A rebuttal to Tan Hau Teck’s letter to TODAY on Dr Allan Ooi’s death
April 2nd, 2009 | 
Author: By Eugene Yeo
I refer to the letter by Mr Tan Teck Hau titled “Dr Allan Ooi’s death: Rather than point the finger” which was published on page 22 of TODAY. (read letter here)
I am absolutely appalled and disappointed that the TODAY editors felt fit to publish such a misleading, insensitive and meaningless letter.
Either Mr Tan does not comprehend simple English or he misunderstood the intention of the Ooi family in their request to MINDEF to set up an independent panel to address the deceased doctor’s concerns about his work.
Nowhere in the letter did the Ooi family point any fingers at MINDEF. All they ask is for MINDEF to answer some questions which has been troubling them. (read the Ooi family’s letter here)
A life has been lost and the only way the grieving family can bring the matter to a proper closure is to find out the mitigating factors behind Dr Allan Ooi’s decision to end his life.
If the same tragedy happens to Mr Tan’s son, brother or friend, will he be so callous to brush the matter aside too? Won’t he demand answers from MINDEF who owes the deceased doctor a moral duty of care as his employer?
Mr Tan’s argument that Dr Allan Ooi is solely responsible for signing on the dotted line of his bond is most disingenuous.
Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?
The aspirations and expectations of people do change with time. How many of us actually go on to fulfill our childhood dreams when we enter the workforce?
Dr Allan Ooi expressed unhappiness over the nature of his work which did not fully utilize his knowledge and skills as a medical doctor. Apparently, he had informed his superiors of his intention to break the bond which his family can well afford to pay for. However for some strange reasons, he wasn’t allowed to and this was his main grouse against the SAF.
And this is where the family is demanding for answers from SAF. Why was Allan’s bond unbreakable? This was not stated in the contract which Allan signed. Is it reasonable and fair for SAF to stop Allan from breaking his bond when there were no such provisions put in print? Would Allan have signed the bond if he knew that he would not be allowed to break it under any circumstances in the future? Is there a possibility of a misrepresentation here?
May I ask Mr Tan which is more important: life or money? How much does it cost to conduct such an inquiry? Surely it won’t be more than the Apache helicoptors which SAF had bought? Can it be more than the monthly salary of the Defence Minister and all the top MINDEF honchos?
We are talking about a life lost here. No matter how much it costs, MINDEF should pay for the setting up of an independent panel to investigate the matter. Will taxpayers mind paying for a peace of mind to know that MINDEF will be responsible and accountable for their children who is currently serving their national service?
Actually MINDEF does not even need to fork out a single cent for this purpose. All it needs is to agree for the panel to be set up and allowed its officers to be summoned for questioning. Dr Allan Ooi’s family will probably be willing to fund the operation of the panel and the owners of this blog will not mind contributing to see that justice is done.
It is most cruel of Mr Tan to rub salt to the family’s wounds by insinuating that they have neglected Allan and thereby are partly culpable for the tragedy. The Ooi family is a closely knitted family. Allan was close to his siblings especially his younger sister whom he doted on. He had brought up his problems at work to his family and his father had offered to pay for the penalty incurred in the course of breaking the bond.
Somehow Allan must have felt that there is nothing much his family can do to help him since the onus lies with SAF to permit him to break his bond and he did not want to cause them any distress. That’s why he left without a word to be alone by himself. How can Mr Tan expect his family to locate him in Australia when even SAF and the police are unable to do so?
Both Mr Tan and TODAY owe the family and friends of Dr Allan Ooi an apology for hurting their feelings and insulting the dignity of a dead man who is unable to defend himself.
To paraphrase Mr Tan’s own words – “instead of pointing the finger at the Ooi family, perhaps it’s time he look around and see what he can do for fellow Singaporeans”. His grossly inappropriate letter is definitely not a way of offering sympathy or help to a family mourning the premature passing of a loved one.
Also read Ng E Jay’s rebuttal here
Posted in 
Tags: 73 Responses to “A rebuttal to Tan Hau Teck’s letter to TODAY on Dr Allan Ooi’s death”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
who is the hell is this guy anyway? you are right to say that if your own family member happened to be the one, no one can allowed that to pass by without any closure in truth. unless he is an animal.
It is the SAF way of rebutting Dr. Ooi’s claim without issuing an official statement.
They are just blind.
Must press them where it hurts.
First the elections.
Then the budget.
The they will wake up.
Actually, Dr. Ooi is trying to do Singaporean a service.
He thinks the system is hopeless and he went on to demonstrate that by taking his life.
A person with a bright (supposedly) future choose to take his life to protest against a system and he is supposedly an elite.
Goes to show how hopeless it is for the non elites here in Singapore. non elites that the miws are try to exterminate through hunger and senseless junk on TV.
No wonder so many want to emigrate and did want to give birth in Singapore. Why have your children oppressed by a system, you yourself cannot stand, feeding into a system leading these people to continue thinking they are right.
Of course, the system will say that he is silly.
They are blind that’s all.
omg…this Mr. Tan is stirring a storm, what he has written is what i call “not putting urself in other ppl’s shoes”…low EQ…perhaps he should put himself in the perspective as parents of Dr. Allen’s
May be this “Mr. Tan” does not exist after all, and just a shadow writer employed by ,ahem, you-know-who
http://jaslyngo.sgpolitics.net/?p=325
“I try googling for Mr Tan Hau Teck, and this is what I found :
Centre for Culture and Communication
[photo] – click on link above to view photo
Hau Teck graduated from the National University of Singapore with a degree in Arts and Social Sciences, majoring in Political Science and Psychology.
After spending ten years in the army, he decided that it was time to seek a new challenge. Since he always had a keen interest in education, he chose to join RP.
Hau Teck has a keen interest in current affairs and volunteer work, and he hopes that he will be able to positively influence the youths of today.
Need I say more?”
Tan Hau Teck is the poster child for the ugly Singaporean. Insensitive, callous, self-centered and exhibits absolute crass behavior.
this mr tan, he is from my reservist unit. v colorful background.
Well… Not even war time, so many young people lose their lives…
No wonder we lost during WWII to a bunch of Japanese. Hahahahahahahahahahaha…
Please investigate every death, and only on Allan’s. I know Allan maybe Dawn Yang’s ex but death is death, it’s very serious.
People have babies not meant for some trash to help the children get killed in army. How can so many deaths before we even have war? What is the use of army? To help our people commit suicide or get killed? Like this how to enter war?
Like this how can?
there is nothing wrong with the family wanting to know the sequence of events leading up to dr allan ooi’s death. in fact, they have every right to do so. and in no way are they saying mindef is wrong, they just want to know the truth, that’s all.
wanting clarification is not tantamount to accusation.
and the clarification they are seeking is well expressed in the questions they put forth in their letter, namely
1. why public affairs issue statement that a bond can only be broken under ’strong, extenuating circumstances’, when this is not stated in the contract.
2. dr allan ooi wrote to the hqmc in july last year with the intention of breaking his bond. what was the reply?
3. how come the bond could be extended?
the simple straight forward answers the family is seeking has , in actual fact, nothing to do with the philosophy of responsibility and issues regarding familial display of concern and what not.
i am a bit shocked that the letter got published, and very sad at tan hau teck’s logic, notably, his inability to appreciate the beauty of non mutual exclusivity.
even more sad that the academic factory has proven its worth yet once too many agains.
More than a ‘moral duty’, the SAF might even owe a tortious duty to their employees.
If that is right, why not just sue the SAF in court? I’m not entirely familiar with Singapore law, but I think it should be straightforward to establish that SAF owed Dr Ooi a duty of care. The next question is whether the duty of care has been breached. That requires evidence, so tadah you’ll have your independent enquiry into the facts. Further, since it’s in court, it will be (should be) open to the public – so no accusations of hiding facts will arise. The Ooi family get their facts and (probably) get compensation too.
The problem with this approach is it begs the question: how far do you want to use public resources to find out the truth? That is an issue not considered by your article. For example, perhaps the resources used to initiate a factual enquiry might be better put to other means?
Public resources are a zero-sum game (even taking into account your offer to pay for the inquiry, it still takes up manpower). In this economic climate, is the search for the truth necessarily better than giving one homeless man shelter for a month? I don’t know.
@Mr. Tan
I sincerely hope that you will one fine day find yourself in the same shoes at Allan’s parents. Finding your son lost to the bureaucratic bullshit of SAF and I sincerely hope that when that happens to you, please shrug it off because he’s just another digit in the system. At that time, perhaps you might not be so cocky in dealing with such a sensitive issue.
May Justice Prevail!
I find Eugene’s response to the letter childish.
1. “Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?” Of course. If Eugene thinks otherwise, I believe that is his own perspective, as I have more confidence in our youths. The key words are the timeless value of responsibility & honour. One must face up to the challenges of life, and not be overly idealistic. No one owes you a living. If you have issues, the onus is on you to overcome the problems, and not blame “youthfulness” or “change of aspiration” as excuses to worm oneself out of the contract. To note that by signing the contract willingly, the doctor most probably deprived another person of the opportunity of the award. It is taxpayers monies that contributed to the award, so it is one’s honour/responsibility to fulfil the contract.
2. “How much does it cost to conduct such an inquiry? Surely it won’t be more than the Apache helicoptors which SAF had bought?…Actually MINDEF does not even need to fork out a single cent for this purpose. All it needs is to agree for the panel to be set up and allowed its officers to be summoned for questioning.” The first two statements are frivolous, as cost of attack choppers has nothing to do with the issue of whether inquiry is needed. Taxpayers money will be involved if an inquiry is called as the time/resources will be spent on the inquiry, i.e. opportunity costs will be incurred when it can be invested elsewhere.
3. Mr Tan did raise a relevant point. “If he did not want to be bonded, why did he go for further training?” Everybody knows that as part of HR retention tool, bonds can be extended due to promotions & goodies such as further trg. This time, one cannot argue that the doctor at 27 “can be easily misled” akin to 18 yr olds. He has every right to reject the further trg (sponsored by taxpayer) if he insists on ending his contract early. One cannot help to conclude that the doctor wanted the best of both worlds (i.e. to get out of the bond and STILL go for further trg).
4. To be objective, the doctor is not totally faultless, as he has AWOLed when he shdn’t. He has to face up to the consequences, i.e. Detention Barracks aka Jail, just like the rest of the AWOLees. When he finished his sentence, it is ironic that he is likely to be dis-honourably discharged from service/officership but will have to complete his national service liability. Conclusion, he might have dug a hole he cannot get out due to a rash act (AWOL), and his pride got the better of him. If everyone starts blaming the system for going AWOL, MINDEF will be too busy to conduct inquiries, and precious resources will be diverted away from the core business of defending the country. One must face up to reality – be honourable & responsible. My assessment is that the doctor didn’t & chose suicide. The article referred the doctor as a “dead man who is unable to defend himself”. Well, that’s a fact, cos when one chooses suicide, one has given up the right to defend oneself. Well my theory is that the doctor’s intent is not to defend himself, but to escape from the very real/brutal/unglamorous consequence of DB.
Final point, do not glamorise suicide.
from E.yeo:
Mr Tan’s argument that Dr Allan Ooi is solely responsible for signing on the dotted line of his bond is most disingenuous.
Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?
How is this argument disingenuous? sounds like those mini-bond idiots (excluding the ‘uneducated’ ones) who bought already and kpkb when they lose money.
WHO forced Ooi to sign the scholarship bond which is a commercial contract? LKY? GOD? his parents? chances are, no one forced him to sign it.
AND if an 18 yr old does not know what he wants from life, then dun suka suka sign a 12 year contract! its not like his family can’t afford to pay for his med school fees.
people kill themselves everyday man, and i don’t see anyone taking up their cause.
don’t be blinded by your desire to attack the gov. ooi’s death, while needless, is just another death. its not like he kena killed by terrorists or something. he CHOSE to die.
mr. tan is just another brainwashed man
I personally can’t see many errors in Mr Tan’s reasoning. If its emotions you guys are trying to stroke up, I guess its working. But the letter itself isn’t too far off the mark.
Using phrases like “a life is lost” are definitely aimed at stirring emotions. Hundreds of lives are lost in one day! Are you saying the lives of others are not as important as that of a doctor? If that is the case, this is hinting at an attack on human rights.
“Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?”
This sounds like an insult to me. At 18 years old one is considered an adult, and it is the legal age to start doing many things that minors cannot do. If he doesn’t start making decisions at that age then when should he start? Is there a prescribed age to start thinking for yourself instead of letting others think for you? That arbitrary age should be bellow that of 18, if there even should be one.
‘If the same tragedy happens to Mr Tan’s son, brother or friend, will he be so callous to brush the matter aside too? Won’t he demand answers from MINDEF who owes the deceased doctor a moral duty of care as his employer?’
This is an extremely fine display of Mr Tan’s moral values. Apparently, he doesn’t seem to concur with the fact that a life lost is a big deal. In fact, he advocates the turning of a blind eye to the demise and woe of a family.
A life, no matter how insignificant, is still a life.
Does Mr Tan know how difficult it is to graduate from a medical school? How much effort must this young promising doctor have put in to be where he was? How demanding the circumstance must have been for the same person to commit suicide?
My eyes widen in disbelief even as I reread this article.
TODAY newspaper is again, proving to be an unreliable source. Producing something like this without an opposite argumentative counterpart is no way to run an unbiased newspaper. In fact, it is no way to run a newspaper at all.
Hi everton,
We regret that you are unable to grasp the gist of Eugene’s article. The points you brought up are unfortunately pretty irrelevant and superficial:
1. True, the onus is on Allan to overcome his problems at work and he has decided to do so by breaking his bond. He is financially capable of doing so, why is he not allowed to terminate his contract? One can argue that he is morally wrong to break his bond, but is SAF correct in retaining him when it was not stated in his original contract that the bond is unbreakable?
2. The examples are quoted to highlight the fact that MINDEF has more than ample resources to finance such an inquiry. Even if it refuses to host one, the family should be agreeable to sponsor the panel out of their own pockets without using taxpayers’ monies. So where does the monetary concern arise?
3. Again, that’s why an inquiry is indeed to answer your question. Are the terms offered by SAF somehow changed along the way as mentioned by Allan in his farewell letter? Was it really stipulated in his contract that his bond would be extended by three years if he signed up for the postgraduate course?
4. It is not up to us to judge Allan’s actions. Yes, he may have committed a mistake by his act, but that doesn’t exonerate MINDEF from any responsibility. Had they been fair to Allan, would he be forced to take such drastic actions? We do not know if Allan has been subjected to any mental stress by his superiors who had adamantly refused to entertain his request to break his bond. And only through an inquiry will be we know the answer.
Lastly, we have never glamorized suicide. Can you point out any sentence in the article which seemed to imply so?
If you want to argue, at least read through the article thoroughly before jumping to hasty conclusions.
It will not only make you look bad and stupid, but it is a waste of our time to pen a reply as well.
As a citizen, I want to know the truth, which means MINDEF has to clear the air. Else we’ll have all sorts of conjectures and accusations being hurled at one another. Transparency, justice, accountability should be upheld by all institutions in Singapore. Full stop.
He who guards his lips guards his life.
But he who speaks rashly will come to ruin.
(Proverbs 13: 3)
Hi diKiWi,
You too didn’t quite get the point Eugene is trying to get across.
The crux of the matter isn’t whether a 18 year old is fit to make decisions for himself, but that the aspirations of people do change.
Your perspective of life at 18 is different from when you are at 28, 38 and 48 years old.
Is it fair to expect Allan to know what he is in for when he signed up for SAF at 18 years of age? For all you know, he might think it was cool to be a military doctor saving soldiers’ lives in the battlefield, but after he went through 5 years of medical school and a year of housemanship, he would now prefer to work in a hospital instead.
Yes, he does owe a responsibility to SAF for sponsoring him in his undergraduate studies, but he is willing to refund the entire sum plus a penalty to compensate SAF and why wasn’t he allowed to do so?
Put yourself in his shoes. Will you sign an “unbreakable” bond with any organization or company at any point in time? If you sign a contract without being informed about this and after sometime, you decide the job is not suitable for you and you are told you are not allowed to leave even if you are more than willing to compensate the organization, how would you feel?
Will you blame yourself for not going in with your “eyes open” when you sign the contract or will you be peeved with the organization for their barbaric behavior?
Are dKiWi and everton govt trolls?
Dear admin,
You need not have to pen a (hasty) reply if you feel there is no value/relevance to rebut my statements. Alas, you have contradicted yrself.
1. You have agreed that the onus is on the doctor. All contracts can definitely be broken, just need to bear the consequence (servve NS liabilities, pay $$ penalties). He is not a kid, or illiterate or helpless. Too bad, the doctor chose the wrong route (to wilfully AWOL), hence the tragedy.
2. I did not say that MINDEF has no resource. But all resources (read Taxpayers’ monies) are FINITE, hence any action will be an opportunity cost. Do not be frivolous in calling inquiries.
tbc,..
Job Title: Head (Corporate Services)
DID: [1] 31001386
Email: [2] tan_hau_teck@rp.sg
Unit: [3] CENTRE FOR CULTURE & COMMUNICATION (CCC)
Parent: [4] REPUBLIC POLYTECHNIC (RP)
Organisation: [5] REPUBLIC POLYTECHNIC (RP)
Am just a friend of a friend but I can no longer sit in silence and allow these mean people stir unneccessary speculations:
1) Family and friends DID try to contact the late Dr Ooi countless times but was to no avail.
2) Why Family & friends didn’t fly down to Ozzyland?
a) There were not any hard facts that he was there, as CAAS could only release to his family a confirmation that he left the country and no other details. I believe that the The SAF & local Police provided no help &/or information to help locate (and they’re the ones with the clearence to gain access to such “privacy issues” info)
b) Though there was a small lead (no help from CAAS or the police) that he may be in ozzyland, upon enquring, the Ozzyland immigration said that there was no record of Dr Ooi entering the country. Lead turned cold.
So tell me Mr Tan, what would u have done?
@admin:
I know a friend who is training to be a fighter pilot and the RSAF is attempting to convince him to sign on. He has however taken his own initiative to find out what the life of the fighter pilot is truly like. It is likely to be a desk bound job especially if you get promoted to be a senior officer, not the high-flying job one might expect. And we have all yet to see a senior air force officer trained to be a fighter pilot commit suicide.
Point is, a person should take responsibility for his actions. You can’t expect your scholarship councilor to sign on the dotted line for you; its you yourself that has to make the decision. The onus is on you to seek advice and experience from those older from you before making a decision. Blaming it on age may “sound right”, but this is a social illusion. There is no logical basis of blaming something on youth and I find it ironic that Eugene attempted to do this even though Wayang Party is supposed to pierce through social illusions.
However, I agree that I would never sign an unbreakable contract. It is possible that his superiors are pressuring him by “pulling rank” into remaining in the army, but having completed my national service I believe this is part and parcel of army life world-wide and have employed such a tactic before. MINDEF is not completely faultless but neither is Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi and his family. Thus an independent inquiry might shed some light on the issue.
cont…
3. What I’ve highlighted are pretty standard HR tools. Pse find out more if you’re not aware. Most, if not all are separate contracts for any benefits & extensions. No one can force him to extend if he did not willingly want to get the “goodies” (in terms of further studies), hence the contract extension.
4. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. If every AWOLee /criminal turn around to blame the system, the society, etc, where does it end. An offence, is an offence, hence we must be objective, and not be emotional. Be brave to face up to the consequence.
Regards.
There used to be a Tan Hau Teck who was the CFO of NOL. This guy was the platoon mate of LHL when they did their training together. Are they the same person ?
everton,
1. this man has made some very serious allegations against mindef in his last email before killing himself. the family has also raised the question as to why mindef did not stick to the terms and conditions of the bond which did not specify that the bond can only be broken under exceptional and extenuating circumstances as stated by mindef letter published in the st.
it is in mindef own interest to hold an inquiry to clear the air. why mindef hesitate is puzzling. it raised more doubts in singaporean minds like has mindef got some skeletons to hide. this is mindef’s mistake. by not being prompt, open and forthcoming mindef has allowed itself to be damaged and rumours and innuendos to arise. i myself is beginning to wonder whether mindef has got some skeletons to hide. an inquiry will benefit the whole society in that lessons will be learned, corrective actions taken to prevent such tragedy in future. this i think is the family objective.
2. how do u conclude that an inquiry into a suicide will glamorise suicide is beyond me.
first time reading this blog.
interesting, but I feel that everton did raise some valid points. the admin may be too quick to get too personal to brand readers “bad & stupid”, as the intent of blogging is to welcome diff perspectives & be ready to defend one’s argument.
the way I see it, most people in this forum has bones to pick with the establishment, hence had lost their objectivity.
MINDEF/SAF/World is never perfect, but to blame this & that when the individual has AWOLed but not brave enough to face the consequences (in jail) is beyond me.
I am amused by the amount of media attention on this case.
Let’s say that the doctor did not commit suicide. He is likely to face charges for AWOL, sent to DB, and be discharged from regular service, i.e. break the bond, but have to serve his remaining NS liabilities.
So the crux of the issue is that he has too much pride to face the consequence. It is not about work.. period.
Hi fp and trekker,
You just discredited yourself by lying that this is the first time you are reading this blog.
Aren’t you everton who has posted earlier?
You are right. We welcome different perspectives and are ready to defend our stance, but NOT against an ARMY of CLONES???
If you feel strongly what you have written is right, answer the questions our readers have posed to you directly using the moniker ‘everton’ who made the original post.
Why create clones to “support” yourself to give the fake impression that there are many others who share the same view as you?
Hi all,
FYI,
everton = trekker = fp = annonymous who have been poking fun at Allan.
All trolls are advised again not to spam this site by posting multiple comments using different nicknames.
The next time you try to be funny with us here, your IP addresses will be revealed.
in the absence of truth and transparency we can all speculate to our wildest logic and imagination littered with possible scenarios and circumstances. yes, he could have, he should have, why did he…
the question is why do we even have to resort to that? because , like i said, in the absence of truth and transparency…
please! recognize the crux of the issue. whether or not a life was lost, whether or not he was immature, whether or not the family was at fault, the questions remain.
1. why public affairs issue statement that a bond can only be broken under ’strong, extenuating circumstances’, when this is not stated in the contract?
2. dr allan ooi wrote to the hqmc in july last year with the intention of breaking his bond. what was the reply?
3. how come the bond could be extended?
we can all guess and even come to conclusions based on whatever scenarios we have encountered in our lives, what retention strategy and what not; but this need not be the case. the matter can be easily clarified by the relevant organization. isn’t it?
in fact to even require an independent inquiry to conduct such an investigation already speaks of a whole big chunky mess of a culture not used to honesty and embracing mistakes as part and parcel of life. (and i am in no way saying they made mistakes in this case, because i am as clueless as the parents.)
more importantly, the fear of making mistakes, of possibly having made mistakes, will lead one to not say anything so that one does not open up more things to scrutiny cos who knows, there may be more mistakes, mistakes which perhaps i wouldn’t have known that i have made because the culture is so not into embracing mistakes that i have learnt to chuck this awareness of mistakes into my subconscious until ‘mistake’ is not a word i like to use. i mean, making a mistake means you will be penalized.
who knows where does this mistake-adverse (of course i am not saying you purposely go and make mistake lah) system of not just an organization but an entire culture end and where does the psychology of the individual embedded within it begin?
i have to admit, it is not a simple issue.
not as simple as
just show the facts lah. nobody is going to penalize you if you speak the truth,
when the more funny truth is
if anyone does, it is because they have been brought up in the same uncompromising culture that you have nurtured.
moreover a life was lost.
but surely, this vicious cycle has to end some day. to grow as human beings, we need to explore and experiment, this is part and parcel of life, and mistakes must be allowed to be made.
admin:
There’s a solution, but I’m not sure if it’s technically feasible. Whenever someone posts here, encrypt it on server side and reveal the encrypted key with each post. This means everyone who posts from the same IP will have the same code, but their IPs won’t be revealed to the public. It won’t deter determined trolls, but offers an extra layer of protection.
“Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?”
An 18 year old teenager fresh out of college join faculty X. A few years later he realises it’s the wrong choice and moves to faculty Y. Should the university refund him because he can’t be expected to choose at 18 years of age?
There are plenty of scholars around serving their bonds. Half of them say “I was young and foolish at 18 to take this up, can I go now?” Should they all be let off, free of charge?
Why should there be an exception for Dr Ooi? His suicide was unfortunate, but the solution is not to absolve 18-year-olds of all liability, because that would create an even bigger problem. Rather, more time and effort should be spent monitoring the psychological and emotional states of scholars.
Dear admin,
Even if it’s everton who is masquerading as fp, he still makes a valid point that there is no need to get personal too quickly, or resort to labels like ‘pretty irrelevant and superficail’.
After all, it’s hard to convince people when you’re insulting them.
To fp :
If Dr. Ooi had returned, he might not get DB.
Want to bet?
I know of one case, when a person awol but his parents are some bankers from OCBC.
He is a low level clerk. But he was brought back by the police because of some triad activity
Then his parents went to see my CO.
my CO gave him 5 days report RP. These COs need to plan for their life after 45, you know…
If Dr. Ooi press the right buttons, he probably gets only a slap on the wrist.
I think he knows that.
He has made it clear that he is protesting against a system.
You meant he didn’t know he could have rented a room in a 6 star hotel suite to take away his life in Singapore? He did it overseas so that it receives overseas coverage.
He knows too well that everything can be swept under the carpet in Singapore.
Come on…
He is a lot more courageous than CSJ
I forgot to mentioned that the guy who awoled, awol during his punishment – he was supposed to be in barricks reporting to RP from time to time.
funny right?
this sick tactic of using multiple monickers to make it seem as if many are agreeing or disagreeing with a certain viewpoint is not working. It merely shows that the poster has no confidence in his case and seeks to cover up his or her inadequacies using many nicknames so as to manipulate and influence others. Without such underhand tactics they fail to convince other netizens of their points.
admin, please do not hesitate to identify such spams.
The annoying thing is that some people seem to want the gov or the civil service or the military to treat people like 3 year old kids, to make sure they are mature enough when they make decisions, to keep them happy and satisfied, etc. well it is ok if you want to run a bloody nursery, but not when you run a country. Ok, a death is always a tragedy and avoidable, but to what extent should the government be responsible for someone’s suicide unless the law has been broken? get a life man.
@bah:
You should blame society for socialising people into choosing high prestige courses like Medicine, Law, Business or Engineering and find out that it really isn’t something they want to slog for. Sometimes, people just go for the prestige. They say its their “interest” but its really a smoke-screen to absorb prestige. This is all fine as long as you can take bear the intellectual burden of that particular course.
It is highly unlikely that a straight A student would choose to major in Sociology, or Paleontology (the study of dinosaurs). In this sense you could say that society “tricks” people into doing things against their will by offering prestige. But trick is the wrong word here, because society fabricates the illusion that people make the choice of choosing such courses.
Think about it. Do you really want to tend to sick people for the rest of your life? When I put it like this, I am sure many people will not want to do this “shit”, but that is exactly why there is an informal prestige system in place to attract the best minds into such professions.
Haha who knows, maybe everton = fp = anonymous = MR TAN HAU TECK. I wouldn’t be surprised, someone like him sadly using a blog post to support another blog post to support another one to support his letter to the newspaper.
do not do to others what u do not want others to do to u, the effects will always come back to haunt us one day.
tan, print and frame your letter and pray every night that such things will never happen to u, then will u truly understand the effects it have on allan’s family and us who read it.
i believe u r just doing your job and not your true thoughts. u are actually a true human being with compassion and love for your fellow beings.
i find the article from THT sickening and distastful.
i urge those who spoke up for mindef to go re-read the email from Dr. Ooi again!
for those who say Dr. Ooi must take responsible for his action for signing the contract, who say he did not attempt to? his family apparently are willing to pay for any penalty for terminating the contract, for goodness sake!
the problem now is why can’t this be done and why was the contract extended without the prior knowledge of the signature bearer?
these are the questions need to be answered and the reason why an inquiry is needed!
EVERY ACTION WILL BE FOLLOWED BY A REACTION. This the unbreakable UNIVERSAL LAW. Blame no one for any mistakes one made for it is always the easiest to point finger at someone for a mistake made. There are so many other mitigating factors that led to this young bright man’s decision. Only he knows and it will be good to let the matter rest so that Allan can rest in Peace and closures for his family. Let us not get too emotional or be biaised. No need to blow up the whole matter and just only selectively choose to blame the organisation for his decision. In this whole matter, no one single party ( Allan or family, friends,Mindef etc )should take the blame ….Still your mind and everything will be very clear:)
No point rub salt to the wound for whatever selfish agenda.
The pap government is desperate. No doubt about that. Their internal polling shows LHL job approval rating in the twenties.
Support for the pap at an all time low of below 30%. They reckoned it is due to the success of some bloggers who have managed to spotlight their many weakness and evil polices. So they have to kill the messangers by using whatever dirty tactics they have. Anyway the pap has always played dirty. In the 50’s LKY played David Marshall by double speak and ganging up with the leftists. In the 60’s he played the leftists by throwing the ISA at them. In the 80’s he played JBJ and in the 90’s to now he played Dr. Chee. All this while he played Singaporeans. They were conned into giving a blank cheque for power in return for promises which he still has not deliver till today.
Looks like now the younger Singaporeans are playing him thru and thru. Ha ha ha.
I really hope what you say is true, HarryLky.
Disclaimer: I am not a troll. I do not wish to influence anyone with my comments. I just want to speak my mind =)
If I were a HUGE organization which is vital to my country, I would want to attract the best minds. That would be where the scholarships come in. But honestly, attracting is just part 1. Part 2 would be retaining, which is where the bonds come in.
If I were an all-aspiring and promising young guy who is bonded almost LIFETIME to an , erm , unsatisfying job, I would want to be out. If that is somewhat not probable, maybe due to unconvincing and stupid reasons, I would want to fight against the system. Now that would be where strong illogical acts come in.
As the events unfold, my sympathy goes out to Allan whom I believe had put up one of the best retaliations against the bond.
SAF is a sick organisation. I live 2 years of hell in NS and in my mind , PAP has damage the nation irreparably with SAF. We are a nation without pride anymore and when we greet visitors from overseas who work here , it is with a sense of shame that we say we are singaporeans who are stupid enough to still have 2 years of torture.
PAP has lost its moral authority to govern. It is time they resign en mass to let a new generation come in to revitalise the nation with the abolishment of NS.
Eh tolong tolong, there is no such thing as unbreakable bond, even in the SAF. Only thing unbreakable is your NS liability. This one in SAF act, so you break that one they can put you in zebra suits.
Break SAF bond very easy. Just submit resignation letter, and pay and pay $$$$$$$. If your CO say no, then u go to his CO and of cos u will suffer like f***. If his CO also say no, then u go to his CO, until u reach Uncle Teo, at which point, he will say wtf, I publish your name in newspaper ok??!!
So if u willing to go through this humiliation and pain, u can break ur bond. And Dr Ooi, you must remember, was oso a scholar, so he surely must know the proper way out. SAF got this thing called chain of command. Yet, he chose AWOL and death instead of suffering humiliation and shame. I am very sad for his family but i dont respect him. he ran away and chose the easy way out. i dont want to say oredi or ppl say i beat on dead ppl. SAF may be mei ren qing but they have done no wrong.
“I am absolutely appalled and disappointed that the TODAY editors felt fit to publish such a misleading, insensitive and meaningless letter.”
@admin, wah lau eh, mai double std leh! One moment free press, one moment say TODAY should not publish letter. So how??? As long as agree with you can publish? you oso want to be empire builder izit? One enough oredi. be fair la.
dKiWi:
Totally true. It is society which makes some jobs seem more “high-class” than others, it is society that glamourises scholars as superhumans, it is society which makes people make bad decisions, despite the fact that society itself cannot function with the whole range of jobs, from the “low-class” to the “high-class”.
But the problem with blaming society is, society is all of us.
Tan Hau Teck he must be so cock eyes or too dumb to understand what was stated in the paper! If Allan Ooi’s family knew he was in Australia would they ignored him and let him stayed there for so long by himself?
>>“Is it reasonable to expect a 18 year old teenager fresh out of junior college to know what he really wants in life?” Of course. If Eugene thinks otherwise, I believe that is his own perspective, as I have more confidence in our youths.<<
To those that claim that a 18 year old know what he/she wants in their life, I wanna throw the argument out of the window! These 18 year olds can’t even vote in election, that is to select people who will best govern their own country; how would they know what they will do with their own lives?
Human make mistakes all the time, but how can he be responsible for his mistake for “signing” on and pay for his mistake when the SAF contract is “unbreakable”? It’s like being conned into buying minibonds but when you realized it is a bad investment – you cannot sell at all to cut losses?
Sad to see so many people in this country do not have sympathy to those suffered in this unfortunte event.
I hope there would be an inquiry. I vote for it.
At the end of the day, he joined a military organisation. If you look at other armed forces such as the US, there are stop loss policies and reserve commitments. Even if the contract has ended, the US military can institute a stop loss policy extending the service indefinitely and the serviceman cannot leave until the policy is lifted. Similarly, even after separation from military service, they remain in the reserve and is liable to be recalled back to active service even in an absence of a contract.
A person is responsible for their own actions, aspirations or whatever. Not everything is about their own wants etc. If 18 year olds in the US or Australia or any other country can make up their own mind and sign up on their own voiltion, are Singapore 18 year olds any different? Allan Ooi took up the Aviation medical course on top of his basic medical training and that ended up extending his bond. He would have to sign another piece of paper to make that happen. Every life lost is sad, but at the end of the day he dug himself in a hole by going AWOL and ran himself out of options.
People have to learn to take responsibility for their own actions. Just as Singaporeans whine about the PAP, why did they faithfully vote them in every election? MINDEF contracts aren’t that onerous if you look at stop loss and deployment policies in other armed forces so please get some perspective and quit whining. And BTW I am not some PAP or MINDEF lover. I took a MINDEF scholarship at 18 years old and I knew full well what I signed up to. Sure, there are stuff that pisses me off, but at the end of the day I took taxpayers’ money and I paid my dues and served out the bond before leaving. Not everything is about “me, me, me”.
Anonymous :
It is a joke.
It is precisely of your ideas and comments that Dr. Ooi chose to commit suicide. He didn’t think there is a future.
It is wrong to coerce people like this.
You don’t see the govt imposing this level of coercion on the foreigners?
Because they couldn’t do that.
mr tan was a Cpt in 3rd guards.
Got demoted to private due to some results.
Anonymous :
Ever heard of 屈原:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu_Yuan
There are people who commit suicide in protest against wrong policies long time ago in China.
It is not necessarily a sign of weakness.
For everyone who thinks that Alan Ooi was coerced, think again. It was a contract he willingly signed with the military. In US or Australia, once you have signed the contract with the military, the only way out of it is to (1) Go AWOL, get caught, serve in the jail and get dishonourably discharged, or (2) Die in war/suicide/whatever. You cannot pay your way out of it as well, and that isn’t even taking some scholarship. I don’t see any of them whine about it (and yes, I know many of them in US and Australia where I live now), so why is Singapore so special that the 18 year olds can enter into a contract, whine about how they don’t see a future and that the contractual terms are unfair? This is the military after all, and he signed on the dotted line as a regular. If he is in NS then we can say that he didn’t have a choice and was coerced by the law. It is buyers’ beware. If he is not prepared to put up with the military law (and the fact that they also subject you to the general orders of MINDEF which can change without any notice and be retrospectively applied), then why take the scholarship to begin with? To claim that he didn’t know better is just a cop out. My American and Aussie friends may not like it but they do understand that once they signed on the dotted line, they have to put up with it and get it over with, sans whining. When I put my signature on the dotted line I triple checked all the contract clauses and didn’t sign till I was prepared to put up with it.
Not here to judge whether it is a sign of weakness or not. That is irrelevant. The issue here is why does everyone think that it is MINDEF’s fault alone. It takes two parties to sign a contract, and the terms are laid out on the table. All militaries have their own ethos and requirements that are different from the commercial world. The situation is different between NS draftees and regulars. For the former, I offer all my empathy and sympathy if joining the military is not what they want but they are coerced into it by law. For the latter, it is on their own voilition. Ask any military that and you will get the same answer.
To mouse:
Was he coerced into signing the contract to join the military? Every SAF contract lays out the requirements very clearly, i.e. they can extend your bond without telling you, and subject you to the General Orders of MINDEF that supercedes your contractual terms. That has been the case for every SAF contract since I first saw one in 1990, and it isn’t even in the fine print. You are required to READ and SIGN every page of it. SAF aside, in any contract law, to claim otherwise is a cop out anywhere, not just in Singapore.
And in case you don’t know, every government contract embeds some contractual clauses that grants them immense rights and allows them to ride roughshod over you if they choose to do so, and that is applied to local or foreign companies/individuals. If you are not happy with it, don’t sign. If you sign, then be prepared to suck it up if you roll the dice and lose.
Now that the MINDEF has spoken via the ST Forum, I hope that those who are skeptical or biaise will be open minded to listen. Else it’s just no end to this forum here. Eugene Yeo, I hope you can comment again…. But I roughly know where you are coming from despite the explanation.
Be Fair , Be Sincere and Be Responsible with the power of your pen !
to sign up as a member of an organisation that has its aim to forcing of hapless 18 year old against their will to do 2 years of NS is an act of a morally corrupt person.
It is an honorable calling to serve one’s country of birth, and protect one’s family. There are people who do not have a country to call their own and those who are openly second class in own country.
Our spouses are not perfect, neither are we… so how can we expect our country system to be perfect ?
Mouse,
It is Not fair to compare the Chinese patriot 屈原 here.. he died as he saw his country declining and was unable to change it due to weak emperor… not because he was wronged personally.
The taste of freedom is only appreciated when it is lost. Our armed forces keeps Singapore free and our girls/ boys safe…
having NS is like blowing away your brain to prevent others from robbing you.
Only first class idiots with no imagination would even think of it.
Be Balanced :
Dr. Ooi killed himself in protest against a system which he deemed hopeless.
Same thing for 屈原.
Our armed forces are not tested. So, we cannot say for sure. Also, what they imposed is not reasonable too to Dr. Ooi and others.
I don’t see why we should waste the lives of these people who can contribute to our countries in so many different ways.
You don’t see mindef doing the same for the foreigners.
Because they can’t.
As simple as that.
Also, go count how many actually sign on before NS? I meant doctors to be?
I bet none.
Simple reason: they could get lucky to be posted to some lobo company.
But once in, they know it is better to sign on as there is a possibility to get into something easy.
But to lengthen their bond against their will … I don’t think it is normal and right.
It is unfair because there are those who escaped the system’s detection.
Also, it is not as if he is made to do something very significant. It is standard office work.
Why waste his talent on such things?
I think MINDEF’s latest forum letter says a lot to clarify what’s going on. It should have come out much earlier though. Now it seems like MINDEF is being forced to show hand although it would have preferred to “keep exchanges private out of respect for the family”. Makes me think… would MINDEF have gone quiet all the way if the family didn’t write that note and swallowed the insults from the factual errors? Doesn’t sound like a good idea. We just want the truth. And it was good that MINDEF’s letter finally clarified that the 3 yr add-on bond actually runs concurrently with his 12 yr bond. Now the tables are turned. It’s not about being forced to go on a 6-mth ovs course to extend his bond, but in fact, it’s a freebie. The strange thing is, the Capt didn’t know about it even though MINDEF did explain it to him and his surety before he signed the deed and he even acknowledged it. What made him think otherwise and write it as if it was a bond extension in his farewell note?
The exchanges and timings btw MINDEF and Capt Ooi also showed that Capt Ooi had opportunities to change his future (within a box), but he didn’t take it. This reminds me of a recent conv I had with my uni lecturer about the “what ifs” of breaking my bond. He told me to do three things – (1) calculate the cost, (2) consider alternatives within the company and (3) think about the whole scholarship system, not just me, the individual.
Where cost is concerned, the liability is so huge that I’ll practically go bankrupt if I wanna break the bond, so that’s out. For alternatives, my company’s quite big, so I can actually “job hop” within the company if I’m not happy in one place, so perhaps it may not be as bad as I think. For the scholarship system, it’s not just about me, but the opportunity that someone lost because I got the scholarship and not him. I may have had an indirect impact on someone’s future back then, when I signed the deed. Even if I pay back the bond now, he won’t get that opportunity back. So, I suppose, that’s the “moral” part of a scholarship bond, besides the “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” argument. It is a contract after all, both a business contract and a contract of trust. But as indvs, it’s always hard to think beyond one’s personal interests.
I think no one really is to blame for Capt Ooi’s death. He chose that path himself. The family loses a son, MINDEF loses a doctor. Anyway, there are a lot of people out there who face more difficult situations than a lousy job and it’s not a good excuse for suicide. Still, this episode shows that there are some kinks in the system and I think MINDEF should do a complete review of its scholarship systems. Times have changed and the young people they are dealing with today have different expectations too. They need to find a better win-win situation for them and their future scholars.
I really find it unbelieveable that the add on bond runs concurrent and Dr. Ooi just chose to kill himself because of this mis-understanding.
It is like one of those: you need a higher rate of return for you to have sufficient funds to retire and to do that I reduce the interest rate that I am paying you …
Makes no sense.
To add on to the above how did mindef ended up choosing these silly people…
Anonymous :
The only time I ever signed on every page was when I bought my insurance policies.
It never happened otherwise.
Maybe you are right for mindef’s contract but I really doubt it given the shabbiness in the way some public officers operate.
how come foreign talents dont have to serve NS ? We should have a fairer system whereby foreign talents serve 3 years of NS , local Girls serve 2 years of NS and locals males serve 3 months of NS.
This should be the correct order. Not the other way round. PAP are the stupidest MP in the world to sabotage their own citizens. But then , SAF generals are well known to be lack of intergrity , IQ and EQ. We should replace them with foreign talents to upgrade the quality as soon as possible.
just go la, we seen this kinda thing happen time and again, its time we work our way overseas and seek a better future from a prison of regret and tyranny.
I think we all have to respect the late Dr Allan Ooi and his family members.
I don’t condone suicide. I think it’s not a solution to his problems. Rather, it brings even more problems to his loved ones.
Nevertheless, the deceased’s family has a right to an independent inquiry. The email has raised alot of questions and some of the contents just do not reconcile with what Mindef has publicly stated in its letter.
There’s no right or wrong for now, just alot of doubts. Mindef has to be forthcoming and proactive which it seems to fall short of in this regard. This vacuum has led to alot of speculations, doubts and rumours because Mindef has not taken the steps to address the queries.
Lastly, with reference to scholarship IN GENERAL, I think young people have the responsibility to find out more about their prospective careers. When a scholarship is awarded, not only are there significant time and money invested into the awardee, another person is also deprived of a coveted place. We have to live by the consequence of our actons, and no, 18 is not too young an age to start bearing responsibility for our actions. Ignorance cannot be an excuse.