Mat Navy Attacks Pirates, RSN Masturbates in Base

[Papsmearer]

The malaysian Navy has shown that malaysia is not afraid to put its military personnel in harms way. Once again, the malaysian military has actually fired in anger. The latest helo attack on a Somali pirate vessel, resulting in the thwarting of a hijack joints the list of Malaysian military action, including Kosovo, mogadishu, etc. As a born and raised S'porean, I am deeply embarassed that the PAP after having spend billions more on the military than the malaysians, continue to avoid having their shining new military toys get scratched in combat. We are the laughing stock of the world's military. Every defense contractor on earth thinks we are suckers and will buy any new toy they want to sell. For those forumners who think the Mat military is a pushover, u are wrong. We are the pussies. Unlike us, the Malaysians do not talk big. they just quietly go over there and whack the bastards. we talk up a big storm here, and wayang like we have great armed forces, but other countries are sniggering behind our backs. They are calling us cowards. Thank you very much PAP for this state of affairs.


Royal Malaysian Navy thwarts pirate attack
Monday, December 29, 2008
The quick response of the Royal Malaysian Navy has helped to thwart the attempted hijacking of a vessel by Somali pirates.

The ICC International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre (PRC) received the distress call from the Chinese heavy lift vessel, Zhen Hua 4, which was broadcast immediately to all the naval commands in the area. The Zhen Hua 4 had been boarded by pirates who had not been able to enter the accommodation block. The crew of the vessel had locked themselves in having attempted to thwart the boarders through evasive manouvres and the use of water cannons.

The Combined Task Force requested a Malaysian Naval vessel, which was closest to the distress position to respond. The Malaysian warship scrambled a helicopter to the scene of the attack closely followed by the warship. When the Malaysian helicopter arrived there were six pirates on board the hijacked vessel and three on board a nearby skiff. Warning shots were fired at the skiff causing the pirates to panic and capsizing the skiff as a result . The attackers withdrew and fled on board another skiff that was alongside the Zhen Hua 4. The Malaysian Navy reported seeing a suspected pirate ‘mother ship’ near the vessel. Another Combined Task Force vessel supported the actions taken by the Malaysian Naval vessel.

ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) Director Pottengal Mukundan stated: "The IMB commends the efforts of the Malaysian Navy in helping to protect the Zhen Hua 4. The prompt and efficient response frustrated what could easily have been another case of a vessel being hijacked and the crew being held to ransom in the lawless waters off Somalia."

The Royal Malaysian Navy has a number of vessels in the region as part of a national taskforce to protect Malaysian vessels from the threat of piracy in this area. The force also responds to requests for protection from vessels of other nationalities, providing an escort to convoys passing through this busy shipping lane.

So far this year, there has been 109 attacks on vessels off the coast of Somalia with 42 ships successfully hijacked. There are currently 14 vessels held for ransom in Somali waters, with a total of 268 crew held hostage. This number includes high-profile hijackings such as the Saudi supertanker, Sirius Star, and the Faina, carrying a cargo of ex-Soviet tanks.

The PRC works closely with various law enforcement agencies and navies and promptly passes on all reports to them for their action.

Mr Mukundan continued: "In this case, it was the reporting of the initial attack by the Master to the PRC which triggered the prompt response. We strongly urge all ships in the area to report any suspicious activity or vessels in this region to the PRC so that this information can be disseminated, not only to the relevant authorities but also to the many vessels that traverse this vital trade route on a daily basis."

The IMB advises that Masters maintain strict 24-hour piracy watches and be especially wary of any approaching smaller craft. As far as possible, masters should not slow down or stop when fired upon by pirates.

(Source: International Maritime Bureau)



© 1996-2009 Maritime Activity Reports, Inc.
118 E 25th St, New York, NY 10010, USA • Phone: +(1) 212-477-6700 • Fax: +(1) 212-254-6271

 

[Leongsam]

The "RSS Courageous"
NG Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor
Singapore High Court: Yong Pung How CJ: 13 August 2004
Hamidul Haq and Hui for the prosecution
Rajah & Tann for the accused, officers of "RSS Courageous"
COLLISION BETWEEN NAVY SHIP AND MERCHANT SHIP: CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENT ACT UNDER SECTION 304A
Summary
This was an appeal from the district judge’s decision convicting the Officer-of-the-Watch ("OOW") and the trainee OOW of the offence of causing death by a negligent act when their navy ship "RSS Courageous" collided with a merchant ship "ANL Indonesia" off the Horsburgh Lighthouse at Pedra Branca, resulting in the death of four crew members of the "RSS Courageous". The appellate judge at the High Court upheld the conviction, holding that (1) the vessels were approaching each other so as to involve a risk of collision under Rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations; (2) "RSS Courageous" made a series of alterations to port in breach of the Collision Regulations; (3) the ANL Indonesia’s reaction, although negligent, did not break the chain of causation and (4) the trainee OOW had to be held to the same standard as a reasonably competent and qualified OOW.

DMC Category Rating: Developed

This case note is contributed by Ang & Partners, the International Contributors to the website for Singapore

Facts
This case involved the criminal prosecution of two officers of the Singapore navy, arising out of the collision of their vessel "RSS Courageous" with the merchant ship "ANL Indonesia", resulting in the death of four crew members of the "RSS Courageous". The accused, the Officer-of-the-Watch ("OOW") and the trainee OOW, were charged with the offence of causing death by a negligent act. Both of them were lieutenants in the Singapore navy.

At about 12.25 pm on 3 January 2003, the anti-submarine patrol boat "Courageous", which had previously been travelling with the general traffic flow in the eastbound lane of the Traffic Separation Scheme ("TSS") just off the Horsburgh Lighthouse at Pedra Branca, executed a "U-turn". This brought her against the flow of traffic, including the "ANL Indonesia", which was coming in the opposite direction. The Closest Point of Approach ("CPA") alarm on the radar was activated, indicating that the closest distance at which the "Courageous" would pass the "ANL Indonesia" was approximately three cables (0.3 nautical miles). Upon being informed, erroneously, by the bridge team that the "ANL Indonesia" was on the starboard side of "Courageous", the trainee OOW - who had control of the steering - ordered a series of alterations to port. The "ANL Indonesia" was in fact on the port side of the "Courageous" and the alterations brought the two vessels even closer together. The "ANL Indonesia" made two alterations to starboard by autopilot in reaction. Rule 14(a) of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations ("the Collision Regulations") provides that:-

"When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal course so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other."

The combination of the two vessels’ movements resulted in a collision and the death of four crew members on board the "Courageous". The district judge convicted the OOW and the trainee OOW under section 304A, for causing death by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. The two lieutenants were jointly responsible for negligently navigating the "Courageous" in an unsafe manner across the path of the "ANL Indonesia". The district judge’s findings included the following:

1. The "Courageous" had technically contravened rule 10(b)(i) of the Collision Regulations requiring a vessel in a traffic separation scheme to proceed in the general direction of traffic flow. As this manoeuvre was safe and operationally necessary, the accused were not negligent in doing so, but the onus was on them to take extra precautions to avoid a close-quarters situation with other vessels proceeding in the right direction. Given that this was a head-on situation at night with a large vessel, the CPA of three cables was unsafe as the "Courageous" should have kept a greater buffer to take contingencies into account.
2. Although the accused had perceived the "ANL Indonesia" to be on their starboard side, they were nonetheless obliged to alter to starboard (following the recommendations of Healy and Sweeney, The Law of Marine Collision (1998), at p. 184). By altering to port, they had negligently breached rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations.
3. Instead of making a bold alteration by manual steering, the "ANL Indonesia" made two small alterations by autopilot, which were not large enough to be readily apparent, as required under rule 8(b) of the Collision Regulations. However, the actions of the "ANL Indonesia" were not so unreasonable as to eclipse the accuseds’ initial negligence, which was causative of the collision and the resulting deaths.

At the appeal, the accused raised three issues:-

1. Whether the alteration to port by the "Courageous" was a negligent act in breach of rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations;
2. Whether the alteration to port was the proximate and efficient cause of the collision;
3. Whether the trainee OOW should be held to the same standard of care as a qualified OOW.

Judgment
The appellate judge at the High Court upheld the conviction.

1. Rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations would have applied only if the two vessels were meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses (i.e. approaching within 6 degrees of each other), and they were approaching "so as to involve a risk of collision". "Involve a risk of collision" refers to a time when there is not yet actual danger, but when the relation between the vessels is such that danger may shortly arise, if the rules are not obeyed. The real question was not whether a risk of collision existed at the material time, but whether the situation simply involved a risk of collision.

2. The test of whether a risk of collision is involved must be an objective one. Any other approach would completely subvert the Collision Regulations’ objective of promoting certainty and safety. The High Court agreed with the district judge that the situation clearly involved a risk of collision.

3. The test for causation under section 304A Penal Code is that the death must be the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must have been the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another’s negligence. Although the standard of negligence in criminal cases should be the civil standard of negligence, this does not mean that the entire law of civil negligence should be transplanted into the criminal sphere. Therefore, principles of causation in civil negligence, such as the "but for" test and the doctrine of novus actus interveniens (the intervening act of a third party) are not applicable in criminal negligence. The distinction between civil and criminal negligence is reflected in both the higher standard of proof for the prosecution and the stricter test of causation for criminal liability to attach.

4. The question was whether the contributory negligence of the "ANL Indonesia" had such causative potency that the accuseds’ initial negligence could not be said to have contributed significantly to the collision. Although the vessels would not have collided if the "ANL Indonesia" had not been negligent, the accused were the ones who created the situation of danger to begin with. The "ANL Indonesia" was obliged by the accuseds’ action to respond with her own, albeit negligent, manoeuvres. The accuseds’ negligence was clearly a substantial cause of the collision.

5. A doctrine of varying standards depending on the defendant’s experience was too uncertain to be viable. The duty of care should be tailored not to the actor, but rather to the act which he or she elects to perform. Holding a trainee to the same standard as a qualified professional is also sound as a matter of policy. Once she was placed in the position of making navigational decisions for the vessel, she was also responsible for the lives and safety of the crew of other vessels in the vicinity as well. In the circumstances, the trainee OOW had to be held to the same standard as a reasonably competent and qualified OOW.

Comments
This case is important in establishing a number of principles regarding criminal negligence. The finding that a trainee is held to the same standard as a fully qualified officer is important, and will find application in the civil negligence context as well. In fact, on this point, the judge followed the English case of Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691, a civil case on the negligence of a learner driver. The judge acknowledged that this decision may have wider implications on the training regime of the Singapore navy, as allowing trainees to take control of naval vessels was part and parcel of the navy’s training regime. But the judge noted that he had to consider not just the welfare of the navy trainees, but also the wider interests of other navy personnel as well as the other vessels and their crews at sea. To subject trainees to a lower standard of care would unfairly place the safety of everyone else around them at risk.

 

[allanlee]

Didn't you know?
Singkeeland is one big wayang show

 

[VIBGYOR]

Mat Yoyos also sama sama lah, wayang after Chinese fought off the pirates...safe oready or not? HahaHa!

The crew of the Zhenhua 4 held off the pirates using molotov cocktails and water cannon Photo: AP

Chinese crew fights off pirates with bottles and crockery
A Chinese merchant sea captain has given a dramatic account of how his crew fought off Somali pirates, using beer bottles, broken crockery and water hydrants as weapons.


By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 1:45PM GMT 19 Dec 2008

The Zhenhua IV, bound for Shanghai, was attacked by men wielding machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.

Peng Weiyuan, said he and his 30 crew saw the pirates approaching in two motor launches and prepared a counter-attack using empty beer bottles and crockery.

They hid in their cabins beneath and above the deck, removing the access ladders, and when the pirates boarded, ambushed them.

"Everyone lit up hundreds of bottles containing an oil-based paint and threw them onto the deck," he said. "We heard the pirates crying loudly.

"Three pirates came to the back of our living area and tried to break in.

"Three crew members did their best to guard the door. If one latch was pulled open, we latched shut another one. If another latch was pulled open, we latched another back – this went on for about 15 minutes.

"Then the crew started to shoot at the pirates using the fire hydrant. They couldn't withstand that and ran off."

Capt Peng said seven pirates had come on board, leaving two to guard their own boats. Four had machine guns, which they fired as they boarded, luckily missing all the crew.

"It was the first time we had ever seen such terrifying faces," he said. "We are not trained or armed soldiers, so I would be lying if I told you we were not scared.

"But the crew did a very good job. Nobody withdrew during the whole battle. Everyone held on right to the end."

After half an hour of fighting, Capt Peng said the pirates lost confidence and called for a truce. He told them that as long as they left the ship, his men would not make it difficult for them.

According to a separate report on the incident which happened on Wednesday, Capt Peng gave the attackers shoes so they could leave the ship without hurting their bare feet on all the broken glass that now littered the deck. But they then resumed fighting, even when the crew started spraying them with fuel oil from their tanks.

Finally, a Malaysian helicopter, operating from a nearby frigate and responding to his earlier distress signal, arrived and buzzed the pirates, firing at the deck to scare them off.

"Looking back over yesterday's battle is like watching a brilliant 'shoot-em-up' film," Capt Peng, who is married with a son, daughter and granddaughter, said of his experience. "Afterwards, everyone was a bit excited. Many of us failed to sleep at all last night – a little bit afraid and excited at the same time."

Meanwhile more details emerged of Beijing's contribution to the joint policing operation, which will be the first Chinese naval venture beyond the Pacific since the Ming dynasty ended the empire's great days of exploration almost six centuries ago.

The People's Liberation Army will send two destroyers and a supply ship from the southern naval base at Sanya, on Hainan island, according to the Global Times newspaper.

According to the government, a fifth of the more than 1,200 Chinese vessels that have passed through the Gulf of Aden this year have been attacked, seven have been hijacked, and one fishing vessel and its 18 crew are still being held.

 

[tomoko]

Ah Tiongs are good

 

[tonychat]

The malaysian Navy has shown that malaysia is not afraid to put its military personnel in harms way. Once again, the malaysian military has actually fired in anger. The latest helo attack on a Somali pirate vessel, resulting in the thwarting of a hijack joints the list of Malaysian military action, including Kosovo, mogadishu, etc. As a born and raised S'porean, I am deeply embarassed that the PAP after having spend billions more on the military than the malaysians, continue to avoid having their shining new military toys get scratched in combat. We are the laughing stock of the world's military. Every defense contractor on earth thinks we are suckers and will buy any new toy they want to sell. For those forumners who think the Mat military is a pushover, u are wrong. We are the pussies. Unlike us, the Malaysians do not talk big. they just quietly go over there and whack the bastards. we talk up a big storm here, and wayang like we have great armed forces, but other countries are sniggering behind our backs. They are calling us cowards. Thank you very much PAP for this state of affairs.

When the leader is a coward, the citizens are more or less the same. Only the smarts one will able to stand up and leave.

 

[lolabunny]

The battle sounds scary and exciting!

 

[ah_phah]

mindef will cook up excuse to say that the boys in RSN r all NSF, not operational ready yet. Must wait till ORD liao, then can go into live action. But even if operational ready, they will say, our troops r for protection of the island's sovreignty only, not to go play games with priate ships.

even the RSN recruitment campaign uses animation only, no budget to activate whole navy to shoot commercial.

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQOlmClWyzk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JQOlmClWyzk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object> <object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PD0cYeVpkgI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PD0cYeVpkgI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

 

[angie II]

"Of course not, my million dollar salaries is at stake, i don't want parents to complain & demand compensation from us.
Besides we aren't ready for the real thing yet"
​

 

[2lanu]

If I am from Navy, I also dun want to risk my life. Or would counter the Navy to pay more.

 

[red amoeba]

actually I wondered the same too. Since UN has given authority for nations to take actions against the pirates, it would be a perfect opportunity to get some operational experience under their belts by sending the Navy ships out for some real time actions, but surprisingly, RSN has no actions. Unlike when the tsunami first broke out, we are able to put a landing craft offshore Aceh in matter of hours.

I think the following are some probable reasons:

- we don't have a ship capable of doing that at the moment. The largest ship we have are the landing crafts - and based on news report, one just returned from duty from Gulf and maybe there is another one there or there is none available at the moment ready for operational duties outside SIN without compromising our defense readiness. Other than the Landing Craft, I don't think we can put any other crafts? Missle figrates?

- to make this trip so far, we probably need logistics backup - something that calls for a ship like the landing ship to support. I don't think we have that many.

- our convettes are not suitable to make the long trip as they are suitable for calmer waters. And the so called invisible frigates is not operationally ready? I think they are still testing them? Also, I think the Navy top brass have hesitations to put it out in the open where it could be scrutinised by all nations (esp mat navy) and let the secrets out.

- we don't have a ship capable of launching helis...as from Mat Navy's experience, you need a helicopter to effectively hunt pirates because it is the fastest way to reach a distressed ship. We don't have a sea-launched helicopter. I think the Navy made a purchase but its not delivered yet?

 

[angie II]

"In short i am telling u we play it safe, we all KIAU KAR & SENANG, easy for me easy for servicemen,
thats the way it has always been, thats the way it will always be"
​