Endoh’s Dungeon

It’s another sleepless night after doing up the charts so I decided to spend time reading up on bloggers feedback of Mas Selamat’s escape again. One post from Ian’s stood out from many others, because the rest hardly inspire or explore any deeper assessment of the escape. And Ian compiled a couple other blogs, of which I would briefly mentioned one by one.

For a start, why do I focus on the Gurkha Contingent and not ISD? The reason is simple, my heart goes out to the two Gurkha guards who were thrown into the limelight for the mistake they have committed. Particularly so, for that one single Gurkha guard who was ear-marked for his time-delay.

The average Singaporeans probably wouldn’t give a damn about who the Gurkha guards are made up of. To put it simply, Gurkha guards are para-military units employed by most countries under the British Colony and Singapore used to be one. Gurkha guards are world-renowned for two things among many others; Loyalty & Discipline! So much so, that they are highly regarded in many countries, even those who do not employ them directly. Having close encounters with them in my previous employment, I pay them my utmost respect for being committed enough to do things that the majority of our own civil service officers can’t do. Mark my words, foreigners who can lay down their lives anytime for their employers - Singapore - where civil servants can’t.

When the Gurkha guard’s time-delaying response was highlighted, not a single blogger or journalist have questioned so far… what led him to choose a reaction which cause the loss of time? We know the action taken, but I doubt the real reason behind his choice will never be disclosed. I can only based my assessment on previous working experiences and policies that applied to my department, by putting myself in the shoes of that Gurkha guard hoping to figure out an answer. For myself at least.

Given the situation as presented, we shall take it as it is. So with the situation at hand, offers me (assuming I am a Gurkha guard) two possible solutions. But each possible solution has risks involvement, just like how Lucky Tan put it.



Possible Solution 1: Kicked open the door at first detection of unusual signs.

Risk Factor 1: If Mas Selamat is still in the cubicle, I run the risk of having to pay for the damages involved.

Risk Factor 2: If Mas Selamat is no longer in the cubicle, I will still bear the consequences of allowing him to close the door.



Then comes the second possible solution.

Possible Solution 2: Report to ISD officer, and let him handle the situation. (Which is what had happened…)

Risk Factor 1: If Mas Selamat is still in the cubicle, by my act of leaving my position to inform the ISD officer, I have rendered myself to be absent from where I am assigned to be.

Risk Factor 2: If Mas Selamat is no longer in the cubicle, I will be still bear the consequences of this time-delaying decision. (Which is also what is happening now…)

What’s not in favour of the Gurkha guard is, why did they allow him to be out of sight in the first place by allowing him to close the door behind him? But the entailing event subsequently (as described by the Ministry or rather Mr Wong) is a big question mark of ISD & Gurkha communication process within Whitley Detention Centre. It is reasonable to assume that ISD is the central command for processes within the detention centre, which is inclusive of mapping out the policies and day-today operations as such. The Gurkha Contingent was never an investigation department to begin with. Hence, that reduces them to the armed support role to ISD’s operations.

1. Upon discovering unusual scenarios, is it the policy of Gurkha to report to the ISD officer at scene before any subsequent action is taken? By that, I am also questioning are the Gurkha guards allowed to assess the situation, and be allowed to take responsive actions without first consulting the ISD officer?

2. Who is responsible for establishing the communication policy and SOPs within Whitley Detention Centre? The ISD? The Gurkha Contingent?

3. Based on graphical descriptions released by the Ministry, why is the ISD officer not at the door of the toilet as well? Why was he positioned so far away from the second Gurkha guard who was directly at the entrance of the toilet? Has the ISD officer been over-reliant on the Gurkha guards and relieved himself of the responsibility to watch over the detainee as well?

4. Even if CCTVs in the interior of the complex is not functioning (which shouldn’t be in the first place), why are there no footages from the external of the buildings? No CCTVs footages of the complex’s exterior has been mentioned, except for the internal CCTVs which we have all came to know as non-functioning.



I am not only in seek of adequate punishment, but also answers to justify both punishment and actions. I believe that is the only reasonable thing to do. Perhaps, these are the specific questions I will throw in Mr Wong’s face if I am noble enough to sit among the Parliament. Obviously, I don’t. That reduces me to what Straits Times Senior Writer Chua Mui Hong’s reference as “… anonymous bloggers and grandstanding kopitiam rabble rousers…” or even “…doubtful if many right-thinking Singaporeans seriously think Mr Wong should resign over one lapse…”

I am highly offended by Mr/Miss Chua’s description but that’s beside the point. Again, I draw the discussion back to what the issue is all about. The escape of Mas Selamat due to a severe lapse by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and not the boot-licking of the Goverment by highly educated academics. Instead, I explore several answers Chua has provided in her high-strung article.



Chua: Was the escape in this case the result of any personal wrongdoing on the minister’s part? Clearly not.

Among the many physical flaws of the Whitley Detention Centre complex, has the minister not been briefed about what renovations and improvement will be added to boost security in the grounds?

If the minister had not been briefed, does it automatically mean that ISD/Gurkha are empowered to renovate the premises without first getting budget approval?

Given these budgets at hand, has the minister no part in assessing and determining if a set of expenditures?

And if these functions are conducted by his subordinates, is the minister supervising and monitoring the processes and activities?

Wrongdoing on the minister’s part? Plentiful.

Chua: Was it the result of an erroneous policy he made? No.

The policy wasn’t directly appended by him, so agreed that the answer is no.

Chua: Was it the result of mistakes committed by others, mistakes that he knew about? No.

Based on the complex’s physical flaws like adjoining building with fences, is the minister not briefed? Singapore boast a strong relationship with United States both economically and also on military exchanges. Many of US’s state detention centres and federal prisons are highly secured, with minimum requirements to isolate yards and buildings away from the main fences. Why has Singapore not learnt this?

If the minister had been briefed, are there any excuses that he doesn’t know of the weaknesses and mistakes committed by others? Can we still say these are mistakes he is not aware of? Or rather, did he take enough effort to explore and pinpoint weaknesses in the network, which snowball into a chain reaction?



Maybe someone in the works have spotted these lapses, but was too insignificant to raise up these issues. As many lower level officers know, bringing up a suggestion through the Staff Suggestion Scheme is a real pain in the ass? Why do I say that?

First, the suggestions from on-the-ground officers are consolidated and scanned by the office staffs. If the office staffs feel that the suggestion is not good enough, they go into the chute and not to the higher authority for further assessment. I can’t say that is the case in each and every department, but at least for mine, yes it is in that state. (Which explains why I don’t even bother to waste my time on this…)

But back to the point as a key appointment holder in the Ministry, his job reinstates him as the minister and that automatically assigned him the role as a supervisor to all his other department heads and subsequent processes within.

Through my posts on my resignation from Civil Service, I have stated it many times of the viral infection that soaked itself into the heart of Civil Service. What we’re looking at now, is a complete display of the damages of what this virus brings about. Instead of seeing a doctor to cure the infection, the patient (being Singapore) resumes to protect the virus but yet blaming on the bad health.

Be it the Parliament wants to cure their viral infection or not, I am pleased to know that there is a certain law to empower doctors to enforce treatment on a patient, even if the patient rejects treatment.

In times to come, maybe Singaporeans will play doctor in the next election. Who knows?