Equality in NS: White / Grey / Brown / Black Horses ?
-
Hi all. We always hear things like 'Everybody is equal in the eyes of the law.' But do you think this is true for the SAF acts and laws? Do you think that if two people were to commit an exact same serious offence and are liable to be charged under SAF acts but one guy is (let's say a regular warrant officer) and the other guy is a NSF private.. do you think the punishment meted out will be the same? Personally i don't think it will be the same. To quote an example, remember the saga a few years ago where someone highlighted that one of his superior (a regular LTA X) had awoled on two different occasions? In the end the errant LTA was court martialed and fined. Imagine if it was a NSF private who awoled on two different occasions, most likely he would have been sent to a DB. Now, which of the punishments do you guys think is more severe? A stay in DB or a fine? To some of the richer guys out there the fine might not really mean anything to them. But a stay in DB is definitely not the same. Imagine the humilations one has to faced. Being shaved, handcuffed and forced to strip naked before making their way to DB and losing all your freedom during the period. Definitiely, if given a choice, i would have chosen to compound an offence with a fine rather than a stint in the DB. It seems like the harsh end of the laws and acts are usually reserved for lower ranking NSF. That's pretty sad because I believe that power should come with responsibility. Hence, i think punishments for 'commanders', especially regulars, should be more severe if they were to commit the same offence as a low ranking serviceman given that they were supposed to be 'professional' and they should know the rules and regulations better since they have been inside the service for a longer period of time and they are disregarding the laws knowingly.
Anyway, i got a chance to discuss this issue with a regular officer. The response I got was quite shocking (at least to me). I was told that it was not a matter of the fine or fine amount but the fact that if a regular was fined (meaning officially charged) ,the records would stayed with him and would be highly detrimental to his career. Like no or little year end bonus, missing out on promotion opportunities etc. But i actually disagreed with his views. Seems to me that he was subtly hinting that the 'indirect' punishments to the regular was already pretty harsh. So, there was no further need for more severe punishments. I deduce (he never said that explicitly) that he believed that for NSF, since we have no career or year end bonus to begin with, maybe a stay in DB would be more suitable to reflect the severity of the offence? But for regulars, since there are already other indirect repercussions, initial punishments meted need not be as severe to take that into account and to balance things out? That's so ridiculous. Remember, NSF are doing a SERVICE to the NATION. NSF are only given allowance, not salary or pay. Precisely because they are doing a mandatory service to the nation and not doing this as a career, hence, so deprived that it is impossible to give them any 'indirect punishment', they ought to be punished more severely right from the start. Contradictory. Isn't it?
-
Laws are supposed to apply to everyone equally.
However i too am aware that the charges and the subsequent punishment metted out is not fair.
Let me quote an example (I shall not cite and names or the unit but rest assured that this is a true case);
A Captain holding the post of Officer Commanding was found to consistently come in late for work and was only found out by chance by the Commander of the Unit. And by late, i do not mean that he came a few minutes, or hours late. He would come in the mid-day when his official working hours begin at 7.30am (or maybe at 8am at the latest). The matter was dealt with internally and the Captain was given extras numbering to about 10-20. I'm not sure if he was fined, BUT i'm pretty sure that the officer was not charged. Obviously his performance indicator and his ranking (that is needed internally for progression and promotion reasons) was probably affected as it was his Commander who caught him.
A storeman that i personally know of, resides in Johor and has on some occasions come in late, sometimes he comes in an entire day late as he usually tries to catch the last bus out of Johor to Singapore to book in. When he misses it, he has no choice but to book in the next day. This would mean booking in at around 11am or so when he has to book in the previous night before the gate closes. This serviceman is an NSF with the rank of Private and was charged 14 days to DB.
This is not a discrimination against NSF alone. The discrimination extends to seniority (in rank), rank itself, officer or enlistee, nsf and Regulars.
Its true that if any charge is indicated in the records of a regular, his rank and appointment progression is affected. But this should NOT be the reason for this kind of discrimination.
And personally i feel that the fact that NSFs get it worse is particularly unfair as we are enlisted as per the requirements of the law and not as a personal choice. NSFs did not subscribe to this. We are literally forced to take the oath.
One more thing; we are made to take the Oath without anyone explaining to us what this implies and what it means. Sure, the oath is clear enough. In fact it is vague enough that if i voice that i do not like serving, i could possibly be charged. And the oath takers, the NSFs are usually at a young age of 18, and in a society like singapore where the youth even at 18 have not been brought properly into a society where you are liable for every action, this is particularly worse.
Equal treatment for all service personnel, NSFs, Regulars, Officers, Enlistee, Commander, Man.
-
WH treated differently.
I think LHL's platoon all holiday camp.
-
LHL son was so famous in ns.
He bypass his superiors and send email to all the big shots in SAF including the Minister of Defence to complain against his superiors.
In the end nothing happen to him.
So you think lah whether is the SAF law equal anot>
-
And your point is?