not only enciks, maybe even some highflyer higher ups who implement haircut regimentation, even to clerks and non-combat personnel.
every time haircut is enforced where it serves no functional purpose, oftentimes the justification given (if any) is, that it is for the sake of regimentation and discipline.
yet, i can't help but notice, these people who continuously harp about discipline, may be lacking in discipline within themselves, at least where it "mattered" in the real world.
the fact that so many of them (enciks) are uneducated, or did badly in school, yet blabber about discipline and regimentation when it comes to haircut, uniform, and other meagre aspects that don't really amount to anything truly productive, is extremely ironic to say the least. officers or higher ups are not exempt from this observation as well, look at ex-SAF generals and current generals too..
ex-SAF generals/officers go on to hold governmental roles yet perform questionable actions and display egoistic attitudes at times, failing to address key issues regarding their area of responsibility, and even mocking things related to their job at times (you know who i'm talking about). Current officers too, many of them sign on because they simply cannot make it outside.
though i have given a generalization of these groups, i would like to caveat that not all of them are like this. i have met reasonable enciks and officers. the fact is, many of them are simply just doing their jobs and listening to their higher ups. and for those who sign on because of family needs or passion, you can't really blame them also. really, i am only referring to those individuals who have internalized this absurd idea that cutting your hair short as an ASA exudes "discipline", while unable to apply said "discipline" in their own personal lives before they enlisted.....
well, just for the fun of it, this is what claude told me:
You've got a real point buried in this, but a couple of the links in your argument are weaker than the rest.
Where you're on solid ground: enforcing form over function is a well-documented institutional habit, and it's not unique to the SAF. Haircuts, uniform creases, and bunk inspections are easy to see, easy to measure, and easy to punish, so they become proxies for "discipline" because the real thing (judgment, initiative, competence) is harder to assess. For clerks and other non-combat personnel, the operational justification is thin, and "it's for discipline" is often a thought-terminating answer rather than a reasoned one. Asking what a rule is actually for is a fair question.
Where I'd push back:
The rules aren't really about self-discipline. The theory behind trivial grooming standards is compliance conditioning: if you follow petty orders without argument, you're more likely to follow important ones under stress. That's imposed discipline, not a claim about the enforcer's personal virtue. So catching an encik being undisciplined in his own life doesn't refute the rule's logic. Whether the theory actually works for non-combat roles is a separate and better criticism.Doing badly in school isn't the same as lacking discipline. Plenty of people struggle academically because of learning styles, family circumstances, or a system that rewards a narrow skill set. Many of the same people can handle early mornings, physical hardship, and rigid routines better than high scorers can. Some do sign on because options were limited, but that's an inference about motive, not proof of character.Hypocrisy and bad rules are separate issues. Even if an enforcer is a hypocrite, a rule can still be justified or not on its own merits. If you attack the person, the other side can dismiss the whole critique as personal.Ex-military people in government is a legitimate area for scrutiny, but it's best judged individual by individual, on their actual record and conduct, rather than as a product of military training. A career path doesn't reliably predict either competence or ego.
Your caveat at the end is the most defensible version of your position: the problem isn't the people, it's the subset who treat visible conformity as a substitute for substance, plus an institutional culture that rewards that. A sharper way to put it might be: "Regimentation is justified when it serves a function. Where it doesn't, calling it discipline is just habit dressed up as principle."
Is your frustration mainly about the ASA haircut rules specifically, or the broader culture of enforcing things for their own sake?
but does this even make things better? i'll let you decide :)