THE TEMASEK REVIEW

By Lim Yii Tong, Guest Columnist

During my 3 months Basic Military Training (BMT) more than 10 years ago in Nee Soon Camp, a fellow recruit from a neighboring company hanged himself from a fan in his bunk using his bedsheet. Two weeks later, another platoon mate attempted suicide by slashing his wrists. He was charged and sent to the Detention Barracks.

I am sure most Singapore males who have served national service had heard similiar stories before. Suicides is not uncommon in the army, just that the press seldom reports on it and MINDEF does not reveal figures of the number of servicemen who committed or attempted suicide yearly.

Technically speaking, committing suicide is a military crime. A serviceman who is seriously contemplating ending his life for whatever reason better make sure he succeeds for the consequences of failure are dire.

He will be subjected to an intensive and sometimes humiliating psychiatric examination, charged by a military court and usually sentenced to a few weeks of detention after which an indelible mark will be left on his service record. Unless he can make his mark in the private sector, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to find any meaningful employment in the public sector which still dominates much of Singapore’s economy.

MINDEF has good reason to keep such sensitive information out of public scrutiny for not only will it dampen morale within the armed forces and erode public trust and confidence in the institution, it may also lead to increasing calls for mandatory conscription to be abolished in the future.

National Service has grown to be accepted as the price to pay for Singapore citizenship over the years. Implemented in 1967 by then Defence Minister Goh Keng Swee, it has seen 3 generations of Singaporeans entering its files and ranks in service of the nation. In fact, it has become part and parcel of Singapore life intimately woven into the fabric of our society.

Dr Allan Ooi’s case is unique because he was probably the first SAF scholar to have chosen to end his life allegedly due to work pressures which had triggered intense public interest not seen before.

For the past few weeks since the unfortunate tragedy, the internet chatrooms were abuzzed with discussions and debates on the matter. “Allan Ooi” became one of the top search words in Singapore’s cyberspace.

While public sympathy remains at large with the family, some argued that the deceased doctor had an obligation to the SAF to fulfill the terms of his scholarship since his undergraduate course was sponsored by them.

The family’s timely letter to the media which revealed that MINDEF’s earlier statement that “a bond be breakable only in ’strong, extenuating circumstances’” was not stated in the contract he signed when he was 18 years old has opened a Pandora’s box for MINDEF.

Though scholars owe a moral duty to the organization financing their studies to complete the period of bond as stipulated in the contract, as far as I am aware, they are allowed (not encouraged) to break their bonds if they are able to pay the penalty.

I was offered an EDB scholarship (which I didn’t take up) after completing my ‘A’ levels and nowhere in the contract did it state that the bond is unbreakable. I am sure this applies to all other scholarships including the SAF Overseas Merit Award and the Local Study Award.

An unbreakable bond is not only unreasonable, it is a form of modern slavery which denies the worker’s basic human right to seek a suitable employment befitting his knowledge and skills. Will anybody sign a contract which is “unbreakable”?

If the allegations contained in the letter are indeed true, MINDEF will be hard pressed to account for their policy of coercing unhappy scholars to remain in service against their will.

While it is far-fetched to approportion blame for the tragedy to MINDEF, it is pertinent that deficiencies within the system are highlighted and rectified.

Under Article 23  of the UN Universal Declarations of Human Right, everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (source)

In this instance, the right of Dr Allan Ooi to “free choice of employment” overrides the MINDEF’s right to demand him to complete his bond.

I support the Ooi family’s call for an independent panel with oversight powers to be set up to address the concerns of the deceased doctor and I sincerely hope MINDEF will give the public and not just the family a full disclosure of the case.

17 Responses to “Suicides in the SAF: Family of deceased doctor Allan Ooi’s public call for inquiry opens a Pandora’s box for MINDEF”