SINGAPORE – With the setting up of a new body to enforce safety in the Singapore Armed Forces, observers said this signalled that the SAF is renewing its focus on safety.

However, more clarity is required on how the Inspector-General’s Office (IGO), which reports to the Chief of Defence Force, will work with existing bodies that also ensure training safety in the SAF.

On Thursday (Jan 31), the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) announced that a new IGO will be set up with the full authority to scrutinise and enforce safety processes and practices at all levels of the SAF.

It will perform audits and checks, as well as promote safety culture. No details were given on when the new IGO will be set up, its size and composition, or who will head it.

Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Joan Pereira, deputy chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs, said the move reinforces and builds upon the serious view that the SAF has always held towards safety, while acknowledging that details were still lacking at this point.

“The IGO will be able to impose greater responsibility on the commanders as well as act as an additional layer of checks on how safety measures are adopted and observed in the defence forces,” she said.

Defence blogger David Boey noted that Mindef and the SAF have made a similar move before in forming the Safety and Systems Review Directorate (SSRD) in 2013, after four servicemen died in separate training incidents in 2012.

“While every move that puts safety under the spotlight is welcome, we have to be mindful not to be blindsided that such a move would instantly lead to an improved safety culture,” said the member of Mindef’s Advisory Council on Community Relations in Defence (Accord).

The SSRD was preceded by the SAF Inspectorate, which also reported directly to the Chief of Defence Force, the Defence Minister, Dr Ng Eng Hen, told Parliament in November 2012.

This was after the deaths of Private Dominique Sarron Lee Rui Feng and Third Sergeant Tan Mou Sheng in separate incidents earlier that year.

Dr Ng said then: “The SAF Inspectorate will set the safety culture across the entire SAF and oversee the individual inspectorates of the three services. In this way, it will promulgate best practices and ensure the robustness of safety related policies, that they are up to date and sound throughout the SAF.”

In March 2013, Dr Ng provided an update, saying the SAF Inspectorate will be “elevated” to the SSRD, an entity in Mindef which will report directly to the Permanent Secretary for Defence and the Chief of Defence Force.

“The Directorate will also set up external review panels which will submit recommendations to the Minister for Defence,” he said then.

One such panel is the External Review Panel on SAF Safety (ERPSS), which consists of nine safety experts and professionals outside Mindef and the SAF.

The first ERPSS was set up in 2013, and the second ERPSS was inaugurated in July 2017, headed by director of MMA Offshore Heng Chiang Gnee.

The army, navy and air force also have their own safety inspectorates headed by full colonels who report to their respective service chiefs.

Mr Boey suggested that Mindef could clarify the terms of reference of the new IGO, its staff, and how it would complement these existing outfits.

He said Mindef could also consider giving periodic updates on ideas that have been implemented.

“The public should not be given the impression that the stratification of safety bureaucracy with yet another office is a response aimed at appeasing public sentiments. Trust is rebuilt by keeping the public informed and updated on ongoing efforts to strengthen safety, and not only after another casualty,” he said.

SAF training safety has come under the spotlight after the death of Corporal First Class (NS) Aloysius Pang on Jan 23 – the fifth reported since September 2017, before which the SAF had four years of zero training- and operations-related fatalities.

A Committee of Inquiry led by a State Court-nominated judge was convened last Friday to investigate the death.

Associate research fellow Ho Shu Huang of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies said that with the three safety inspectorates and the SSRD, “one would assume there would be sufficient organisational oversight with these departments”.

“Perhaps what needs to be explained is what each does, and the relationship between them,” he said.

He pointed out that some challenges remain, including how freak accidents or momentary lapses in judgment by a soldier who is usually safety conscious can still happen.

“Human error cannot be thoroughly policed,” he said.

“The SAF might rightfully be setting a very high bar, but because it’s so high, the impact of another accident might be even worse as expectations are so high.”

“It may inadvertently be painting itself into a corner because there is no way it can guarantee another accident won’t happen in the future,” he added.

Source: Read Full Article