Dr Allan Ooi’s case: MINDEF’s second letter still did not answer key questions

Dr Allan Ooi’s case: MINDEF’s second letter still did not answer key questions

In a report published on Straits Times titled “MINDEF clarifies SAF doctor’s scholarship bond“, the ministry said it would have preferred to keep such exchanges private out of respect for Capt (Dr) Ooi and his family. However, it said an earlier letter by the family had raised ’several issues’, and it was necessary to clarify them. (read article here)

It appeared that MINDEF is insinuating that the open letter sent to the media by the Ooi family was inappropriate. I believed that the family of Dr Allan Ooi would have preferred to keep such exchanges private too. If MINDEF has been open and upfront with them in the first place, would they resort to such a desperate measure?

MINDEF said a board of inquiry was convened on 11 March 2009 and it concluded that matters related to Capt (Dr) Ooi’s service ‘were managed appropriately’. I am surprised at the swift conclusion reached by the board of inquiry.

May I ask MINDEF the following questions:

1. Who make up the board of inquiry?

2. How long did they take to reach the conclusion?

3. What was the conclusion?

4. How were the matters relating to Dr Ooi’s service “managed appropriately”?

5. Was the family informed of the result of the inquiry.

The impression given by MINDEF is that the board of inquiry was staffed by its own officers whose aim is to clear Allan’s superiors of any wrongdoings rather than to investigate the matter thoroughly.

Straits Times’ title is both misleading and untrue. Nowhere did MINDEF clarify Allan’s scholarship bond at all other than to justify the actions taken in response to Allan’s request to quit SAF.

The crux of the entire matter is this: Allan wrote in to SAF expressing his intention to quit and MINDEF has persistently refused to answer the key question as to why Allan was not allowed to break his bond?

What constitutes “early release” under MINDEF’s operating guidelines? If Allan was allowed to break his bond, he would have to serve out one year of his mandatory national service as a SAF medical officer after which he would be allowed to join the civil sector to complete his remaining 3 years of bond.

There are many interpretations of “early release” and MINDEF should come clean with the public on its definition instead of hiding behind vague military jargons to evade public scrutiny. Does “early release” mean the officer can only allowed to leave SAF after a period of time? If so, how long is the duration - 2, 3, 5 or 10 years?

For an officer who is determined to quit SAF, is it fair to coerce him to wait for his “early release”? All MINDEF needs to do is to tell us truthfully if Allan was allowed to break his bond.

What transpired between Allan and his superiors? Was he told in no uncertain terms that he is not allowed to break his bond? What is the rationale of offering him an alternative posting within SAF when he had no desire to remain with the organization? These relevant and important questions can only be answered with an independent panel vested with the power to haul up the officers involved for questioning.

MINDEF should stop obsfucating the issue by using a moral compass to denounce Allan’s intention to break his bond. While it is true that Allan has the moral obligation to complete his bond, he had the means to compensate MINDEF financially for the resources they had spent on him.

On the other hand, MINDEF also owes a moral obligation to its scholarship holders to ensure they have a fruitful and rewarding career in the SAF. Why continue to keep a scholar whose heart is no longer with the organization? Is it fair for taxpayers to continue paying the salary of a soldier who is dying to get out of the army?

MINDEF has also failed to disclose the original terms of Allan’s contract with the SAF: is there a clause in the bond that he is NOT PERMITTED to break his bond at any time in the course of his service?

An unbreakable bond is tantamount to modern slavery. If there were no such clause initially, why should Allan be refused his basic human right to leave his current employment in search of a better one?

Until MINDEF manage to answer these questions satisfactorily, Allan’s scholarship bond will never be clarified. MINDEF should have heeded the family’s wishes to allow an independent panel to be set up to investigate the matter a long time ago. Its reluctance to do so will only lead to more baseless speculations about its role in Allan’s fateful decision to go AWOL and turning this sorry episode into a protracted fracas.

If MINDEF truly have any respect for Allan and his family, it should address their concerns immediately instead of continuing to play a cat-and-mouse game with them. There can be no closure without answers.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26399.1