And i thought you graciously waved goodbye in your last post?
Back for more? 
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
