I refer to the following NSMEN statutory requirements:
“Some ROVERS may even continue to serve beyond the statutory age of 50 and 40 for Officers and WOSE respectively as VOLUNTEERS in higher operational appointments”
I wonder if Mindef could explain why officers need to serve till aged 50?
If there is no good rationale behind this, I would suggest for Mindef to harmonize the statutory age for both officers and WOSE. They should have the same run out age.
I cannot understand why officers should have to serve till 50 as compared to WOSE.
In terms of physical fitness, everyone is one the same decline with age, regardless of ranks.
In terms of family commitment, everyone faces similar challenges. At the age of 40, for most with kids, this is the crucial time when kids are attending school, every extra minute spent with the kid is a blessing.
At the age of 40, it is also the time when one gets less employable. Attending ICTs and losing out to FTs could cost one’s job.
The last I check, I don’t think there are any special privileges given for School admission at any level, or priority given for BTO application.
So if there isn’t any special recognition for officers, why should they be required by law to serve till 50?
I hope Mindef can revise the statutory liable age for officers to 40. Beyond that, it should be voluntary.
Similarly for WOSE, they should be given the opportunity to serve till 50, as long as they are fit and keen.
In fact, in line with rising retirement ages, both officers and WOSE should be allowed to serve till 60. This might actually increase the total pool of NSMEN willing and able to serve, and exempt those who can’t due to hardships in life.
Kampong Boy
