I roughly get the idea of what u are putting across. But
everyone are talented in their own niche. So how to justify who
gets to defer? You may suggest on the mean test system and
stipulating terms and conditions like a one-time deposit but will a
talented poor man's son be able to fork this amount in the first
place?
Another point of issue is the case of Pianist Melvyn, there is
certainly no way to measure whether a man would gladly returned to
serve his motherland if the offer at the other side of the pasture
is more enticing, more than the deposit he placed. Monetary value
aside, isnt it socially logical for any talents whom are on the
verge of success to push further onto international stage, ie to
strike while the iron is hot than to make a U-turn? How many would
risk giving up something so close on achieving by coming back to
serve faithfully after the legal deferment contract ends? If so, do
they formed the majority? Even so, will they served half-heartedly?
What happen if the majority break contract? Does it show money can
buy freedom? Will it be fair to others who served? Obviously a risk
is at play here. Instead of creating an environment of citizenry
inequality, upsets by the risks involved, how about turning the
tide around and enforce equality and fairness to each and
everyone.
Without a doubt, the rigidity of this system however stringent it
may seem, bring about social equality among fellow Singaporeans.
We, regardless of family backgrounds, diversive of talents, ethnic
groups or religions, luck or fate are all born and raise here. It
is this common destiny, the obligation to the nation that we all
share, that make us similar or brothers-in-arms not a system tilted
in favour of the talented - Without fear or favour. 
