Most of us would have heard of how 2LT Li Hongyi complained about the behaviour of a regular lieutenant (‘LTA X’, as commonly referred), in an email that was sent to the head honchos of the SAF and many others in signal units.
The email can be broken into parts as such (note: all that follows is based on the assumption that the email is accurate and unedited by interested parties!):
1. LTA X went AWOL (in the literal sense of the term, absent without official leave (ie permission) ) a few times.
2. I talked to my OC about these offences but he doesn’t seem to have been punished.
3. This is unfair, since a corporal had his leave and weekend cancelled after he left camp an hour too early, and said corporal was not even doing duty.
4. That LTA X can get away is very bad. Please do something about it.
5. That LTA X is serving as a regular, and as an officer, reflects badly on the SAF’s means of selecting leaders.
6. He should be sacked.
I daresay that most Singaporean males think that the SAF is f***ed up. After all, what kind of organisation is run by temporary staff and managed by full-timers, some of whom act like part-timers? Add this to the memories of doing duties on public holidays, or getting cursed in different languages with different parts of the body, it is no wonder why many people find that it’s time that someone exposed the ‘dark side’ of the SAF.
The mood prevalent on the blogosphere (represented by Intelligent Singaporean and Tomorrow.sg, two aggregators) is one that is impressed by 2LT Li’s actions. How right it is, that the prime minister’s son unmasks the rotting in the state of our armed forces, instead of covering it up! The boldness of his venture, risking (and indeed getting charged for) insubordination, in order to reveal the truth!
I think such a reaction is valid only if certain criteria are met, which are:
- LTA X’s superiors had no intention of making him serve out his punishment at all.
- LTA X AWOL-ed because he didn’t feel like doing duty, or for relatively trivial reasons (like go shopping with girlfriend). This will remove any mitigating circumstances for LTA X’s offence, and hence we can say he should be punished severely.
We have no idea what these two are like. Perhaps, LTA X had some personal or family problem about which he wasn’t going to tell the whole camp, including 2LT Li? That might explain why the second offence was committed so quickly after he was reprimanded for the first one. Let us further assume, that after the first reprimand, he had confided in his superiors about his problem, and it was agreed that he should serve out his extra duties only after the problem was settled satisfactorily.
But we must acknowledge that what 2LT Li did was bold, even though he might be the son of a big shot. He is no fool, and he must have realised by sending his email to so many people in the SAF, including those not in a position to act on his complaints (as described by COL Benedict Lim), he would catch their attention and the email could possibly leak into the Internet. (The SAF intranet in which he sent out the email is not connected to the Internet.) His purpose, clearly, is to make the issue big – so that no one might be inclined to hush it up. And the SAF is not an organisation to want to keep this sort of thing publicised – it’s no good for morale and doesn’t look good – and he must have known that he will hear from them again.
Well things turned out quite ok, because as we know the officers complained of were disciplined, which implies that his allegations are not unfounded. Of course, he was also charged for the spamming, but received a (relatively light) reprimand. I think the punishment is reasonable, because you don’t shoot whistle-blowers, but the SAF wouldn’t want other people to try to send out complaint letters cc-ed to every mother’s son, and of course no one wants to offend the prime minister.
While what 2LT Li did was definitely right, I am uncomfortable with the implications. He seems to see things legalistically. His comparison of LTA X with the unfortunate corporal seems to be ‘if CPL Y was punished so severely, why is LTA X getting away with it?’. Did he ever consider why was CPL Y punished so severely for a minor infraction? Can we compensate him for the injustice?
The cold (if I might be permitted to say that!) logic dictates that LTA X be punished severely, lest he infects the entire officer corps like a rotten apple in the barrel. Give him no quarter, bring out the rack!
“…We do not mitigate punishments based on past achievements, Durai was not excused despite the amount of money he helped NKF raise, and a doctor would not be excused from molestation no matter how many lives he has helped save.”
He seems to have equated leniency with acquittal, which I think is not correct. Acquittal for LTA X is out of the question, but leniency – why not? We recoil with horror when Shylock demands his pound of flesh from Antonio, and Portia has to remind us:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice bless’d;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
“…The SAF is not a charity organisation and does not owe anyone a career. I feel that as a regular his status as an officer and his career should be under even closer scrutiny than that of an NSF, to intentionally withhold such information is effectively tricking the SAF into continuing to pay someone whom if all is known, has no place in the organisation…”
I don’t know LTA X, but I don’t know if he’s as worthless as portrayed here – “someone whom if all is known, has no place in the organisation”. (email by 2LT Li)
- ’Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
- The throned monarch better than his crown;
- His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
- The attribute to awe and majesty,
- Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings…
- (William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV sc i)
Back in my head I hear something about how I should remove my presence from her visage…
This sums up my feelings:
Perhaps. But no one is perfect, and some people are less perfect than others. Such people may not deserve a third, or even second, chance if we measure them against the harsh standards of our meritocratic society which owes no one a living. But they, as we all, are human, and humans make mistakes, some more than others. And I sympathise with the person complained against in this case because I realise that I too am fallen, have made my mistakes, and am saved only by grace.
