4th April 2004, 05:42 PM
Well this is all speculation here, but I'm coming from the point that back during my NSF days I saw tons of "should be done but was never done" incidents & therefore I'm saying the same thing could have occurred e.g. should have been supervising but wasn't.
If we remember, ANL Indonesia mentioned that RSS Courageous kept changing directions & they were confused about their intention. Why didn't the XO question the trainee's numerous direction change?
ST mentioned that the XO supposedly had many years of experience. Well if that's the case, I'm sure he would have known what to do in such a situation. So why didn't he take control from the trainee? Maritime lawyers refered to the RSS Courageous' numerous directional changes as confusing. Why didn't the XO question & if necessary overrule the trainee, ESPECIALLY when the radar operator had questioned her decision?
IMHO, the numerous directional changes is an indication that the trainee was freaking out & wasn't sure what to do. So back to the same question, why didn't the XO step in?
These are some reasons why I felt that PERHAPS the trainee was alone that night. Yes she was supposed to have been supervised by the XO. But maybe he went off for a smoke or something. Who knows? And as a result of her inexperience & his no-show, the ship collided.
But in order to protect their own, they decided not to say that the XO wasn't around 'cos if they did, he is sure to get all the ****. That's my take of what happened that night.
The way I see it, the trainee officer wasn't to blame. Imagine this. A trainee driver attempts to beat the red light in the process collides with another car. Do you blame the trainee for breaking traffic rules, or do you blame the instructor for not jamming his auxiliary foot brake?
Sure the trainee driver was wrong to attempt to beat the light. But isn't it the instructor's job to ensure safety? So why didn't he jam the break? Was the instructor day dreaming?
4th April 2004, 06:13 PM
I think some of us here are wondering aloud why only fines for the 2 officers not so much because of the grave accident that was deemed to be largely their fault but the kind of legal system we have here. I mean, if something as intimate as oral sex between a couple that is none-anyone else's-business could land them in jail, how come this Navy case is only a fine? How come something as non-life threatening as pickpocketing can land one in jail for a week also?
Whatever it is, the error in judgement is definitely not intentional. In war, friendly fire has killed many precious soldiers. I'm sure no one wants these things to happen. The 2 may be less experienced or whatever we do not know exactly. I mean, at 19, and a handful who still look like kids, we already have 2LT officers in the Army that old timer regular sergeants and warrant officers must call "Sir" right? Isn't this ridiculous too?
Anyway, I think it is unfair to call the 2 Navy officers 'jokers' or wish a stricter punishment like a jail term on them. I seriously think no one wants accidents to happen. Right now, I can imagine the kind of torment they must be going thru... It is important they learn from the experience, move on, and perhaps do something worthy with their own lives.
4th April 2004, 06:19 PM
Well Veronica, there have been cases of hit & run accidents where the victim dies but the culprit just gets fined & his license revoked. So in that sense, I'm not surprised that in this case even though lives were lost, there was no jail term.
4th April 2004, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by wheek
Suggest you DO NOT insinuate or pass judgement of what actually happened that night as what you have suggested.
The Singapore Navy nor the Ministry of Defence is not is the habit of covering things up when there is an accident. You went through NS yourself, so you know better how things are in the Armed Forces. Every accident will have a thorough investigation by the Board of Inquiry.
I would suggest you edit your post and stop all these wild allegations, otherwise you would be taken to task.
4th April 2004, 09:07 PM
This happens to be a forum for ppl to share their views. If you don't like what I wrote, don't read it. Those are not allegations, they are my opinion of what might have occurred. At least learn to differentiate.
Originally Posted by jeff chen
And for the record, not everything is made known. Remember that CST incident at School of CDO? A Channel News Asia report quoted the COA as saying that this kind of unauthorised training has been going on since the last 2 or 3 batches. So if that NMP hadn't raised the issue in parliament, would the recent incident have been made public? I would think not.
4th April 2004, 09:39 PM
i may be wrong, but i think if one is charged in the civil court, then one cannot be charged in the military court - else it would be double jepoardy.
Originally Posted by Mich
4th April 2004, 09:55 PM
please please do not get into a verbal fight here.
All i can say is always take e media reports with a pinch of salt. Although they are supposed to report e truth as it is but still nothing is perfect. even in e Navy, few know what really happen in e bridge at tat fateful night. we cannot judge e 2 officers based on wat we see in e news. their conscience will b e best judge of themselves. those who survived bear a indelible mark in their minds. please respect e court's decision as it is.
im not saying it's wrong to pass ur opinion here. unless u r a NAvy personnel who have served onboard ship, please try not to pass ur opinion on e handling of e ship of e incident. there r always a lot of factors to be taken into acc durin e fateful nite like operations, visual, weather and other factors not known etc. Out in e sea is diff from drivin at night. let us respect these ppl who safeguard our waters all e time. beae in mind, no matter which service it is, it is through their diligence that we can sleep soundly at night. respect what they did for us. it is time to let go n look forward to e future n not dwell in e past.
my opinions are not meant to argue in any way.
5th April 2004, 12:28 AM
dun think this comparison is fair. dun think ppl get away with fines and suspensions for purposely knocking down someone. not tht i have heard of anyway.
Originally Posted by vader
5th April 2004, 04:32 AM
Erm the difference is in the intent. Purposely knocking people down is murder, accidentally knocking people down is manslaughter. In this case, there is no intent to kill, which is very important.
Originally Posted by w.s
5th April 2004, 10:54 AM
5th April 2004, 10:59 AM
Is an accident not murder, judge will decide not you, if the families not satify with the decision they can go appeal but you cannot. Weak.
Originally Posted by wheek
5th April 2004, 11:19 AM
Something I really do not understand. I just read a story few days ago, a driver was convicted of 28 months jail (Think so! Could be more) because of reckless driving involving only a fatal accident. I wonder how did the judge came to the conclusion that the navy accident did not warrant our two navy officiers to jail terms as with 3 death and 1 missing as compared to the road accident I mentioned? Furthermore, how come both officers stood trials in civilian court? Is there going to be some military court orders too?
5th April 2004, 02:35 PM
well, i was shocked that the 2 kenna fined only.
well, nobody know the reasons how the judge came up with the verdict. is there any other "forces" that influence his decision. that, we do not and most probably will never know.
one family plead for the judge not to jail them.
I wonder what about the other 3 families (especially that one that is classified as MIA and not dead).
Nothing is mentioned in the papers about them. *hush hush*???
5th April 2004, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by auron
Perhaps the other families understand things cannot be undone and chose to move on and not harping on it.
5th April 2004, 07:39 PM
Wheek, this is a forum to share views, but what you are doing is not sharing views. One has to differentiate between sharing views and insinuation. When you say the XO went for a smoke or something, that is insinuation. The trial makes no mention of such a thing, so you are conjuring things up. That is clearly not sharing views. Please be responsible, state the facts and don't suggest anything else that you think happened. Otherwise, people reading the post take it as "truth" then it is not a good thing.
Originally Posted by wheek
Regarding the drowning incident, wasn't there a full inquiry conducted by MINDEF in the end, that found such practices to be unacceptable? Did you not see Defence Minister appearing in Parliament saying that what happened should not have happened? Was not the Chief Commando Officer removed from Active Duty? So please, get your facts right. Say what actually happened and not the partial truth, cause it will mislead people.
And Aton is probably right, maybe the rest of the families have forgiven those 2 officers.
As to why it is civil courts, it is probably becaused it involved a commercial ship. In military court, it is equally hard to convict someone as well. There is probably a need to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the 2 officers did not plan to kill their shipmates, then they will be convicted. Which I do not think was what the 2 officers had planned to do.
5th April 2004, 09:13 PM
The drowning incident was made public 'cos that MP raised it in parliament. What about the previous 2 or 3 incidents that the COA talked about? Those weren't made public.
Originally Posted by jeff chen