Witness relates dunking death of soldier
-
so if he is found guilty, can he be then charged for perjury since it IS very obvious the Bastard is lying?
I doubt it. The legal prosecution style is always to bank on the most convictable charge(s), even if the offender has 100 other charges riding on his head. The latter bunch would sometimes be "taken into consideration," I think.
Nothing to stop the victims from filing civil lawsuits against him, though. -
SINGAPORE (AFP) Jan 07, 2005
Four officers of Singapore's elite army commando unit were found guilty Friday of the death of a national serviceman during a training session on combat survival, a court spokeswoman said.
Second Sergeant Hu En Huai, 19, died during training last year after his head was repeatedly held under water.
The training was part of a survival course designed to prepare aspiring commandos in case they become prisoners of war.
A mitigation hearing has been set for next Friday before the judge will issue a sentence. -
They deserve life imprisonment.Originally posted by LazerLordz:SINGAPORE (AFP) Jan 07, 2005
Four officers of Singapore's elite army commando unit were found guilty Friday of the death of a national serviceman during a training session on combat survival, a court spokeswoman said.
Second Sergeant Hu En Huai, 19, died during training last year after his head was repeatedly held under water.
The training was part of a survival course designed to prepare aspiring commandos in case they become prisoners of war.
A mitigation hearing has been set for next Friday before the judge will issue a sentence.
-
What were they charged with again? Reckless endangerment leading to loss of life or something like that right?
If that was the charge then it's too light.... they should have been charged with manslaughter. -
Too light? No offfense but come on who here have any knowledge of criminal law, i'm sure i dun. The judges know their stuff so leave it to them. Let's go according to the law books.
I hope this brings closure to the victim's family. My heart goes out to them. -
SINGAPORE : Four SAF commandos have been found guilty of causing the death of Second Sergeant Hu En Huai. Sentencing will take place next Friday.
The 19-year-old NSman died during combat survival training on Pulau Tekong last August.
After 36 days of testimonies from 50 witnesses, January 7 was to be a day for the lawyers to make their closing submissions.
Lawyers from all sides presented their closing arguments and expected judgment to be adjourned to a later date.
But 40 minutes later, District Judge Ng Peng Hong returned from his chambers with a judgment.
The judge found the four army officers guilty of causing the death of Second Sergeant Hu by committing a rash act.
The verdict comes nearly 10 months after Second Sergeant Hu died after his head was repeatedly held under water.
This was part of the Combat Survival Training course, designed to prepare trainees for the potential treatment they might receive as a prisoner of war.
Both Lieutenant Jeff Ng Chin Fong and Lieutenant Divanandhari Chandrasekharan were among those who conducted the training course.
They were charged with causing death, by holding Mr Hu's head under water and ''digging his nose'' to prevent him from holding his breath.
Captain Pandiaraj Mayandi, supervising officer of the course, was charged with abetting Mr Hu's death, by instigating the instructors to carry out the training.
Captain Pandiaraj said he did brief instructors not to immerse trainees' heads in water more than four times, and not to exceed 20 seconds each.
Warrant officer S. Balakrishnan, who was the course commander, was charged with abetting the instructors, by not stopping them from immersing Mr Hu's head in the water.
The four accused officers were each also charged with causing grievous hurt to Captain Ho Wan Huo who underwent the same training.
Mr Ho almost drowned and suffered respiratory distress syndrome after the alleged acts were committed on August 21 at Pulau Tekong.
On each charge, the men can be jailed for up to two years and fined.
Sentencing has been scheduled for January 14. - CNA
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/126179/1/.html -
Now that it has been confirmed that the instructors did not follow procedures, etc, etc, anyone knows if Mindef has been sued in a civil action (eg. under vicarious liability) yet?
-
After 14th Jan's trial..
Warrant Bala got 3 months
Cpt Pandiaraj got 6 months
the other 2 got 9 months...
10 days to appeal against their sentences -
Extremely light sentences if you ask me.......
They killed someone and all they got is a few months in jail...... pathetic. Even thieves can get harsher sentences than that.
It's just going to be a mere stain on their service records... nothing more than that. And they still have the audacity to appeal against their sentences. They already have no integrity during the trial to claim that they were not involved in the drownings in spite of the fact that lots of witnesses saw otherwise. -
mere stain only ? Chances they will get discharged from the SAF once they finish their sentence more likelyOriginally posted by fudgester:Extremely light sentences if you ask me.......
They killed someone and all they got is a few months in jail...... pathetic. Even thieves can get harsher sentences than that.
It's just going to be a mere stain on their service records... nothing more than that. And they still have the audacity to appeal against their sentences. They already have no integrity during the trial to claim that they were not involved in the drownings in spite of the fact that lots of witnesses saw otherwise. -
Well, I posted before that the specific charges involved called for imprisonment of one or two years & a fine. That's the legal system & I accepted it. Now it's up to both sides on whether they wanna appeal, with the possibility that the CJ may subsequently increase the jail terms.
Those 4 instructors, their careers lagi finished in the SAF.
But the case may not be over. I remember there was some rumblings about an impreachment charge for one of the prosecution witnesses (Ng Chong Chee). He told the CID earlier that he kena water-sprayed when on course himself, then changed testimonies in court by claiming to have been dunked in a washing bay.
The court proceedings also revealed that many other CDO instructors (like Shashi Kumar, Ryan Toh, Tan Tian Huat, et al.) were employing illegal tactics during the course, even as they were not directly accused of hurting Hu En Huai & Ho Wan Huo. If there's any justice, the SAF should haul these fellows to military court & punish accordingly. -
Lack of real professionalism, integrity and generally having the b*lls to be a real man and admit that you have done wrong and be willing to accept your punishment, instead of crying like a sissy child.Originally posted by Moxie:Well, I posted before that the specific charges involved called for imprisonment of one or two years & a fine. That's the legal system & I accepted it. Now it's up to both sides on whether they wanna appeal, with the possibility that the CJ may subsequently increase the jail terms.
Those 4 instructors, their careers lagi finished in the SAF.
But the case may not be over. I remember there was some rumblings about an impreachment charge for one of the prosecution witnesses (Ng Chong Chee). He told the CID earlier that he kena water-sprayed when on course himself, then changed testimonies in court by claiming to have been dunked in a washing bay.
The court proceedings also revealed that many other CDO instructors (like Shashi Kumar, Ryan Toh, Tan Tian Huat, et al.) were employing illegal tactics during the course, even as they were not directly accused of hurting Hu En Huai & Ho Wan Huo. If there's any justice, the SAF should haul these fellows to military court & punish accordingly. -
pardon me but does this include DB or not?Originally posted by Aron1979:After 14th Jan's trial..
Warrant Bala got 3 months
Cpt Pandiaraj got 6 months
the other 2 got 9 months...
10 days to appeal against their sentences -
This case was a bad joke right from the start. The inexperienced Defence minister said, "We will get to the bottom of this", turning this into a civil case instead of the military case it was supposed to be - Dr Tony Tan would never have done something so stupid.
If they'd charged the two LTAs, it would have been a fair call since they were directly involved in the dunking. However, if you are going to charge the other two, logically, the responsibility would have led all the way up the chain of command. If Pandiaraj was charged, why wasn't Teo Chee Hean?
In any case, it's all academic now. Both Bala and Pandiaraj will file appeals that they will most likely lose, but there were tenuous grounds for charging them in the first place (unless youy wanted to charge everybody all the way up the line). For all four, I expect that dishonourable discharge papers have already been issued, with perhaps two held pending appeal. -
I believe you're wrong there.Originally posted by Moxie:Nothing to stop the victims from filing civil lawsuits against him, though.
I actually asked a judge (who had previously handled investigations as a prosecutor for Mindef) a few months ago why a case in which all involved were in the military reached the civil courts. He told me that there is an agreement between Mindef and the civil courts stating that a case may be brought to civil court if "it is of sufficient public interest". It is on the basis of this agreement, plus Mr Teo's promise to "get to the bottom of this", that the case went to civil court.
The same condition does not apply to a civil suit, since it is not of sufficient public interest - instead, it is of specific interest to 2Sgt Hu's family. -
But wasn't the judge just saying "The case was tried in a civil court rather than a military court because there are specific public interest reasons to warrant doing so"?Originally posted by Gedanken:I believe you're wrong there.
I actually asked a judge (who had previously handled investigations as a prosecutor for Mindef) a few months ago why a case in which all involved were in the military reached the civil courts. He told me that there is an agreement between Mindef and the civil courts stating that a case may be brought to civil court if "it is of sufficient public interest". It is on the basis of this agreement, plus Mr Teo's promise to "get to the bottom of this", that the case went to civil court.
The same condition does not apply to a civil suit, since it is not of sufficient public interest - instead, it is of specific interest to 2Sgt Hu's family.
I doubt that affects any civil liabilities. -
My understanding of it is that if the case is to be tried in a civil court, a fair amount of SAF information that the public is not usually privy to would have to dragged out. To justify the release of such information, you would need to have significant public interest, and the application and violations of TSR, as applies to the section of the public serving NS, constitutes such interest.
However, a civil suit would only involve the four men and the family, and would therefore not constitute enough justification for the release of confidential SAF information. -
The sentence is like a slap on the wrist. Shouldn't it be treated as manslaughter? Those responsible still have the cheek to appeal. I hope CJ Yong does what he is best at.
-
NS means the public have a right to know about what goes on in our armed forces.The public interest must be upheld for justice to be there.The sentences are too lenient for a case which has involved the death of a human being.Any appeal should result in harsher sentences.The moral beacon of the courts is being seen here, let's hope they can be exemplary in their conduct.
-
He said the Commando trainers treated these two trainees much more harshly than any of the other trainees.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Friday September 24, 8:17 PM
Commandos trial: Witness relates dunking death of soldier
ADVERTISEMENT
SINGAPORE: A witness has told a subordinate court hearing the death of Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai he saw the 19-year-old struggling violently as his head was being dunked into the tub of water.
Sergeant Hu was a Guard sniper who died after attending a "Prisoner of War" training session at Pulau Tekong last year.
Yen Li Khai, who was a National Service infantry sergeant sent to the Commando camp to help conduct the Combat Survival Training Course at that time, said Sergeant Hu's hands were held down to prevent him from struggling and his head was held underwater for up to 20 seconds each time.
Sergeant Yen, who is now studying in Australia, also said he was shocked by how the Commando trainers treated Hu and Captain Ho Wan Huo.
He said the Commando trainers treated these two trainees much more harshly than any of the other trainees.
Sergeant Yen's job during the training was to blindfold and bind the hands of the trainees who were "prisoners of war" and to escort them to the water treatment area where the trainees would be interrogated by the Commando trainers.
Sergeant Yen said he was about 15 to 20 metres away from the tub used to dunk them.
He testified that he saw Lieutenant Ng Chin Fong push and hold Sergeant Hu's head underwater for 10 to 20 seconds.
Sergeant Yen said: "He (Hu) stuggled violently. After that, he was brought out of the water for about four to five seconds before his head was submerged again. During the time his head was lifted out of the water, the deceased was gasping for air."
Sergeant Yen continued: "He was breathing heavily when his head was lifted above the water. When the deceased completed the session, Lieutenant Jeff pulled the deceased out of the tub and the deceased fell to the ground.
"The deceased was motionless and I saw water coming out of his mouth. The deceased was vomiting water from his mouth."
As for the other trainee Captain Ho Wan Huo who survived but almost drowned, Sergent Yen said Lieutenant Divanand Hari had covered his mouth, nose and eyes and then pushed his head into underwater.
During the course of the evidence, the prosecution brought in a dummy blindfolded and hands tied behind the back for Sergeant Yen to demonstrate to the court how the dunking of Sergeant Hu and Captain Ho had been done.
However, the family members of Sergeant Hu were not in court to witness the demonstration.
Under cross-examination, Sergeant Yen said there were other instructors helping Lieutenant Diva during the water treatment component of the survival training.
Sergeant Yen added that another accused person, Captain Pandiaraj, was at the scene and he could have stopped the instructors from continuing the treatment. - CNA
more elaboration is needed on why and how the deceased was given harsher treatment. this will shed light on why he died while others survived -
Gendaken: I'll have to disagree with you there. The fact that the trial has already been held in public means that those information are no longer confidential; they are already public domain. Further, they could always have a closed civil trial. Lastly, a per se rule against civil liability is surely too draconian; at the very least, the case can be considered on a case by case basis.
Another point is that the action filed may not neccessitate the release of any confidential information.
Hmmm..anyway this is moot - until someone does some reaserch and come up with some case law or legislation we'll never know if there is a policy against civil liability.
-------------
How come you guys keep complaining that those guys may appeal. Its their RIGHT to appeal. Come on, don't deny them that right. In fact, i have issues with the way the CJ handles appeal; by consistently (it would seem to be but i'm not sure) inscreasing the sentences of people who appeal, he is making a travesty of the judicial system and of the principle that one is innnocent until proven guilty.
-----------------
In my limited experience, they do single out ppl for harsher treatment. I think officiers and senior specialists are supposed to be subject to harsher treatment. Also, ppl who answer questions wrongly or who appear too compliant may be earmarked for such treatment too.
The rationale should be obvious. -
hm.. let's use an analogy. say a man was rude and defiant to his commander. by right he could be charged and sent to db. his commander decides to give him a lighter sentence hoping that he will learn the lesson and change. instead of being grateful for the lighter sentence, he asks for an EVEN lighter one - he appeals.Originally posted by lwflee:-------------
How come you guys keep complaining that those guys may appeal. Its their RIGHT to appeal. Come on, don't deny them that right. In fact, i have issues with the way the CJ handles appeal; by consistently (it would seem to be but i'm not sure) inscreasing the sentences of people who appeal, he is making a travesty of the judicial system and of the principle that one is innnocent until proven guilty.
-----------------
i think you cannot blame us all for feeling repulsed by that rite?
i don't see how the principle behind our legal system comes in here. in this case, they have already been found guilty, and have already been given a sentence. they are appealing against the sentence, and not the guilty charge.
it is clear that it is their right to appeal, just as it is the right of the man in my analogy to appeal too. but i think most of us here feel that the sentence is already light considering the gravity of the case. hence they should be grateful for it, and accept it as it is, rather than ask for an even lighter sentence - appealing. -
In the case, we must see who are the ones appealing. Com'on we cannot deny the fact that Cpt Pandiaraj was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. Any man in his position would have given the order for the dunking. It had being carried out for way too long that it had become sort of the "right" thing to do.Originally posted by wuming78:hm.. let's use an analogy. say a man was rude and defiant to his commander. by right he could be charged and sent to db. his commander decides to give him a lighter sentence hoping that he will learn the lesson and change. instead of being grateful for the lighter sentence, he asks for an EVEN lighter one - he appeals.
i think you cannot blame us all for feeling repulsed by that rite?
i don't see how the principle behind our legal system comes in here. in this case, they have already been found guilty, and have already been given a sentence. they are appealing against the sentence, and not the guilty charge.
it is clear that it is their right to appeal, just as it is the right of the man in my analogy to appeal too. but i think most of us here feel that the sentence is already light considering the gravity of the case. hence they should be grateful for it, and accept it as it is, rather than ask for an even lighter sentence - appealing.
Take for example taupoking in pre-uni institutes. The students think it is okay to do it as it has being like a tradition. But the fact is that no accidents has happened yet. When an accident does really happen, who should be the one responsible for it? The predecessors who started it? The teachers who knew about this activity all along but did not prevent/stop it? Or the people responsible for the accident? I will say that morally speaking, the three groups of people I have mentioned are responsible for the accident.
In this dunking accident, I still feel that the people who should be charged are the two lieutenants that have carried out the act. Morally, why stop at the officer commanding if you are going to charge beyond the 2 officers directly involved. It is not about moral issues anymore. It is more about filling the blanks to bear the blame. And in my point of view, Cpt Pandiaraj is a scapegoat made to bear the blame for giving the orders. Read the New Paper on last Saturday and one will know the integrity of that man. -
The bottom line is.... a few months in jail is way too pathetic considering the nature of the crime. One good man died, while another was badly injured.
While it is the right of the accused to appeal against the charges, it is still highly revulsive to do so considering the fact that their sentences were already extremely light. Come on, they already didn't have the integrity to admit their guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence. This act of theirs is only going to drag their names down even lower.
This reminds me of the ship collision at Pedra Branca..... on of the victim's fathers pleaded with the judge to not jail the accused parties, and they still had the cheek to appeal. Bloody hell......
Anyway, back to the dunking.... regardless of how stellar or impressive the service records of the accused parties were, regardless of whatever glowing reports they have from their superiors and their subordinates, the bottom line is that THEY KILLED A GOOD MAN. -
I did remember reading from the papers that Cpt Pandiaraj admitted to giving the orders. Since when did he not admit his guilt.Originally posted by fudgester:The bottom line is.... a few months in jail is way too pathetic considering the nature of the crime. One good man died, while another was badly injured.
While it is the right of the accused to appeal against the charges, it is still highly revulsive to do so considering the fact that their sentences were already extremely light. Come on, they already didn't have the integrity to admit their guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence. This act of theirs is only going to drag their names down even lower.
This reminds me of the ship collision at Pedra Branca..... on of the victim's fathers pleaded with the judge to not jail the accused parties, and they still had the cheek to appeal. Bloody hell......
Anyway, back to the dunking.... regardless of how stellar or impressive the service records of the accused parties were, regardless of whatever glowing reports they have from their superiors and their subordinates, the bottom line is that THEY KILLED A GOOD MAN.
The bottom line is who really killed the good man? The lieutenants directly in charge of the dunking? The people who started the tradition of dunking? Or the people who knew about it all along but didn't stop it? Should all the three groups be responsible? If that is the case, I think there should be more implications up the higher echelons rather than just stopping at the officer commanding.