Mr Deputy Speaker

Safety

Safety is one of the Singapore Armed Forces’ (SAF) core values, and we strive to continue to tighten our safety system to achieve zero fatalities, even zero incidents, and we continually do this to make sure that our current safety outcomes are among the highest for militaries globally. But as we all know unfortunately, mishaps do occur from time to time.

And when these safety breaches do occur, we want to make sure that those responsible are punished. And we certainly do not condone these acts. It is not fair to paint even those who have not followed Training Safety Regulations (TSR), as some do it out of mischief or negligence, and they are taken to task if they are reckless. But some do it for a variety of reasons, so there is a spectrum. But if they have been reckless or negligent, they are not protected from criminal prosecution, even when they are conducted by servicemen in the course of duty. And the criminal prosecution. The Member talks about judicial process. The Coroner’s Inquiry for fatalities is an open process. The facts are established and he failed to mention that in this particular case he referred to, the coroner made a finding on the cause of death, and while the infractions in the TSR were associated, they were not the direct cause of death. He did mention that we changed the smoke grenade, but he did not say the reason why. Because it was an acute hypersensitive reaction, which is very uncommon. So, I think the facts are established by an independent body, and if there is criminal negligence and rash acts, they are charged in criminal courts, and punished accordingly. SAF servicemen have indeed been jailed and fined as a consequence and members can refer to our records, which I will not repeat here.
 
Apart from criminal proceedings, SAF and its members can be litigated against for compensation in the civil courts for damage done to civil property or injury suffered by civilians. 

Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act

The Member is quite right in raising Section 14, that Section 14 exempts the Government and servicemen from being sued. And, I thought it would be useful in response to his various points to really quote the Grounds of Decision (GD) by JC Kannan Ramesh in this specific case which he cited. The Estate of Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron, deceased v Najib Hanuk bin Muhammad Jalal. And in that Grounds of Decision, the judge provided a comprehensive examination of the history and the reasons for Section 14 and I will share some passages. The judge recognised that Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA) was enacted to place the SAF in a special position in recognition of its heavy responsibility of safeguarding the defence of our country, and the high degree of risk intrinsic to military training. Intrinsic to military training – he recognised that. Kannan JC added that the consistent legislative intention underpinning Section 14 is to ensure that the Government and the members of the armed forces are shielded from liability in tort in order to ensure the efficiency, discipline, effectiveness and decisiveness of the armed forces in both training and operations, without being burdened by the prospect of legal action when training, to the point of having to second guess the consequences of every action. The Member paints as if this Act protects the Government and servicemen who are not part of our Singapore community. But he is absolutely correct that we are a conscript army and this very Act protects commanders and servicemen who are partly drawn from our Singaporean community.

Kannan JC also explained that while Section 14 removed the Plaintiff’s right of action in tort, the Plaintiff is nevertheless entitled to compensation under the SAF (Pensions) Regulations and our compensation is, as previously said to this house, about two to four times of the Work Injury Compensation Act. 

Each country will have to decide how it provides its public security agencies as a whole and their personnel – in our case the SAF, SPF and Civil Defence – the confidence to train and perform their duties diligently without this fear of litigation against them. Note that Section 14 does not accord any of our servicemen any protection against criminal proceedings or civil litigations brought by civilians for compensation or damages, which I have already stated earlier. It only precludes legal suits brought against the Government – the SAF in this case – or its individual servicemen by servicemen and their Next of Kin themselves. Note that as Kannan JC highlighted, that the immunity conferred by Section 14 does not extend to acts that amount to an intentional act committed by an SAF member, which is separate and independent of the member’s duties. For instance, punching his superior.

For Singapore, Section 14 continues to serve a vital purpose as intended. SAF soldiers train realistically, conduct many operations overseas because they train realistically. Without the commanders or the individual soldiers themselves in each instance wondering if their organisation or they themselves could be sued by other servicemen, when injuries and fatalities occur. Removing Section 14 is not likely to improve outcomes as the Member says, and indeed, may do us harm. The United Kingdom (UK) removed this protection for their military in 1987. But in a 2013 report published by the UK House of Commons Defence Committee, it was found that repealing that protection had resulted in reputational risk to armed forces personnel and the fear that they and their legitimate actions may be exposed to extensive and retrospective legal scrutiny. This had led many to question their position serving in the UK armed forces. Retired senior British commanders also reported that it had undermined armed forces personnel’s willingness to accept responsibility and take necessary risks, with the consequent impact on operational effectiveness.

I give you a simple example – training for the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT). The TSR says you do it; you keep within the TSR. But if you push someone to run faster than he can and he collapses, and it is found that he had an undetected condition after the fact and the person, commander or even the fellow servicemen feel that he can be sued – not protected, how many commanders do you think will encourage their unit to train harder? This is a reality we face; there are inherent risks and I think we struck a good balance between maintaining very high safety standards, and I think that Section 14 provides us that confidence for our commanders to train realistically.