MINDEF should conduct a formal inquiry into Dr Allan Ooi’s tragic demise

MINDEF should conduct a formal inquiry into Dr Allan Ooi’s tragic demise

I REFER to the letter by Mr Tan Hau Teck published in the TODAY newspaper on 02 April 2009, entitled “Rather than point the finger …”. (See here.)

Mr Tan is of the opinion that MINDEF should not have anything to do with Dr Allan Ooi’s tragic demise because it was Dr Ooi who chose to sign on the dotted line, even if Dr Ooi’s job turned out to be too stressful for him to manage. He is also of the opinion that it is a waste of taxpayer’s money for MINDEF to set up an inquiry into the incident.

Mr Tan is not only missing the point, he is adopting a mercenery attitude that is utterly beyond my comprehension. Someone has already died. And we are talking about saving money by avoiding a formal inquiry into his death?

I do not know which netizens, in Mr Tan’s own words, are suggesting that “MINDEF is to blame for (Dr Allan Ooi’s) death”. As far as I am concerned, I am blaming nobody as I do not have enough facts to make a complete judgment about the case. However, it is my strong opinion that MINDEF has a lot of accounting to do to the parents of Dr Allan Ooi, especially when the contents of Dr Ooi’s farewell letter, which has been published by both the mainstream press as well as alternative media, and MINDEF’s version of the story are at odds with each other.

In a letter to the Straits Times forum page dated 20 March 2009, MINDEF claimed that on 03 Oct 2008, Dr Ooi’s superior offered him the option of posting to an alternative appointment, but Dr Ooi did not get back to his superior on the offer.

However, in his farewell letter to friends, Dr Allan Ooi wrote about his bond being “unbreakable”, and he suggested that 12 years of bonded service had been arbitrarily extended to possibly 15 or 16 “at will by an administration” (due to his participation in a six-month specialist training stint in Britain).

Dr Ooi’s family claimed that his bond was “subject to policy changes”, and that MINDEF’s condition that it was “breakable only in strong, extenuating circumstances” had not been stated in his contract.

Contrary to mainstream media speculation that Dr Ooi had committed suicide over a failed romantic relationship, Dr Ooi wrote categorically in his farewell letter that his anger and resentment over his career situation was the “main reason” for ending his life (even though it was not the only one).

Mr Tan is correct to say that not all questions can be answered by MINDEF. But many can. Given the discrepencies between Dr Allan Ooi’s and MINDEF’s testimonies, is it not fair and reasonable to ask for a commission on inquiry to be established to look into possible abuse of authority or administrative incompetence at MINDEF?

A young, promising life has been tragically lost. We have to do everything in our power to reduce the chance of such happening again. Our human capital is the only natural resource that we have. For Mr Tan Hau Teck to even suggest that it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money looking into the cause of Dr Ooi’s death is unthinkable and unconsciable.

Mr Tan is correct to say that instead of always pointing the finger, we should look around us and see what we can do for the people near us.

One good way we can help those around us is to hold the authorities accountable and put their feet to the fire.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25735.5