14-year-old jumps to his death after unaccompanied police interrogation for Molest

[kuasimi]

NS officer shares his opinion on the Dominique Sarron Lee saga

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...rron-lee-saga/


https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 9, 2016 OPINION

By 2LT (NS) Tay Bok Chong Alvin

I am deeply saddened by Dominique Sarron Lee’s passing. I did not know him personally, but I can only imagine how gruelling the last 3 years must have been for his family.

More recently, I am utterly disappointed by Brigadier-General Chan Wing Kai’s official statement entitled “Key Findings from the Death of PTE Dominique Sarron Lee”published on the Singapore Army’s Facebook page at about 1:32pm of 7 March 2016.

BG Chan purported that there exists a “misperception that SAF servicemen injured or killed cannot seek legal recourse under military rules”.

He is incorrect in identifying what bothers (or at least what should bother) Singaporeans. Law is not merely retributive (to punish wrongdoers), it is also restitutory (to compensate for losses incurred). The legal recourse that Lee’s family sought in the High Court was restitutory. With Lee’s claim being struck out by the High Court on 3 March 2016, it has become a matter of fact that as the law stands today, SAF servicemen injured or killed cannot seek legal recourse for compensation in civil courts so far as the requirements in Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA) are met.

And this is problematic. It does not take more than a Google search for one to become aware that the criminal law works alongside the civil courts as distinct sources of legal recourse; and not, as BG Chan seemed to have suggested, replace the civil courts. Just because legal machinery is in place to prosecute criminally errant officers of the armed forces does not in itself justify why injured servicemen or families of deceased servicemen should be barred from seeking compensation for negligently caused injuries or death.

BG Chan’s apparent insinuation that criminal legal recourse is sufficient recourse, if accepted as is, would mean that there should be no need for civil courts in Singapore because criminal courts would have served the former’s purpose.

Further, the requirements of Section 14 of the GPA might be problematic.

The Government and errant officers are immune from civil suit for death or injury caused by any reason whilst a serviceman is on duty. This immunity applies when the Government certifies that the injury or death entitles the serviceman to a compensatory award. In the case of Lee, BG Chan confirms that “an offer of compensation has been made to the family”.

This again poses great logical difficulty. Section 14 essentially allows our Government to certify itself out of liability. All injured serviceman would lose the right to any claim in tort against the Government simply by virtue of the fact that the injury is certified as being compensable. This is crucial. Section 14 is clear that this is the only requirement before the Government attains immunity from being sued. This means that even if the family eventually turns down an offer of compensation because it feels that an offer is inadequate, or if the family can only find closure through the judgment of the fair, just, and neutral judiciary that Singapore enjoys, the aggrieved family would have lost the right to their day in court anyway.

I am of the opinion that we need an honourable neutral third party (that is, the Courts) to adjudicate wrongs, even in the context of the military. Would this open the floodgates of litigation? One needs only look at how rare it has been for aggrieved servicemen to bring such legal action throughout the 50-year history of the SAF to answer this question in the negative.

While it is the case that “the two officers were summarily tried in 2013 … and punished according to military law”, what about the SAF?

Every Singaporean son (and now many daughters through the SAF Volunteer Corp) goes through National Service to protect our land. We need Singaporeans to be committed to be part of the SAF for this to work; we need public confidence vested in our armed forces. I do not have a Masters of Public Administration, but I venture to think that public confidence in the SAF cannot be borne out of SAF’s self-regulation. We can only grow more certain that SAF is committed to strengthening its training safety if it is willing to be checked against by the courts.

In any event, the court martial system is competent in bringing law and order in the daily operation of the armed forces by prosecuting errant members. But can (and will) the SAF try itself in the court martial? Quite certainly not. If then the SAF or MINDEF continues to be the sole bodies to determine what is just and fair compensation, the SAF will only need to be liable to the extent that they want to be (and not to the extent that they should be). This freedom from actual liability must be adequately justified. This must be done by our Parliament if it chooses to stand by the GPA as it now is.

We, as Singaporeans, must become acutely aware that our laws (as laws are everywhere in the world) are not perfect.

That is why we have members of Parliament that seek to make better and more relevant laws each day. In the context of our parliamentary democracy, I should think Prime Minister Lee – as leader of the House – will head the charge in reviewing this specific provision that is left untouched for 20 years so as to offer the full set of legal recourse that each citizen is entitled.

Alvin is a 23-year old law student with a vested interest in the SAF because he is a concerned Singaporean, and not least, a serviceman himself.

[kuasimi]

MDA’s demand impacts local media, foreign firms: TOC Ltd
By The Independent - March 9, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/mdas-demand...firms-toc-ltd/


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


An earlier demand by the Media Development Authority for social enterprise The Opinion Collaborative Ltd to return S$5,000 worth in foreign advertising revenue has “grave implications on the development of Singapore’s independent media industry… as well as the standing of foreign companies in Singapore”, said the owners of the company.

TOC Ltd, the former owner of local social-political news website The Online Citizen, released a media statement to say that they have responded directly to MDA to seek responses to questions that highlight their concerns.

“The Opinion Collaborative have not decided on whether or not to return the funds to Monsoons Book Club,” said Howard Lee, a director of TOC Ltd. “At this point in time, we find MDA’s demand unreasonable, and fully intend to contest it.”


In the letter to MDA, TOC Ltd pointed out that MDA has not clearly identified how Monsoons Book Club Ltd (MBC Ltd) is a “non-commercial foreign entity”, or why the advertising agreement between the two registered social enterprises was “not for bona fide commercial purposes”.

MBC Ltd is a company registered in the United Kingdom in February 2015.

Its activities include promoting the reading of books which offer challenging ideas for social change, and encouraging discussions and critical thinking about social, political and economic progress in the South East Asian region.

The funds in question were for the running of the “My Singapore, My Future” essay contest in lieu of SG50, where MBC Ltd had right of placement of its logo on every essay published on TOC.


TOC Ltd currently runs an event space called The Agora, and have planned for a series of talks with authors, the first being Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party.

TOC Ltd also questioned why MDA took almost a year to get back to the company about the funds.

“We would like to clarify if it is MDA’s usual practice to ask media companies to withhold funds from funding sources until MDA so chooses to demand that they be returned; and if so, for how long MDA expects media companies to withhold such funds,” Mr Lee wrote in the letter to MDA.

However, TOC Ltd is clear that they would be the entity responding to MDA’s demands, should there be any need to accede to the regulator’s demands.

“We uphold our obligation as an involved participant in Singapore’s media sphere very seriously,” said Mr Lee, who has been the company’s point of contact with MDA representing the other directors, Lee Song Kwang and Tan Tee Seng.

TOC Ltd has requested for MDA’s response in a week, due to the urgency of the issue and the impact that it has on local media and the international business community.

MDA has demanded that TOC Ltd returns the funds to MBC Ltd in 30 days (4 April 2015).

[kuasimi]

Officer involved in PTE Lee’s case has not yet decided to waive legal fees
By The Independent - March 9, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/officer-inv...ve-legal-fees/


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


The Straits Times reported today that despite the Defence Minister urging his Ministry and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to waive legal costs in PTE Lee’s case, the soldier’s family may still have to cough up some $6,000 because one of its officers, Major Chia Thye Siong, has not yet decided to waive the costs.

It had been previously pointed out that Chia was promoted from the rank of Captain to Major two years after the incident.

The broadsheet also reported that the officers involved faced SAF’s summary trial in 2013 and were convicted of negligence. Part of their punishment involved being redeployed to appointments that did not supervise soldiers in training or operations.

The dead soldier’s family yesterday clarified that they had not received any compensation from the Defence Ministry or SAF, but only a funeral grant. MINDEF confirmed to the newspaper that a one-off welfare grant of $20,000 was given to the family in 2012.

MINDEF further said that it offered compensation awards to the mother, Madam Felicia Seah, based on the “full extent of the compensation network”, which is generally two to four times the amount provided under the Work Injury Compensation Act.

That would be in the range of between $150,000 to $350,000.*

Meanwhile, Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has asked why the Prime Minister who is so easily available to foreign multi-national corporations’ CEOs, is not so to his own citizens.

Dr Chee said:

“Tesla car manufacturer Elon Musk says that he had called PM Lee about the $15,000-surcharge for electric vehicles in Singapore and that Lee had told him that “he would investigate the situation”. If this is true, it is commendable that the PM responded so promptly to Musk’s request.

But this morning I also read that Dominique Lee’s family had written – repeatedly – to Mr Lee: “We had even written to the Prime Minister several times, pleading for help in getting answers. All they did was to direct our questions to MINDEF for their reply. Such help is as useful to us, as a comb is to Michael Jordan.”

And then there’s Benjamin Lim’s case. We haven’t heard anything from Mr Lee on the unfortunate death of the boy. Why did the PM not weigh in on the matter when it was raised in Parliament? Was he even present?

Mr Lee must remember that he is Dominique’s Prime Minister, he is Benjamin’s Prime Mnister, he is our Prime Minister. He is not Elon’s Prime Minister.

I hope Mr Lee will respond to this awkward situation.”

—
*Compensation range estimation was derived by using Ministry of Manpower’s Work Injury Compensation Act calculator.

[rocket_boy]

the clones are here to discredit our govt, brainwash S'porean, make every issue a mountain out of a molehill so no point reasoning with them.


what we need to do is to create awareness and let S'porean know that their intention is to brainwash S'porean especially the young and illiterate by :


1) disseminate false information to the public via their own private blogs, social media, Facebooks, Twitters, Instagrams, Youtubes, Whatsapp, all types of Internet forums etc


2) continuously post negative news links about how bad and incapable our govt is,



3) making use of our young innocent teenager to mock our retired politician(s) with the intention to flame our govt and the judiciary system for being uncompassionate towards young juvenile if get punished in court,



4) sabotage Singapore and S'porean by participating in foreign forum(s) criticizing foreign politician(s) as corrupted and inciting their citizens to hate S'porean by claiming the criticism is made and written by Singaporean,



5) teamed up with foreign media to fabricate stories, spread untrue rumours, endlessly create negative criticism via online platform 24/7, and continuously made allegations flaming our govt on every issue, including some hypocrite Social Activist on the PRETEXT of claiming doing something good for the country,



6) true blue S'porean who rebutted, opposed and exposed them, immediately they'll use all the clones to criticize and attacked you as if many genuine S'porean disagreed with your view



7) Is this how the foreign media, the Social Activist, the fugitives, the disgruntled individual and the no-substance no-solution bickering parties going to lead our country for the next 50 Years ???



8) continuously posting new messages and media links to overwrite our Awareness Campaign messages not to let people read our postings,

(in future those who are reading, pls scroll back a few pages to find our postings)




By stirring more shit, you will improve the readerships, a big thank you to those who works in the media industry !!!




Breaking News breaking news :http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...e/2578924.html



Proud Member of the Anti (TOSC) The Online Saboteur Club