A NSF whistle-blower who leaked an in-camp video depicting animal abuse to an animal activist was charged with "unauthorized videography and unauthorised disclosure of information to a third-party". Numerous outraged detractors have taken to the Internet to voice their outcry over the unfairness of it all - the NSF was charged, while the LTC (lieutenant colonel [who is basically a pretty senior officer]) and WO (warrant officer [who is for all intents and purposes like an officer, except that he isn't commissioned]) received a slap on the wrist, having been sent for counselling.
While I admire the NSF for the courage to stand up against gross injustice, I have to say... I can't say that what he did was right. Granted, his punishment may be overly harsh, but he shouldn't go scot-free, and here's why.
1. A dangerous precedent
There's a reason why camera-enabled devices were banned from all SAF camps in the past. MINDEF only recently relaxed this policy in light of the prevalence (and popularity) of built-in cameras in mobile phones. That's why under the pilot security zoning program, camera-enabled phones are permitted but not dedicated cameras. The stance on unauthorized photography/videography has not changed. The only difference is that MINDEF isn't as fastidious as before regarding the existence of cameras on mobile phones. And the reason for disallowing photography is pretty obvious: to prevent the leak of classified/sensitive information.
So, while there's a general consensus that the NSF in question (for convenience let's refer to him as WB for whistle-blower) has done "good" in making the judgement call to highlight (and stop) animal abuse, permitting him to go scot-free would establish a very dangerous precedent. It would basically proclaim: you can't take photographs because it's not allowed, but if you do take one to rectify a wrongdoing, then it's okay.
What that would set off is an avalanche of well-meaning but baseless snapshots depicting the most trivial of wrongdoings, which in many cases are simply misconstructions of perfectly lawful behavior. The most common genre would likely be (I'm taking a stab in the dark here) recruits/cadets filming tekan sessions by commanders. No doubt there will be genuine cases of misconduct, but they are likely to be the extreme minority.
So is the off chance of capturing an unlawful act on tape worth the security risk of sensitive information being inadvertently disclosed? Really, at this point, it all boils down to how you weigh the pros and cons. Personally, I say no.
2. Chain of command
Beside unauthorized filming and disclosure to external parties, there are alternatives to put right the situation. For some reason (that I don't fully comprehend even till today despite having served over a year), the idea of the chain of command is glorified in the military. WB should have gone right to the LTC's direct superior to alert him to the situation. This way, corrective actions can (hopefully) be taken without any rules transgressed in the process.
It's definitely scary as hell to directly approach the superior of a LTC (probably a Colonel, or maybe a Brigadier-General?), but I honestly doubt that WB would be too intimidated to do so. It probably didn't occur to him.
Plus, if he'd done what he did after informing the LTC's superior, there would have been much more reason to pardon him of his offence, because he could then say in his defense: "Well, I've tried the proper channels - it didn't work, so I had to do what I did."
3. But wait!
Despite his error in judgement in not following the chain of command (among others), I honestly am of the opinion that his punishment (21 days of suspension of leave) was overly harsh. I've seen NSFs get charged for in-camp photography and slapped with only 7 days of SOL. One can't help but wonder if the punishment somehow includes an element of vengeance. Furthermore, the punishment should be reduced in light of mitigating circumstances. Even in the courts, mitigating factors are always included in the consideration of a sentence. The law spells out the maximum penalty that can be awarded for any crime - but the actual sentence depends on a complex set of circumstances.
Also, it's abhorrent that the case has been handled dishonorably. Yes, it's a he said-she said situation, but if reports are to be believed, the animal activist had volunteered the identity of the whistle-blower only because she was of the impression that he would not be punished. If this dishonor in the conduct of investigations were indeed true, it would be absolutely pernicious to SAF itself - because how do you expect your soldiers to place their faith in a discriminatory system?
But whatever the case, I respect WB for his moral courage in standing up against his superior in the face of injustice. He may have done wrong, but the world does not operate in binary, and morality is never black and white, so while I think he could have handled the situation better, he has earned the respect of a fellow NSF. :)
Sudo Nyme
*The writer blogs at http://literallykidding.blogspot.com