knocked.
thursday morning for all the good publicity and respect that an organization has, it can all come undone by just one act of stupidity and utter incomprehensible logic.
so yes. we've all read about the NSF who took a SAR21 and live ammunition and ran about before getting caught in Orchard (of all places?). now, much has been said about the motive, his ex-girlfriend's blog and all that jazz. but take a step back and refrain from all the uncouth, unnecessary remarks about his ex, about the SAF and whatever else.
look at it this way, he has his reasons for doing what he did. whether or not you believe in the speculation(s) that he wanted to shoot his ex, commit suicide or go on a rampage, it's all irrelevant. his motive will be found out sooner or later. all the speculation in the world doesn't solve the issues at hand. namely:
1. the control measures in place; while the measures are far from perfect, they work fine. it's the people who are executing it, implementing it that are the problem.
2. were there warning signs that things like these could have happened? were there hints and warnings that the serviceman was emotionally (and thus psychologically) unstable?
3. what then was done had there been warning signs?
the SAF has a system in place for NSFs where we can sound out if we're unhappy with things or have personal problems. the first level of which are our buddies followed by the section commander or equivalent and subsequently up the chain of command. but therein lies a problem, the formal interview sessions that are conducted on a regular basis, to many is nothing but a hindrance and are mostly overlooked.
i've always believed that the best way to talk to people and to see if they are facing any problems are by informal means. during breaks in training, during admin time, over lunch or whenever there's free time basically. but of course, it only works if both parties are willing to put in the time and effort, more importantly, willing to open up and share.
so back to the image of the SAF. i'm sure people will start asking questions, commenting on the system in place as well as the methods used. like i've said many times before, they all work. it's the human factor that's the problem, at least most of the time.
in any case, given that the SAF was just given more 'powers' recently by parliament, however limited it is, people will take a long hard look and wonder if it really was for the better. being the patriot and believer that i am, i'll say it is. has anyone forgotten that it's been 6 years since our servicemen have joint patrols at the airport, protecting key installations around our country? yes. it's been that long. and even though this incident involves a serviceman on regular guard duty, the line between that and protection of installations (POI in SAF terms) is bound to be blurred.
as far as CPL Dave goes, well. he just messed up his life for good with an offense like this. i read somewhere that he is eligible to be charged in both civil and military courts. so the punishment meted out will surely be severe and should serve as further deterrent and warning to those who might want to try what he did. beyond what is reported in the news, those who were on duty that night are bound to be in the boiler. from the guard commander to the duty orderly officer, everyone will be questioned and i'm very sure someone down the line will be punished for whatever reason.
whatever the outcome, have faith and believe in the SAF. it truly is a world-class organization. the odd bumps will be there, rare incidents like these are bound to happen. people make mistakes and a certain level of incompetency will exist but nothing can disprove the very fact that the SAF is as good as it claims to be.
remember this though, given a choice between doing crazy things and/or stupid things, go for the crazy only, never both, never stupid.
crazy, not stupid things. ponder on that.
so yes. we've all read about the NSF who took a SAR21 and live ammunition and ran about before getting caught in Orchard (of all places?). now, much has been said about the motive, his ex-girlfriend's blog and all that jazz. but take a step back and refrain from all the uncouth, unnecessary remarks about his ex, about the SAF and whatever else.
look at it this way, he has his reasons for doing what he did. whether or not you believe in the speculation(s) that he wanted to shoot his ex, commit suicide or go on a rampage, it's all irrelevant. his motive will be found out sooner or later. all the speculation in the world doesn't solve the issues at hand. namely:
1. the control measures in place; while the measures are far from perfect, they work fine. it's the people who are executing it, implementing it that are the problem.
2. were there warning signs that things like these could have happened? were there hints and warnings that the serviceman was emotionally (and thus psychologically) unstable?
3. what then was done had there been warning signs?
the SAF has a system in place for NSFs where we can sound out if we're unhappy with things or have personal problems. the first level of which are our buddies followed by the section commander or equivalent and subsequently up the chain of command. but therein lies a problem, the formal interview sessions that are conducted on a regular basis, to many is nothing but a hindrance and are mostly overlooked.
i've always believed that the best way to talk to people and to see if they are facing any problems are by informal means. during breaks in training, during admin time, over lunch or whenever there's free time basically. but of course, it only works if both parties are willing to put in the time and effort, more importantly, willing to open up and share.
so back to the image of the SAF. i'm sure people will start asking questions, commenting on the system in place as well as the methods used. like i've said many times before, they all work. it's the human factor that's the problem, at least most of the time.
in any case, given that the SAF was just given more 'powers' recently by parliament, however limited it is, people will take a long hard look and wonder if it really was for the better. being the patriot and believer that i am, i'll say it is. has anyone forgotten that it's been 6 years since our servicemen have joint patrols at the airport, protecting key installations around our country? yes. it's been that long. and even though this incident involves a serviceman on regular guard duty, the line between that and protection of installations (POI in SAF terms) is bound to be blurred.
as far as CPL Dave goes, well. he just messed up his life for good with an offense like this. i read somewhere that he is eligible to be charged in both civil and military courts. so the punishment meted out will surely be severe and should serve as further deterrent and warning to those who might want to try what he did. beyond what is reported in the news, those who were on duty that night are bound to be in the boiler. from the guard commander to the duty orderly officer, everyone will be questioned and i'm very sure someone down the line will be punished for whatever reason.
whatever the outcome, have faith and believe in the SAF. it truly is a world-class organization. the odd bumps will be there, rare incidents like these are bound to happen. people make mistakes and a certain level of incompetency will exist but nothing can disprove the very fact that the SAF is as good as it claims to be.
remember this though, given a choice between doing crazy things and/or stupid things, go for the crazy only, never both, never stupid.
crazy, not stupid things. ponder on that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home