Violinist not allowed to defer NS
-
Others stepping into his place? You make it seem it's so ritualised.Deferment = doing NS later.Originally posted by lighthand:I'm a regular in service for a long time, and sad to say I've seen my fair share of NS and regulars die in training or ops. Each time that happens to someone close we like to console ourself and others that it's for a reason. That each of them was doing something to protect our love ones, way of life and country.
Now my question is this: What do you tell the mother/father of someone who died in service to the country, that their son's life was lost not in vain when they see in the papers that someone else was defering his NS to play violin?
I know you'll say that he is just asking for a deferment, but what about the others who are stepping into his place so that he could have his deferment? Are they somehow a lesser being than him just because they do not have his talents?
Why can't you guys get the meaning right?Does entering NS at 25 mean he is any less than a man who enters at 19?
-
This is really a sore point. Why can't the govt make them serve ICT as well after they have become Singaporeans? If NS is too tough, get them into civil defence. There is no level playing field.Originally posted by equlus84:Think of it this way, the govt rather give the chance to a foreigner 3000km away, rather than a local JC or Poly students. U chiong for almost one plus yr in SAF then u get 500 dollars onli. Laggi best, during holiday, they go home to play, while most Singaporean males are also packing their packs, to enjoy a few weeks stay in the wildlife reserves of Lim Chu Kang or Marsiling. Lol. Next time u graduate the govt will most prob slap a pink IC at their face and they bcome Singaporeans while u have to suffer all those Mob,RT, ICT, wat more, u stand to lose your jobs to these new 'talents' as they no need reservist. .
And I heard the govt give them same tuition grants as Singaproeans when they are studying at the universities here so that they will pay about the same fees (or slightly more?) as Singaporeas. They do not need to pay back, but need to work here for three years. When the jobs are scarce, why can't we take care of our own people first? -
You forget that most of the FTs we get here, are not top notch like ourselves in Australia or America.Originally posted by qst_08:This is really a sore point. Why can't the govt make them serve ICT as well after they have become Singaporeans? If NS is too tough, get them into civil defence. There is no level playing field.
And I heard the govt give them same tuition grants as Singaproeans when they are studying at the universities here so that they will pay about the same fees (or slightly more?) as Singaporeas. They do not need to pay back, but need to work here for three years. When the jobs are scarce, why can't we take care of our own people first?
You'd think they step foot in here if they have to do national service? Half of them come from places with no culture of conscription.
In fact, it's the Caucasian migrants who are more alright with their sons eventually serving NS... -
no shit. Now i think its becoming very clear. We've started down the slippery slope of communism when we not only accept the sort of equality that damages the nation and society, but exhort it vigoriously like a few individuals have done so here. clearly there is nothing right at all about this sort of farcial equality imposed on us, but for some, the existance of equality itself holds more precedence over the SORT of equality in existance. Unfortunately they don't see how foolish they really are do they? Then again, they might be communists, so it wouldn't seem wrong to them to begin with.Originally posted by LazerLordz:We've got a unique brand of communists that live their whole lives trying to shove mediocre down the throat of others, and when they finally strike rich, refuse to help others and say social welfare is for Euro-wussies.
Doesn't that sound familiar?We've got the most malevolent people in the world..
So, in order to deny the chap a chance to defer, they are willing to be associated with propagating the inflexibility that is killing the needy, and in the end, bleat like lambs.
Heng@, everytime a thread like this comes up, I can play fortune-teller and eat popcorn while the show goes on, planned like clockwork, and people say their lines..
Oh damn.Wrong nation, wrong society.. -
But you can't give advice to people who, by and large, fail to hear even the voices of their own mind.
-
now I wonder ... is this the kind of acceptance of the diversity of views you were talking about bro ? ....
-
That's why I am begining to think that Singaporeans are just not mature enough for open discourse and western sty;e democracy.Originally posted by Fatum:now I wonder ... is this the kind of acceptance of the diversity of views you were talking about bro ? .... -
Violinists are absolutely NOT ESSENTIAL to the operational needs of the SAF. If anyone deserves deferment at all, they are the last in line.Originally posted by BillyBong:I just don't think this violinist should be made an example of while other scholars take advantage of an institutionalised system that benefits some people over others.
I maintain that there should be no deferment for anyone. As for employing 120 regular time medical officers to run the SAF instead of selective disruption for some medical students, I have no issue with that at all. But that will not work because the army is a dead end job for doctors. I don't believe you can find that many willing to sign on.
You completely fail to understand the grave consequences of allowing some 'gifted' musician privileges not extended to others. It must be universal deferment or not at all. If there must be exceptions, these must be for dire operational needs.
Dentists are not allowed to disrupt because they do not fill a dire operational need. What do we need musicians in the army for? Drive away the enemy by bad music? -
acceptance is one thing, but eventually, the system must still show concrete ability to accept ALL diverse views and opinions, be it yours or mine.That's what I'm driving at.Originally posted by Fatum:now I wonder ... is this the kind of acceptance of the diversity of views you were talking about bro ? .... -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Speculations that are non-discussion points? I beg to differ. If you are unable to address the points that a number of us brought out, then of course to you it will be non-discussion points. Just to jolt your memory, how is anybody going to ensure that violin plucker will be back to serve? Who is responsible for it when he doesn't? Of course, all is well and dainty if he comes back. The other point is that why should his music education be more important than the daily lives of people with genunie problems at home who need more time to settle before serving? Isn't that as good as telling them that they are second class?
I would not say it is wrong to be pragmatic, except that you dwell in speculations that are non-discussion points. If it is fact, by all means.Originally posted by BillyBong:
I did not confuse 'famous' with 'rich'. You assume I did. When I say make good in Singapore, I meant someone who is famous throughout the world but still based in Singapore. Even you admitted that there is no famous classical musician based in Singapore known throughout the world. In the first place there is no wool to pull from anybody's eyes. You have the right to your view in promoting arts, I have my points in promoting operational capability of SAF.
You seem to confuse 'famous' with 'rich'. I need not make assumptions when your posts are choke full of innuendoes. And yes, i concede that for classical music, aside from the Singapore Symphonic Orchestra, you are unlikely to find stardom. And since you are an 'old boor', i see no point in trying to pull the wool from your eyes.Originally posted by BillyBong:
Well, sometimes I wonder if you just take things at face value?
If fighting in a foxhole means you concede defeat, i shudder to think of the weak-willed NS-men that are coming through the ranks. By your own admission, NS has failed to instill in you the fighting spirit necessary to win. If forced to fight by your side, i'd worry more about you then some 'violin-plucker'. Do you know what is no man's land? Do you know who are the ones who ventured into no man's land and if necessary beyond into enemy lines? If my team and I have to fight for the battalion or brigade in a foxhole, that means our side has lost, because it means most of the sub-units have been overrun. Duh?! NS did not instill in me in any fighting spirits, well maybe. The experience just taught me what my team and I should do to accomplish our mission. By all means, you can share your foxhole with violin plucker.Originally posted by BillyBong:
The fact is that he applied and he failed to get it on the first try. So doesn't that tell him that he should serve NS first? It is never wrong to try and hope. However in view of that, what is going on in violin plucker's head when he agreed to have his story published. So that he can get his wish and pluck violin string first? Nobody knows what he was thinking at that point of time. I shall leave that to individual to draw their own points of thought.
If he doesn't appeal, he doesn't know whether he gets his shot. If it falls through, he serves, no exceptions. But is it wrong to try? Is it wrong to hope? Is that act alone considered being 'selfish'?Originally posted by BillyBong:
Nobody is arguing about his legitimacy on getting a place in the music school. We are just saying that what right does he has over others to defer NS and go for his education first? The potential loss is SAF have one less fighting man.
He is already 'good enough' as his place was offered by way of invitation, not application. The reason is legitimate, so why not serve after? What is the potential loss?
As someone has mentioned, SAF's business is to maintain operational capabilities to deter aggressors. SAF is not into making music and MTV nor nuture nobel prize winners. Unless there is an operational requirement, then the rules can't be bent. In this case, unless the music lovers and/or arty-farty people can prove how the violin music is going to improve SAF fighting ability, then I don't see any reason to allow his deferment granted that he has tried and failed. -
Like I mentioned, preferential treatment sets precedence.
If (a) is talented in music and can go for further education in XYZ, what makes you stop (b) who is talented probably in some funny area called documentation and can go for further education in EFG (say EFG isn't reputable)?
My thoughts are as follow.
(A) If 1 cannot defer, all cannot defer.
(B) If 1 can defer, all shall be given the same opportunity to defer.
Since (A) has been implemented, he will be denied until (B) is implemented.
To allow isolated cases = bias
-
Speculations that are non-discussion points? I beg to differ. If you are unable to address the points that a number of us brought out, then of course to you it will be non-discussion points. Just to jolt your memory, how is anybody going to ensure that violin plucker will be back to serve? Who is responsible for it when he doesn't? Of course, all is well and dainty if he comes back. The other point is that why should his music education be more important than the daily lives of people with genunie problems at home who need more time to settle before serving? Isn't that as good as telling them that they are second class?
I have already addressed those points. I'm just not sure whether you're listening.
A increased bond and stiffened criteria has already been imposed after the Melvyn Tan case to deter people from defering in the first place. Obviously that condition isn't enough for you, and you choose to 'ignore' it. Therefore, i can safely say NO CONDITION is enough for you since you blindly prefer to champion the NS cause WITHOUT deferment, without even looking at potential merits on a case by case basis. Do i need to 'jolt your memory' then? Or haven't you convenienly ignored my points?
I also never concluded that Music > daily lives of average singaporeans. Nor did i ever degrade such people as 2nd rate. Parallel assumptions on your part then?
To have world class musicians, one has to be acknowledged as world class first. Since we have no such institute and are far away from establishing one, isn't it conceivable that we need musicians to champion such a cause and establish a foundation before we even talk about establishing a world-class institute to produce 'world-class' musicians?
I did not confuse 'famous' with 'rich'. You assume I did. When I say make good in Singapore, I meant someone who is famous throughout the world but still based in Singapore. Even you admitted that there is no famous classical musician based in Singapore known throughout the world. In the first place there is no wool to pull from anybody's eyes. You have the right to your view in promoting arts, I have my points in promoting operational capability of SAF.
This is a classic chicken and egg loop. Without one, you can't have the other.Well, sometimes I wonder if you just take things at face value? Do you know what is no man's land? Do you know who are the ones who ventured into no man's land and if necessary beyond into enemy lines? If my team and I have to fight for the battalion or brigade in a foxhole, that means our side has lost, because it means most of the sub-units have been overrun. Duh?! NS did not instill in me in any fighting spirits, well maybe. The experience just taught me what my team and I should do to accomplish our mission. By all means, you can share your foxhole with violin plucker.
Stop sounding like a one-who-knows all. You speak with such hollow conviction, its no wonder you are so gutless when it comes to fighting on home soil.
Everyone is trained to fight based just behind a FEBA line at least 40km into enemy territory. SAF doctrine dictates that any fight should take place on foreign land to attain a decisive result. Anyone who served knows that.
Have you heard of the term 'pre-emptive strike'? If we're suddenly taken unaware and have to fight an attritional retrograde war on home ground while waiting for support from allies, are you going to immediately concede defeat and throw down your arms in surrender? If your mission is to 'fight to the last man', will you carry out your mission in the face of hopeless odds?
I'll gladly share my foxhole with the 'plucky violinist' if he has even a marginally better attitude than you.
Did he deliberately get his story published? Or, as with the Melvyn Tan saga, did the ST choose to deliberately provide huge coverage on their front page as a tactic to create a negative fallout form the people (like yourself) to ultimately dissuade him from deferment? A standard conditioning style that our media plays with consistency every time a topic of national interest crops up?
The fact is that he applied and he failed to get it on the first try. So doesn't that tell him that he should serve NS first? It is never wrong to try and hope. However in view of that, what is going on in violin plucker's head when he agreed to have his story published. So that he can get his wish and pluck violin string first? Nobody knows what he was thinking at that point of time. I shall leave that to individual to draw their own points of thought.Nobody is arguing about his legitimacy on getting a place in the music school. We are just saying that what right does he has over others to defer NS and go for his education first? The potential loss is SAF have one less fighting man.
One less fight man now = one more rifleman when he returns. Has that ever crossed your mind?
As someone has mentioned, SAF's business is to maintain operational capabilities to deter aggressors. SAF is not into making music and MTV nor nuture nobel prize winners. Unless there is an operational requirement, then the rules can't be bent. In this case, unless the music lovers and/or arty-farty people can prove how the violin music is going to improve SAF fighting ability, then I don't see any reason to allow his deferment granted that he has tried and failed.
If the SAF does not make MTV or music, then how do you explain the exploits of the professional MDC arm of the SAF?
Until the appeal is answered, he has not 'failed' in his request. It's up to the Ministry of Defence to decide his case. -
So let's say, unit 1 is going to get 10 new soldiers as RPs and Ike happen to be among these 10. Assuming he gets the deferment, the HQ tells the unit, too bad you only get 9 men. So instead of 10 RPs sharing a duty roster, now they have only 9. Again assuming that unit 1 managed to get a replacement from unit 2, it will be unit 2's turn to face the shortage. This as you can see is where the shortage in manpower comes in if he is allowed to defer.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Others stepping into his place? You make it seem it's so ritualised.Deferment = doing NS later.
Why can't you guys get the meaning right?Does entering NS at 25 mean he is any less than a man who enters at 19?
Serving at 25 is not any less than a man at 19 as I viewed it. However, why must he go before serving NS when the deferment he has applied to has been rejected? What is wrong with going to music school later? If he is really talented then he should have no problem establishing himself in other schools. Has he tried to defer his enrolment in the music school instead? Why should NS be of less importance than a music school? Which is more important, national defense or music? Without a country, there will be not even be a patch of soil for any aspiring musician to even start learning piano or violin.
Promotion of the art is MICA idea not Mindef nor SAF. Ike should at least try to approach MICA for a scholarship if he has to give up his place at this current music college. Other avenues of scholarship can also be sourced from other music school of similar standing. So what is so wrong about doing it? -
Whoa, am i getting your argument right?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Violinists are absolutely NOT ESSENTIAL to the operational needs of the SAF. If anyone deserves deferment at all, they are the last in line.
I maintain that there should be no deferment for anyone. As for employing 120 regular time medical officers to run the SAF instead of selective disruption for some medical students, I have no issue with that at all. But that will not work because the army is a dead end job for doctors. I don't believe you can find that many willing to sign on.
You completely fail to understand the grave consequences of allowing some 'gifted' musician privileges not extended to others. It must be universal deferment or not at all. If there must be exceptions, these must be for dire operational needs.
Dentists are not allowed to disrupt because they do not fill a dire operational need. What do we need musicians in the army for? Drive away the enemy by bad music?
First you claim your ideal wish is that deferment is a blanket rule across the board. Now you're saying that those 'essential' to operational needs may defer?
It's either you permit selective deferment subject to individual case basis or not at all.
If permitting a musician to defer is a grave consequence compared to allowing a scholar or doctor-to-be, then what is your basis for deferment? Scholars are less likely to abscond?
Sure i understand the consquences. I just find it difficult to accept the 'SELECTIVE' criteria that has been set for some but not others. It's just smacks of 'preferential treatment'. (as many anti-deferment forumites have stated).
If you say a select few should be granted such deferment status because of 'dire operational needs', then what precedence are you setting for others? It's still an exception to the rule. Period. -
Let me guess.. play lullaby to make the enemy sleep while the commando does the surprise attack on them..Originally posted by oxford mushroom:What do we need musicians in the army for? Drive away the enemy by bad music?
I don't think MO and PSC scholars are given deferment any more, they are disrupted after doing their OCS.
Till there is a new enlistment act whereby singaporean can choose to serve the nation within a timeframe which I have no strong opposition, the violinist will not have my support.
My suggestions to him now are:
1) Finish his service and talk later.
1) Migrate from Singapore.
2) Sign on and request for disruption for his musical studies.
3) Rewrite a appeal with your help (your guys have powerful english)
3a) If he succeed, leave quietly and best luck and wishes to him.
3b) If he fail, shut up and do his part.
4) Break his leg to exempt from NS. (I believe he don't need the leg to play the musical instrument.) -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
The only potential you have mentioned is to the arts scene. However, how does it contribute to the operational capabilty of SAF? I blindly champion the the NS cause WITHOUT deferment just like you champion pursuing arts that is of NO VALUE to SAF operational status. I will say we are both guilty of it. I did not conclude that you say music > daily lives of average singaporean. I was just asking you why is violin plucker's music education more important than daily lives of average singaporean. The fact that the regulations have been tightened to disallow any more deferment, so why should violin plucker still carry on and try his luck? Given the fact that his deferment has been rejected based on the new regulations, why should his appeal to be approved (which at this point have not been)?
I have already addressed those points. I'm just not sure whether you're listening.
A increased bond and stiffened criteria has already been imposed after the Melvyn Tan case to deter people from defering in the first place. Obviously that condition isn't enough for you, and you choose to 'ignore' it. Therefore, i can safely say NO CONDITION is enough for you since you blindly prefer to champion the NS cause WITHOUT deferment, without even looking at potential merits on a case by case basis. Do i need to 'jolt your memory' then? Or haven't you convenienly ignored my points?
I also never concluded that Music > daily lives of average singaporeans. Nor did i ever degrade such people as 2nd rate. Parallel assumptions on your part then?
Like you, I have addressed your points to as best an effort as I can. It is just too bad we both see things in different light.Originally posted by BillyBong:
Nobody is questioning the need to establish a good music school here and the need of musicians to do that. However, why should that be of more important than maintaining the operational capability of the country. Why can't violin plucker just shelved his education (as required by law for him to do his NS) and go later.
To have world class musicians, one has to be acknowledged as world class first. Since we have no such institute and are far away from establishing one, isn't it conceivable that we need musicians to champion such a cause and establish a foundation before we even talk about establishing a world-class institute to produce 'world-class' musicians?
This is a classic chicken and egg loop. Without one, you can't have the other.Originally posted by BillyBong:
I am not a know all, but at least I know what I need to do during in times of war. If you view that as gutless, then I have nothing more to say. You don't know well enough about my vocation. To use us as an asset to fight in a foxhole is as what my brigade commander, S3 and S2 have said during my NS and ICTs that amounts to point where the sub-units have been overran. The doctrine which you mentioned are applicable to infantry, guards and armour line companies where the whole battlegroup fights together and it doesn't applied to us. Like I said you are welcome to share your foxhole with the violin plucker, that's not my problem. Just don't grumble if he refuses to use the spade to help you dig the foxhole.
Stop sounding like a one-who-knows all. You speak with such hollow conviction, its no wonder you are so gutless when it comes to fighting on home soil.
Everyone is trained to fight based just behind a FEBA line at least 40km into enemy territory. SAF doctrine dictates that any fight should take place on foreign land to attain a decisive result. Anyone who served knows that.
Have you heard of the term 'pre-emptive strike'? If we're suddenly taken unaware and have to fight an attritional retrograde war on home ground while waiting for support from allies, are you going to immediately concede defeat and throw down your arms in surrender? If your mission is to 'fight to the last man', will you carry out your mission in the face of hopeless odds?
I'll gladly share my foxhole with the 'plucky violinist' if he has even a marginally better attitude than you.Originally posted by BillyBong:
Nobody except those involved knows whether did he delibrately get his story published. However, he had a chance to stop it from happening simply by just refusing to the interview. Why didn't he? What ST is doing, and how they are doing it is not of my concern. You should address that point to ST instead.
Did he deliberately get his story published? Or, as with the Melvyn Tan saga, did the ST choose to deliberately provide huge coverage on their front page as a tactic to create a negative fallout form the people (like yourself) to ultimately dissuade him from deferment? A standard conditioning style that our media plays with consistency every time a topic of national interest crops up?Originally posted by BillyBong:
Of course it has crossed my mind. That's why I say it is all well and dainty if he returns. The fact is that if he is allow to defer now, there will be an immediate decrease in a soldier. Name me the MTVs which MDC has filmed and when and where was it aired as I could have missed it. I would like to apologise for the mistake on my part, I should have say that SAF's main business is to deter aggressors. The MDC are there to provide entertainment to the soldiers during BMT. Saw their show during BMT, the only thing that caught my eyes was the girls not the actors nor the musicians.
One less fight man now = one more rifleman when he returns. Has that ever crossed your mind?
If the SAF does not make MTV or music, then how do you explain the exploits of the professional MDC arm of the SAF?
Until the appeal is answered, he has not 'failed' in his request. It's up to the Ministry of Defence to decide his case.
Of course he has not 'failed' in his request, and if Mindef should allow violin plucker to defer so be it. However, there must be a reasonable explanation to the rest of us who have walked the talk. Till then, I guess it is no point continuing this discussion, you are entitled to your own views just as I am entitled to mine. It has been a robust discussion. Thank you and have a nice day. -
Or you are just being Maoist without realising it.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That's why I am begining to think that Singaporeans are just not mature enough for open discourse and western sty;e democracy. -
There you go again. Readily accepting that operational conditions are JUST CAUSE for deferment. My argument has always been that if you adopt a system that allows selective preference, then it should apply to all. Not the select few (or elite as some have termed it)Originally posted by mfscrewu:..........................
Of course it has crossed my mind. That's why I say it is all well and dainty if he returns. The fact is that if he is allow to defer now, there will be an immediate decrease in a soldier. Name me the MTVs which MDC has filmed and when and where was it aired as I could have missed it. I would like to apologise for the mistake on my part, I should have say that SAF's main business is to deter aggressors. The MDC are there to provide entertainment to the soldiers during BMT. Saw their show during BMT, the only thing that caught my eyes was the girls not the actors nor the musicians.
Of course he has not 'failed' in his request, and if Mindef should allow violin plucker to defer so be it. However, there must be a reasonable explanation to the rest of us who have walked the talk. Till then, I guess it is no point continuing this discussion, you are entitled to your own views just as I am entitled to mine. It has been a robust discussion. Thank you and have a nice day.
You and your group of disgruntled just don't get it. There is no such thing as absolute law. You want to bar people from deferment, then institute it such that it affects anyone and EVERYONE. No exceptions.
If you wanna come here and say: "oh he's just a violinist, screw his defement request" and instead allow scholars and other to slip pass the net and then make excuses for them later on, how will it be viewed?
Elitism? Preferential treatment? Exactly. -
Disruption after OCS is still disruption/deferment, no matter how many different angles you see it.Originally posted by AkionLCG:Let me guess.. play lullaby to make the enemy sleep while the commando does the surprise attack on them..
I don't think MO and PSC scholars are given deferment any more, they are disrupted after doing their OCS.
Till there is a new enlistment act whereby singaporean can choose to serve the nation within a timeframe which I have no strong opposition, the violinist will not have my support.
And no, unless they changed the terms, MOs serve only BMT, then go for studies before coming back to convert to Officer status and then MO conversion course. -
Like I say in my last post. We can argue till the cow comes home, hell freezes over, sun sets in the east...blah blah. I acknowledged that you are entitled to your views but shouldn't I be entitled to mine? This is just like shoving it down a person's throat.Originally posted by BillyBong:There you go again. Readily accepting that operational conditions are JUST CAUSE for deferment. My argument has always been that if you adopt a system that allows selective preference, then it should apply to all. Not the select few (or elite as some have termed it)
You and your group of disgruntled just don't get it. There is no such thing as absolute law. You want to bar people from deferment, then institute it such that it affects anyone and EVERYONE. No exceptions.
If you wanna come here and say: "oh he's just a violinist, screw his defement request" and instead allow scholars and other to slip pass the net and then make excuses for them later on, how will it be viewed?
Elitism? Preferential treatment? Exactly.
Let me ask you, is SAF in need of a classical violin plucker now to enhance its operational capability? Why are deferment given to MO, because the units need MOs to attend to unwell soldiers. So what do you suggest if there are shortage of MOs in the unit, outsource our soldiers healthcare to public hospital or private sectors? Isn't that going to drive up the bloody operational cost of SAF?
PSC scholars are given disruptions and not deferment, I quote this from the Minister of Defense speech to Parliament "As for disruption for scholarship holders, only PSC scholars have been given special consideration for disruption after serving 6 to 10 months of NS to do their university studies, before returning to complete the remainder of their full-time NS. " So if violin plucker wants to study for his music degree, get him to ask for a disruption after serving a period of time. The link to that speech is as follow if you are interested : http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/speeches/2006/06mar06_speech2.html
We are the disgruntled lot in the same way you are the dreamy arty-farty one? What we have here are regulations to follow. If not, why have it in the first place? Was violin plucker disallowed to apply for deferment? No he wasn't. He was rejected based on the new regulations. So what is your issue with that. I admit the system in allowing who to defer or not to defer is not perfect. So till it does, the current regulations have to be followed. I get your points but do you get ours? Arty-farty stuff may be important to you but it is definitely not of our concern in SAF. I ain't gonna argue with you on that. You are entitled to your own views, and so are we. Let's respect that.
No, I am not going to say that "oh he's just a violinist, screw his defement request". I am just saying that violin plucker's music education is currently of no use to SAF.
Like what you say in your previous post, the jury is not out yet, so let's just wait. Till then, there is no need to get so uptight over this issue. -
Then let him go do his BMT first then "defer". This will be music to your ear, right.Originally posted by BillyBong:Disruption after OCS is still disruption/deferment, no matter how many different angles you see it. -
And i thought you graciously waved goodbye in your last post? Back for more?Originally posted by mfscrewu:Like I say in my last post. We can argue till the cow comes home, hell freezes over, sun sets in the east...blah blah. I acknowledged that you are entitled to your views but shouldn't I be entitled to mine? This is just like shoving it down a person's throat.Let me ask you, is SAF in need of a classical violin plucker now to enhance its operational capability? Why are deferment given to MO, because the units need MOs to attend to unwell soldiers. So what do you suggest if there are shortage of MOs in the unit, outsource our soldiers healthcare to public hospital or private sectors? Isn't that going to drive up the bloody operational cost of SAF?
You are attempting to rationalise why MOs deserve deferment over a 'violin plucker'. In an earlier reply to Oxford Mushroom, i already raised a suggestion on reforms regarding the recruitment policy that would nullify the need to 'defer' potential MOs for further studies. This certainly could be restructured and implemented by our million-dollar ministers who cannot seem to solve a simple manpower riddle.
The crux of the matter is simple: you defer MOs, your open a loophole for others. If you provide for such options and make concessions for a 'special' group, why should others be excluded as well? There are ways to make an ideal 100% blanket ban on deferment, so why isn't that considered? Isn't it more obvious that the powers-that-be WANT to keep this channel open for a select group's benefit?
How different is a disruption vs a deferment? Isn't disruption a sub-set of deferment? However you choose to see it, a disrupted personnel is still given 'time off' when he should be serving. Isn't Teo Chee Hean just trying to mitigate his difficult position of attempting to pander to both sides of the masses: those pro and against his upping of the disruption penalty?
PSC scholars are given disruptions and not deferment, I quote this from the Minister of Defense speech to Parliament "As for disruption for scholarship holders, only PSC scholars have been given special consideration for disruption after serving 6 to 10 months of NS to do their university studies, before returning to complete the remainder of their full-time NS. " So if violin plucker wants to study for his music degree, get him to ask for a disruption after serving a period of time. The link to that speech is as follow if you are interested : http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/resources/speeches/2006/06mar06_speech2.html
For every one man loss to disruption, you are one man short. Isn't that what you were against from the start?We are the disgruntled lot in the same way you are the dreamy arty-farty one? What we have here are regulations to follow. If not, why have it in the first place? Was violin plucker disallowed to apply for deferment? No he wasn't. He was rejected based on the new regulations. So what is your issue with that. I admit the system in allowing who to defer or not to defer is not perfect. So till it does, the current regulations have to be followed. I get your points but do you get ours? Arty-farty stuff may be important to you but it is definitely not of our concern in SAF. I ain't gonna argue with you on that. You are entitled to your own views, and so are we. Let's respect that.
I wonder who's uptight?
No, I am not going to say that "oh he's just a violinist, screw his defement request". I am just saying that violin plucker's music education is currently of no use to SAF.
Like what you say in your previous post, the jury is not out yet, so let's just wait. Till then, there is no need to get so uptight over this issue. From the start i felt it universally unfair to berate the boy in the center of the controversy. People were jumping the gun and treating him like a Melvyn Tan wannabe before the final decision was passed.
Sure, a lowly violin player is of no impact to the SAF, since we don't practice the scottish style of playing bagpipes in the battlefield. That does not take away the fact that his request is a fair one and should be treatly as such, even at the appeal stage. -
No, i suggested they serve their NS and dig their trenches like everyone else. Then the SAF can offer them a contract upon ORD and properly recruit them WITHOUT the deferment/disruption clause.Originally posted by AkionLCG:Then let him go do his BMT first then "defer". This will be music to your ear, right.
That will be 'melodious' to my ears -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
So, let's for now say don't offer deferment to anyone including MOs and violin pluckers. Faced with a projected shortage of MOs where are you going to find the MOs required for the next few years? Offer MOs contract, that is provided they take the bite, how many will? Your unhappiness with the ruling party is of no concern to us. If the current regulations are set in place, why go out and try to bend it? As you admitted, there is no need for a violin plucker to be in SAF, so why allow violin plucker to defer and in turn lose an additional soldier for now?
You are attempting to rationalise why MOs deserve deferment over a 'violin plucker'. In an earlier reply to Oxford Mushroom, i already raised a suggestion on reforms regarding the recruitment policy that would nullify the need to 'defer' potential MOs for further studies. This certainly could be restructured and implemented by our million-dollar ministers who cannot seem to solve a simple manpower riddle.
The crux of the matter is simple: you defer MOs, your open a loophole for others. If you provide for such options and make concessions for a 'special' group, why should others be excluded as well? There are ways to make an ideal 100% blanket ban on deferment, so why isn't that considered? Isn't it more obvious that the powers-that-be WANT to keep this channel open for a select group's benefit?Originally posted by BillyBong:
Well, like your argument, what you chose to believe is something that we cannot control. Our stand is on the operational status of SAF should not be compromised by people pursuing a certification that is of no use to SAF. Period.
How different is a disruption vs a deferment? Isn't disruption a sub-set of deferment? However you choose to see it, a disrupted personnel is still given 'time off' when he should be serving. Isn't Teo Chee Hean just trying to mitigate his difficult position of attempting to pander to both sides of the masses: those pro and against his upping of the disruption penalty?
For every one man loss to disruption, you are one man short. Isn't that what you were against from the start?
If violin plucker can defer his NS, why can't he do the same, that is to defer his studies? Why should SAF give in to violin plucker and not vice versa? Is he more important than the national defense?Originally posted by BillyBong:
How likely is the discussion here going to affect the appeal? Nobody knows. Why do people jump the gun, that's because they don't want to see a repeat of such events granted that regulations were just tightened? Why allow the possibility of such thing to happen when you can prevent it?
I wonder who's uptight? From the start i felt it universally unfair to berate the boy in the center of the controversy. People were jumping the gun and treating him like a Melvyn Tan wannabe before the final decision was passed.
Sure, a lowly violin player is of no impact to the SAF, since we don't practice the scottish style of playing bagpipes in the battlefield. That does not take away the fact that his request is a fair one and should be treatly as such, even at the appeal stage.
Like it or not, we all have our opinions, and nobody is forcing you to accept them. BTW, I had wanted to end the discussion, but you are the one who wanted the last word which is why I am back. -
gents gents ... to side track things a bit ...
please ... can you guys reframe from splitting up and spacing your replies inbetween somebody else's quotes ? .... it makes for hard reading ... and even harder replies, thanks .....