Are we in a sense ‘jumping the gun’ by saying that the policies are ‘sound’ and only need two ‘improvements’, when the inquiry panel will only complete its work in a few more months?
I refer to the article “SAF can improve heat injury prevention: Panel” (Straits Times, Jun 21).
It states that “revealed on Tuesday that an external review panel flagged two areas for improvement – though he declined to elaborate further.
However, he added that the panel found the SAF’s heat injury policies sound and aligned with industry and foreign military practices.”
As to “said that the panel’s recommendations will be made public when they are ready in a few months” – I was somewhat confused and puzzled, as since the panel’s recommendations will only be ready in a few months – how would one know that there will only be “two areas for improvement” (no shortcomings?), and be sure that “the SAF’s heat injury policies sound and aligned with industry and foreign military practices” (no issue with any policies)?
In this connection, I understand that there have been about 50 deaths of military personnel in the history of the SAF.
How many inquiries have ever been conducted, and how many “shortcomings”, instead of “areas for improvement”, have ever been found or cited?
Leong Sze Hian