine by me, but I took exception to the wilder claims that the investigations & legal proceedings were an insidious fault-finding conspiracy by MINDEF, with the Defence Minister as the figurehead.
Well, the court proceedings have revealed a lot, eh? Aside from the actual alleged lawbreakers, that is. There's a lot of flawed institutional SOPs & execution when it comes to how the CST course was supposed to be conducted. Maybe some (misguided) posters went through the same training & thought it was accepted stuff, when they were in reality victimized by unauthorized practices. That or they wanna still claim legitimacy over it simply cuz they've survived it.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=81840
The cdo posters did not argue much about the legitimacy of the training. There was another topic on training issues and Gendaken had actively argued against the implentation of such a training method a year back.
Neither did they maintain the innocence of CPT Pandiaraj. We all know he was neligent; we all know he might have ordered the dunking, but why did the charges stopped at that level of command. God knows when dunking was introduced. It was indeed wrongful as we could see now as safety was compromised in it. But why didn't the higher echelons who had being in the forces for so long investigate or do anything about it. They would have heard of the training even if they did not go through it themselves. So aren't they as guilty of negligence as CPT Pandiaraj. That I think was what Gendaken was trying to bring across.
I guess there is a misunderstanding along the way during your debate with Gendaken. Maybe the picture can be clearer if you can read the postings again. Anyway I guess that particular topic is best summed up by meander.
Cheers -
Oct 22, 2004
TRIAL ON SOLDIER'S DEATH
Five witnesses, but accused denies dunking
By Selina Lum
FIVE soldiers saw Divanandhari Ambat Chandrasekharan dunk a combat survival trainee in a tub of water, the prosecution pointed out yesterday, even though the lieutenant denied he did such an act.
The 28-year-old said he did not know why they testified so, and maintained he was on a break when Captain Ho Wan Huo, 26, was being dunked.
Divanandhari is one of four commandos accused of rashly endangering the life of Capt Ho and rashly causing the death of Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai.
Yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher De Souza said it was a 'remarkable coincidence' the commando officer had been on a break when Capt Ho was being dunked.
Divanandhari had testified he left Capt Ho with other instructors after leading him to the tub. He also said he had, on his own accord, walked over to another area to count the number of trainees who were yet to go through prisoner-of-war treatment, when another instructor told him time was running out. He then went for a walk before returning to the tub.
Questioned by the DPP, he said he did not speak to anyone in the holding area or on his walk. 'I find it a bit odd,' said the DPP. 'You know you need to hurry up. You then go on your jaunt to the holding area and you don't tell anybody to hurry up.'
Divanandhari said he wanted to take a break.
The DPP said: 'It's a remarkable coincidence that when Capt Ho was undergoing water treatment, you went off to the holding area to count the number of trainees, but did not tell anyone this information.'
Divanandhari replied: 'I didn't need to tell anybody. And it's not just once, but I left the water treatment area a lot of times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More amazing coincidences involving Mr Divanandhari.......
Basically, the situation now is:
(1) The 5 witnesses were wrong in their previous testimony and that Mr Div was away on break and that he did not commit the dunking act. Meaning he is the innocent party who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
or
(2) The 5 witnesses were correct in their previous testimony and that Mr Div was not away on break and that he did commit the dunking act. If so, this means that he is a coward who can lie in a court testimony in an attempt to save his ass.
or
(3) The 5 witnesses were correct in their previous testimony and that Mr Div was not away on break and that he did commit the dunking act. However, Mr Div has a faulty memory and thus gave the wrong testimony (haha...).
Hmmm.......wonder which option is more likely..... -
Don't wanna comment too much while the legal proceedings are still ongoing, but one of these days I'm gonna summarize - at face value with the court testimonies - what everybody apparently DIDN'T do (from various staff commanders, CDO or otherwise, to the instructors on the ground), & see if it doesn't sound so tragically comical overall.
Diva's playing politician. At least Jeff Ng hasn't disvowed being a participant; his own defence is about dunking techniques/wearing full gloves/not seeing his POWs collapsing. Diva's basically claiming to be a peripheral figure by contrast.
Pandiaraj & Balakrishan will have their say, but one thing I've cued in on is not so much why the non-course appointees suka-suka join in the training - which I asked earlier - but how Ng & Diva ended up with such a prominent tekaning role. Is it their force of personality, their lao-chiao experience? Granted, the trainee intake was large but why did the other instructors - esp. the appointed ones - defer control/authority?But why didn't the higher echelons who had being in the forces for so long investigate or do anything about it.
Yes, I have plenty of beef with the institutional side too &, given how certain training SOPs has been exposed as sloppy, I do hope the buck doesn't end with the 4 alleged lawbreakers. FYI Noel Cheah is a fellow SJI alumnus of mine, but unfortunately that won't earn my sympathy. The Commandos need to get their house in order, cuz they set a high standard & is a vital part of the SAF.
But the CDOs aren't on trial; neither is their Training Wing or even the CST itself. Rather, it's those active participants deemed to have been culpable in hurting the 2 casualties, cuz it is now a criminal case. The CID was called in, a coroner's inquiry was convened & the prosecution now conducted by the AGC. That's why the other instructors aren't charged either, though at times I find myself wondering "why not?" when these guys testified about holding down the trainees' legs (but didn't get to do the actual dunking).One more question - why civilian court at all? Why not court martial but open to the public? SAF no balls to do it the right way?
See last paragraph; the military doesn't subjujate the judiciary in Singapore's system. I won't rule out court martial, or at least the DMG throwing the book at certain higher commanders for their (institutional) negligence. Note: When TCH debriefed Parliament earlier, he announced that FIVE instructors (4 officers, 1 senior NCO) were suspended & TWO other training supervisors relieved of their duties - & these were just the Training Wing personnel.
Here's hoping MINDEF won't just close shop after the conclusion of the trial. -
hey anyone followed the trial? my sis was sitting in as she was doing her internship at a law firm and she told me that while the Prosecutor was examining the esteemed Divanandhari, the other 3 in the stand was joking and laughing, probably at Divanandhari's remarkable evasive stance!! can you imagine that?! obviously, the full tragedy of the situation (that they caused a death) and even the gravity of the trial is not understood by these people!! it just confirms that the trial is nothing but a sham.
oh ya, during the examination of Divanandhari, the Prosecutor was so frustrated he actually raised his voice louder than would be normally accepted and the judge din even bother telling him to lower his voice. shows that they r all sick n tired of the trial huh?
for those of you who din know, Divanandhari is supposed to be the safety officer cause the original one tasked to be the safety officer went overseas during the course. yet no one bothered looking up to c who the safety officer was.
much as some guys like to rant about how we must provide realistic trg, this clearly shows a apparent lack of regard for safety procedures and regulations! the role of a safety officer should be to ensure safety yet Divanandhari went ahead to 'play' tormentor! i think they were not out to kill people, they just got too carried away with playing master over captured slaves.
also, despite the casualties, trg DID NOT stop until the Medical Officer stepped in after the casualties were sent to the Medical Centre. i think nobody understood just how grave everything was. also, the news report stated that despite the trainee's inability to stand after the dunking, the instructors actually threatened to dunk him some more if he dun move!! wow. realistic indeed! and they dragged him by his collar even when he was at near collapse! can you imagine that?! -
Hey, littlespotz - appreciate the enthusiasm but don't mock the legal proceedings itself, okay? If they hit you with contempt of court, you won't be able to plead ignorance or allude to what's seemingly "novelty" behavior to you.
This is not Justice Bao, full of melodrama & stuff. Having attended Abbas Saad's trial, I'll even say the verbal parts are pretty business-like, fairly brief & generally boring. But there's also a lot of underlying paperwork & legal discussions which the public gallery won't be witness to.
The issue over a non-present safety officer, plus who's the appointed supervising officer itself, was covered in court earlier this month. Pandiaraj will have his say when he's called to the dock, but to refresh:
OCT 8, 2004 ST
Witness denies being appointed safety officer
NO SAFETY officer was appointed for the prisoner-of-war training conducted on Aug 21 last year, said Lieutenant Shashi Kumar Nagapah, a commando officer who had helped in the dunking of the trainees.
He denied in court yesterday that he was assigned to be the safety officer for the first three days of the course - Aug 18 to 20 - despite another officer's testimony that he had been.
The court had heard earlier in the trial that a safety officer was to be assigned to the course. This officer is not to be involved in the training. His responsibility is to stop the course once safety regulations are breached.
In court yesterday, Lt Shashi Kumar said he had helped restrain trainees by straddling their bodies in the tub, a technique he said he learnt from watching other instructors.
In the middle of that day's training, the supervising officer, Captain Pandiaraj Mayandi, one of the accused, halted the course and said that he was going to the medical centre.
'While I was at the medical centre, I saw so many trainees there,' said Lt Shashi Kumar.
While at the medical centre, Pandiaraj asked him if he was the safety officer and when he said he was not, the captain asked Lieutenant Divanandhari Ambat Chandrasekharan, another of the accused, the same question. Divanandhari replied that he was not.
Lt Sashi Kumar said that Pandiaraj then told Divanandhari to assume the role first, and that things would be settled later. 'It only occurred to me then that there were no safety officers appointed throughout this course,' he said.
Mr Selva Naidu, Pandiaraj's lawyer, pointed out that Lieutenant Yap Kwong Weng, the original supervising officer, testified on Wednesday that he had assigned Lt Shashi Kumar as safety officer for the first three days.
He replied: 'I was not deployed as safety officer by anyone.'
OCT 7, 2004
Course papers changed: witness
`Names of attending officers changed after Hu died`
By Khushwant Singh
A DISTRICT court heard yesterday that although the course documents listed Lieutenant Yap Kwong Weng as the supervising officer, Captain Pandiaraj Mayandi (pictured), 33, had put his name down in that appointment hours after a trainee died.
Lt Yap testified that he had been the initial supervising officer of the combat survival training course on Pulau Tekong in which Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai, 19, died after being dunked.
But on Aug 21 last year, the day of 2nd Sgt Hu`s death, Lt Yap attended a full-day Work Improvement Teams (Wits) session in HDB Hub in Toa Payoh Central and Capt Pandiaraj assumed the role of supervising officer.
Lt Yap told the district court that he had gone home at 5.30pm after the Wits session and Capt Pandiaraj had called after 7pm to ask him to return to camp.
While driving to his camp in Changi, Capt Pandiaraj called again to say a trainee had died and new administration instructions had to be printed out. The supervising officer was changed from Lt Yap to Capt Pandiaraj, the safety officer was changed to Lieutenant Divanandhari Ambat Chandrasekharan, and the administration specialist changed to Staff Sgt Tan Tian Huat.
Asked by Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher de Souza why the changes were made, Lt Yap said: Because Capt Pandiaraj was supervising officer on the ground that day, and secondly, the supervising officer had the authority to dictate the appointment holders. Lt Yap also told the court that he had helped Warrant Officer S Balakrishnan, 45, the course commander, in preparing the paperwork.
Warrant Officer Bala is a very experienced soldier who does not have a good knowledge of computer skills so therefore I assisted him to prepare most of the administration papers.
Later, another witness, Lt Kong Wai Kheong, a platoon commander, who went to watch over the seven men he sent for the course, said that he also helped in the dunking of trainees.
He had told Lt Divanandhari to stop dunking 2nd Sgt Hu, who collapsed when pulled out of the tub of water. Lt Kong had moved away after instructors attended to 2nd Sgt Hu, who started coughing and looked as if he was recovering.
The sergeant later died in hospital.
Charged with causing the death of 2nd Sgt Hu and endangering the life of another trainee, Capt Ho Wan Huo, 26, are Lt Jeff Ng Chin Fong, 27, and Lt Divanandhari, 28. Capt Pandiaraj is accused of instigating the offences while WO Balakrishnan is charged for failing to stop the two lieutenants.
The trial continues. -
Lies lies and more lies. Sick n tired of this. F****** WUSSIES.
editted by mod. -
Eh ppl,read from the papers that Lt Divanandhari has a knee problem which effectively prevents him from squatting down.He was quoted as saying that if he has squatted down,his knee would have locked due to 2 staples which have been surgically implanted there.And he even volunteered to demostrate to the DPP in-front of everyone present that this is true,as such he could not have been squatting in the tub when the dunking took place.<>and if this is true,can anyone answer/comment why is someone with a medical problem allowed to be in a Combat unit,to be precise,an Elite,Front-line Combat Unit?
Next,the Genenva Convention states that any Prisoner-of-War can only be asked the BIG FOUR
ate of Birth,Name,Rank and (if i did not remember wrongly)Unit.Thus if the combat survival course is to teach the trainees the essence of combat survival much like the American S.E.R.R (Survival,Evasion,Resistance and Escape) is supposed to do to the trainee,I think they have clearly defeated the purpose of the entire exercise.Why?Simply because the Convention states that one can only expect the answers to the BIG FOUR,thus if the instructors had asked for their rank,it already defeats the purpose.As I am sure,all troops already know the Geneva Convention and have been properly briefed on what to say in the event of capture.Thus this exercises have clearly defeated the purpose of training the trainees as they weren't able to simulate the actual combat environments in the actual scenario.
To be real honest,it shatters me deeply that a young life has been lost not due to hs own recklessness,but due to the actions of neglience and sheer STUPIDITY of men whom the nation trusts and whom are supposed to be taking care of the welfare of their trainees.It was perhaps a competition amongst themselves to see who could extract the most info from the trainess in the shortest time possible.Btw,can anyone comment if CPT.HO and those who were admitted to the hospital for medical problems due to the dunking,would they be awarded compensation in any forms?
I hope that SAF reviews the way such courses are conducted.Perhaps they could introduce newer and better forms of instructions.Instead of it being a totally physical approach to the training,perhaps using a better form of interrogration would be using physcological warfare.Breaks the trainees' will but not touch them.
Please share your feedback.Thanks. -
The whole court case has been turned into a circus by the accused persons because they refuse to take responsibility for what they have done even after so much corroborating eyewitness accounts and testimonies from them.The AI was changed by CPT Pandiaraj because there was not even a safety officer appointed in the initial AI released for such a elective course.This is very unprofessional and the standards that is demanded of a elite soldier has clearly not been met.They just seem to be ignorant of the fact that one human being has died and do not show any of the emotions one would usually associate with remorse.Rather, they are bickering like the stereotypical cannot-make-it regulars we have all seen in the Army, always pushing the blame and deflecting responsibility.
If you look at the testimony about how many instructors were around the dunking area, you will realise that there was no control measure put in place to prevent non-appointment holders to join in the "fun".It merely reinforces the lack of seriousness and integrity of these trainers who are supposed to reflect the leadership and the professionalism of the SAF's elite corps.How can you let fellows walk in , dunk a person, leave him there and just walk away?This is an outrage.So much for having Best Unit again.It just tells me how much of slackness and rot has seeped into the foundation of these people.
We need a Military Oversight and Investigation committee, preferably formed by GSI to be a high-level roving safety and procedural team which cannot be pressured into covering up incidents.Since soldiers cannot readily tell the press what exactly happened in their camps and security prevents video cameras to be brought into camp, that will be the only way to assuage the concerns and fears of a citizenry who have brought up their sons to be useful members of society and wish to see them safely through NS. -
why is someone with a medical problem allowed to be in a Combat unit,to be precise,an Elite,Front-line Combat Unit?
The CST course is conducted by its Training Wing, i.e. an instruction school rather than a frontline unit.
IMO Diva's savvier than Jeff Ng in defending oneself; the DA wanna cross-examine him further & it looks like things will drag on past the one-month schedule. Doubtful Pandiaraj can be easily exposed too.
Sadly, the CST came across like it was run by a fly-by-night group - untrained instructors who bend the rules at their will, coordinated by a staff who don't keep track of who does what - & that's a lot to answer for. I don't have problems with anyone who wanna use the platform to argue for institutional changes, but do (consciously) distinguish it from the criminal trial itself, please.
For the record, here's what the SAF has done since the results of the various internal investigations were revealed, as reported by the papers:
- Noel Cheah (Chief CDO Officer) & Ho Kian Soon (Chief Instructor, School of CDO Training) stripped of their appointments & redeployed. While not sacked or demoted or lose their pensions, they now have a black mark on their service records. [IMO Bye-bye to National Day awards.]
- some 400 commanders of the SAF were summoned by the Defence Minister to hear a serious message of being responsible for looking after their men & are personally responsible for them.
- safety hotlines set up within the army, navy & air force to report safety breaches & poor training practices; 13 such calls were received in 3 months, & the complaints to be investigated.
- NSFs & NSmen who die in service will now be compensated as regulars: their families will get, on top of the usual compensation, also a lump-sum pension of at least a year's salary of a regular soldier, plus welfare grants, dependents' pension (depending on financial circumstances) & group insurance payouts.
- increasing Senior Commander visits & audits by Service Inspectorates to ensure training is actually in accordance with lesson plans; surprise checks on safety regulations has reportedly doubled since 2003.
- medical coverage during training is judged adequate, but training centres will now have resuscitation equipment & personnel have been given extra medical training.
- looking to engage external safety auditors & benchmark safety standards against other armed forces.
- "80%" of safety improvements drawn up after last year's 3 training deaths put in place by May 2004, with the Chief of Army challenging his men to have zero fatalities.
- parts of the machine gun that recently exploded & injured 4 servicemen were put on display at the Army Safety Exhibition, to drive home the safety message about what can happen when procedures are not followed.
Are these enough? Dunno about that .... -
If they are to be effective, the GSI checks have to be very thorough and be on the ball for a sustained period of time.
-
heard of a term 'on paper only' ?Originally posted by Moxie:The CST course is conducted by its Training Wing, i.e. an instruction school rather than a frontline unit.
IMO Diva's savvier than Jeff Ng in defending oneself; the DA wanna cross-examine him further & it looks like things will drag on past the one-month schedule. Doubtful Pandiaraj can be easily exposed too.
Sadly, the CST came across like it was run by a fly-by-night group - untrained instructors who bend the rules at their will, coordinated by a staff who don't keep track of who does what - & that's a lot to answer for. I don't have problems with anyone who wanna use the platform to argue for institutional changes, but do (consciously) distinguish it from the criminal trial itself, please.
For the record, here's what the SAF has done since the results of the various internal investigations were revealed, as reported by the papers:
- Noel Cheah (Chief CDO Officer) & Ho Kian Soon (Chief Instructor, School of CDO Training) stripped of their appointments & redeployed. While not sacked or demoted or lose their pensions, they now have a black mark on their service records. [IMO Bye-bye to National Day awards.]
- some 400 commanders of the SAF were summoned by the Defence Minister to hear a serious message of being responsible for looking after their men & are personally responsible for them.
- safety hotlines set up within the army, navy & air force to report safety breaches & poor training practices; 13 such calls were received in 3 months, & the complaints to be investigated.
- NSFs & NSmen who die in service will now be compensated as regulars: their families will get, on top of the usual compensation, also a lump-sum pension of at least a year's salary of a regular soldier, plus welfare grants, dependents' pension (depending on financial circumstances) & group insurance payouts.
- increasing Senior Commander visits & audits by Service Inspectorates to ensure training is actually in accordance with lesson plans; surprise checks on safety regulations has reportedly doubled since 2003.
- medical coverage during training is judged adequate, but training centres will now have resuscitation equipment & personnel have been given extra medical training.
- looking to engage external safety auditors & benchmark safety standards against other armed forces.
- "80%" of safety improvements drawn up after last year's 3 training deaths put in place by May 2004, with the Chief of Army challenging his men to have zero fatalities.
- parts of the machine gun that recently exploded & injured 4 servicemen were put on display at the Army Safety Exhibition, to drive home the safety message about what can happen when procedures are not followed.
Are these enough? Dunno about that ....
heard of a term 'wayang show' ?
heard of a term 'NATO' ?
heard of a term 'for record/filing purpose' ?
whether its carried out or not is a separate matter and time will tell....
-
SINGAPORE : Why did Lieutenant Divanandhari take a 75-minute break during the combat survival course? What was he doing?
These are some of the questions which the prosecution levelled at the commando trainer in court on Monday.
He is the second of the four red berets charged with causing the death of 2nd Sergeant Hu En Huai - to be cross-examined.
Lieutenant Divanandhari claimed he was not involved in the drowning of Sergeant Hu.
The commando trainer said while Sergeant Hu was being dunked, he had taken a break to relieve himself near a swampy area.
He said he was gone 75 minutes and was alone at the time.
Lieutenant Diva said he only found out later that the training had been cut short after Sergeant Hu collapsed.
Wrapping up their case against him, the prosecution asked the commando trainer why he had taken such a long break from the course even though he knew the training was behind schedule.
Lieutenant Diva had earlier told the court that he had volunteered to help dunk trainees to help speed things up.
But the commando trainer replied that he was not actually part of the combat survival course - he had just volunteered to help out. - CNA
__________________________________________________________
trying to remove himself from the incident?
let's charge him with being absent from place of duty then - malignering. -
malingering is ok, cos its interior one, i think he rather ganna a small punishment from military court than the much harsher term in public court.Originally posted by wuming78:SINGAPORE : Why did Lieutenant Divanandhari take a 75-minute break during the combat survival course? What was he doing?
These are some of the questions which the prosecution levelled at the commando trainer in court on Monday.
He is the second of the four red berets charged with causing the death of 2nd Sergeant Hu En Huai - to be cross-examined.
Lieutenant Divanandhari claimed he was not involved in the drowning of Sergeant Hu.
The commando trainer said while Sergeant Hu was being dunked, he had taken a break to relieve himself near a swampy area.
He said he was gone 75 minutes and was alone at the time.
Lieutenant Diva said he only found out later that the training had been cut short after Sergeant Hu collapsed.
Wrapping up their case against him, the prosecution asked the commando trainer why he had taken such a long break from the course even though he knew the training was behind schedule.
Lieutenant Diva had earlier told the court that he had volunteered to help dunk trainees to help speed things up.
But the commando trainer replied that he was not actually part of the combat survival course - he had just volunteered to help out. - CNA
__________________________________________________________
trying to remove himself from the incident?
let's charge him with being absent from place of duty then - malignering. -
sooo simple. he was LYING.Originally posted by wuming78:SINGAPORE : Why did Lieutenant Divanandhari take a 75-minute break during the combat survival course? What was he doing? -
Diva's dug his own hole (pun) ~lol~
As with Jeff Ng, he would've had a better case of proving reasonable doubt by emphasing on the inconsistencies of the testimonies. IMO The prosecutors were smart is channelling things towards, in both cases, their interpretation of events vs. the other witnesses. In other words, up to the judge to decide who to believe more.
Diva's outsmarted himself; it's now harder to suspend disbelief with the account he's given. -
If u lie knowingly under oath, is it contempt of court?Originally posted by Moxie:Diva's dug his own hole (pun) ~lol~
As with Jeff Ng, he would've had a better case of proving reasonable doubt by emphasing on the inconsistencies of the testimonies. IMO The prosecutors were smart is channelling things towards, in both cases, their interpretation of events vs. the other witnesses. In other words, up to the judge to decide who to believe more.
Diva's outsmarted himself; it's now harder to suspend disbelief with the account he's given. -
If u lie knowingly under oath, is it contempt of court?
It's called perjury &, yes, it's impreachable. Googled around & a ST report said a "perjury charge carries a maximum five-year prison term".
That said, I think statements made in court proceedings are viewed within its proper context, esp. with regards to the witness stating his version of events. I don't know where the precise line of fantastical claims begins, though.
Such statements are also accorded privilege, i.e. you can't sue someone for making a defamatory statement under oath against you. -
so if he is found guilty, can he be then charged for perjury since it IS very obvious the Bastard is lying?Originally posted by Moxie:It's called perjury &, yes, it's impreachable. Googled around & a ST report said a "perjury charge carries a maximum five-year prison term".
That said, I think statements made in court proceedings are viewed within its proper context, esp. with regards to the witness stating his version of events. I don't know where the precise line of fantastical claims begins, though.
Such statements are also accorded privilege, i.e. you can't sue someone for making a defamatory statement under oath against you.