The saga of “stray dogs” triggered by the posting of a video of a dog suspended by a rope tied around its neck has shone the light on the ugly side of MINDEF.
By now readers would have been familiar with the stories put out by the parties involved in the controversy that erupted with NSF’s video going viral online. So I would deal with the saga based on their stories, quoting from the sources listed in my footnotes.
The whole saga boils down to three key issues:
- Did MINDEF personnel abuse the stray dogs?
- Why was the whistle blower punished instead of the perpetrator of animal abuse?
- Did MINDEF resort to dishonorable trickery to find out the identity of the NSF who filmed the video?
ISSUE 1 – DID MINDEF PERSONNEL ABUSE THE STRAY DOGS?
I believe without a doubt that MINDEF personnel DID commit abuse on the so-called ‘stray dogs’, as evidenced by these extracts (with my remarks in bold):
(a) Simon Spencer (quote): “This unruly behaviour started a while back with e warrant officer throwing a truncheon at the dogs to chase them away.”
(b) Simon Spencer (quote): “… the lieutenant colonel personally brutally hit an innocent dog in the presence of the NS men, as a demonstration of “how it is done” in order to ensure that the strays would not dare to approach the army camp in future. “
Aren’t these acts of inhuman cruelty to (defenceless) animals?
(c) Simon Spencer (quote): “This was witnessed by my son and eight other NSFs who were threatened to be charged if they did not keep their silence.”
Why the threat if there is no wrong doing or nothing to hide?
(d) The video filmed by the NSF of a stray dog suspended by a rope around its neck in a bath stall – a video that went viral online.
This speaks volumes – a picture is worth a thousand words.
(e) MINDEF (quote): “the lieutenant-colonel who allegedly tied up the dog at Pasir Ris camp has been referred for counselling, along with a warrant officer.”
Why “referred for counselling” if they had not abused the dogs? Isn’t this an admission of wrong doing in itself?
(f) MINDEF (quote): ‘MINDEF/SAF has completed an investigation into the allegations of dog abuse in
Pasir Ris Camp, and concluded that the allegations were unfounded. The findings of the investigation were shared with the Agri-Food and Veterinary AuthoritySingapore (AVA) who agreed that there was no dog abuse committed.”
(g) AVA separately told the media (quote): “AVA had collected the dog and it was examined upon arrival at the AVA pound and no injuries were found on the dog.”
To which Animal Lovers League responded (quote): “Where MINDEF and AVA are concerned, if there are no scars on a dog, then it’s not considered abuse, even though it experienced real fear. I think that’s wrong.”
My Remarks:
1. MINDEF investigated MINDEF! And MINDEF shared its findings with AVA, another government agency.
2. Only the FINDINGS were shared? Why not the full details of investigation, including the (uncoerced?) statements taken from the 9 NSF witnesses?
ISSUE 2 – WHY WAS THE WHISTLE BLOWER PUNISHED INSTEAD OF THE PERPETRATOR?
It’s ridiculous and outrageous that the NSF who filmed the video should be punished. Technically, he might have breached the MINDEF rule on taking the video in a green zone camp (no photography and video allowed), and passing it on to Cathy of Animal Lovers League (ALL). But what was his motive? Did he do it for personal gain? Did he do it out of treachery? Anyway, did his action compromise MINDEF’s security which presumably the rule is aimed at?
As a civic-minded and humane-minded citizen, he has done the right thing to blow the whistle on wrong doing. By punishing him, what is MINDEF saying – that it condones wrong doing?
In the public eye, MINDEF’s action is perceived as unfair and making a scapegoat of the NSF out of vindictiveness.
On the other hand, the perpetrators of the offence of animal cruelty, the Warrant Officer and the Lieutenant-Colonel, are let off scot free with “counselling”! Where is the common-sense fairness and sense of justice?
MINDEF has got its values all wrong.
ISSUE 3 – DID MINDEF RESORT TO DISHONORABLE TRICKERY TO FIND OUT THE IDENTITY OF THE NSF WHO FILMED THE VIDEO?
Let’s hear what Simon Spencer the NSF’s father has to say about this, quote:
“Cathy was called up by Mindef to give the name of the person who handed her the video. She was assured that this was purely for investigation purposes into the animal abuse and no charges would be pressed against the army personnel involved in taking the video. It is clear that Mindef did not keep to their word to Cathy when two officers informed me that my son will be charged.”
And this is what Cathy Strong of ALL has to say:
“A day or two after the posting of the video, a spokesperson from Mindef called me and said Mindef was investigating the case of dog abuse at the camp. She asked if she could contact the NSF guy for more details. I told her that I could not reveal is name without his prior consent. She then assured me that he would not be charged but possibly be given a stern warning.
I believed and trusted her word as she willingly gave me her boss’s direct line if I needed affirmation. I convinced Simon’s son to work with Mindef to put an end to this abuse. I told him that I was confident that here in Singapore, no one is above the law.”
It is evident that MINDEF has gone back on its own word. This is also borne out by the fact that in its two Facebook statements (24th & 25th Feb. 2014) MINDEF has not denied/contested these public assertions by Simon and Cathy.
Where is MINDEF’s values of decency, integrity and honour?
To quote Simon: “’From boys to men’ is the famous catch phrase used by the SAF.” Have the top brass of MINDEF changed from men to boys instead? Even decent boys have a sense of decency and honour.
To sum up, MINDEF has bungled their mismanagement of the whole ‘stray dogs’ saga. To restore their tarnished image in the public eye, they should come clean and apologise to all those who have been hurt.
JUSTICE
Sources:
- www.facebook.com/simon.bats (Simon Spencer, father of NSF who videoed the incident)
- http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/02/26/mindef-says-no-dog-abuse-nsf-whistl...
- http://sg.news.yahoo.com/mindef-insists-pasir-ris-camp-stray-dogs-were–unpredictable–and- a—persistent-danger-142808625.html
- Mindef Facebook posting 25th February 2014
- Cathy Strong’s (ALL) posting on https://www.facebook.com/simon.bats