Dear psykedelic-slingsh0t,
The latest directive from MINDEF states that all National Servicemen who enlisted since December 2004 are now not allowed to disrupt from their National Service and must, however, finish serving their 2 year National Service stint before pursuing a further education. This new directive was implemented on the grounds of universality and equity for everyone within the same cohort to attain their educational qualifications granted the fact that National Service is already considered a sacrifice on the part of the National Servicemen.
This directive came abruptly and speaks volumes of the management and organisation within MINDEF. SAF works on the basis of a hieratical organisational structure. I am appalled by the failure of the management within MINDEF to disseminate this directive to the various units promptly while knowing the consequences that would follow if they hesitate to do so. In retrospect, Chief Clerks of every unit are supposed to be well-informed and be kept in the loop with regards to matters pertaining to MINDEF's directive as they are the bridge between MINDEF's directive and the servicemen. However, the situation at present is that Chief Clerks are not aware of this new directive nor were they well-informed of this decision by MINDEF to change their policy on disruption from National Service. As such, many but not all, advise servicemen intending on disrupting their National Service on past policies which have as of 3rd March 2006, been superseded. I am, but one of the many, servicemen who are intending to disrupt their National Service for further studies overseas and have been advised otherwise.
Furthermore, and this may come as a rude shock to you, apparently even other government,statutory boards and people who mend the MINDEF hotline were unaware of this new directive. What ever happened to communication and inter-connectivity between the various ministries? What ever happened to that structure?
If I read this new directive correctly, it states that no more deferment is allowed for servicemen intending to pursue a university education. This applies to servicemen on a scholarship as well. However, if my understanding is correct, a PSC scholar is allowed to disrupt from their National Service and pursue a further education at the earliest time possible. This unwittingly brings out two issues. First is the debate between the privileges of a scholar and a non-scholar. Second would be the distinction between scholarships. I am on a government scholarship but of less prestige than a PSC scholarship. Who determines how prestigious a scholarship is, well, think about the privileges of being in a particular scholarship, think about the career advancement, think about why you choose to apply for certain scholarship and not the other.
I will not comment on both the first and second issue but would like to draw a very prominent and glaring point of contention. If this new policy is based on the grounds of universality and equity, then why are PSC scholars given a completely different treatment from the others? Is the government saying that a PSC scholar is of a different class from the rest and belong to the higher echelon of society where the amount of incentives that they are given is justified. Is the government also saying that a PSC scholarship is your ticket to a bright and promising future while others who are on lesser-known scholarships or less prestigious scholarships or main stream people should just conform and accept such, pardon me, ludicrous uniformity.
How does this directive implicate me? Well, I now need to seek for a deferred year of entry for my studies, I need to seek the help of my scholarship officer to convince Imperial College to accept my request for a deferred year of entry, I need to tell everyone that I am leaving next year.... Wait, when did I ever confirm that I am leaving this year?
Now, I have a good 9 months to think about what I want to do while I wait to pursue my education. I need to think straight.
Yours Truly,
Flustered me
