As I started to write this post, I noticed that the acronym SAF, i.e. Singapore Armed Forces, is half of the word “safety”. I wonder if the SAF really is half-hearted about the safety. I am the father of two sons, so I’m naturally concerned about recent incidences of deaths of servicemen in the SAF. Our army is not involved in any conflict, so any death of a serviceman is alarming. That the death happened in training is simply shocking.
You have probably read that the inquiry into the deaths of Private Dominique Sarron Lee and 3rd Sergeant Tan Mou Sheng found breaches in training safety regulations which had contributed to their deaths. Five servicemen have died so far this year from service related incidents.
We keep hearing the rhetoric response from the authorities about how they are committed to ensuring the safety of servicemen. But I wonder if these are just for show. You can institute all the regulations you want, and implement all sorts of safety mechanisms, but is safety actually being practised on the ground?
The inquiry into the death of Pte Dominique, for example, showed that despite safety regulations in place, the people in-charge on the ground wilfully chose to disregard those regulations. It’s not just the Platoon Commander ignoring the regulations, but also the Safety Officer failing to ensure the safe conduct of the training.
Would things be different if the officers in-charge could be held criminally liable for each of those accidents or deaths?
The culture of safety needs to be instilled in the entire SAF organisation, across the entire chain of command. It is easy to make rules, create procedures and build systems. Ultimately, the people themselves need to practice safety.
Let’s not forget that our national servicemen are serving because they are required to by law. They did not sign up for a job and did not ask to do what they are doing. Parents are entrusting their children to the SAF. The SAF, thus, must do a whole lot more than what you’d expect from the due diligence of a typical employer. To me, it makes no sense for the SAF to compare with “national and international standards”.
There are many construction sites all around Singapore. Have you noticed that all construction sites have huge banners everywhere carrying safety messages, so that their workers are constantly reminded about working safely? Have you noticed “scoreboards” showing man-hours worked, accident rates, and death rates? It’s part of big picture of promoting work-site safety.
Our Ministry of Manpower (or perhaps it is the Building and Construction Authority?) makes it mandatory for contractors to institute various activities to promote work-site safety. From some of my past work experiences, I learnt about several things. For example, qualified safety inspectors check work sites regularly. A simple matter such as a scaffolding is inspected daily before it is allowed to be used. To lift a 1 ton chiller from road level to the rooftop just three storeys up would involve an impressive number of people, logistics, and paperwork. There are safety meetings for everyone, and there are risk assessments to be done for every activity. It’s pretty impressive.
Our SAF hardly comes anywhere close at all.
Of course, let’s not just add rules and procedures for the sake of having them. They would just amount to cumbersome bureaucracy. What is really important is that the people need to believe in it.
I am disappointed with the actions that the SAF has taken thus far in these two incidents. The people responsible were reassigned to other duties, while the authorities decide if further action will be pursued in a military or civilian court. I believe, at the very least, the regulars should be suspended immediately, and since they seem certain that safety regulations were indeed breached, charge them for those violations. Add on negligent homicide if they are able to link the deaths to those violations.
The point is not simply to punish these specific people, but to send a clear message, in no uncertain terms, that everyone will be held accountable for their actions (or lack thereof). The SAF is ruled by the same laws as anyone else in Singapore. SAF personnel should not be able to get away with such negligence.
Ultimately, it is not about charging violators in court or punishing them, but to make safety a part of everything for everyone.
You’ve heard about the 3 P’s: Product, Process and People. Where the safety in the SAF is concerned, I think they can pass on the Product and Process parts. The People part is missing.