MDEF taken to task by dead NS man family

[Kezg1]

 

Was reading the AsiaOne forum pertaining to the above that have 16 commented pages and all of the sudden the topic was taken down,

Was only reading on the 2nd page and most of the comments was in not infavour of MDF.....Forummers what is your view on such matter ?

 

[Mivec9]

Was reading the AsiaOne forum pertaining to the above that have 16 commented pages and all of the sudden the topic was taken down,

Was only reading on the 2nd page and most of the comments was in not infavour of MDF.....Forummers what is your view on such matter ?

 

 

This may be quite sensitive topic and that's reason why Asia1 took it down. We need get facts correct before able to comment fairly. But it seems the key of the argument was whether he was on duty at the point of time when it happened. The sms to his leader doesn't look favourable and it sounds negativity in his mindset then. We shall wait and see how's the trial goes on.

[Hamburger]

This may be quite sensitive topic and that's reason why Asia1 took it down. We need get facts correct before able to comment fairly. But it seems the key of the argument was whether he was on duty at the point of time when it happened. The sms to his leader doesn't look favourable and it sounds negativity in his mindset then. We shall wait and see how's the trial goes on.

i tot verdict was not in e favour of Mindef ????

 

[Leslielai]

This may be quite sensitive topic and that's reason why Asia1 took it down. We need get facts correct before able to comment fairly. But it seems the key of the argument was whether he was on duty at the point of time when it happened. The sms to his leader doesn't look favourable and it sounds negativity in his mindset then. We shall wait and see how's the trial goes on.

 

The verdict has already been passed.

 

Mindef lost the case.

[Kezg1]

This may be quite sensitive topic and that's reason why Asia1 took it down. We need get facts correct before able to comment fairly. But it seems the key of the argument was whether he was on duty at the point of time when it happened. The sms to his leader doesn't look favourable and it sounds negativity in his mindset then. We shall wait and see how's the trial goes on.

 

 

 

He was already on duty that day but MDF argued to the point in details that he was in his bunk..... ....Why can't MDF settle this amicably with the family ??? Should we not learn from IS**lis....when their one soldier was captured by terrorist... the whole country wanted to go and rescue(sort of)...this is the value a soldier in that country is worth .

[Brock]

Was reading the AsiaOne forum pertaining to the above that have 16 commented pages and all of the sudden the topic was taken down,

Was only reading on the 2nd page and most of the comments was in not infavour of MDF.....Forummers what is your view on such matter ?

 

See link at http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2238407

 

THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after an incident in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry.

 

The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef.

 

On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of a building where his bunk was located on the third-level.

 

The ministry classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his medical treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital from March 2007.

 

But Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of a four-day hearing that Mr Tan's injuries were 'attributable to service' and he was therefore entitled to a payout.

 

The case hinged on the interpretation of a provision in the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations, which provides for payouts to disabled servicemen.

 

Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that when he was found with injuries at 6pm, Mr Tan's tour of duty had not ended.

 

But government lawyers argued that even though Mr Tan was performing his national service, he was not doing anything related to his duty at the time. He was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting in his bunk.

 

But Justice Tay said that the words 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby duty and was not doing any particular work.

[Blackyv]

dont forget we are rank 144 in year 2008...

[Mustank]

See link at http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php?t=2238407

 

THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after an incident in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry.

 

The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef.

 

On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of a building where his bunk was located on the third-level.

 

The ministry classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his medical treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital from March 2007.

 

But Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of a four-day hearing that Mr Tan's injuries were 'attributable to service' and he was therefore entitled to a payout.

 

The case hinged on the interpretation of a provision in the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations, which provides for payouts to disabled servicemen.

 

Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that when he was found with injuries at 6pm, Mr Tan's tour of duty had not ended.

 

But government lawyers argued that even though Mr Tan was performing his national service, he was not doing anything related to his duty at the time. He was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting in his bunk.

 

But Justice Tay said that the words 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby duty and was not doing any particular work.

 

i read the report somewhere else that the ns guy is suspected to have committed suicide

 

however, there is no clear evidence that the poor guy had intended to commit suicide

 

i can agree that if someone wants to commit suicide but fail to do so and in the course of doing so seriously injure himself

 

then i take the view that such an act is not attributable to service

 

i think MINDEF may be more concerned about the floodgate of people wanting to commit suicide in ns, then having to pay compensation

 

i wonder whether they will get push to get the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations amended for this purpose

 

[S4vtec]

good verdict !

Edited January 19, 2009 by S4vtec

[Mydotcom]

Going by Mindef's argument, If i'm not involved in some training or exercise, then I am considered as off duty?

 

So if i'm off duty, it is my rights to book out of camp to go home?

 

Why e H*ll is Mindef keeping all the NSmen back in camp overnight then? We should all go home and stay out during In-Camp cause we're off duty at night already

[Mivec9]

He was already on duty that day but MDF argued to the point in details that he was in his bunk..... ....Why can't MDF settle this amicably with the family ??? Should we not learn from IS**lis....when their one soldier was captured by terrorist... the whole country wanted to go and rescue(sort of)...this is the value a soldier in that country is worth .

 

 

Glad it turned out right for the poor family. nowadays, not sure why MDF want to stop the payment of his medical bills while he was in camp. But the verdict is definitely fair.

 

As another mcf-er mentioned, if we kana accident in evening in camp, so we aint covered?

[Kusje]

Why e H*ll is Mindef keeping all the NSmen back in camp overnight then? We should all go home and stay out during In-Camp cause we're off duty at night already

 

 

WELFARE!!! Free housing/food!

[Toalson]

Glad it turned out right for the poor family. nowadays, not sure why MDF want to stop the payment of his medical bills while he was in camp. But the verdict is definitely fair.

 

As another mcf-er mentioned, if we kana accident in evening in camp, so we aint covered?

 

This is so freaking weird. In that case should ask OC & CO during next ICT, that we should remain outside camp aka stay out when exercise is over?

 

[Watwheels]

This is so freaking weird. In that case should ask OC & CO during next ICT, that we should remain outside camp aka stay out when exercise is over?

 

There are too many instances of ppl staying out and "forget" to come back. Dun forget they are responsible for each and every man. If you are just one of the men you only have to take accountability of yourself, you won't understand why. Every time exercise over there are ppl like storeman and MTline are still working on consolidation & handing over. It's not very fair if you can stay out and they have to work.

[Mivec9]

This is so freaking weird. In that case should ask OC & CO during next ICT, that we should remain outside camp aka stay out when exercise is over?

 

 

We do have stay out personnels due to own personal reasons, subject OC's approval.

[Marvelicious]

There are too many instances of ppl staying out and "forget" to come back. Dun forget they are responsible for each and every man. If you are just one of the men you only have to take accountability of yourself, you won't understand why. Every time exercise over there are ppl like storeman and MTline are still working on consolidation & handing over. It's not very fair if you can stay out and they have to work.

 

Erm I guess everyone has a role to play. The combat troops have to go outfield and take the s--t that comes with it. During this time, the storemen might have to prepare rations or if he is lucky, and on good r/s with the CSM, can even sneak in a couple hours of nap. When exercise is over, the combat troops need to clean up the stores and return them, sometimes even helping the storemen to do theirs. The storemen will then hand-over everything. Everyone has a role. When we sleep in shell-scraps we dug ourselves, they prob be sleeping back in their bunks or up in the hammocks in the tunnels. Vice-versa, we might be resting in our bunks when they are rushing around to prepare stores for us.

 

So I don't see how your statement "it's not very fair if you can stay out and they have to work" holds ground. You mean we have to wait for them to be done before we can book out?

 

[Watwheels]

Erm I guess everyone has a role to play. The combat troops have to go outfield and take the s--t that comes with it. During this time, the storemen might have to prepare rations or if he is lucky, and on good r/s with the CSM, can even sneak in a couple hours of nap. When exercise is over, the combat troops need to clean up the stores and return them, sometimes even helping the storemen to do theirs. The storemen will then hand-over everything. Everyone has a role. When we sleep in shell-scraps we dug ourselves, they prob be sleeping back in their bunks or up in the hammocks in the tunnels. Vice-versa, we might be resting in our bunks when they are rushing around to prepare stores for us.

 

So I don't see how your statement "it's not very fair if you can stay out and they have to work" holds ground. You mean we have to wait for them to be done before we can book out?

 

Ask my CO lor, that's what he told us, it's matter of fact his say. My CO is like that, if wanna book out or stay out all go together including himself. He won't like he himself stay out while his men are still in camp. He always leave last.

 

Dun care what holds ground or not. In the army it's "Lead by Example" that matters.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Watwheels

[Osiris]

I am glad the judge make a more reasonable call. .

 

MINDEF VIEW

But government lawyers argued that even though Mr Tan was performing his national service, he was not doing anything related to his duty at the time. He was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting in his bunk.

 

JUDGE VIEW

But Justice Tay said that the words 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby duty and was not doing any particular work.