Doctor Awol from SAF to go study medicine?

[Vid]

Hambug [:|]

[Mustank]

Hambug [:|]

 

the problem is as this goes along, people will ask midef how many of such similiar cases dont approvde distrupt

then people will start comparing 12 year deferment

[Vid]

 

the problem is as this goes along, people will ask midef how many of such similiar cases dont approvde distrupt

then people will start comparing 12 year deferment

 

Singapore sons are sacrificing their prime for the country. The least the country can do is to allow them to disrupt to pursue their education if it's just 1-2 months of their NS life.

 

Having such a draconian rule is absolute rubbish. [shakehead]

[Mustank]

 

Singapore sons are sacrificing their prime for the country. The least the country can do is to allow them to disrupt to pursue their education if it's just 1-2 months of their NS life.

 

Having such a draconian rule is absolute rubbish. [shakehead]

 

but some can 12 years leh

 

http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111020-306203.html

 

 

NS disruption list to be open to public: Minister Ng

The list will be published annually and will contain the names of NSF given permission to defer from national service for university studies. -AsiaOne

 

Thu, Oct 20, 2011

AsiaOne

Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen announced today that a list will be published annually detailing the names of full-time national servicemen (NSF) given permission to defer from national service for university studies.

"MINDEF (Ministry of Defence) shall henceforth publish the list of those disrupted for University annually, on a routine basis for public scrutiny," said Minister Ng said in parliament today.

He was replying to a question on whether Dr Patrick Tan, the son of President Tony Tan Keng Yam, was given preferential treatment for his prolonged disruption - from 1988 to 2000 - during his NS to pursue medical studies overseas.

RELATED STORIES

• Tony Tan and sons hit back
  • Tony Tan refutes allegations about preferential treatment towards son
    • Tony Tan's sons refute online allegations on NS record

Dr Tan's case was widely debated online during the August presidential election.

In his reply, Minister Ng outlined how MINDEF's policies have changed since 1973.

Providing details of Dr Tan's disruption, he said "Dr. Patrick Tan was disrupted in accordance with prevailing policy to obtain his medical degree".

He revealed that MINDEF had written to Stanford University to inquire if Dr Tan could shorten his course for just an MD instead of both the MD and PHD degrees.

"Stanford University replied that this was not possible saying that the Medical Scientist Training Program was an integrated MD/PhD program in which both the MD and PhD degrees would simultaneously conferred.

"Dr. Patrick Tan was re-enlisted in 2000, having obtained both his MD and PhD degrees. He was deployed to the Defence Medical Research Institute or DMRI, in view of his training and qualifications.

"After serving his full-time NS, Dr. Patrick Tan was deployed to 3rd Combat Support Hospital and served his remaining NS liability till 2009."

He told the House that the Defence Ministry implements the policy of disruption "fairly, openly and accordance with existing criteria".

"There was no preferential treatment given to Dr Patrick Tan, or any other individual who has disrupted, because of their connections," he said.

"Mindef is acutely aware that all NSmen must be treated equitably, regardless of background.

"I want to assure all Singaporeans that equity of treatment for NS, has been and must remain, a cardinal principle because without strict adherence to this fundamental tenet of fair and transparent treatment."

Spotted at Tony Tan's lunchtime rally

Click on thumbnail to view (Photos: ST)

Transcript of Minister Ng's reply to parliamentary question on Dr Patrick Tan's disruption from full-time national service

Mr Speaker Sir, MINDEF had issued two public replies in July and August this year relating to Dr. Patrick Tan's disruption and deployment during his National Service (NS). In those replies, we stated that he was treated according to prevailing policies.

He was not given any preferential treatment. Let me provide further details on how these policies were applied to all full-time national servicemen (NSFs).

Since 1973, MINDEF has allowed NSFs to disrupt for medical studies in Singapore as we need military doctors to serve in the SAF.

This policy continues today so I think it is quite well known that NUS medical graduates are disrupted while they are NSFs to finish their medical degree.

From 1981, the disruption policy for medical studies was extended to allow NSFs to study medicine overseas because the number of local medical graduates was insufficient.

From 1981 to 1986, 38 NSFs were disrupted for overseas medical studies. From 1986, criteria were tightened to take into account their performance during BMT (Basic Military Training) and PES (Physical Employment Standards) status.

86 applicants were disrupted under this latter scheme, including Dr Patrick Tan in 1988, who had completed his BMT and was part-way through Officer Cadet School.

From 1992, disruption for overseas medical studies was no longer allowed as the number of local medical graduates met SAF's needs.

All in all, in the 12-year period, namely 1981 to 1992, when disruption for both local and overseas medical studies was the prevailing policy, 902 NSFs were disrupted to study medicine in Singapore, and 124 for overseas medical studies, a total of 1026 NSFs.

MINDEF granted disruption so long as the medical degree was recognised by the Singapore Medical Council. The length of disruption varied according to the time required to obtain the medical degree.

For those who studied medicine locally, the period of disruption taken was typically 7 years - 5 years for the medical degree with an additional year each for housemanship and hospital postings.

For those who studied overseas, almost all of the 124 medical students chose to study in the United Kingdom, Ireland or Australia, and these were disrupted for 7 to 8 years. Only three NSFs applied and were approved for disruption to study medicine in the United States of America (US).

By way of explanation, in the US system, the medical course is a graduate program. In other words, to enter into a medical school you require a pre-medical degree.

So the disruption period is therefore longer - 4 years to obtain the pre-medical degree and 5 more years for the medical degree proper.

I mentioned that only three applied for and were approved for medical studies in the US. One of them was deferred and disrupted for 9 years and he obtained his US pre-medical and medical degree.

The second case was deferred for 4 years to obtain his pre-medical degree and then decided that he did not want to do his medical degree in the US but wanted to do so in Ireland instead. MINDEF granted it to him so he was deferred and disrupted for a total of 12 years.

The third case, Dr. Patrick Tan was also disrupted for 12 years: for his pre-medical course in Harvard University from 1988 to 1992 and thereafter for his combined Medical Degree (MD)/PhD program in Stanford University's Medical Scientist Training Program.

MINDEF had written to Stanford University to inquire if Dr. Patrick Tan could shorten his course for just an MD. Stanford University replied that this was not possible - "[t]he Medical Scientist Training Program is an integrated MD/PhD program in which both the MD and PhD degrees will be simultaneously conferred".

Several other NSFs have been deferred or disrupted from NS to obtain their basic degree followed by a PhD. These are few and each case was assessed and approved based on individual merits. Let me cite some examples.

In 1983, a serviceman was disrupted to pursue medicine locally. After he obtained his medical degree, he was disrupted again for his PhD studies in Oxford. He did onco-pathology under the Rhodes Scholarship. In total, he was granted disruption for 10½ years.

In 1990, an exceptionally bright pre-enlistee entered University at age 14 and was accepted into a PhD course in Cambridge before he was due for enlistment. MINDEF allowed him to defer his NS until he completed his PhD at the age of 21.

There were two other servicemen enlisted in 1988 and 1993 respectively, who were disrupted twice, first to obtain an undergraduate degree under the Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarship, followed by a second disruption to obtain their PhD under the Rhodes Scholarship.

Both disrupted for a total of 8 years.

In summary for disruption, Dr. Patrick Tan was disrupted in accordance with prevailing policy to obtain his medical degree.

A longer period was granted to those who were admitted to US medical schools. Disruption for overseas medical studies has been discontinued since 1992. We also have not granted disruption or deferment for PhD studies since 1999.

Now, let me speak about Dr. Patrick Tan's deployment. Dr. Patrick Tan was re-enlisted in 2000, having obtained both his MD and PhD degrees. He was deployed to the Defence Medical Research Institute or DMRI, in view of his training and qualifications.

DMRI was a new institution then, established in 1995 to coordinate and conduct human science and biomedical research aimed at enhancing the safety, survivability and performance of SAF personnel.

Other NSFs had been posted to DMRI in the 5 years preceding Patrick Tan's posting, from 1995 to 1999. 32 NSFs were posted to DMRI, including another MD/PhD holder, some medical officers and the rest with A-levels, basic and Masters degrees.

15 of these 32 I have just mentioned were combat-fit. Each case was again approved on its own merit as having the qualifications that met the needs of DMRI.

Some served in DMRI for the bulk of their full-time NS, while others were medical officers posted there on shorter stints of about 6 months.

After serving his full-time NS, Dr. Patrick Tan was deployed to 3rd Combat Support Hospital and served his remaining NS liability till 2009.

MINDEF is acutely aware that all NS men must be treated equitably, regardless of background. I want to assure all Singaporeans that equity of treatment for NS has been and must remain a cardinal principle.

Without strict adherence to this fundamental tenet of fair and transparent treatment, commitment to NS will be severely eroded and the institution of NS weakened.

We had or have explicit schemes open to all applicants which allow NSFs to disrupt for medical studies here or overseas as I outlined in detail.

There was no preferential treatment given to Dr Patrick Tan, or any other individual who was disrupted, because of their connections.

All NSFs were disrupted to obtain their medical degrees based on stated criteria applicable to all who qualified.

Dr Patrick Tan was deployed to DMRI, like the 32 NSFs before him, based on his qualifications, to build up the organisation and conduct medical research relevant to the SAF's operational needs.

Over time, prevailing policies do evolve, to meet the changing requirements of the SAF and operational needs.

For example, as I said earlier, we no longer allow or grant deferments and disruptions for overseas medical studies since 1992 or for PhDs since 1999.

In 2009, MINDEF also decided for operational reasons that NSFs should be part of a military unit during their entire NS. Since then, we have stopped deploying national servicemen to DMRI or other research agencies.

Let me emphasise to all, including commanders on the ground, that no NS men should be accorded preferential treatment.

I would like to further assure Singaporeans that MINDEF implements the policy of selective disruption for University studies fairly and openly in accordance with existing criteria.

MINDEF shall henceforth publish the list of those disrupted for University annually, on a routine basis for public scrutiny.

Dr Lim Wee Kiat: Speaker Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for clearing the air about this particular issue. I have one supplementary question as regards to Dr Patrick Tan.

When he was serving in the DMRI, he was serving in the capacity of a non-uniformed officer. You mentioned that he is currently deployed to the Combat Support Hospital.

Can I just check with the Minister, did Dr Patrick Tan undergo the officer medical cadet course? Did he undertake the necessary training as a military medical officer?

If he did not, how is he going to perform in the Combat Support Hospital currently and in what role is he currently performing his duties?

With regards to the two other doctors that were disrupted, similar to Dr Patrick Tan, did they also serve in the research position or did they serve in the uniformed medical officer position?

Dr Ng: Sir, MINDEF decided to deploy Dr Patrick Tan to DMRI for reasons that have already been stated. After deploying him to DMRI, it was left to those in charge of DMRI to decide, for all those 32 NSFs that I talked about, on how to deploy them and what they would wear.

So I do not have details of what he would wear on any particular day and I do not think Parliament should be concerned about what they wore, unless there are reasons that Dr Lim Wee Kiat thinks otherwise. Dr Lim asked about the other two cases.

As far as our records show, the two were deployed as medical officers so I think they underwent the medical conversion course.

Dr Lim asked why in this particular case Dr Patrick Tan had not undergone the conversion course and the specific reason was having being deployed to DMRI, there was no need.

The medical conversion course is to convert medical officers so that they could serve as medical officers in the camps. Having made the decision to deploy him to DMRI, there was no need for that conversion course for him to function in DMRI.

There were questions related to what was Dr Patrick Tan's deployment after he finished his full-time national service. I think I have answered that in the main reply where I said that after serving his full-time national service, Dr Patrick Tan was deployed to the 3rd Combat Support Hospital and served his remaining NS liability till 2009.

Dr Ng: Allow me to make some clarifications in my previous reply. Dr Lim Wee Kiat had asked for Dr Patrick Tan's service during his operationally-ready national service. Dr Patrick Tan served as a laboratory officer in one of the SAF Combat Hospitals.

This is a standard designation in the combat hospital. The role of the laboratory officer is to assist in blood and plasma storage and supply and to conduct clinical analysis of blood samples. I presume he was deployed there because of his qualifications.

Yaw Shin Leong: Minister, how does MINDEF ensure that there is no preferential treatment? Is it through the "White Horse Stamp System" like Minister of State had shared with the House several years ago?

Dr Ng: Sir, just on a point of correction, I have never spoken of any white horses or any other coloured horses in this House.

Yaw Shin Leong: If I recall correctly, it was Mr Cedric Foo, then Minister of State.

Dr Ng: The question was how does MINDEF ensure that there is no preferential treatment.

That is a very important question. As I had said in my reply, MINDEF is acutely aware that for NS policies, to be successful and get buy-in from the general public, equity for NS must remain a cardinal principle and we do it through a variety of ways.

Some explicit policies, which means that in this case for disruption for medical studies, a different treatment for a select group of medical undergraduates whom SAF needs, to make sure that the criteria is upfront and explicit. To the extent possible, we list them.

So for instance, we said they must produce documentary proof on admission to a medical school recognised by the SMC. In case of the US policy, when we allowed overseas medical studies, we said that the pre-medical course does not lead to any other professional degree such as engineering or accountancy.

They must furnish documentary proof from the university that the pre-medical course leads to a medical degree. So it is possible that we explicitly state so.

Then there are signalling mechanisms, where our commanders understand that if we do not uphold this principle of equity, we are going to undermine your authority because people feel that if I have connections and preferential treatment, it will be very hard to train men in a group or make them feel committed to serve NS.

I want to assure members that MINDEF understands this. We do not ignore that there are different strata but we hope that we can gel the men regardless of their background into one unit.

And from time to time, and let us be realistic, Singapore is small, we have anecdotes that because so-and-so's son is in this particular unit that the unit will be treated better and when they are punished, the converse is true, that this unit is punished because so-andso's son is in this unit and they want to make the unit an example.

We understand that but overall we deal with it on a day-to-day basis and we tell our commanders, make sure if you apply a policy, you give good reasons why it is applied, maintain the principle of equity and lead by example.

If members of this house know of specific cases where there is preferential treatment, I have open access to you, write to me and we will deal with it.

My last clarification was on what Mr Yaw brought up in terms of the White Horse. I said that Mr Cedric Foo had answered the question previously and to refer to the reply.

If you check the record of the reply, he made it clear that the White Horse policy was initiated to ensure that there was no preferential treatment given to anyone in regard to NS.

Pritam Singh: Thank you Mr Speaker.

To the Minister of Defence, thank you very much for that clarification and I am sure Singaporeans appreciate the restatement that equity in national service is a cornerstone of the national service policy.

The question that was asked by the Member of Hougang Mr Yaw Shin Leong was with regard to the White Horse policy.

If I can, may I ask the Minister, whether medical dockets continue to be stamped today with the White Horse stamp, in view of his comments on equity in national service.

Thank you Mr Speaker.

Dr Ng: Sir, I think there have been previous questions filed on the White Horse that has been answered. But in direct answer to the Member, the answer is no.

[Kusje]

 

the problem is as this goes along, people will ask midef how many of such similiar cases dont approvde distrupt

then people will start comparing 12 year deferment

 

What's there to compare? One is a president's scholar and son of Tony Tan. This means he is under the white horse program which ensures that there will be no favourable treatment for him.

 

The other is a naturalised citizen from China. This means he will be called an ah tiong by the locals and be considered the lowest of the low even if he does get into Cambridge.

 

Want to compare 12 years? Ah tiong will get 12 years in prison.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kusje

[Vid]

 

 

but some can 12 years leh

 

http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111020-306203.html

 

 

NS disruption list to be open to public: Minister Ng

 

 

It's just rubbish lah. If Singapore has no shortage of doctors then why hospitals got so many FTs. Wait till the elite's sons have sons then suddenly Singapore has shortage of doctors again and the rule will be changed.

 

[Mustank]

 

What's there to compare? One is a president's scholar and son of Tony Tan. This means he is under the white horse program which ensures that there will be no favourable treatment for him.

 

The other is a naturalised citizen from China. This means he will be called an ah tiong by the locals and be considered the lowest of the low even if he does get into Cambridge.

 

Want to compare 12 years? Ah tiong will get 12 years in prison.

 

tiong kena tionged

[Kusje]

 

Singapore sons are sacrificing their prime for the country. The least the country can do is to allow them to disrupt to pursue their education if it's just 1-2 months of their NS life.

 

Having such a draconian rule is absolute rubbish. [shakehead]

 

No doubt mindef will come up with their OFFICIAL RULE BOOK stating that deferment is not allowed for everyone so it is fair. Brainless policy makers.

 

Why should we even serve fools like this?

[Vid]

 

No doubt mindef will come up with their OFFICIAL RULE BOOK stating that deferment is not allowed for everyone so it is fair. Brainless policy makers.

 

Why should we even serve fools like this?

 

There is nothing wrong with serving the country but there is something wrong when the country only thinks about the country and not her people.

[Kusje]

If he was originally from China that would explained why his got rejected. Must be many cases of new citizens who absconded to avoid NS. With his background Mindef must have rejected his application fearing he will do the same as his "comrades".

 

There is no logic to this at all.

 

1. If he intended to abscond, why would he apply for deferment? As it turns out, a person who wants to abscond can still go AWOL even if his deferment is not approved.

2. He already served the bulk of his 24 month sentence. What is 1 month of out 24?

 

There is nothing wrong with serving the country but there is something wrong when the country only thinks about the country and not her people.

 

You are right but in this case, the country will not even get any benefits even if he had stayed for that last 1 month.

 

1 month before ORD = 2 weeks leave + potentially 2 weeks MC for wisdom tooth operation. Even if he didn't want to get that operation, the 2 weeks would be spend wasting time in camp.

 

Speaking of kenging, couldn't he have gone over to JB and find some doctor to remove his appendix? Could have gotten 1 month MC for it.

[Vid]

 

There is no logic to this at all.

 

1. If he intended to abscond, why would he apply for deferment? As it turns out, a person who wants to abscond can still go AWOL even if his deferment is not approved.

2. He already served the bulk of his 24 month sentence. What is 1 month of out 24?

 

You are right but in this case, the country will not even get any benefits even if he had stayed for that last 1 month.

 

1 month before ORD = 2 weeks leave + potentially 2 weeks MC for wisdom tooth operation. Even if he didn't want to get that operation, the 2 weeks would be spend wasting time in camp.

 

Speaking of kenging, couldn't he have gone over to JB and find some doctor to remove his appendix? Could have gotten 1 month MC for it.

 

Setting this kind of stupid policy will only increase the resentment NSF has against the military. If it's "I do something for you, you do something for me." then there is a balance.

 

Why would Singapore sons want to work in Singapore if that is how the govt treats them?

[Joseph22]

 

What's there to compare? One is a president's scholar and son of Tony Tan. This means he is under the white horse program which ensures that there will be no favourable treatment for him.

 

The other is a naturalised citizen from China. This means he will be called an ah tiong by the locals and be considered the lowest of the low even if he does get into Cambridge.

 

Want to compare 12 years? Ah tiong will get 12 years in prison.

Like that everyone should be happy mah. New citizen get lesser treatment. Everyone here should be happy.

[Kusje]

Like that everyone should be happy mah. New citizen get lesser treatment. Everyone here should be happy.

 

If it is a new citizen that doesn't have to serve NS and they receive fewer benefits, then people here will be happy.

 

This chap served 23 months of NS. He was shafted by the same ridiculous policies that affect us as well. He was rejected a 1 month deferment while others get 12 years of deferment.

 

He is one of us.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kusje

[Vid]

Like that everyone should be happy mah. New citizen get lesser treatment. Everyone here should be happy.

 

You sure he got the treatment because he was a new citizen? Born and breed ones will not face such a thing?

[Mustank]

 

If it is a new citizen that doesn't have to serve NS and they receive fewer benefits, then people here will be happy.

 

This chap served 23 months of NS. He was shafted by the same ridiculous policies that affect us as well. He was rejected a 1 month deferment while others get 12 years of deferment.

 

He is one of us.

 

agree

anyone who serves ns is a brother

those 12 years one, i puiz

[Kusje]

 

maybe he in camp cheesepie kia

 

 

I think that might be a reason too. Bad record during service.

 

Bad service record should not be a reason for rejecting his deferment at all. If he person does something wrong in camp, punish him according to the rules. What kind of offense could he have committed to be punished to losing his university spot and wasting (an extra) 11 months of his life?

 

Ignoring all that, it still doesn't make sense. Today's MyPaper says this:

 

 

MR Anand said references from people such as his seniors in his unit "all attest to his attitude, character, dedication, diligence and professionalism".

[Sp4wn]

 

You same as me... holiday come back serve. Mine was 3 months disruption so I came back, served 2 months then bug my chief clerk to get early release by adding all my leaves and offs [laugh]

 

sama sama le. my uni was starting 3 weeks before ORD .. but since i got my uni place quite early, managed to start the ball rolling early to convince my OC to let me combine leave + off etc and ORD in advance to make it in time ... the best part was ... 2 weeks after i left for the states, my oc called my dad to ask if i settled in nicely!! my dad was quite surprised by the call lol.

[Vid]

 

sama sama le. my uni was starting 3 weeks before ORD .. but since i got my uni place quite early, managed to start the ball rolling early to convince my OC to let me combine leave + off etc and ORD in advance to make it in time ... the best part was ... 2 weeks after i left for the states, my oc called my dad to ask if i settled in nicely!! my dad was quite surprised by the call lol.

 

You got a good unit.

 

Can't say the same for that guy though.