Reply by Minister for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen, to a Parliamentary Question on Punishments Given to Two SAF Officers Who Caused the Death of a National Serviceman in Training Exercise in 2012 at Parliament House

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: To ask the Minister for Defence what are the punishments that have been given to the two SAF officers for their roles during a training exercise in 2012 in which a national serviceman died as a result of an allergic reaction to smoke grenades after their conviction under military law.

Dr Ng Eng Hen : Madam Speaker, let me first describe the general approach and then answer the specifics that the NCMP has asked for, in relation to injuries or deaths that occur during training in the SAF. Every injury or death to one of our servicemen is an occasion marked by sadness and regret for the whole SAF family. Our SAF commanders know that the sons of families entrusted to them during National Service are precious. Even as they are responsible to train them, to raise them, and maintain a credible and decisive SAF to defend Singapore, our commanders are clear that they need to do this as safely as possible. Our safety standards are among the highest for militaries globally, and I am not talking about just subjective assessments. If you look at training injuries, training deaths and compare them to similar militaries in a peacetime posture, our safety standards are credible. The SAF will endeavour to do its utmost to train safely, but realistically speaking, all of us recognise that in military organisations, injuries and deaths can happen despite best efforts. And each time an injury or death occurs, we must ensure that independent and impartial investigative processes are instituted to determine the key facts, arrive at appropriate conclusions, take corrective measures to ensure that mistakes, if any, are not repeated. And this includes punishing those held responsible for reckless and negligent acts that have led to the death or injury.

Like civilians, SAF servicemen can be charged and punished in the civilian criminal courts. Even if the acts were committed in the course of duties but amount to criminal offences under general law. So they are not protected. Let me cite two recent cases as examples. The names are on public record for these two cases but I shall not repeat them today, so as not to resurrect painful memories for the families involved. In 2011, a Lance Corporal was killed when a truck reversed into him. He was unloading stores from that truck. The driver of the truck was charged in the criminal courts for an offence of causing death by negligent act under section 304A(b) of the Penal Code (Cap. 224). He was tried in Court and the Court fined him $3000, no detention. The Company Sergeant Major involved in that accident was not prosecuted by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). AGC decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him in the criminal courts. The SAF charged him under military law for failing to ensure that the servicemen kept a safe distance away from the vehicle as a supervising officer. He was fined. A second example, in 2012, an SAF vehicle overturned during an exercise causing the death of a passenger. The Conducting Officer who appointed a serviceman to drive the military vehicle even when he knew that the serviceman did not have a driving licence was convicted in the criminal courts and sentenced to six months' imprisonment as he was found to have committed a rash act and attempted to pervert the course of justice.

Let me re-iterate that in these two cases, and in all cases, prosecutions of SAF servicemen in criminal courts are based on findings and conclusions as determined by judicial processes outside the SAF, namely, the Coroner's findings of the factual cause of death, and the AGC who decides if there are sufficient grounds to prosecute servicemen. It is then up to the criminal courts to determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. The SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and indeed deems them necessary so that our SAF servicemen are held accountable for their actions. All these processes were applied in the tragic death of the late PTE Lee Rui Feng Dominique Sarron.

In the case of PTE Lee, which the Member has asked about, Madam Speaker, a Coroner's Inquiry (CI) was held in August 2013. The death occurred in 2012. The Coroner's Inquiry is an open hearing accessible to the public and the media. The family of the late PTE Lee and their legal counsel were also present, and given opportunities to address any questions they might have relating to PTE Lee's death to the Court. They were also allowed to pose questions to the two SAF officers involved during the hearing.

The Coroner's full findings and conclusions are open for public viewing upon application and approval by the Court. The family has a copy of the Coroner's full findings and conclusions. Let me provide some details. The Coroner concluded that PTE Lee's death was due to an "acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride due to inhalation of zinc chloride fumes." It "could not be definitive whether in the deceased's case the reaction was due to the inhalation of excessive fumes or the mere inhalation of fumes". This was in para 77 of the Coroner's findings. In his findings, the Coroner also opined that it was clear that the deceased's allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted", para 66. Because of these findings and conclusions, the AGC decided not to prosecute anyone as the cause of death was an unforeseen allergic reaction that was unlikely to have been predicted. AGC informed MINDEF to consider taking disciplinary action against the servicemen who had breached Training Safety Regulations (TSR). If there were sufficient grounds to deem the servicemen criminally liable for PTE Lee's death, they would have been prosecuted in the criminal courts, as the AGC had done in previous cases cited above.

Following the AGC's decision not to prosecute, the two SAF officers were charged under military law in November 2013 for breaching safety regulations. They were also punished with penalties consistent with other servicemen who have committed similar offences, through fines and delay in promotion. Both officers have suffered a setback in their careers. The monetary cost of the promotion delays is significant, amounting to about half of their total annual salaries.

For MINDEF and the SAF, when training incidents occur, we have to rely on our judicial system to determine the facts and mete out the appropriate punishment where required. It would be wrong and unfair to punish SAF servicemen beyond the level of offence committed which has been determined by independent and impartial judicial processes. The level of punishment has to take into account the Coroner's findings that PTE Lee's fatal allergic reaction was unlikely to have been predicted.

Let me give Members some details about allergy to zinc chloride, the cause of death for PTE Lee. Allergy to zinc chloride from smoke grenades is known but rare, which is why till today, many militaries still use this type of smoke grenade, including the US and the Republic of Korea. In our history, the SAF's own history, we have been using this type of smoke grenades and I think many members of the house here who have done NS, would attest for it, we have been using this type of smoke grenade for over 30 years. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have been exposed to it and this is the first and only case. Unfortunately, there is no reliable test recommended by health experts to diagnose allergy to zinc chloride. After the safety review following this case, the SAF switched to alternatives which do not release zinc chloride fumes and we did that in March 2014. While the SAF has decided to do so, let me point out that there is no safety requirement internationally that precludes the use of such smoke grenades, and indeed other militaries continue to use it and this underscores the fact that allergy to zinc chloride is rare so that other militaries have chosen to continue their use and accept that risk.

Madam Speaker, this is a tragic loss of life, unexpected and unintended. The two SAF officers involved will carry with them the pain of this incident for the rest of their lives. But I do not believe that they started that fateful day intending at all to harm the soldiers under their charge. These are not the values of our SAF commanders. But regardless of their intent, over the course of an open inquiry, where the family was present, all the findings presented, the Coroner's Inquiry did not find that their actions were reckless and negligent, but that the allergic reaction was "unlikely to have been predicted". Therefore AGC decided that the officers would not be prosecuted in criminal court. As sad and tragic as this accident has been, we must do right for all involved. I feel very sad for the family members of PTE Lee, and I know that all Members here feel that way. Some of us have experienced losing a loved one and can feel and empathise the pain of losing someone so young in his life. We feel very sad for them for their great loss. My personal prayers go to the family for peace and comfort, even as they continue to deal with this difficult and tragic loss of a loved one.