Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Law protecting servicemen from civil suits is ‘vital’: Ng Eng Hen

SINGAPORE — Rejecting a call to amend the law to allow for civil liability in negligence against a member of the armed forces or the Government for causing death or personal injury during training, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said that the statute in question continues to serve a “vital” purpose — to allow soldiers to train realistically.

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act allow soldiers to train without wondering if they or the SAF could be sued by other servicemen when injuries and fatalities occur. TODAY file photo

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act allow soldiers to train without wondering if they or the SAF could be sued by other servicemen when injuries and fatalities occur. TODAY file photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Rejecting a call to amend the law to allow for civil liability in negligence against a member of the armed forces or the Government for causing death or personal injury during training, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said that the statute in question continues to serve a “vital” purpose — to allow soldiers to train realistically.

Speaking in Parliament on Monday (Jan 9), Dr Ng said that Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act allow soldiers and commanders to train without wondering if they or the armed forces could be sued by other servicemen when injuries and fatalities occur.

Citing an example of training for the Individual Physical Proficiency Test, Dr Ng said: “The TSR (Training Safety Regulations) 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?”

He added: “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.”

Dr Ng was responding to Workers’ Party Non-Constituency MP Dennis Tan, who filed a motion in Parliament proposing that Section 14 be amended to allow for certain situations of liability to be prosecuted in civil court — specifically during training and when safety protocols, procedures and regulations have been violated.

Mr Tan cited the case of late Private Dominique Sarron Lee, who died in April 2012 from an acute allergic reaction to zinc chloride fumes from smoke grenades used during a training exercise.

His family sued his then-platoon-commander and chief safety officer of the exercise, after both were summarily tried and found guilty in military court for negligent performance of lawful order or duty. They also sued the Attorney-General for breach of contract between Lee and the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

But Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh ruled in March last year that the two officers qualified for immunity from being sued under Section 14. The statute states that as long as any deaths or injuries occurred during service, any SAF officer involved or the Government are not liable to be sued.

Referring to the ruling, Dr Ng said the legislative intention behind Section 14 was to ensure that the Government and the members of the armed forces are shielded from liability to ensure effectiveness and decisiveness of the armed forces in training and operations, “without being burdened by the prospect of legal action” when training or having to “second guess” the consequences of every action.

He cited the experience of the United Kingdom, which removed the law, but later found that doing so resulted in the fear among the armed forces that legitimate actions might be exposed to “extensive and retrospective” legal scrutiny. It also undermined armed forces personnel’s willingness to accept responsibility and take necessary risks, he said.

Mr Tan had pointed out that the possibility of a civil suit would ensure that officers take note of the grave consequences of violating established safety protocols, and encourage them to be more careful.

“One common claim about the Singapore legal system is that clear, consistent and proportional sanction deters violations of the law. Allowing civil liability for violations of training protocol is an extension of this principle of deterrence through law,” he pointed out.

Mr Tan stressed that he was not proposing a “blanket civil liability for accidents”, just for accidents during the “controlled environment” of training, where training protocols were violated.

He also pointed out that the independence of the judicial process through the civil courts will also help to prevent any “undesired impression or accusation of cover-up and underscore that Mindef and the SAF are above board”. “This willingness to allow for legal scrutiny builds public confidence,” he added.

In his response, Dr Ng noted that those who have been reckless or negligent are not protected from criminal prosecution.

“The Member talks about judicial process. The Coroner’s Inquiry for fatalities is an open process,” he said, noting that in the case of Lee, the coroner found that the breaches in training protocol were not the direct cause of death.

“The facts are established by an independent body, and if there is criminal negligence and rash acts, (servicemen) are charged in criminal courts, and punished accordingly,” said Dr Ng.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.