unauthorised training caused the death of a national service

last SG · 2003-10-16T21:49:40+00:00

a lot of bad things happening there huh? including being banned from best unit competition..

[email protected] SG

u want to be red "X's???
lol

wuming78 SG

no. he wans to be californian governor. Mr. Green

Tango1 SG

hoo boy...do I remember those stunts..... Rolling Eyes

I think one of the first things we should do is to ask if these vocations (BRC, Recce, Sniper) should be made an all-volunteer? I mentioned it in earlier posts, but the logic behind this is that volunteers who do washout of the training imposed on them can opt for a return to line units. By making it a voluntary vocation, the volunteer knows and expects what he is going to be in for. Of cos' those does not mean that TSR is violated just becos' these individuals are volunteers, but at least they have a) prove that they are motivated, b) be physically fit, c) psychologically strong, etc....whether they will cut it is another matter when they go through CST.

Most importantly, the volunteer knows what he signed up for.... Very Happy

Gedanken SG

First, lets get one thing straight there are service personnel and there are REMFs. The REMFs stand out as wannabes who pretend to know what the combat side does.

35MM's posts are offensive in so many ways it is criminal, but the one aspect that really stands out is that he is a REMF who pontificates with absolute disregard for the concerns of those of us who do the real work. Of course he argues for tougher training he doesnt have to do it, does he? Certainly everybody is entitled to an opinion, but the fact that a REMF is giving out a whole lot of cock-and-bull about combat training is an insult to those of us who actually do the work. The utter hypocrisy of the things that he writes is so nauseating that he really ought to be posted in an emergency ward and used as a stomach pump. Some choice picks:

- "Talk the talk and walk the walk" - easily 35's greatest hit. Has he walked the walk? What would he know about walking, except for the path between his desk and the canteen? Until he has spent days hauling his own body weight in equipment through the boondocks, he can kiss my a$$ and call me Daddy.

- His signature - as far as I can tell, every day is an easy day for him.

- Let ones actions speak for oneself other posters are or were snipers, recce troopers, divers, commandos and so on they have already done their speaking with their actions. The only one who seems to be all talk is 35 himself, and in saying this, his skin is so thick maybe the SAF ought to use it to beef up the armour on their AMX-13s.

- He craps on about the training becoming lax. What business does he have even thinking such a thing? Its not that he has any firsthand experience of how lax the training is, just his impressions from what he sees out of his office window.

- He keeps talking in terms of we in regards to training. We? What does he mean we? He mans his desk while the rest of us sweat, bleed, and in this case, drown. Hes not one of us at all, and he has absolutely no business talking about we.

You want to talk about personal insults? What it comes down to is this: 35 carries on like a two-bob watch about how the training needs to be tough when he has no clue, not having been there himself. In bringing up the term lax and implying that training is easy, he spits on every fighting man in Singapores armed forces, and he certainly spits in 2SG Hus grave, no matter what he claims.

It's all sickening, and I have no compunction about telling it like it is.

sorrowz SG

No, people would not expect you to side with the trainers who were wrong to push the trainees to the limit without giving due thought to the safety aspect.

But as a fellow cdo as you claimed to be, I don't see you standing beside the people who wear the red beret. Saturday Straits Times, quote " Hours after Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean briefed Parliament about the incident on Thursday, Colonel Noel Cheah (left) is said to have told a friend: 'At least I go down with my men. That's the way it should be.'" end quote

As a Cdo still serving my NS, I have discussed this issue with my fellow comrades. We all agreed that the trainers were GUILTY in enforcing harsh training methods without being mindful of the safety. But we stand by our trainers, our brothers in cdo family.

Yes the trainers did wrong in being negligence, I Concede to that. But You let others called the trainers names like "bastards", etc. I did not see you doing otherwise to correct the others.

You have been telling others here about REMFs and armchair Rambos and how you have "walk the walk, talk the talk". If you are what you claimed to be, I denounce you as a fellow cdo. I will not go into a mission with you.

Icemoon SG

Gedanken, don't sound as if 35MM are the people who made policies about training with no chance of experiencing it themselves. Those people are the real REMF.

Those choice picks, aka personal insults, are they necessary? If you read his post, notice that he doesn't (not as much as you) hurl insults back at you. In fact I think his replies are quite "cool", though his logic can be crappy. In that sense, he has shown a higher level of maturity than you, though he's way below you in thinking logically.

I think some of you here seek satisfaction in mocking and insulting him with all those pictures and language. There's a hint of discrimination too, like how those CST instructors probably discriminate against guardsmen.

If you got so much time to type personal insults (they constitute the majority of your post), might as well run 2.4km to maintain your commando standard or keep fit? Probably you finish running before finishing the typing.

Blockhead SG

Interesting points Tango. But i am concerned about a few things.:

1) That having 'volunteers' may attract the wrong kind of people. (i.e. too much testosterone, not enough brains)

2) Even if unsuitable volunteers are washed out, the numbers that come thru may not be enough. (Probably the most impt reason i can think of)

3) If it was voluntary, parents may not allow their son(s) to volunteer, compounding (2)

4) Even if they had volunteers, it still wouldn't make a difference to if training may be any less dangerous if TSRs are ignored, which u pointed out, albeit indirectly. As such, the problem is not with who is doing it, or rather what is being done.

5) Any incident that results in a death is still a death, and doesn't bear any less weight, even if they are volunteers since they are still NSF.

6) Lastly, it would inadvertantly have an adverse effect within SAF itself, since a volunteer unit may result in a heightened awareness of "us and them" among units, and may prove to be too divisive. (Yes, maybe i am streching this a bit, but i hope u get what i mean.)

All that said tho, I think there is some credit to Tango's argument, and frankly speaking, i think SAF would rather have adopted such a volutary scheme if it was possible. Unfortunately, i think practical considerations makes it impossible. Just my opinion. Smile

Gedanken SG

Im sorry you feel that way, sorrowz. However, do ask yourself this: am I not standing beside the individual trainer, or am I not standing beside the unit? In my posts, I have spoken about individuals in relation to the unit as a whole, and how some of these individuals uphold the Commando ethos and others fail to.

This is not about blind faith. I will not stand beside someone if he has done wrong, even if he does wear the red beret. If he has done something as wrong as this, it is he who has betrayed the unit, not me. What he has done is neither honourable nor glorious, and for the shame that he has brought on the formation, would it be entirely unfair if he was called a bastard? If you want to raise the issue about who one would choose to go on a mission with, I would not want to go on a mission with this instructor. His unprofessionalism is more likely to be a hindrance than a help. For what it is worth, I feel that the CCO and CO SOCT got a bum rap.

If you denounce me as a Commando, you may as well denounce some of your senior NCOs and officers as well. You see, you are not the only one discussing this issue with your contemporaries. Some of the fellows from my batch are dismayed at the situation, and you might just be surprised who these men might be. In their positions, they simply cannot afford to voice the opinions that I have.

Gedanken SG

Those choice picks serve a purpose - they illustrate exactly what is wrong with the direction that 35 has taken and precisely why his posts are repugnant. His displayed language and supposed maturity are irrelevant - attempting to excuse the substance of what he writes by hiding it behind his presentation is intellectually dishonest. It is tantamount to covering yourself with deodorant after having failed to take a shower for a week.

I will happily own up to the language, but I will correct you in saying that I have posted any pictures. Check and you will see that I have not done so.

The circuit I use is actually 3.9 kilometres wrong, and I have already done that, thank you very much. You are right, though - taking fifteen minutes to complete it does indicate that I still have some work to do yet.

I do understand your perspective. However, keep in mind the origins of the word courtesy - the implication is one of falseness. Between being courteous and being logically consistent, I will happily take logical consistency any time.

sorrowz SG

Kena tekan
...but survival training must be rough and tough, say NSmen

By Jason Leow, Jane Lee And Suzanne Ong

'WE'RE taking you prisoner now!'
With those words, the enemy blindfolded the soldiers and took them captive.
Their uniforms were turned inside out and they would be known just by the numbers assigned to them by their captors.
Some had their hands bound; others, their legs as well.
This was the start of two days of prisoner-of-war, or POW, training, to prepare the soldiers for what they might experience in enemy hands, all part of combat survival training on Pulau Tekong.
This is training for soldiers expected to operate deep in hostile territory - scouts, snipers and reconnaissance troopers - who must be trained to survive, evade or resist the enemy, and to escape if they are captured.
These details come from eight operationally ready national servicemen who were put through the same kind of training as the one that went wrong and resulted in the death of Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai on Aug 21.
His death and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's firm promise to get to the bottom of what happened have turned the spotlight on POW training.
The eight NSmen spoke on condition of anonymity.
All but one said that they never had their heads held under water - the treatment 2nd Sgt Hu and at least six others on his course were subjected to.
What they remember of POW training was that it tested them physically and mentally. Some soldiers might say they kena tekan (were put under mental and physical pressure), but all of them agreed it was essential.
Said a former reconnaissance trooper: 'Nothing except this would prepare you for the real thing. You realise that all those scenes in movies where a soldier goes into enemy territory and single-handedly saves the day are nonsense.'
One NSman said he had a water hose shoved into his mouth and he was 'fed' water until his stomach was bloated.
Another said he was put into a steel drum while his captors beat on the outside with sticks.
A third said that he and his fellow trainees were made to kneel on the rough surface of a basketball court all night.
They remained blindfolded throughout the two days, were forced to stay awake and given only small portions of food and water. These were designed to wear them down so that they would divulge military information to the enemy.
'It definitely felt very real. You can't see anything, you're tired and hungry. You really feel at the mercy of the instructors, as if they were really the enemy,' said a former scout who gave his name as Thomas.
'Only the thought of the exercise ending soon kept us going,' said the 28-year-old.
Trainees would be interrogated individually for information on their troops' whereabouts and the nature of their mission.
Sometimes, the 'enemy' would try the soft approach first, tempting the soldiers with candy and soft drinks. When that failed, they would graduate to more forceful means.
'They could rough you up a bit, a few slaps, a few punches and kicks,' said an NSman, who used to be a sniper.
But most of the time, things went by the book, said the NSmen. Tough but never life-threatening.
A posting on sgforums.com, an online discussion network, said this: 'Compare our training with those conducted by other armies - ours is definitely very, very tame.'
Only one of the NSmen interviewed, now a 28-year-old executive, witnessed a close call, when a trainee was doused with water while he had a sack over his head.
He said: 'He was struggling to breathe and the instructors stopped the exercise immediately. He was okay. That was the only close shave I remember.'
Another NSman who was in the scout unit said instructors did get carried away at times.
He said: 'Maybe it's because they are commandos training non-commandos so they feel like they want to show off a bit, or maybe they just want to make it tough for some soldiers they feel are slacking off.
'Also, the more senior you are, the tougher the torture is.'
This could mean a longer interrogation or more manhandling. 'But it's natural; that is what would happen in a real POW situation. They assume the seniors have more information so they would do more to get them to spit it out,' he said.
The exercise ends with the 'prisoners' being allowed to escape. They would have to trek through the jungle and join friendly troops in a designated area.
Said an NSman: 'It was tough but necessary as part of our training.
'After all, in a real war, there's a high chance we could be captured and so we need to know what to expect.'

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

This is the exact kind of top-dog, code red attitude that sets the culture in the SAF that allows for these kinds of accidents to take place in the first place.

By zealously defending their comrades in arms in accordance to some ethos of brotherhood and "standing by them brothers" no matter what is indicative of the kind of mentality that spawns a breeding ground for such jokers that cause such death in the first place.

If anything, these trainers have betrayed the ethos, professionalism and high standards REQUIRED of them as Commandos, and by any useful measure, denounced that title the moment they decided to go on ahead to on their own way training in defiance of authority which led to the needless death of an innocent NSF which was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

This incident and these people are a stain on the otherwise distinguished reputation of the Commandos, and the apporiate response is to eject these jokers from the Commandos like they so truly deserve.

As Commandos, your duty is to protect the people, not the people protecting you. And hence it helps to be ruthless to those who betray the red beret, rather then go code red and turn on damage control. Thankfully, some cdos. are completely ready to call a cat a cat and a dog a dog and describe this as it really is: A terrible abuse of the Commando ethos that should not be unpunished.

As for the verbal abuse being heaped on those trainers, disagree as I might with these methods, unfortunately these are words they really deserve for the betrayal of the values and reputation of an elite unit, and the needless premature ending of a life. If anything, it's astonishing that some red berets are more interested in damage control then rooting out the cancer of loose cannons that seem to run wild in their insitution.

There are two possible outcomes for the Commandos from this incident. They can become a closed, elitist insitution that stands by their members no matter what and are more interested in themselves and their own little war games or an accountable, effective and transparent force that is above reproach in their conduct and reputation, a force that protects the people, not take their lives in undisciplined, unauthorised silly little CST games.

There's always a time and place to stand by your brothers-in-arms, this is not one of them. They have clearly betrayed the Commandos as a whole.

35MM Gunner SG

so may b if it had been a CDO who died (b it nsf or reg) or da inst had been non CDO views in here will b diff?????

Cool

sorrowz SG

Extreme training vital to facing today's threats

By Dominic Nathan

IT COULD not have happened at a worse time. Public confidence in the Singapore Armed Forces has taken two major blows in less than a year.
Four lives were lost in the collision of RSS Courageous with a container ship in January, for which two officers face criminal charges now.
The second hit was delivered last Thursday, when Parliament was told of how a young soldier died after his instructors, all commandos, held his head under water four times.
For it to happen at a time when demands on the SAF - and the commandos especially - to meet the threat of terrorism are at their highest, makes this more than just the most serious incident of its kind in the military.
If not handled well, it could undermine confidence in national service, a key institution which helped guarantee Singapore's survival in the early days and ensures its continued success today.
As much as that sounds like a well-worn Total Defence slogan that gets glossed over too often these days, it's true.
While the Defence Minister has done the right thing by making the investigations public and transparent, the last thing Singapore needs is for a terrorist group to read this episode as a weakness in Singapore's defences.
Especially when the commandos, the very people who will be at the front lines repelling a terror attack, are facing the most severe blow to their morale.
Just as they were picking up the pieces after being barred from competing in the SAF's Best Unit competition for cheating on store-keeping and fitness test scores, now the top ranking officer has been removed, three others relieved of their duties and another five suspended for their part in carrying out the unauthorised training.
I am not about to defend what happened to Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai as an acceptable training loss.
There is no armed forces in the world, regardless of whether their ranks are filled with conscripts or professional soldiers, which will condone what happened on Pulau Tekong on Aug 21.
With a nephew being trained to be a commando, I also have a personal stake in holding the Defence Minister to his word when he spoke of taking seriously the SAF's solemn commitment to return every young man safely to his parents after training him well.
Investigations being carried out now by the Criminal Investigation Department may well end with criminal charges being brought against one or more of the commandos. Even if they do not, the minister has vowed that the guilty will be punished.
Heads have also rolled along the chain of command within the elite formation.
The minister posted in a new chief commando officer, Colonel Yeo Eidik, to 'put the commandos on the path of setting right what has gone wrong', and to rebuild themselves.
Hopefully, this entire process, well-intentioned as it may be, won't end up doing more harm than good.
As incomprehensible as this may sound, I want to know that the elite forces who sweat and sometimes bleed to earn that red beret will be able to get the job done, at all costs, when the button is pressed.
Little is known of the four lieutenants or the staff sergeant who carried out the training to simulate the treatment soldiers might endure if captured by the enemy. But overseeing them was a 44-year-old warrant officer, a 10-year veteran in the School of Commando Training, who in 1991 would have been 31 years old and in the prime of his fighting career.
On March 27 that year, just after 6.50am, a group of commandos stormed a hijacked Singapore Airlines plane and rescued 123 passengers, in a 30-second lightning raid that left all four hijackers dead and no one else injured.
Over the years, in many other operations conducted away from the glare of media scrutiny, the commandos have put their lives on the line for Singapore.
I have no idea if the suspended warrant officer, or any of the other eight commandos held responsible in some way for 2nd Sgt Hu's death, were among the group that was hailed in 1991 as heroes and bestowed national honours for their part in the SQ 117 rescue, or if they had taken part in any other high-risk operation.
But I suspect all of them went through some equally tough prisoner-of-war training at some point in their career, when training guidelines may have been bent if not broken altogether, and came out of it better soldiers.
It sounds like I have argued myself into a corner - while a training death is unacceptable, tough and sometimes extreme training is a necessity for armed forces, especially their elite troops, if they are to deal effectively with today's threats.
Where does this leave us then?
There was no doubt in Rear-Admiral (NS) Teo Chee Hean's mind when he said: 'I expect my commandos to be tough and mean, but I expect them also to be professional and to carry out their duties properly. The two are not inconsistent.'
I hope he is right. I also hope the shake-up within the commando formation and the minister's message to his senior commanders that they should take care of their men do not end up hurting the SAF's operational readiness.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I do not know which tangent Sorrowz is now going off on, apparently he now seeks to justify CST by posting that lengthy, but ultimately irrevelant article that tells us again what we have already known and agreed on.

Which is patently bizzare, I doubt any true blue soldier here will regard CST as unneccesary. And I am one of them. What is the picking point here, is how exactly it is done.

What remains clear however, is the unprofessional and unauthorised actions of those pesudomacho commando trainers that took an aspiring life in its prime. And of course, the amazing ability of some here to play down this hedious crime and stand by the perps as if they were guilty of no more then a parking ticket. Thankfully, this will be no slap on the wrist, this is where heads roll.

Maybe it would help our commando friend here to engage his opponents where the debate is, rather then throwing down smoke.

Gedanken SG

Don't go getting your hopes up. The wrongness of the act is independent of the units of the perpetrator or victim.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

No my desk friend, the views will be the same.

Unlike you, many people here have a sense of objectivity rather then blind and illogical sympathy towards the wrongdoers.

Unlike you, many people here know that the commandos are after all, just soldiers in the end, elite as they may be. There is no excuse for such an "accident". Even if the victim was a Commando, or the instructor from dunno where, the fact remains that this is wrongdoing, and should be punished to the fullest extent of military and civillian law, AND MADE SURE nothing like that happens again.

Unlike you, many people here have the intergity to distinguish right from wrong, when to sympatise, and when to rebuke, irregardless of position or unit.

Unlike you, many people here have walked the walk and have been through what you can only fantazise and talk in the forum about. They know what they are talking about.

Unlike you, people here are not given in to blind and illogical emotionism that seeks to defend blindly and justify wrongs and turn black to white.

Unlike you, people here are objective, knows what is required to be done, and have logical steps for implementing them. They do not keep baying for this thing to be swept under the rug and the army to toughen training (and hopefully train desk dudes like you to sweep mines as well)

Lets say even if a lowly personnel like you push paper and file them in an unauthorized way that causes an chopper to crash because of some problem going unnoticed, you can be assured our response to you will be just as scathing as it is to those two "commando" trainers.

After all, while some red berets and desk dudes here may claim lofty ideals of siding and supporting the wrongdoers via blind brotherhood, most others see the big picture and support the armed forces, and nation as a whole by upholding the values and ethos that had been thought to them as soldiers. To be people who protect, uphold and build the nation, not as rambo wannabe gunslingers who think of Singapore and the SAF in terms of "them and us".

35MM Gunner SG

ok so i din know tat i wuz pushing papers my whole NS life
thanks 4 da enlightentment
if tats ur perception of personnel wit such a PES status r weaker compared 2 u then *shrugs*

as i've said in an ealier post
i'm not here 2 make enemies or offend any 1 regardless of whos side they r on
i'm now being da bigger man and i hereby offer my apologies 2 who eva feels he is offended
its up 2 u 2 accept or not
and like i've said in an earlier post
if u wish 2 make personal attacks and hurl insults tis way
hey tats ur wish if it makes u happy
and tat can only say so much

Cool

sorrowz SG

The articles are for you. Read it. For all the this and that dished out here, be very rest assured that some JI fanatic is reading.

I have never say that the trainers were right. I have stated that they were wrong. I stood by those who don the red beret, even those who did wrong. You were not there, I was not there. I am not qualified to judge them. If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of believing in the fraternity of the red berets. My chief went down with HIS men. I will stand by mine.

Heads have rolled for the cdos. If you think that you just have to jump into the wagon and dish out to the cdos trainers by name calling, thanks a lot. I guess you have just contributed to the psy-up of the JI fanatics.

sorrowz SG

By the way, in my earlier posts I have asked about taking responsibilities. The naval vessel incident, two officers were on charge, not the captain.

The CST incident, all cried "bastards" "sadists" "not professional". My chief was relieved. Responsibility went all the way up. For Honour and Glory.

Gedanken SG

Geez, ST, that's a bit rough, lumping sorrowz together with Walter Mitty here. Not that I'm defending sorrowz's stance, of course - there are just some mitigating circumstances to be considered here.

Despite our differences in views, I will accord sorrowz with the credence that his role as an active Commando demands. Unlike 35, he is not talking out of his arse.

To some extent, the emotional part of me even agrees with sorrowz. If I were currently in that environment, I would be inclined to close ranks as well.

The perspective I take is different because it has been tempered over time, by the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the integration of my experiences in Commandos with my other professional activities in the ten years since.

I have complete confidence that in the same period, my contemporaries who stayed on have developed similarly, and will be perfectly capable of doing what Commandos do best - excelling in, rather than just surviving, the most adverse conditions. It will take a lot of soul-searching and the acknowledgement of some very unpleasant truths, but the fellows I know have the nerve and the strength to take a good, long, hard look at themselves and tell themselves what they really see.

« Previous Page Next Page »