Parliamentary Statements
Supplementary Questions
17 February 2012
This article has been migrated from an earlier version of the site and may display formatting inconsistencies.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Mr Speaker Sir, let me thank the Minister for his answer. In fact, I just completed my In-Camp training today and just did my IPPT this morning. I can attest to what the Minister has just mentioned that the medical personnel in the SAF take this very seriously to ensure that all servicemen are checked. My question to the Minister is- When was the last time the IPPT was reviewed? And you mentioned that the IPPT criteria was set and benchmarked to UK and US, but in US and UK, they have professional military men, while over here, IPPT is taken by all NSmen, which many of them, in their real job, they are not doing professional military training everyday, so they take it once a year or so, during their In-camp. I am not sure whether we should be benchmarking criteria to UK and US and whether such criteria is due for review.
Minister: Mr Speaker Sir, Mr Lim Wee Kiak had asked a question about IPPT and there are two considerations. I think one, whether it is an adequate test for fitness, and two, the safety of it. There are different aspects, so in term of safety, I have outlined quite in detail the medical screening and I won't touch upon it. In terms of fitness of large groups, we don't use, if you like, the UK and the US as benchmarks for our tests. This was evolved on our own and we still find it relevant as a test for strength, flexibility, speed. My point was that our IPPT's standards are comparable to that of the UK and the US. It has been reviewed a number of times, over the years, and as I said, you need a test because so many NSmen take it a year, over 100 000 SAF personnel. You need a test which is efficient and effective. We looked at other models, and each time we reviewed it, you could change a few items, but at the end of the day, people are used to it, it is still an adequate test, so I suspect that we will keep reviewing it and if we find a model, or perhaps some stations that better suit our need to change, but at this point of time, for the IPPT, all of us have done it, and are familiar with it, and if you do your IPPT well, most people would agree that you are a fit person.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister for the answer to the PQ and the supplementary question. I would just like to enquire, the question, covering the incidence rate for cardiac arrests for during and after the IPPT test, can I enquire that there were any fatalities or unfortunate incidences with regard to non-cardiac events during and after IPPT?
Minister: I answer specifically to MP Lim Wee Kiak's question on cardiac events, so I don't have that data. I will be happy to supply the data if Mr Pritam Singh files a question, but I suspect that most of the rates, even though it is so low, is related to cardiac events.
Mr Nicholas Fang: Thank you Defence Minister for the explanation to the procedures. Perhaps not on the IPPT, but on the screening process, Minister mentioned that resting state ECG is conducted first, and if abnormalities arise, then treadmill or active state ECG is conducted. In comparison to some tests done by the Sports Council for athletes for example, the test immediately proceeds to an active ECG. The resting state ECG typically does not show abnormalities when strain or physical stress is imposed. Would the Defence Ministry consider the screening process to involve straightaway the treadmill ECG instead of just starting with resting state ECG? Thank you.
Minister: Thank you. Mr Speaker Sir, MINDEF is open to any suggestions that we feel can protect the safety of our NSmen. We are careful to listen to the advice and recommendations by experts. Even though I am medically trained, I have a practising medical certificate, I defer to the guidelines and we do it as a system. As I said, a panel comprising leading senior cardiologists from the public sector and senior SAF doctors, they regularly review the latest medical evidence and clinical best practices. As I said, the most recent review was in May 2011, this is ongoing and I would say that our current guidelines, are in line with, and in some instances, exceed, national and international standards. If this expert panel says that we should add this, we will do so but we are guided by the expert panel.
More Resources