Presidential Election 2011
-
wapobs:
Tan Buay Koo bcoz lost his patience
Tan Jia Koo has the patience though -
I find TKL's facial expression rather amusing.. :yikes:
..not to mention his 'Englrish'..
Wondering if the twitching and 'wide eye effect' is a personal style.. ...
How to lim kopi with Obama like that.. .. :scratchhead: -
EXPOSED: No vocation for NSFs in DMERI
In a press statement released today, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) claimed that “Dr Patrick Tan’s posting as a defence medical scientist was done ‘according to vocational guidelines’.”
Dr Patrick Tan Boon Ooi, a son of PAP-endorsed candidate Dr Tony Tan served his National Service from 2000 to 2002 as a ‘research scientist’ at the Defence Medical and Environmental Research Institute (DMERI, then called DMRI).
Dr Patrick Tan’s CV stated he was promoted to become a Senior Research Fellow in the same organization in 2004, a position he held till now.
DMERI is a division under the Defence Science Organization (DSO) which builds up technological capabilities for the protection against chemical and biological warfare agents. It also conducts research and development into combat care, human effectiveness, bio-technology and bio-engineering to enhance the safety, survivability and performance of our national forces in hostile battlefield environments. (read more here)
http://www.dso.org.sg/divisions.aspx
DSO is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee which is incorporated in 1997.
Acording to a tip-off we received from Thomas, a former staff of DSO who was there sometime between 2005 and 2007, he did not encounter any NSFs serving their NS in DMERI or other divisions of DSO.
“The staff at DSO are all full-time staff. There are definitely no NSFs here during my time and there are no ranked personnel, no such thing as a 3rd Sergeant research scientist. DSO employs quite a number of engineers and they are paid at market rates,” he revealed.
A quick check on DSO’s website reveals that its organizational structure is exactly the same as that of a company which is run by a board of directors. (read more here)
http://www.dso.org.sg/directors.aspx
Though there are SAF generals sitting on DSO’s board of directors, there are no COs, OCs, S1, S2 etc which are the usual military positions found in all SAF camps and units.
When we asked Thomas if there are NSmen serving their reservist in DSO, he said it is unlikely:
“DSO basically function like a private company autonomously on its own and separate from MINDEF unlike the Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA). It is something like ASTAR. You can’t just walk in here and expect to get a job.”
DSTA is a statutory board set up under the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF). It is responsible for implementing defence technology plans, acquiring defence material and developing defence infrastructure for MINDEF.
To put it plainly, Dr Patrick Tan served his NS in a COMPANY and not in the SAF as according to ‘vocational guidelines’ even though he was paid NS allowance instead of the full salary during his time in DMERI under DSO.
DSO is still hiring new staff on its website. One of the positions on offer is a Communications Engineer for which the following criteria are stipulated:
· Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical / Electronic Engineering
· Knowledge of wireless communications, signal processing and RF engineering
· Experience in MATLAB and C programming
· Experience in VHDL and real-time DSP programming is preferred
(Source: DSO)
Dr Patrick Tan revealed that he disrupted OCS to further his studies at Harvard after which he returned to serve as a 3rd Sergeant during his NS stint at DMERI.
Since DMERI is NOT a SAF unit, how did Dr Patrick Tan attain the rank of a 3rd Sergeant when he did not go through SISPEC? (School of Infantry Specialists)
Dr Patrick Tan should be 33 years old when he ‘ORD’ from DMERI in 2002. He should still have at least 7 years of reservist obligation. Where did he serve his reservist during this period of time?
For the purpose of public accountability and transparency, MINDEF should come clean with Singaporeans and reveal the following:
1. The number of NSFs who serve their NS in DMERI and DSO.
2. The ‘vocational guidelines’ which enabled Dr Patrick Tan to serve his NS in DMERI.
3. The number of high-key and low-key training completed by Dr Patrick Tan.
4. What is Dr Patrick Tan’s NS reservist unit?
While most Singapore men served their NS in tough combat vocations putting their lives in danger at times after which they still have to contend with a 13-year reservist cycle, a combat-fit son of a former Defence Minister served his NS in a company doing something related to his work and not having a NS reservist unit to serve after his ORD.
Is this FAIR? Do you find this acceptable? Are all Singapore men treated equally by MINDEF?
Share 12 -
matrix0405:
Haben change as I know of since the 1st NDP i seen leh :heresmyfish:
While most Singapore men served their NS in tough combat vocations putting their lives in danger at times after which they still have to contend with a 13-year reservist cycle, a combat-fit son of a former Defence Minister served his NS in a company doing something related to his work and not having a NS reservist unit to serve after his ORD.
Is this FAIR? Do you find this acceptable? Are all Singapore men treated equally by MINDEF?
Share 12
whenever DH want to ask Gahment dept of an issue.
I ask him you related to who in Gahment -- so no hope , you can try :evil: good luck :wrongmove:
pardon my engrish i no go school
no relation :faint:
-
Dear Patrick Tan:
I read your recent posting on Presidential candidate Tony Tan’s Facebook website. You noted that you are “proud” of your National Service. You further noted that you are upset by rumours that impugn your integrity and that of the “institution of National Service.”
It is great to hear about your pride in serving the nation. Rather than being upset, you should welcome and be forthcoming with respect to questions about your National Service. The issue is not you per se. What is at issue is something much more important and fundamental: Is a single standard being applied to all Singapore citizens? As such, your pride, education, awards, publications, and titles and honors is simply beside the point. To repeat, the question is whether you received preferential treatment with respect to your National Service. To ask this question is not to impugn your integrity or that of the institution of National Service. What is at stake is whether we can trust our government to enforce its laws uniformly and without prejudice. As the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan often noted: trust but verify.
Let’s face it Patrick, the Singapore government is opaque. Its machinations are only privy to a select few insiders. The main stream media is essentially an extension of the government/state. Do we really have a system of checks and balances? This leaves the average Singaporean in the dark. The earlier generation placed blind trust in their political leaders. That goodwill has been destroyed. Our generation believes in greater transparency and holding our politicians accountable. With respect to transparency, U.S. Supreme Court justice Brandeis had remarked that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” The internet has been a blessing to our cause. Speaking for myself, the goal here is not to cast aspersions on you, your dad, or Singapore’s institutions. Rather, it is to check whether our trust in the Singapore government is well placed (and not misplaced).
You are the son of a former Defence Minister. Your dad is presently seeking the high office of the Presidency. His election to this office will be decided by us voters. This is a hope. There is a chance that he might waltz in if the authorities disqualify the other presidential candidates. We want to make informed decisions. In my view, honor, courage, and trustworthiness trumps academic credentials and experience. While it is easy to verify the latter attributes, the former can only be inferred from one’s actions. This is where you enter the picture. We want to know if your father can be trusted to dutifully carry out his charges rather than taking advantage of his office. So the question is whether your service requirements and deferment were altered to accommodate you. To be perfectly honest, I found your answer evasive on this issue. I found it somewhat similar to Janil Puthucheary equating his medical practice to National Service.
To summarize, the questions raised on your National Service is not an attack on your character. They represent justifiable questions to verify whether our elected officials serve their office in honor rather than taking advantage of their office. I hope you appreciate our point of view and please be more forthcoming. Please tell that to your dad as well since I find his answer equally evasive and dismissive.
The specific questions are as follows:
a. What is the basis for the extended deferment that you received?
b. What is the basis for allowing you to complete your NS in a research function? Are there other examples of such placement?
c. Why did you not finish your officer training?
PYF -
Matrix, are you expecting Dr Tony Tan, or Patrick Tan in particular, to answer all your queries here? Or did you extract it from somewhere and post it here for our info only?
Becos if it’s the former, I doubt the 2 persons above will surf KSP and respond to your questions. Hence it shld be directed to them direct, either thru their FB or email. JMHO. -
Just cut and paste for sharing the latest excitement on PE2011. Exciting who is going to be the highest paid civil servant in the world.
-
Dr Patrick Tan - enlisted 1988, deferred NS till 2000 (unusually long deferment of >12 years for studies); returned to serve NS with a soft posting as medical researcher, a civilian job he currently still holds.
Dr Tony Tan - Defence Minister from 1995 - 2003
d normal route for medical students as I know it:
a) Males disrupt NS to complete their first medical degree.
b) They return to NS n undergo MOCC which is a much shortened Officer Cadet Course for medical doctors.
c) They serve out their NSF liabilty as Medical Officers (MOs).
d) MOs do post grad studies AFTER NSF.
e) MOs continue to serve NS reservists liabilty just like other NSmen.
f) When issue of 'preferential treatment' for white horses were raised in parliament, then MOS Cedric Foo shot it down n stated dat their was no preferential treatment for sons of influential ppl(see CNA report below).
Dis is clearly a case of special preferential treatment.
d questions asked of Dr Patrick Tan/ Dr Tony Tan are thus valid questions dat require honest answers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'White horse' classification for NSmen existed prior to 2000
By Dominique Loh, Channel NewsAsia
SINGAPORE : Minister of State for Defence Cedric Foo said the Singapore Armed Forces had a 'white horse' classification for NSmen prior to year 2000.
He said the term was used to identify sons of influential persons to ensure such enlistees were not given preferential treatment.
Mr Foo was replying to a question in Parliament on Tuesday by Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia.
Mr Chia asked if there was such a classification and, if so, who qualifies to be classified as a 'white horse' and what privileges are accorded to them.
It is a rite of passage for all 18-year-old Singaporean men.
They enlist and serve two or two-and-a-half years of National Service in a variety or vocations ranging from combat to clerical.
But for many years, some NSmen have wondered if the battlefield is really level.
There were whispers that the sons of influential Singaporeans, dubbed 'white horses', were supposedly getting special treatment during their National Service.
\"I thought they got special treatment that was what I was lead to believe.\"
\"I don't have any 'white horse' in my platoon, but from what I heard, these people do have special treatment and they will get less punishment, easy jobs but don't know if it's true.\"
\"It should be taken out, everyone is equal regardless if you are a politician's son, someone powerful, rich. You are Singaporean, we all have to go through NS one point or another, why should you receive special treatment? \"
Well, for what many Singaporeans say is the first time, the Defence Ministry has publicly admitted to having a 'white horse' classification.
But the purpose was the exact opposite.
Mr Foo said: \"All NSmen are treated equally and are deployed in vocations and units based on SAF operational requirements, their medical classification, and their academic and military performance. No NSmen has been accorded special privileges.
\"Prior to year 2000, the term 'white horse' was used to identify sons of influential persons to ensure such enlistees were not given preferential treatment. And their medical classification and vocation assignments are scrupulously fair.\"
But there were no follow-up questions from MPs. So then why scrap the scheme?
Mr Foo said: \"Over the years, the public has widely accepted that the NS assignment system is fair and there is no preferential treatment to anyone. Since 2000, the SAF does not have a white horse classification for NSmen.\" - CNA -
I have to agree with you that Patrick Tan’s case is highly highly unusual. And remember, back then, there was a rule that President’s scholarships were not awarded for overseas medical studies. I really have to question if any other person with high abilities would have been able to walk the same path he did.
Its a shame because I do like Tony Tan, and in an environment whereby it is less usual for persons (or relations of those) in political power to be accorded privileges, i do not think he would have sought to exploit them. But Singapore being what it is, I supposed they just went with the flow. -
Dr Patrick Tan’s CV stated that he went to Harvard to get his BA. As is the US practice, a student must first obtain a basic degree before he/she can apply to study medicine. Who approved the deferment knowing that this is the US practice and thus Patrick Tan will not qualify to serve as an MO when he graduate from Harvard.
As the Education Minister during that period (1985 - 1991), he presumably should know that degree-MD-PhD route is a much longer route than one required to qualify one to practice as a medical doctor. If the intention is not to return to the SAF to serve as an MO which would be the basis for approval to undertake a medical degree, who approve the deferment extension for a further 8 years?
Even if Dr TT has not intervened in his son’s deferment and subsequent posting,
1. He as a concerned father certainly knows his son’s intention to take the MD-PhD to practice as a medical researcher/scientist and not return to serve as an MO in the SAF.
2. He as the Defence Minister (1995 to 2000) must surely know the special case of his son’s unusually long deferment of >12 years and return to serve a soft posting as an NCO in a Defence organisation.
3. One consideration for granting deferment for studies is that the candidate must have officer potential. By this criteria, why wasn’t Patrick Tan required to complete his OCS or even the must watered down physically less demanding MOCC on his return if he was combat fit?
Even if Dr TT had not sought to exploit his position and just went with the flow, he must surely be aware that his son’s long deferment and subsequent soft posting is highly unusual when he was the Defence Minister, not in line with what was preached to and granted to the masses.
Did he exercise the law then?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login