Fresh Dung from Alex Tan / STR

So today, Alex Tan found some free time to post new crap - this time with a video and claiming that some teachers have "forced" some kindergarten children to bow to LKY's portrait.

You can go and watch the video and judge for yourself if Alex Tan's "accurate" reporting is actually accurate.

References:
Wikipedia - Self-governance of Singapore

National Archives of Singapore - The Memories of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam

Why Chee Soon Juan must never step into Parliament as an MP

Would you trust a person who backstabbed their mentor for no reason other than to seize power?

This is exactly what Singapore Democratic Party's Chee Soon Juan did in 1995 to his one-time mentor, Mr Chiam See Tong.

And this is what Mr Chiam had to say in Parliament about this power-grab by Chee Soon Juan.

Even after 15 years, this is what Mr Chiam's wife had to say in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao on 28 March 2010.  (Article source: Not My SDP Blog)

Mrs Chiam: Chee Soon Juan ousted Chiam See Tong from SDP 

This article appeared first on Lianhe Zaobao on Sunday (28 March 2010) and then got translated into English on Straits Times on Monday (29 March 2010). The article titled "Chiam's SDP exit: Wife speaks up" is the first time Mrs Chiam is speaking on the issue and is revealing on the integrity of Chee Soon Juan. The integrity that of a liar and an opportunist. 

Pic: Not My SDP

A LONG-STANDING spat between Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong and former protege Chee Soon Juan has resurfaced, with Mr Chiam's wife and Dr Chee engaged in a fresh exchange of views. 

The row centres on Dr Chee's role in Mr Chiam's dismissal as secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 1993 and his eventual exit from the party in 1996. 

In an interview with the Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao published yesterday, Mrs Lina Chiam dismissed comments that Dr Chee made in an earlier interview with the same newspaper that he had tried to persuade Mr Chiam to stay on. 

She instead accused Dr Chee, who succeeded Mr Chiam as SDP chief, of ousting her husband from the party he founded in 1980. 

Mrs Chiam - who told the newspaper she was speaking with her husband's knowledge and authority - said that despite the SDP central executive committee's initial attempts in 1993 to make Mr Chiam stay, it held a disciplinary hearing in August that year, where it decided to expel him. 

She said: "If he (Dr Chee) really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he could have politely declined the position of secretary-general. Or when the central executive was taking a vote on whether to take disciplinary action against Chiam, he could have opposed the dismissal." 

She noted that Dr Chee wrote to the Speaker of Parliament to tell him of Mr Chiam's ouster, and asked for any further necessary action to be taken. 

The Constitution says that an MP who loses membership of the party he represented in a general election automatically loses his seat in Parliament. 

Mr Chiam was elected as Potong Pasir MP in 1984 on the SDP ticket. He contested his expulsion from the SDP in court and left the party only in 1996 for the Singapore's People Party. 

Mrs Chiam said: "The People's Action Party tried all means to defeat my husband, but failed after several general elections. But the SDP achieved it effortlessly with one stroke of the pen and did the PAP a great service."

Mr Chiam asked her to clarify the matter with Lianhe Zaobao after it interviewed Dr Chee, she said, adding that she wanted to set the record straight: "For the sake of my husband and to let the younger generation understand 'Uncle Chiam', I have to step forward to clarify matters. He did not turn his back on the SDP. When we were forced to leave, our hearts were filled with anguish." 

Dr Chee told Lianhe Zaobao in his interview that he tried to persuade Mr Chiam - who had differences with the central executive in May 1993 - not to resign. He said he went to Mr Chiam's office several times to withdraw his resignation, "and told him he was still regarded as our leader". 

Yesterday, Dr Chee reiterated that neither he, nor anyone else, forced Mr Chiam out. He told Shin Min Daily News that the SDP spent one month persuading Mr Chiam to change his mind: "But Chiam insisted that he would return to the SDP as its secretary-general only if the SDP central executive committee gave him the maximum power to appoint or remove any central executive or party member." 

He also told the Chinese-language daily he did not want to take the issue further.

Chee's supporters will brush this episode aside and offer the same lame excuses explanations as given by Chee.

Even after all this time, why is this incident still important?

It is important as it shows the true nature of Chee Soon Juan. 

He thinks it nothing to usurp power from the very person who brought him into politics. And even now, when Chee is questioned on this, he will twist and turn his way out of directly answering any questions posed.

And lets zoom forward to 2015 and have a look at some of the things that Chee has posted on Facebook.

Do you feel comfortable having such a person represent you in Parliament? Can Singapore afford to have such a dubious character in Parliament?

See here for more dubious shit things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know

[Defending the Lion City] ST Kinetics wins US$121.5 million US Marine Corps contract (Terrex)

The Terrex

TODAY, PUBLISHED: 3:45 PM, MARCH 21, 2016


SINGAPORE – Local defence company ST Kinetics has been awarded a US$121.5 million contract to supply 13 amphibious combat vehicle prototypes, known as Terrex 2, to the United States Marine Corps. Together with US-partner Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), it was awarded the contract over objections from a competitor that had a cheaper proposal.

According to a statement from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) on March 15, General Dynamics Land Systems had challenged the Marine Corps’ evaluation in not awarding the tender to the lower-rated, lower-priced proposal by General Dynamics. The GAO concluded that the Marine Corps’ evaluation of the General Dynamics proposal was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme identified in the solicitation.

It added: “GAO also concluded that the decision to select SAIC’s higher-rated, but higher-priced proposal was within the agency’s discretion when conducting a best value procurement.”

According to the GAO, this is the first phase of a two-step procurement for the development of the Marine Corps’ amphibious combat vehicle. The total value of the contract with all options exercised is approximately US$1.2 billion, it said.

ST Kinetics and SAIC will now move into the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development phase of the programme, known as the Amphibious Combat Vehicle Phase 1, Increment 1, said an ST Engineering press statement on March 17. ST Engineering is the parent company of ST Kinetics.

The Terrex 2 is an 8x8 wheeled armoured amphibious combat vehicle that can transport a combat load of up to 11 soldiers, and three crew members. In water, it has a hydraulically driven propulsion systems with full independent thrust control authority that allows it to operate even through six-feet high plunging surf.

“The selection of the Terrex 2 is a testament to the proven strengths of the Terrex family as a lethal and highly survivable 8x8 wheeled armoured vehicle platform,” said ST Kinetics president Ravinder Singh in the statement. “What we have now achieved in Terrex 2 is a testimony to the maturity of our defence engineering expertise, allowing us to compete against established global defence companies.”

A version of the Terrex, the Terrex Infantry Carrier Vehicle, is used by the Singapore Armed Forces. It has seven variants including command, trooper, pioneer and medical versions. The team behind the Terrex won the Defence Technology Prize in 2010 awarded by Singapore’s Military of Defence.

Source: TODAY

===================

Related news:

GAO Denies General Dynamics' Amphibious Combat Vehicle Protest

Terrex II – Super Vehicle with Survivability Upgrade

Really? Is this how a MP-wannabe should behave?

Reform Party Fatty chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam posted this  and this on Twitter on 19 March 2016.

Are such remarks befitting a leader of a Opposition Party?  Do these remarks even make sense?

Is Kenneth living in a alternate universe where Singapore is being ruled by a vicious dictator?

By the way, Kenneth, if LKY was indeed a "tyrant" dictator as you say, do you really think that you would still be around to sprout your nonsense and rubbish both online and in the real world? Would you brother, Philip Jeyaretnam, be invited to to be a member of the Singapore Public Service Commission?

If LKY was really a "bully, tyrant and racist", then explain why Singaporeans of all walks of life and races, came forward spontaneously to queue for hours on end to pay their respects to LKY?

Would notable world leaders, like the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, come and attend his funeral?

Rightly or wrongly, it is quite understandable why you harbor such hatred for LKY. Afterall, your father did go through a lot with LKY. Everyone gets that.

But that doesn't mean that you have to be so irrational with your criticism.

Don't like the PAP? Sure, no problem. 33% of Singaporeans too according to GE 2015.

But as a Opposition Party leader who aspires to represent ALL Singaporeans and our interests in Parliament, how do such biased and emotional remarks help with Singapore's development as a nation?

You want to oppose the sitting government? Think that they are crap? Sure, why not?

Just explain why with rational reasons. Win over the voters with better plans backed up with sound logic and NOT with half-truths and popularist statements.

In any case, I think you better give up politics.

Singaporeans had considered you and your party in GE 2011 and 2015. And the results are telling. Reform Party failed to win any seats, and worse yet, the vote share decreased from 4.28% (86,294 votes in2011) to 2.63% (59,432 votes in 2015).

Even in the 2013 By-Elections for Punggol East SMC, Reform Party's performance was dismal..only gathering 1.2% or 353 votes.

You are just living in your own world with such bias and hatre that you are no longer capable of rational thought.

As you aptly pointed out after GE2015, Singaporeans deserve the Govt that they voted for. And for now, a PAP-led government is in the best interests of Singapore.

Oh, and as a "public" figure, if you have nothing better to share than your own messed-up emotions and flawed viewpoints, perhaps you should just keep them to yourself, lest you alienate your voters even more.

[Defending the Lion City] 10 March 1965 MacDonald House bomb explosion

Pic: MyPaper

A bomb exploded in the MacDonald House building situated along Orchard Road on 10 March 1965 at 3.07 pm.

The explosion claimed the lives of three people and injured at least 33 others. The bombing had been carried out as part of Indonesian’s Confrontation (also known as Konfrontasi) with Malaysia (which at the time included Singapore). 

Two Indonesian marine commandos, Osman bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun bin Said, were later caught, found responsible for the bombing and hanged on 17 October 1968 by the Singapore authorities.

Their executions led to a souring of diplomatic relations between Singapore and Indonesia as the two men were regarded as war heroes by their countrymen. Singapore’s then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew sought to bring closure to the issue during his official trip to Jakarta in May 1973 when he sprinkled flowers on the graves of the two men.


The bomb blast

Indonesian marine commandos Osman bin Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun bin Said arrived in Singapore on 10 March 1965 at about 11.00 am.

Disguised as civilians, they proceeded to the MacDonald House building and each planted a bundle of explosives on the steps of the mezzanine floor near the lift area. After lighting up the fuse, they left the building at around 3.00 pm and boarded a bus. 

An eyewitness testified that he saw a Malayan Airways canvas travelling bag on the mezzanine floor that was producing a hissing noise with smoke coming out of it.

The bomb exploded at 3.07 pm, ripping off a lift door while the inner walls of the mezzanine floor took the full force of the blast. Windows within a hundred yards were shattered and the explosion damaged almost every car parked outside the building. The Hongkong and Shanghai Bank housed within the building had closed for business only seven minutes earlier and 150 employees were closing their accounts when the explosion occurred. 

Witnesses recounted a sudden flash followed by a bang. The explosion was powerful enough to destroy the pillars of the building and exposed the steel reinforcements within them. Later examination of the building showed that 20 to 25 lb (9 to 11 kg) of nitroglycerine explosives were used for the bomb.


Casualties, damages and aftermath

Two bank employees were killed immediately by the explosion: 36-year-old private secretary Elizabeth (Suzie) Choo and 23-year-old assistant secretary Juliet Goh. A third victim, 45-year-old Mohammed Yasin bin Kesit, a driver for the Malaya Borneo Building society, died a few days later after being in a coma following the explosion. Around 33 other people were injured in the blast with some warded at the General Hospital while others were given outpatient treatment.

Besides the surrounding mezzanine floor area, the explosion also caused damage to the offices of the Australian High Commission located within the building. The blast also created widespread damage to the car showrooms located in the surrounding area owned by car dealers Cycle and Carriage and Wearne Brothers.

At 3.30 pm, the reserve unit arrived and traffic police diverted traffic along Penang Road and Tank Road. Soon after, the British Army's bomb disposal squad arrived at the scene. Staff from the health department also arrived to clear the shattered glass pieces from the road. 

At 6.15 pm, then Minister for Health Yong Nyuk Lin visited the warded casualties at the hospital. Later that evening, then Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye condemned the attack as a "senseless act of cruelty".

MacDonald House building at Orchard Road

Pic: National Library Board Singapore

Konfrontasi Memorial located appropriately near MacDonald House

Pic by Min. Ng Eng Hen, Facebook

Arrest and execution of the two saboteurs

Three days after the explosion, the two Indonesian marine commandos responsible for the MacDonald House bombing were caught while trying to escape from Singapore by sea. 

They were rescued at sea by a bumboat man who saw them clinging to a plank. At that time, they were not wearing military uniforms and had no identification papers. 

They were later taken on board a marine police boat and subsequently interrogated by the police before being charged with murder for their role in the MacDonald House bombing.

On 20 October 1965, Harun bin Said and Osman bin Haji Mohamed Ali were convicted by the High Court of Singapore for the murder of three civilians resulting from the MacDonald House bombing and sentenced to death.

Their appeals to the Federal Court of Malaysia were dismissed on 5 October 1966.17 Both men were hanged on 17 October 1968.


Reactions in Indonesia

In Jakarta, the execution of the two Indonesian marine commandos caused a lot of public anger. A band of 400 students sacked the Singapore embassy in Indonesia and the residences of Singapore diplomats. They were upset as they felt that the two men were only carrying out the orders of the government of former President Sukarno. 

The students were reported to have used bamboo staves and smashed furniture and windows. They also ripped down Singapore national flags and national emblems. The attackers took less than an hour and they later went to the security headquarters building in Jakarta where the bodies of the two men were lying in state. Hundreds of thousands of Indonesians subsequently lined the streets for the funeral process of the two men, who were buried with full honours at the National Heroes cemetery.


Controversy over naming of ship

In February 2014, the Singapore Government expressed its deep concern over Indonesia’s announcement that a navy frigate would be named in honour of Osman and Harun for their role in the MacDonald House bombing.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa later stressed that Indonesia had meant “no ill intent or malice” when it decided to name the frigate after the two marines. Indonesia, however, went ahead with its naming of the frigate after the two bombers.

Singapore Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen responded by announcing in parliament that the frigate would not be allowed to call at its ports and naval bases nor sail alongside or take part in training exercises with ships from the Singapore Armed Forces.

Indonesia’s General Moeldoko subsequently apologised for the naming decision. Ng welcomed the move and said that the Singapore Armed Forces would reciprocate by resuming bilateral ties with the Indonesian Armed Forces.

This post is an extract from the National Library Board Singapore article. For the full article and associated references, please see here.

What kind of a person would you rather have in Singapore?

Former TRS editor Ai Takagi pleads guilty to manufacturing articles for profit
The 23-year-old Australian had concocted "scandalous, provocative and racy material" in a bid to increase TRS' following and garner "enormous" advertising revenue, according to the prosecutors.
Channel News Asia


TRS sedition trial: Ai Takagi convicted of four charges of sedition
The former editor of a now-defunct sociopolitical website was convicted on four charges of sedition on Tuesday (March 8). Australian Ai Takagi, 23, pleaded guilty to publishing the inflammatory articles on The Real Singapore news portal and its Facebook page.
Straits Times


Delivery man and pregnant wife live in a lorry, but say they are happy as they 'have each other'
Mr Wang starts work at 3am every day and drives the lorry, with his wife accompanying him. At night, he leaves it parked at Changi Beach Park. The couple sleep on sheets of cardboard on the back, use a portable gas stove to cook meals, hang their clothes on the side of the lorry and use nearby public toilets to wash up and brush their teeth.
"Although we don't have much, we have each other so we are very happy," Mr Wang told Wanbao. He added that the couple go for walks on the beach when they have the time.
Straits Times

Man lives on lorry with pregnant wife
MyPaper

[Defending the Lion City] In Memory of the lives lost in service to the Nation

Facebook Post by The Reservist, 9 March 2016

Pic: The Reservist Facebook page

On 9 Mar 1997, a 155mm artillery round exploded in the barrel of a FH2000 gun howitzer during a live firing exercise by 23SA.

NSFs 3SG Ronnie Tan Han Chong and LCP Low Yin Tit died in the accident, and another 12 servicemen were injured.

It's been 19 years, but the pain will never go away. Condolences to the families of 3SG Tan and LCP Low. #neverforgotten

The Singapore Army Singapore Artillery cyberpioneer

============================================================

When a member of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) dies in service 

An extract from Senang Diri, Friday, April 20, 2012

"...On a related point, the commitment of the Singapore Artillery formation in remembering its dead gunners who died serving their country during the first Thunder Warrior live-fire exercise in New Zealand is both commendable and touching. Fifteen years have passed since Third Sergeant Ronnie Tan Han Chong and Lance Corporal Low Yin Tit died while manning their FH-2000 155mm gun. But the simple, dignified obituary has kept appearing year after year, long after that fateful date.

Pic: Senang Diri, The Straits Times 9 March 2012

The Singapore Artillery officers and men who were directly involved in that incident would have long gone on to other postings in the SAF or left the military. And NSF gunners who served alongside the two men would be in their mid-30s by now. But the Singapore Artillery has somehow internalised the incident and future generations in HQ SA have never forgotten to place the newspaper obit on the death anniversary...."
First posted here: Senang Diri
Read the full post here: http://kementah.blogspot.sg/2012/04/when-member-of-singapore-armed-forces.html

============================================================

The 155mm Gun Howitzer Chamber Explosion on 9 Mar 97 in New Zealand
Posted: 28 Jun 1997, 0900 hours (GMT +8)

A 155mm artillery round exploded in the barrel of a FH2000 gun howitzer on Sun, 9 Mar 97 in Waiouru, New Zealand, during a live firing exercise conducted by the 23rd Battalion, Singapore Artillery. The incident resulted in the death of two full-time national servicemen, Third Sergeant Ronnie Tan Han Chong and Lance Corporal Low Yin Tit. Another 12 servicemen, including a Staff Sergeant from the New Zealand Defence Force, were injured in the incident.

The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) convened a Committee of Inquiry on 17 Mar to investigate the circumstances leading to the incident. The Committee was chaired by Mr Tan Gee Paw, Permanent Secretary (Environment). The other five members of the Committee included Mr Andrew Renton-Green, a senior official from the New Zealand Ministry of Defence, and representatives from the Ministry of Health, Legal Services of MINDEF, and the Singapore Armed Forces(SAF).

On 2 May, the Committee submitted its findings and recommendations to MINDEF. The Committee concluded that the correct procedures had been strictly followed by the artillery unit involved, and there was no human error by any member of the unit. There was also no breach of any SAF training safety regulations.

The Committee concluded that the most probable cause of the incident was a defective fuze that was attached to the 155mm shell which was loaded into the gun howitzer. The defective fuze resulted in the premature explosion. After the incident, the lot of fuzes from which the defective fuze came was X-rayed. 1.3% of the fuzes were found to be defective.

This defective lot of fuzes was supplied by the Chartered Ammunition Industries (CAI) to MINDEF under an agreement in 1992. CAI was to supply fuzes manufactured according to internationally accepted military specifications. These military specifications require thorough inspections and other quality control measures during and after the manufacturing process to eliminate all defects in the fuzes.

CAI, in turn, contracted with a U.S. company, Island Ordnance Systems (IOS), for the supply of these fuzes. Without the knowledge of CAI, IOS obtained the fuzes from Xian Dong Fang Machinery Factory in the People's Republic of China (PRC). In October 94, CAI discovered that the fuzes were manufactured at the factory in the PRC rather than in the USA. However, CAI did not notify MINDEF of this discovery. MINDEF only became aware that these fuzes were manufactured in the PRC during the Committee of Inquiry proceedings in Mar.

When the fuzes were delivered to CAI, IOS issued a Certificate of Compliance and a Certificate of Conformance to confirm that the required military specifications had been met. Sample testing of the fuzes was also conducted by CAI during which no defective fuzes were found. Based on these Certificates, MINDEF accepted the fuzes from CAI.

MINDEF is responsible for ensuring that all types of ammunition and fuzes used in the SAF are safe. MINDEF does so by conducting acceptance testing of ammunition and fuzes either by itself or by reliable contractors. In this case, MINDEF had engaged CAI to provide the SAF with the fuzes. In particular, CAI agreed to witness the acceptance tests for the fuzes, on behalf of MINDEF. However, CAI did not witness all the acceptance tests. CAI also did not check whether the factory in the PRC was able to manufacture the fuzes according to the required military specifications.

To prevent defective fuzes from being introduced into the SAF inventory again in future, MINDEF will completely revamp the current acceptance process. MINDEF has also ceased using all types of ammunition and fuzes from IOS. MINDEF will also not accept ammunition and fuzes manufactured by Xian Dong Fang Machinery Factory.

MINDEF will continue to use 155mm fuzes of this type which have been made by a different manufacturer. As an added precaution, all such fuzes will be X-rayed. With these precautions in place, the SAF resumed live firing with the 155mm guns in May.

MINDEF will be pursuing the appropriate legal remedies that may be available against the parties involved in the supply of the defective fuzes.

MINDEF has compensated the families of the two deceased SAF servicemen and will compensate the injured servicemen in accordance with existing regulations.

MINDEF will be nominating various SAF and New Zealand personnel for appropriate awards in recognition of their acts of bravery and professionalism during the incident.

Last updated on 24 Jun 2005
Find this article at: http://www.mindef.gov.sg:80/content/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/1997/jun/28jun97_nr.html

======================================================

Factsheet - 155mm Gun Explosion In New Zealand On 9 Mar 97 Citation - 1WO Mohinder Singh

1WO MOHINDER SINGH

1WO MOHINDER SINGH from School of Artillery was attached to Gun Detachment No 6 ( a New Zealand Gun Detachment ) as a Weapon Safety Officer. His position was approximately 40 to 50 metres away when the 155mm in-bore explosion happened.

When he heard the explosion and saw SWO NAINAR being flung out, 1WO MOHINDER SINGH reacted instantly by shielding his face with one hand to avoid the falling debris, and ran towards the injured SWO NAINAR. As SWO NAINAR is bigger in build than himself, he had difficulty pulling him out of the explosion site.

Despite the imminent danger of further explosions, 1WO MOHINDER SINGH continued relentlessly with his rescue. When LT FORRESTER arrived at the scene, both of them pulled SWO NAINAR to safety. 1WO MOHINDER SINGH had risked his own life to pull out an injured fellow warrant officer to safety from the gun explosion. He did not place any regard for his own safety, and was the first to reach the badly injured SWO NAINAR.

1WO MOHINDER SINGH tried to save SWO NAINAR by attending to his wounds, but could not stop his bleeding. Knowing that his own blood group (B-) is the same as SWO NAINAR, he went with him in the Casevac with the intention to donate his blood, should the need arise.

1WO MOHINDER’s untiring efforts to save SWO NAINAR at the risk of his own life are highly commendable. His act of bravery has done the SAF proud.

1WO MOHINDER SINGH is presented the SAF MEDAL FOR DISTINGUISH ACT.

Source: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/nr/1997/jul/14jul97_nr2/14jul97_fs2.html#.VuAAOUDdjbM

======================================================

PREVIOUS RECIPIENTS OF THE SAF MEDAL FOR DISTINGUISHED ACT (FACT SHEET)

1. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Medal for Distinguished Act or the Pingat Jasa Perwira (Tentera) is a State award approved by the President of the Republic of Singapore and gazetted on 25 Jun 97. The SAF Medal for Distinguished Act is conferred on any individual who has performed an act or a series of acts of courage without regard for his personal safety.

2. The SAF Medal for Distinguished Act had previously been awarded to five SAF personnel and one serviceman from the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF):

a. Lieutenant-Colonel (LTC) Toh Boh Kwee, First Warrant Officer Mohinder Singh, First Sergeant Teo Boon Hong and Lieutenant Leroy Forrester from the NZDF for risking their lives to help injured soldiers immediately after an in-bore explosion of a 155mm artillery round in the barrel of an FH2000 gun-howitzer occurred during a live firing exercise in New Zealand in 1997.
b. LTC Lo Yong Po for remaining behind in an area that was overrun by insurgents to see to the safe extrication of UN officials after extensive fighting broke out during his participation in the United Nations Special Mission in Afghanistan (UNSMA) in 1998.

c. Captain (NS) Kok Yin Khong for administering first aid, while exposed to hostile fire, to a UN military observer who was shot by an unidentified gunman in a fire fight, when he was serving in the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) in 1998.

Source: National Archives of Singapore