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

[kuasimi]

SAF CAPTAIN CHIA PROMOTED TO MAJOR DESPITE NEGLIGENCE IN DOMINIQUE LEE'S DEATH
Submitted by farhan on Mon, 07/03/2016 - 6:43pm


http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/art...que-lees-death

https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff







I feel that a grave injustice is done to private Dominique's family. The public deserves to know that the two officers were not "punished" despite what MINDEF claimed. One of them, Captain Chia Thye Siong Jeffery was even promoted one year seven months after the incident.

Now many people thought they were court martialled and case closed. Please let the public know that's not the case and for one of them, he was in fact promoted. Please let there just a little bit of Justice be done.

Date of Dominique Lee's death: 17 April 2012
Date of Captain Chia's Promotion: Est. 22 November 2014

Duration in Between: Approximately 1 year 7 months

Nat Tey
A.S.S. Contributor

Editor's Note:
Do you have a story to share? Please use our submission form or email us at [email protected]. If not, why not give us a 'Like'?

[kuasimi]

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen urges his Ministry to waive legal costs in PTE Lee’s case
By The Independent - March 8, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/defence-min...pte-lees-case/


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG






Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has weighed-in on the case of the High Court striking out a lawsuit brought against the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) on 3 Mar. The family of PTE Dominique Sarron Lee sued SAF, as well as his platoon commander and the chief safety officer of the exercise, alleging negligence on their part.

The soldier had died due to an allergic reaction in a training exercise after a platoon commander threw six smoke grenades, even though regulations specified no more than two grenades were to have been used.

All three defendants argued that there is no reasonable cause of action and that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. The Judicial Commissioner agreed with the defendants, and besides dismissing the case he also asked the family of PTE Lee to pay the legal costs of the defendants.

After the case received much attention online, as well as the intervention of an opposition political party, the SAF today issued a clarification on the case.

Despite the explanation from SAF, the furore over the case seems to not have ended. Late on Monday night (7 Mar) Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen wrote in his Facebook weighing-in on the topic.

Mr Ng said, “the High Court judgement in awarding MINDEF (Ministry of Defence) costs is based on sound legal grounds and precedents,” but that his Ministry “need not add to the pain and anguish of the family of the late PTE Lee.”

“We should waive the costs to the family,” the Defence Minister wrote to MINDEF and SAF staff.

He emphasised that SAF commanders “should continue to train their men professionally, with due regard for safety regulations,” and that “no one wishes for their trainees to be injured or worse still, face death.”

“We must learn from every accident, fix lapses and improve,” Mr Ng added.

Ng Eng Hen
4 hours ago
<<“My note”>>
I wrote this note to MINDEF and SAF staff:
When emotions are running high, we must respect the decisions made by our Courts, who have come to an objective and impartial assessment given all the facts. The Coroner’s inquiry has ruled on the cause of the death of PTE Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron. The High Court judgement in awarding MINDEF costs is based on sound legal grounds and precedents. But we need not add to the pain and anguish of the family of the late PTE Lee. We should waive the costs to the family.
We should also emphasise to our SAF commanders that they should continue to train their men professionally, with due regard for safety regulations. I know that our commanders care for their men and that no one wishes for their trainees to be injured or worse still, face death. We must learn from every accident, fix lapses and improve. This is the way we honour all those who have given their all to build a strong and honourable SAF.

Meanwhile the family of the dead soldier has commented in a Facebook dedicated to PTE Lee that:

“MINDEF/SAF has not apologised formally to the family for the incident resulting in Dominique’s death. We had previously requested that the Minister for Defence offer the apology directly to Dominique’s mum as acknowledgement of the negligence on their part, and of the grief she has suffered, but we were rebuffed. We were told by the MINDEF representative, in no uncertain terms, that the Minister will never apologise for the incident, nor will any senior official from MINDEF/SAF.

“Subsequently, we offered an olive branch to MINDEF. Instead of the personal apology, we requested for MINDEF to pay for Dom’s tomb as a symbolic gesture, but this was again rejected. Legal constraints were cited as the reason for the rejection. It is only today (7 March 2016) that we see the first statement of apology from MINDEF in their Facebook statement addressed to the general public.”

[kuasimi]

Despite SAF’s explanation, public furore over PTE Lee’s case continues
By The Independent - March 7, 2016


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


http://theindependent.sg/despite-saf...ase-continues/



The High Court on Mar 3 struck out a lawsuit brought against the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). The family of PTE Dominique Sarron Lee sued SAF, as well as his platoon commander and the chief safety officer of the exercise, alleging negligence on their part.

The soldier had died due to an allergic reaction in a training exercise after a platoon commander threw six smoke grenades, even though regulations specified no more than two grenades were to have been used.

All three defendants argued that there is no reasonable cause of action and that the suit is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. The Judicial Commissioner agreed with the defendants, and besides dismissing the case he also asked the family of PTE Lee to pay the legal costs of the defendants.

After the case received much attention online, as well as the intervention of an opposition political party, the SAF today issued a clarification on the case.

Despite the explanation from SAF, the furore over the case seems to not have ended.

Carlton Tan, a regular writer for the Asian Correspondent, responded to the clarification by SAF in his Facebook saying that it doesn’t really address the most recent developments, which is “the High Court ruling that says the government cannot be sued for service-related deaths, and the High Court’s decision to award legal costs to the AGC.”

Acknowledging that there’s very little to say on the case until the written judgment can be viewed, he said that “what we do know is that the civil claim was rejected because of a law introduced in the 1960s.”

He further commented that it is uncertain at this point whether the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) will choose to waive the legal costs, and that it’s also unclear why the High Court didn’t exercise its discretion (if it has any) to waive the costs in this case.

Andrew Loh, the former editor of The Online Citizen commented in his Facebook on the case saying that the SAF is right in saying, “we would also like to address the misperception that SAF servicemen injured or killed cannot seek legal recourse under military rules. This is incorrect.”

Mr Loh said that “what the SAF is indemnified from, however, is civil suits (“tort” law).”

Section 14-(1) of the Government Proceedings Act says:

“Nothing done or omitted to be done by a member of the forces while on duty as such shall subject either him or the Government to liability in tort for causing the death of another person, or for causing personal injury to another person, in so far as the death or personal injury is due to anything suffered by that other person while he is a member of the forces if…”

Mr Loh further noted that SAF in its clarification said that it had “taken administrative and disciplinary action against the two officers,” after PTE Lee died in 2012, but that a publicly available document shows that a Captain Chia Thye Song was promoted to the rank of major in 2014.

He asked if the Captain Chia Thye Siong who was promoted 2 years ago is the safety officer involved in the case.

Meanwhile Elliot Aruldoss, a young lawyer, has asked that if such is the law (Section 14 of the Government Proceeding Act (GPA) (Chapter 121)), “what protection can the Government offer to Singaporean men and their families whose sons must serve compulsory National Service?”

He also asked “what is the recourse in a situation where death or personal injury is caused by negligence?” and “what is the policy justification behind such a law?”

Mr Aruldoss commented on his Facebook that “Section 14 of the GPA is a law that must be qualified with the principles of fairness. There must be consequences for individual and corporate action.”

“The case of Private Dominique Sarron Lee involves a lack of accountability of the highest order. Singapore cannot ‘sit by’ and condone such a lack of accountability,” he added.

[kuasimi]

Monsoons Book Club’s advertisement campaign is a legitimate commercial activity
By The Independent - March 7, 2016


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG

http://theindependent.sg/monsoons-bo...cial-activity/



By Stephen Chang

I am curious to read that the Media Development Authority (MDA) of the Singapore government has demanded that The Opinion Collaborative Limited (TOC Limited) should return money received from the Monsoons Book Club Limited (MBC), a social enterprise registered and based in the UK, for sponsoring an essay competition publicised by The On-line Citizen which at the material time was managed by TOC Limited. As part of the arrangement between the two social enterprises, The Online Citizen will advertise the logo of MBC as one of the sponsors of the essay competition.

In a letter dated 4 March 2016 to TOC Limited, Ms Yuvarani Thangavelu (Director, Licencing Division of MDA) wrote, to quote,

“The MDA has determined that TOC Limited had received funds from a foreign source but not for bona fide commercial purposes. Accordingly, TOC Limited is to return the funds to MBC Ltd…”

I would like to pose the following question to the MDA.

If a social enterprise, say in the nature of an educational establishment (such as a school or university), registered and based in the UK as a non-commercial and non-trading company or a charitable trust, advertises in a private social media like The Online Citizen in return for publicity to attract Singapore students, would the MDA prevent TOC Limited from receiving the advertising money because the money received was not for bona fide commercial purpose?



Monsoons-Book-Club-logo
MBC’s logo, published by TOC as part of the “My Singapore, My Future” essay contest jointly organised with TOC Ltd.


Such an educational establishment does not have shareholders and invests all its surplus income over its expenditure (profit) in improving the school/university and providing scholarships. The MBC, a social enterprise registered and based in the UK, is similar to such an educational establishment. While an educational establishment would advertise to attract Singapore students, MBC uses the advertisement to publicise the Book Club as the venue for intellectual discussions.

MBC’s objectives as set out in its constitution (Articles of Association) registered with the UK authorities are:

1. Promote the reading of books which offer challenging ideas for social change.
2. Encourage discussions and critical thinking about social, political and economic progress in the South East Asian Region.
3. Provide a platform for people from all walks of life, including writers, intellectuals, artists, researchers, and politicians to inform, share their thoughts, challenge conventional views, and be challenged.
4. Publish and disseminate reports and recordings of events set out in objectives 2 and 3 above to a wider audience through written, audio and video media.

The MDA in its media release said,

“TOC Ltd has undertaken not to receive funding from foreign sources for the provision, management and/or operation of the website, The Online Citizen, except for bona fide commercial purposes. This is to ensure that foreign entities do not engage in domestic politics and to uphold the principle that domestic politics must remain a matter for Singapore and Singaporeans alone.”

Firstly, the sponsoring by MBC of an essay competition promoted by TOC Limited in return for advertising MBC on TOC is a bona fide commercial activity as explained above.

Secondly, I do not see any of MBC’s objectives as set out above to be engaging in Singapore domestic politics or to be sinister. I classify them to be educational. I would have thought that all democratic countries would welcome participation by their citizens in activities promoted by MBC.

The writer is a retired Chartered Accountant

[kuasimi]

Open letter by Dominique’s family in response to SAF’s statement


https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...04116539632943



http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...afs-statement/


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


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 8, 2016




The below post is made on the Facebook page that was created in memory of Dominique Sarron Lee who passed away due to an accident during a routine army training exercise in April 2012. This was made in response to an earlier statement made by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to clarify issues surrounding the lawsuit that was struck out by the High Court. (read original post here)

By Family of Dominique Sarron Lee

Following the Facebook post by Dominique’s mum, we have been surprised and touched by the show of support and words of encouragement from members of the public. We, the family, would like to sincerely thank those who have given their support and encouragement.

The family would like to clarify our position and address some of the misconceptions that have arisen due to lack of accurate information.



CI AND COI FINDINGS


MINDEF in its Facebook posting today (Key Findings from the Death of PTE Dominique Sarron Lee, 7 March 2016), stated that Dominique’s death was “unlikely to have been predicted”. If this was the case, why then is there a Training Safety Regulation to limit to 2, the number of smoke grenades to be used in the specific exercise that Dominique was involved in to begin with? How did SAF decide on this limit as being within safety regulation of such an exercise?

MINDEF has also repeatedly reiterated that the coroner had noted that Dominique “had under played and under declared his asthmatic condition.” Yet the coroner had also opined that asthma had a weak correlation to the allergic reaction that Dominique suffered in the exercise. Furthermore, the Minister for Defence himself had said that even those without asthma may be affected by the effects of zinc chloride. So our question is, did Dominique’s alleged under play and under declaration of his condition contribute directly to his untimely demise? Our layman conclusion is that it does not.

In the Facebook statement, MINDEF stated that “the coroner noted that more smoke grenades than necessary were used during the exercise, but could not ascertain whether the acute allergic reaction was due to concentration and/or the mere exposure of zinc chloride fumes”. We had learnt anecdotally from SAF personnel, immediately after the tragic incident, that Dominique had taken part in a similar exercise before where the TSR had not been bridged. This to us, suggests that the fatal allergic reaction occurred due to concentration of rather than mere exposure to zinc chloride fumes, which brings us back to the question of MINDEF’s TSR of 2 smoke grenades as being within safety limits.

If the safety hazard has to do with mere exposure to zinc chloride fumes, then the regulation on the number of smoke grenades would be irrelevant as the grenades should not even be in use at all. In that regard, we would like to ask MINDEF about the new N452 smoke grenades that have be introduced since the incident. How are they an improvement to the previous smoke grenades? Has any test been done to ascertain if the concentration and/or mere exposure to the fumes would result in acute allergic reaction? Can MINDEF/SAF share the safety aspect(s) of such an assessment (if any) with the public? What are the chemical compound(s) found in these new smoke grenades?

It is a fact that Dom died from the effects of the smoke grenades thrown. It is also a fact that the number of smoke grenades thrown exceeded thrice the safety limits. We do not know how more direct a link one can infer from this, about the factors leading to Dominique’s untimely death. The Coroner’s Inquiry is to ascertain the cause of death. The Coroner’s Inquiry does not determine whether or not the 2 officers or MINDEF is/are culpable or not.


Can MINDEF kindly make this point clear in its statement? The Minister for Defence, in his Parliamentary Statement in November 2012, stated that the COI concluded that the two officers were negligent. But in the Facebook statement, BG Chan stated that the COI “did not find that the two officers were directly responsible for PTE Lee’s death”. Can MINDEF again, kindly clarify if the Ministerial Statement or the Facebook statement was erroneous?


ACCOUNTABILITY OF MINDEF/SAF


MINDEF/SAF has not apologized formally to the family for the incident resulting in Dominique’s death. We had previously requested that the Minister for Defence offer the apology directly to Dominique’s mum as acknowledgement of the negligence on their part, and of the grief she has suffered, but we were rebuffed. We were told by the MINDEF representative, in no uncertain terms, that the Minister will never apologise for the incident, nor will any senior official from MINDEF/SAF.

Subsequently, we offered an olive branch to MINDEF. Instead of the personal apology, we requested for MINDEF to pay for Dom’s tomb as a symbolic gesture, but this was again rejected. Legal constraints were cited as the reason for the rejection. It is only today (7 March 2016) that we see the first statement of apology from MINDEF in their Facebook statement addressed to the general public.

We have repeatedly asked for details on how the two officers have been dealt with as the Minister for Defence had said in Parliament in November 2012, that they had been negligent in their duties. The COI had also found that they did not comply with safety regulations.

We are not out to persecute the two officers, nor asking for them to be crucified. We do not believe in an eye for an eye. We are only asking for MINDEF/SAF to be accountable. Minister K. Shanmugam himself had said in Parliament in May 2012, that “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”. But MINDEF/SAF has thus far, refused to show us how the justice has been done.

All we know for sure from recent Facebook postings by netizens, is that one of the officers was promoted in July 2014. To our layman understanding, this seems to be a contradiction of the assurances by MINDEF/SAF that the negligent officers have been duly dealt with, that justice has been done.

Could MINDEF kindly clarify their statement in the Facebook posting, that ‘‘administrative and disciplinary action against the two officers” have been taken? Please inform the public how the two officers have been “punished according to military law” so that the public can see for themselves that the justice has been served, and not just know it to have been served.



IMPROVEMENTS TO SAFETY


It is of small comfort to the family to know that following Dominique’s death, improvements have been made to ensure the safety of all National Service men, with “the setting up of a Safety and Systems Review Directorate, the convening of a Respiratory Medicine Specialist Advisory Board to review medical classification Asthma, and the deploying of more safety officers on the ground as full-time Unit Safety Officers”, as well as the introduction of “new N452 grenades … to replace the smoke grenades used in that training exercise”. We wish all these safety measures had been in place sooner so that it would not have taken a death, Dominique’s death, for the SAF to realize their lapses in ensuring the safety of all National Service men.




CONTINUE....

[kuasimi]

CONTINUE.

Open letter by Dominique’s family in response to SAF’s statement

https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...04116539632943



http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...afs-statement/


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


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 8, 2016




The below post is made on the Facebook page that was created in memory of Dominique Sarron Lee who passed away due to an accident during a routine army training exercise in April 2012. This was made in response to an earlier statement made by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to clarify issues surrounding the lawsuit that was struck out by the High Court. (read original post here)

By Family of Dominique Sarron Lee

SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILY


MINDEF’s statement revealed that we had “previously taken out a pre-action discovery application, which [we] subsequently withdrew” and that the court had “awarded costs to MINDEF”, which they had waived. What the statement does not mention is the fact that the said application was withdrawn because we accepted the AGC’s request to enter a mediation with MINDEF, and the agreement was made on the condition that the legal fees were waived. The mediation did not go as planned as MINDEF was not willing to accede to our request for either the Minister to apologise to the family or MINDEF to pay for Dominique’s tomb. Left with no other recourse, the family made the difficult decision of seeking redress in a civilian court.

We would like to clarify that this law suit has never been about money. It has always been about getting answers to our questions. We would not have taken the legal route had MINDEF been fully “committed to assisting and providing” us with the answers we seek.

To concerned members of the public, we would like to clarify that to date, we have not accepted nor received any compensation from MINDEF/SAF for Dominique’s untimely demise. The family has repeatedly rejected offers from MINDEF/SAF to discuss monetary compensation. We have only accepted a funeral grant to defray the cost of the funeral, on the same day Dominique was sent back home in a coffin. This grant, according to the SAF, is not part of the compensation.

Finally, we would like to appeal to the public be fair to Dr Chee Soon Juan. We had initiated the meeting with Dr Chee as we are at our wit’s end. We do not intend nor wish for this to be a political issue. We had, over the past 3 years, approached no less than 4 PAP MPs, including an anchor Minister and a GPC Chairman for their assistance. 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. We are not siding with any political party; we are just seeking answers to get some closure. We only seek accountability from MINDEF and SAF.

We are not asking Singaporeans to change the government; We are asking Singaporeans to demand that the government change the laws to achieve “justice and equality” for all. How can we continue to trust the government when we now know that they have set lower standards of accountability for themselves in law, when In fact they should set higher standards for themselves?

Unlike MINDEF, we do not have a team of lawyers or PR personnel to craft out statements. While their spin doctors spin ambiguities to manage the fiasco that they have created for themselves through their high-handed handling of our case, we can only rely on our own heartfelt responses to speak about what we intrinsically know to be an injustice to not just us, but the people of Singapore. We lay all our cards on the table. MINDEF, we ask that you do the same. Please be transparent. We do not think that Dominique’s death is in any way a matter of national security that requires secrecy. While you at it, kindly, with our permission, reveal to the public the compensation that you had intended to offer the family, so that all Singaporeans will know how much the life of a promising young man is worth to MINDEF.


ACCOUNTABILITY OF MINDEF/SAF


MINDEF/SAF has not apologized formally to the family for the incident resulting in Dominique’s death. We had previously requested that the Minister for Defence offer the apology directly to Dominique’s mum as acknowledgement of the negligence on their part, and of the grief she has suffered, but we were rebuffed. We were told by the MINDEF representative, in no uncertain terms, that the Minister will never apologise for the incident, nor will any senior official from MINDEF/SAF.

Subsequently, we offered an olive branch to MINDEF. Instead of the personal apology, we requested for MINDEF to pay for Dom’s tomb as a symbolic gesture, but this was again rejected. Legal constraints were cited as the reason for the rejection. It is only today (7 March 2016) that we see the first statement of apology from MINDEF in their Facebook statement addressed to the general public.

We have repeatedly asked for details on how the two officers have been dealt with as the Minister for Defence had said in Parliament in November 2012, that they had been negligent in their duties. The COI had also found that they did not comply with safety regulations.

We are not out to persecute the two officers, nor asking for them to be crucified. We do not believe in an eye for an eye. We are only asking for MINDEF/SAF to be accountable. Minister K. Shanmugam himself had said in Parliament in May 2012, that “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”. But MINDEF/SAF has thus far, refused to show us how the justice has been done. All we know for sure from recent Facebook postings by netizens, is that one of the officers was promoted in July 2014. To our layman understanding, this seems to be a contradiction of the assurances by MINDEF/SAF that the negligent officers have been duly dealt with, that justice has been done.

Could MINDEF kindly clarify their statement in the Facebook posting, that ‘‘administrative and disciplinary action against the two officers” have been taken? Please inform the public how the two officers have been “punished according to military law” so that the public can see for themselves that the justice has been served, and not just know it to have been served.





CONTINUE....

[kuasimi]

CONTINUE.

Open letter by Dominique’s family in response to SAF’s statement



https://www.facebook.com/DomSarronLe...04116539632943

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...afs-statement/


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


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 8, 2016




The below post is made on the Facebook page that was created in memory of Dominique Sarron Lee who passed away due to an accident during a routine army training exercise in April 2012. This was made in response to an earlier statement made by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) to clarify issues surrounding the lawsuit that was struck out by the High Court. (read original post here)

By Family of Dominique Sarron Lee


IMPROVEMENTS TO SAFETY

It is of small comfort to the family to know that following Dominique’s death, improvements have been made to ensure the safety of all National Service men, with “the setting up of a Safety and Systems Review Directorate, the convening of a Respiratory Medicine Specialist Advisory Board to review medical classification Asthma, and the deploying of more safety officers on the ground as full-time Unit Safety Officers”, as well as the introduction of “new N452 grenades … to replace the smoke grenades used in that training exercise”. We wish all these safety measures had been in place sooner so that it would not have taken a death, Dominique’s death, for the SAF to realize their lapses in ensuring the safety of all National Service men.

SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILY


MINDEF’s statement revealed that we had “previously taken out a pre-action discovery application, which [we] subsequently withdrew” and that the court had “awarded costs to MINDEF”, which they had waived. What the statement does not mention is the fact that the said application was withdrawn because we accepted the AGC’s request to enter a mediation with MINDEF, and the agreement was made on the condition that the legal fees were waived. The mediation did not go as planned as MINDEF was not willing to accede to our request for either the Minister to apologise to the family or MINDEF to pay for Dominique’s tomb. Left with no other recourse, the family made the difficult decision of seeking redress in a civilian court.

We would like to clarify that this law suit has never been about money. It has always been about getting answers to our questions. We would not have taken the legal route had MINDEF been fully “committed to assisting and providing” us with the answers we seek.

To concerned members of the public, we would like to clarify that to date, we have not accepted nor received any compensation from MINDEF/SAF for Dominique’s untimely demise. The family has repeatedly rejected offers from MINDEF/SAF to discuss monetary compensation. We have only accepted a funeral grant to defray the cost of the funeral, on the same day Dominique was sent back home in a coffin. This grant, according to the SAF, is not part of the compensation.

Finally, we would like to appeal to the public be fair to Dr Chee Soon Juan. We had initiated the meeting with Dr Chee as we are at our wit’s end. We do not intend nor wish for this to be a political issue. We had, over the past 3 years, approached no less than 4 PAP MPs, including an anchor Minister and a GPC Chairman for their assistance. 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. We are not siding with any political party; we are just seeking answers to get some closure. We only seek accountability from MINDEF and SAF.

We are not asking Singaporeans to change the government; We are asking Singaporeans to demand that the government change the laws to achieve “justice and equality” for all. How can we continue to trust the government when we now know that they have set lower standards of accountability for themselves in law, when In fact they should set higher standards for themselves?

Unlike MINDEF, we do not have a team of lawyers or PR personnel to craft out statements. While their spin doctors spin ambiguities to manage the fiasco that they have created for themselves through their high-handed handling of our case, we can only rely on our own heartfelt responses to speak about what we intrinsically know to be an injustice to not just us, but the people of Singapore. We lay all our cards on the table. MINDEF, we ask that you do the same. Please be transparent. We do not think that Dominique’s death is in any way a matter of national security that requires secrecy. While you at it, kindly, with our permission, reveal to the public the compensation that you had intended to offer the family, so that all Singaporeans will know how much the life of a promising young man is worth to MINDEF.

[kuasimi]

2 officers involved in NSF Dominque Sarron Lee's death were punished, says SAF


http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...f-5317655.html

[nickahben]

Originally Posted by sadfa

I see spf no up just like I see your posts no up.
Knn after you come back, still copy n paste?
Where's your cb analysis???

Knn and they send 5 men after a 14 yr old kid.
Where were these heroes during the little India riots?
When they go arrest the 14 yr old, got show tactical awareness bo? Or all mass orgy N go n arrest.

Even if he use force on the ger, don't need to grab him in school. Just go his house n bring him n parents down.
Don't need to do in school.

If cctv footage is so clear, why need to interrogate him?

And Singapore is the only bs fake country where a confession from a 14 yr old child from a 3 hour interrogation can be acceptable. Haha what a joke!!

And Benjamin 14 yr old nia, fucking hero to last 3 hours.
Only idiots will think the police ask him nicely for 3 hours.

They are afraid of whackin him so I bet they knnbccb him nonstop. Saying he will b raped in jail n be a burden on his family so better confess

If cctv footage so clear, the parents will likely persuade him to admit it.

And where's the schools role in all this?
Wash their hands off n bochap?? Cb la.
No fucking support from school, don't expect students to care about the school.

And all this effort for fuck?
Very likely he kenna probation even if guilty unless he fucking violent on the girl or he rapist.

Benjamins parents learnt a valuable lesson.
The fucked up garbagement n the police is not for the people. Theyre to be used against the people.

From now onwards, its obvious they'll close ranks n the garbagement will smear a dead 14 yr old boy saying he deserved it n its his fault cos he's a criminal n they did everything by the book.

No NGO or lawyer can help the family.
No answer or satisfactory reply will b given.
No one will b answerable.
Form inquiry also useless.

Even if the family is poor, they should wake up n act n vote against the garbagement from now onwards.

Make Benjamins life and death meaningful.
Don't let him die in vain

������ at least u are smart enough to see the whole picture so clearly, sadly most of the Singaporean are easily being fool by them...

[ComplainKing]

Originally Posted by nickahben

������ at least u are smart enough to see the whole picture so clearly, sadly most of the Singaporean are easily being fool by them...

Most of them unfortunately got brainwashed . That is why they can't see what is happening in front of them.

[Craz78]

Yup, brainwashed folks.... Dun like girls being molested.
Unlike non brainwashed folks, like to molest young girls and commit all sorts of crimes with zero police intervention.

[11_Frog]

very interesting, all the clones talking among themselves

[11_Frog]

Originally Posted by Craz78

Yup, brainwashed folks.... Dun like girls being molested.
Unlike non brainwashed folks, like to molest young girls and commit all sorts of crimes with zero police intervention.

some more make every issue a mountain out of a molehill


that is their trademark

[11_Frog]

Originally Posted by nickahben

������ at least u are smart enough to see the whole picture so clearly, sadly most of the Singaporean are easily being fool by them...

i don't agree with you, Mr Clone





Breaking news breaking news :

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...i/2583306.html




Pround Member Of The Anti (TOSC) The Online Saboteur Club

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by 11_Frog

some more make every issue a mountain out of a molehill


that is their trademark

The only political party making issue out from a molehill into a mountain is PAP and its one and only pet topic, WP Town Council. If have CBT evidence then arrest everyone in WP Town Council. NATO cannot win votes forever.