Borders was having another huge discount offer (they seem almost periodic now), and I decided to make use of it to brighten up my life with some serious book buying. Strangely enough, I purchased only one new book the previous month (not counting another book purchased as a gift to a friend). It was a second hand copy of The Chicago Manual of Style, purchased at a bargain $9 at a Bras Basah bookstore while on the way back from the National Library building. That is not to say that I didn't spend a significant amount of time browsing, perusing, handling and accumulating scores of titles. I merely restricted myself to getting most of them from the library and ultimately returning many of them unread or at least uncompleted.
This prudence in the area of book buying was not to last, despite my best intentions for this to be so. I first went down to Border's on Friday afternoon. Borders was not only having a coupon discount promotion (30% off for any single book, with an additional 10% off for Border's members) but a storewide discount for anyone (35% off if you buy 5 titles or more, additional 10% for members). I printed out 4 coupons just in case I didn't have that many titles to buy, but as has proven so often in the past, the real challenge was trying not to buy too many titles. Worse still, I ended up going down to Borders again on Sunday afternoon with my sister after a family lunch at Ichiban Boshi.
In sum, the damage was as follows:
Islam: The Religion and the People by Bernard Lewis
The Messengers: The meaning of the Life of Muhammed by Tariq Ramadan
The Whiter Tiger by Aravind Adiga (2008 Booker Prize Winner)
Changing Places by David Lodge
Shakespeare's Language by Frank Kermode
Dreams of My Father by Barack Obama
The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
Other Colours by Orhan Pamuk
Making Globalization Work by Joseph Stiglitz
Microtrends by Penn and Zalesne
My sister also got the following:
Musicophilia by Oliver Sacks
Social Intelligence by Daniel Goldman
a Paperchase Tote bag
Quirkology
a Horse book
a CD/book on beginner's Malay
Regarding the purchases, I have made it a habit to read the Booker Prize winning (and often the shortlisted) novels, so I just had to purchase the White Tiger, this year's winner. Ramadan's book on the Prophet Mohammed had been recommended to me by a friend (Linda from RSIS) so taking her advice I decided to buy (and hopefully, read) it. Bernard Lewis is an expert on Islam and his book represents a basic primer on Islam, its very sects and beliefs which is well written and easy to read.
Given Barack Obama's recent victory in the US Presidential election both my sister and I thought it beneficial to buy his two bestselling novels, to get a more in depth look at the man and his ideas. We were both more interested in Dreams of My Father, his autobiographical account of his family and his search for an identity.
The Audacity of Hope is a far more political book, written when Obama's star was in the ascendancy, a front-lining speech to the Democratic National Convention already under his belt, and just about to begin his term as the junior Senator from Illinois. It seems commonplace, compulsory even for an aspiring politician (often candidates for the Presidency) to write a book, outlining in broad strokes their manifesto, and why they should be the 'chosen one'. Both books offer a glimpse into Obama's guiding principles and should make interesting reading.
9 November 2008
3 November 2008
Army High Handedness and Reservist Training
After completing two and a half years of 'National Service' (read thinly veiled euphemism for involuntary conscription), each Singaporean male is then rewarded for their loyalty by being placed in purgatory until the age of 45, liable to called up for up to a month every year by the army.
This year, I tried to apply for a deferment for my Reservist obligations, given that I am currently doing a full time Master's degree, and I would be missing a number of classes (and the entire first week of the new term). However, my application for deferment was denied on two separate occasions. More troubling for me was that an attempt was made to reject my application either willfully or unwillfully on false pretenses. I was informed that doing a full-time Master's degree was not valid grounds for deferment, but this turned out to only be the case for Universities not recognized by the government. There was also considerable confusion over another clause stating that a minimum of 20 hours of classes a week were necessary for a deferment request to be valid, which didn't necessarily apply in my case. I was told they did.
In the end, the issue was only resolved when my mother went to see our local Member of Parliament to lodge a complaint. Ultimately, I must express my disappointed at the high handed way in which the army acted. The reason they gave for the rejection (besides their selective reading of the two criteria above) was that "my presence was necessary for training" and that given I was doing a Master's degree, I could "reschedule my academic activities to before or after my two week reservist obligations". This is patently absurd. I have to attend seminars comprising between 5 to 20 individuals. These seminars are not going to be rescheduled just for my sake.
I must state, in all fairness, that after the complaint to the MP, my Commanding Officer called me personally, and a fair compromise was reached that enabled me to attend all my classes, while still fulfilling my reservist obligation. What I wonder is, why weren't my concerns addressed previously until my mother, in complete annoyance and exasperation at the army, took the drastic measure of lodging a formal complaint with a MP? I can only come to the conclusion that given it was their right to call me up, and my obligation under law to fulfill the request, they saw no need to fully address any concerns that I might have, that is until extraneous measures were taken.
Sadly, this was hardly the first case where the army has acted in such a manner against me. At the end of my full time national service obligations, by way of thanking me for one and a half years of service to my formal NS Unit, my unit S3 (through the Commanding Officer) threatened to postpone my discharge from full-time national service unless I completed an intermediate unarmed combat course. Passing that course was not a necessary requirement for completion of full time national service. One got the impression that the Commanding Officer would have preferred having a spotless 100% completion rate for the Unit as a feather in his cap.
Consider the measures necessary to gain that feather. I was asked to take the test my exact ORD or Operationally Ready Date despite the fact that technically, my obligations to the army had ended the day before. Further troubling was that unarmed combat carried with it a fair chance of injury or accident (a fellow member of my unit broke his hand during a training session, another person I knew injured his knee) but I had already cleared the army medical exam, meaning that the army was no longer liable for any injury that I might sustain in the course of taking the test, particularly since it also fell outside my obligation of service. Furthermore, I had not met the training requirement of attending three quarters of the classes necessary to take the test (due to illness, and fulfilling other obligations such as guard duty).
The response of my unit? Do the test - or else. Do the test or you will no be given your freedom. It was quite a despicable form of blackmail. Sadly, this method often proves effective, because many servicemen will be cowed into just doing what these senior officers want, for fear of the consequences. It is thus easy for these officers to view their soldiers as pawns that can be steadily advanced and sacrificed in order to meet the greater objective of securing their own promotion and advancement. Sadly for them, my family refused to be cowed. They raised many of the concerns I highlighted to the S3, to which they received no satisfactory response. They then threatened to lodge a formal complaint to Mindef, citing that they believed I was being bullied into taking the test. Ultimately, my S3 admitted they had no grounds to force me to take the test.
The Commanding Officer then canceled a planned meeting with my parents to discuss the issue, stating that he "no longer saw a need to meet with them". My father exploded, saying that he had taken a day's leave to settle the issue, which he felt was important and he saw a need to meet with him. He then informed my S3 that he would personally drive me to camp on the date I was to receive my civilian identity card and my release from the army, and if I was not out of the camp in two hours, he would personally drive to the Ministry of Defence to sort things out there. I was out of the Camp in one and a half hours.
The ultimate irony was when I had to approach my S3 to sign my discharge forms, and he somewhat placatingly and somewhat indulgently asked why I had "caused so much trouble". I have since been asked that same question in other contexts. The question is: was I the one who attempted to threaten a national serviceman into doing a non-compulsory test on spurious grounds? Was I the one who selectively mis-read the criteria for deferment from reservist training? If these valid concerns had been taken into account originally there would be no need to "cause trouble". The real tragedy seems to be that trouble is necessary for an individual national serviceman's voice to be heard in the first place.
This year, I tried to apply for a deferment for my Reservist obligations, given that I am currently doing a full time Master's degree, and I would be missing a number of classes (and the entire first week of the new term). However, my application for deferment was denied on two separate occasions. More troubling for me was that an attempt was made to reject my application either willfully or unwillfully on false pretenses. I was informed that doing a full-time Master's degree was not valid grounds for deferment, but this turned out to only be the case for Universities not recognized by the government. There was also considerable confusion over another clause stating that a minimum of 20 hours of classes a week were necessary for a deferment request to be valid, which didn't necessarily apply in my case. I was told they did.
In the end, the issue was only resolved when my mother went to see our local Member of Parliament to lodge a complaint. Ultimately, I must express my disappointed at the high handed way in which the army acted. The reason they gave for the rejection (besides their selective reading of the two criteria above) was that "my presence was necessary for training" and that given I was doing a Master's degree, I could "reschedule my academic activities to before or after my two week reservist obligations". This is patently absurd. I have to attend seminars comprising between 5 to 20 individuals. These seminars are not going to be rescheduled just for my sake.
I must state, in all fairness, that after the complaint to the MP, my Commanding Officer called me personally, and a fair compromise was reached that enabled me to attend all my classes, while still fulfilling my reservist obligation. What I wonder is, why weren't my concerns addressed previously until my mother, in complete annoyance and exasperation at the army, took the drastic measure of lodging a formal complaint with a MP? I can only come to the conclusion that given it was their right to call me up, and my obligation under law to fulfill the request, they saw no need to fully address any concerns that I might have, that is until extraneous measures were taken.
Sadly, this was hardly the first case where the army has acted in such a manner against me. At the end of my full time national service obligations, by way of thanking me for one and a half years of service to my formal NS Unit, my unit S3 (through the Commanding Officer) threatened to postpone my discharge from full-time national service unless I completed an intermediate unarmed combat course. Passing that course was not a necessary requirement for completion of full time national service. One got the impression that the Commanding Officer would have preferred having a spotless 100% completion rate for the Unit as a feather in his cap.
Consider the measures necessary to gain that feather. I was asked to take the test my exact ORD or Operationally Ready Date despite the fact that technically, my obligations to the army had ended the day before. Further troubling was that unarmed combat carried with it a fair chance of injury or accident (a fellow member of my unit broke his hand during a training session, another person I knew injured his knee) but I had already cleared the army medical exam, meaning that the army was no longer liable for any injury that I might sustain in the course of taking the test, particularly since it also fell outside my obligation of service. Furthermore, I had not met the training requirement of attending three quarters of the classes necessary to take the test (due to illness, and fulfilling other obligations such as guard duty).
The response of my unit? Do the test - or else. Do the test or you will no be given your freedom. It was quite a despicable form of blackmail. Sadly, this method often proves effective, because many servicemen will be cowed into just doing what these senior officers want, for fear of the consequences. It is thus easy for these officers to view their soldiers as pawns that can be steadily advanced and sacrificed in order to meet the greater objective of securing their own promotion and advancement. Sadly for them, my family refused to be cowed. They raised many of the concerns I highlighted to the S3, to which they received no satisfactory response. They then threatened to lodge a formal complaint to Mindef, citing that they believed I was being bullied into taking the test. Ultimately, my S3 admitted they had no grounds to force me to take the test.
The Commanding Officer then canceled a planned meeting with my parents to discuss the issue, stating that he "no longer saw a need to meet with them". My father exploded, saying that he had taken a day's leave to settle the issue, which he felt was important and he saw a need to meet with him. He then informed my S3 that he would personally drive me to camp on the date I was to receive my civilian identity card and my release from the army, and if I was not out of the camp in two hours, he would personally drive to the Ministry of Defence to sort things out there. I was out of the Camp in one and a half hours.
The ultimate irony was when I had to approach my S3 to sign my discharge forms, and he somewhat placatingly and somewhat indulgently asked why I had "caused so much trouble". I have since been asked that same question in other contexts. The question is: was I the one who attempted to threaten a national serviceman into doing a non-compulsory test on spurious grounds? Was I the one who selectively mis-read the criteria for deferment from reservist training? If these valid concerns had been taken into account originally there would be no need to "cause trouble". The real tragedy seems to be that trouble is necessary for an individual national serviceman's voice to be heard in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
