The question here is direct accountability.
A driver is responsible for driving safely and properly, the vehicle commander is responsible for ensuring that the driver drives safely and all other safety measures are put into place. When an accident happens, the cause can sometimes be traced back to specific reasons, and in turn to specific person or people.
My experience with those drivers who are sentenced to DB is such that all of them drive in unsafe manner i.e. half asleep at the wheel when told repeated to rest early instead of staying awake the whole night etc, steer left instead of right, trying to overtake when instructed not to, keeping too close distances with the vehicle in front. I have also come across damage to vehicles that drivers could not possibly have noticed e.g. wheel coming loose, constantly engaged brakes that caused the brake pad to burn and catch fire etc. The drivers in such cases were not implicated.
As for the superintendent, it was his job to ensure that the detention facility was maintained in ways that they are built for. Should something happen, he would ultimately be held accountable, along with all other people who are involved.
Mr Wong's job is to ensure such people are held accountable, and what is happenning now shows that he is doing his work, albeit in a reactive manner.
i am shocked as to how the contractor managed to talk his way out not installing the grill. shouldn't the contractor be in a way made responsible? cos if the grill is there, it would not have led to such an unfortunate string of events.
Superintendent of detention centre sacked because of direct accountability. The superintendent is the right person for the right job and the right place (detention centre or rehabilitation centre), the only thing wrong is the Mas Selamat.
For example, if you put a bird into a tiger cage, the bird will fly away but the tiger will still remain. The logic is very simple, and you know the answer.
If Mas Selamat is such a dangerous person, with plan to destroy our Changi Airport, and had escape jail from Indonsia before, by putting him at the rehabilitation centre and so naive that we pray that he will be rehabilitated.
Direct accountability apply here, and so the Superintendent of detention centre sacked. Agreed, but WHO classify Mas Selamat is a very nation loving person, should give him some changes, by giving enough time he can be rehabilitated. The law of accountability should apply to the "WHO". The detention centre is not design for Mas Selamat, and he is the wrong person to be there. By putting him there, we are expecting hime to perform (escape).
So, the rule of accountability should apply to the decision maker who classify Mas Selamat as a person can be rehabilitated and locate him at the detention centre.
Canon 5D II, 20-35 f/2.8L, 28-80 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L IS, 100-300 f/5.6L, 100 f/2.8 Macro
IS this true? the superintendent was already retired when "sacked"?