A report about Mas Selamat

Superintendent sacked, Gurkha guards demoted Who's to blame for terrorisas Selamat Kastari's escape from the Whitley Road Detention Centre two months ago? Yesterday, in Parliament, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng gave details of the disciplinary action taken May 28, 2008

SACKED The windows of the toilet that Mas Selamat escaped from at Whitley Road Detention Centre on 27 Feb. Picture: MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Superintendent of WRDC Who he is: The most senior officer in charge of ground management at Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC). His rank was equivalent to that of a Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Lieutenant-Colonel. Why he's to blame: He should have told the renovation contractor to install grilles on the ventilation window in the toilet of the Family Visitation Block. Instead, he asked for the window's handle to be sawn off in the 'mistaken belief that it was a sufficient security measure'. This, Mr Wong said, was a 'serious error'. And it gave Mas Selamat the chance to escape. The superintendent was also held responsible for the lack of supervision over his subordinates, whose lapses led to the escape. DEMOTED Deputy superintendent of WRDC Who he is: The second most senior officer in charge of ground management at WRDC. His rank was equivalent to an SAF Major. Why he's to blame: He lacked supervision over his subordinates whose lapses led to the escape. Apart from being demoted, he also got a pay cut. SACKED Special Duty Operative (SDO) at WRDC Who she is: Junior officer whose job is to make arrangements for family visits, including supervising the movement of detainees from the cell to the family visit room. Why she's to blame: She failed to take 'immediate and decisive action' after the guards alerted her about the escape. She also did not observe proper procedures, for instance, in the 'accurate registration of clothes that were personal to (Mas Selamat) and WRDC-issued clothes'. 'That was why Mas Selamat was able to wear more than one layer of clothes on the day of his escape,' Mr Wong noted. REPRIMANDED SDO's supervisor ALSO RELIEVED OF SUPERVISORY DUTIES Who he is: Senior officer holding a rank equivalent of Inspector of Police or an SAF lieutenant. Why he's to blame: He failed to do a proper security assessment of the detainees' use of the toilet at the Family Visitation Block. His letter of reprimand will be entered into his service record and will have a negative impact on his future career. WARNED Technical officer at WDRC Who he is: He was responsible for the CCTV upgrading at WRDC. Why he's to blame: Though the new CCTV system had yet to be commissioned at the time of the escape, he should have ensured that the vendor had correctly carried out the instructions so that the system was recording. His letter of warning will be a black mark on his service record and will affect his future career. WARNED Chief Warder at WRDC Who she is: She was the one who approached the superintendent to let detainees use the toilet at the Family Visitation Block. Why she's to blame: Though she was not directly involved in the incident, as an experienced officer, she should have considered the security implications of allowing detainees to use that toilet. Her letter of warning will be a black mark on her service record and will affect her future career. DEMOTED Two Gurkha guards Who they are: They escorted Mas Selamat to the toilet from where he escaped. They were charged by the police and pleaded guilty. Why they're to blame: They allowed Mas Selamat to change out of sight and let him close the door of the urinal cubicle. They also failed to act immediately after they found Mas Selamat missing. RELIEVED OF POSITION ISD's command director Who he is: The WRDC superintendent and administration staff members reported to him. He reported directly to the ISD director and oversaw several distinct functional divisional units, of which WRDC was one. His rank was equivalent to a Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police or an SAF Brigadier-General. Why he's to blame: The Committee of Inquiry (COI) found that he was not at fault, and that he had in fact made several improvements to WRDC. While Mr Wong accepted the COI's assessment, he still decided to relieve the command director of the position on 24 Apr. He explained: 'Even though he was not responsible for the lapses of specific officers down the line, he bears responsibility on account of his statutory appointment as officer-in-charge of WRDC.' While disciplinary action was not taken against the command director, the incident and his removal will affect his performance appraisal. Back to News