“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
- Albert Einstein
This came from a German-Jewish scientist who played a critical role in helping American develop its Atomic Bomb in the Manhattan Project, which ended the World War II. He disliked war intensely and he later regretted his contributions to the project.
Einstein is one of the world’s most eminent scientists of all time. I am nothing but a citizen of Singapore, a citizen of this huge world.But I agree with him entirely on his view on war, and his view on patriotism; that patriotism need not translate into taking up arms or anything along the lines of violence. This would necessarily mean that I am against the very notion of conscription itself.
Conscription is nothing more than slavery
In Singapore, all Singaporean males must go through National Service(either in Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore Police Force or Civil Defence), devoting two years of his life to the service of the nation. To me, conscription is nothing more than servitude, nothing more than modern-day slavery. Singapore, as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has violated no less than five articles by upholding its Conscription laws and imposing draconian penalties if violated.
Article 4.
- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
All forms of conscription by itself is a form of slavery. Citizens are forced against their will, and paid little, or nothing, to “serve” the interests of the nation. I quote: “Slavery is the systematic exploitation of labour. As a social-economic system, slavery is a legal or informal institution under which a person (called “a slave”) is compelled to work for another (sometimes called “the master” or “slave owner”).“
In the SAF, higher ranks order lower ranks to carry out their instructions. Any failure to do so could result in a wide-range of punishments, ranging from warnings to detention in SAF Detention Barracks, not unlike the olden days where the owner would flog the slaves. If this is not modern-day slavery, what is?
Article 23.
- (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
I think Article 23 is self-explanatory. Conscription by itself violates clause (1). The meagre wages SAF pays and the huge amount of work and commitment they demand, which includes being on stand-by 24/7 because we are FULL-TIME National Servicemen violates clause (2). Needless to say, (4) is not allowed under SAF laws. Any form of association with any political parties constitutes an offence under the SAF Act.
Article 19.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
This is the very reason this article will appear only after a certain day and why the author chose to remain anonymous. Many servicemen have been punished for voicing out criticism of the SAF or writing negatively about SAF. Since when can negative writings or criticism be punished under the rule of law, especially when it is the truth? SAF and MINDEF as public organisations must be held fully accountable and must not suppress criticism or negative comments. They must never forget that the reason for their existence, if one attempts to justify, is to defend Singapore. They are and will always remain public servants to Singaporeans, and answerable to Singaporeans for their actions. By attempting to suppress criticism and negative writings of the SAF or MINDEF, this is in every way a clear violation of Article 19. If a public organisation is not receptive to feedback, negative or positive, and instead focuses on shutting down negative feedback and resorting to self-praise, I think that such an organisation’s existence must be questioned.
National Service must not be a social engineering tool
Singapore has frequently tried to justify National Service as helping to turn boys into men, building a sense of responsibility in them and promoting social cohesion when males of every sector of society come together to share a common experience. That itself is a very flawed argument of National Service. National Service can barely justify itself when one uses the argument of national defence since it is nothing more than slavery, much less as a social engineering tool. In today’s world, ANY form of social engineering tool must be treated with scepticism and rejection, for they have no more place in modern society. When anyone tries to justify conscription as a form of building up a world that fits his/her ideals, it becomes very very very dangerous. This is simply because one will know no boundary after that, a classic slippery slope argument. Today it can be conscription to build a cohesive society. Tomorrow, it could be forced marriages. The next day?
This also begs the question: By claiming that National Service turns boys into man, are they saying that people who do not go through National Service are immature, which is basically the vast majority of the world?
Another question: By using “building social cohesion” as a reason, are they saying countries that do not have National Service have divisive and fragmented societies, that will disintegrate in the face of trouble?
National Service as a social engineering tool is a failure
Much as the government tries to claim its success, one must take their claims with a huge tablespoon of salt. The system of choosing people as officers and sergeants still places its belief on education, which leads to a very skewed proportion of officers coming from JCs and Polys while the less educated remain as men to be led by these people. The argument of highly-educated people makes better leaders will now face off against the argument of National Service as a social engineering tool to build a cohesive society. These people will become officers, the elites of the SAF. They enjoy privileges and power that is not available to men, by virtue of their education. Where is the so-called shared experiences now?How many actually remember their men they lead ten years later, or truly know them and immerse into their world? If the argument of “highly-educated people makes better leaders and thus should become officers” hold, then the argument of “NS as a social engineering tool” must fail. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.
The truth is that many of my peers are officers and they remain close to their school-friends, rather than friends they made during NS. Much as one vehemently deny that, and then claim that one has made many friends because of NS, my counter-argument is easily this: you can make the same amount of friends outside if you don’t do NS. How many of these NS “buddies” remain as “buddies” one year after ORD? If you ask me, a better word here would be acquaintances. Much as you can remember the time where you “insert experience here” or “insert another experience here”, I would really question the significance and appliance of those experiences in real life.
Some proponents of NS also claim that NS toughens people up and “turn boys into men”. I oppose such views. Military experience by and large is tough. It is accepted and meant to be that way.But I do not accept the forcing of military experience on anyone. I do not deny that NS will toughen people up, but to what extent and at what costs? Some say that they test their own limits when they “insert tough experience here”. How relevant is the “testing of limits” in the future? Are they saying that NS is the only way they can test their limits? By that argument itself, are they also insinuating that without NS in many countries, one would not toughen up or know his potential leadership abilities and is doomed for failure?
National Service need not be the only solution to National Defence
Policy-makers also say that NS is critical and necessary to our nation’s survival. Much as I agree that there are things such as necessary evils for eg taxes, I do not believe National Service belongs to that group in Singapore’s context. Singapore is in peacetime. One cannot justify such a huge army in peacetime, unless one assumes that our neighbours are eyeing us hungrily and will not hesitate to wipe us out anytime should SAF cease to exist. This brings me to my next point about diplomacy and soft power. Attempting to mend and build better relations with our neighbours and not appear as arrogant or condescending would do more to our national defence than any army could. This is what Obama has accepted about America, that soft power can do more for any nation than any army could. This is something we must really learn instead of merely talking about it.
I am not proposing a demolition of the SAF. I am an idealist and I wish for a world free from wars, diseases and poverty. Unfortunately, this is not true. What I can accept is that SAF becomes a truly professional outfit, that all SAF personnel are regulars only. By removing conscription and adding up the total costs saved, which will definitely be significant, SAF can do much more to attract people who are truly committed to its cause, either out of love or money. That would definitely be better than having a ragtag army who looks forward to the next book-out or next long holiday just so they can escape from its grips.
In the past, Singapore could not afford a professional army. Today, I think they have more than enough financial muscle to do so. Hence their point about a professional army is moot and invalid today. If they have the ability to raise a much bigger conscripted army, that can only mean two things. Either they pay these people really really low(see the first point made), or that they can afford to raise a professional army, just that they don’t wish to due to cost savings.
National Service is wasting everyone’s time and money
The inefficiency of the SAF, the redundancy and sheer incompetency of many regulars in there, the senseless rules…I could go on and on forever. I have many examples, and I am sure others would have even more. Just that day, I heard a NSman verbally bashing his reservist unit commander for being stupid to his wife. I do not wish to go into specifics. Let’ just say that his verbal bashing was not unjustified, judging from what I hear. Rushing to wait, waiting to rush. Such anecdotes are common and everywhere in the SAF.
In today’s world, many countries have either abolished conscription or are drastically cutting down. It is pretty ridiculous. It takes 10 weeks to complete a US marine course, but it takes 2 years to train a Full-time National Serviceman to be a clerk, storeman, rifleman, armourer etc. If this is not inefficient, I do not know what is. The economic cost of such inefficiency is huge, given that many males are in the prime of their lives, and should be pursuing their further studies or contributing meaningfully in many ways instead.
When cuts should be made but not made, when things can be done much faster but not so, Singaporeans who pay taxes to an organisation and a Ministry that takes up the biggest proportion of the national budget should seriously question where the money is flowing to and how it is being used in the most cost-efficient way. Cost-overruns, the exceeding of budgets, buying things that are for decorative or cosmetic purposes..once again, I can go on and on. As taxpayers, Singaporeans should scrutinise and question the budget for SAF and MINDEF, especially in the wake of a bad economic climate worldwide. How much of the 16 billion poured into MINDEF every year is wasted on things that are not required, which could have been better spent elsewhere?
The unfairness of National Service
Given Singapore’s growing numbers of non-Singaporeans, I do not feel that it is justified that Singaporean males should give up two years of their time to defend these people, as these people treat Singapore like a hotel. What is the difference between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans? non-Singaporeans do not pay significantly higher taxes or education fees than Singaporeans. Many do not serve NS. Singaporean males have to face with reservist issues that lead to much unhappiness from employers. Is there any wonder why employers would very much prefer foreign workers given the unfair treatment meted to Singaporeans? It seems as if Singaporeans are punished for being male and born into Singapore and having to go through NS, as non-citizens enjoy the fruits of our labour. Yes, Singapore has laws that make the children of PRs to go through NS. However, there are ways of circumventing the rules, as I have seen with my own eyes. There was this serviceman who actually gave up his PR after having enjoyed 12years of education here. There was nothing Singapore could do, except to accept it. This serviceman was a top student in a top school and is in US furthering his studies, at the expense of Singapore’s taxpayers.
If Singapore really buy into the social cohesion argument, why not make it a pre-requisite for all non-citizens to spend some time with SAF before they are allowed citizenships or PR-ships since they say that there is a lack of integration between non-Singaporeans and Singaporeans? Let’s see for ourselves how many would give up their PR-ships or citizenships once we impose that rule. Let’s see for ourselves just exactly how much these people love Singapore, or love Singapore for the money and benefits they milk from it at the expense of locals? I hear the shouts of “xenophobia”. I assure you that I am anything but xeno-phobic. I do, however, believe in equality. Since Singaporeans do it, why shouldn’t foreigners who take up Singapore citizenship do it too? Others point to the globalisation and claim that it is good for Singapore to accept foreigners and stuff. Yes, my dear. However, other countries do not have conscription for their own citizens do they?
In conclusion, attempting to justify national service is the same as attempting to justify conscription, and the same attempt as justifying slavery. If you do not believe in slavery, why would you believe in conscription and NS?
That would be the meaning of NS to me: slavery. servitude.
Einstein’s words still echo around my mind.
Patriotism … is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.
- Emma Goldman
26 Comments
August 1, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Hi,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS! For much of my life I was filled with the stupid propaganda the government fed me, and my relatives passed on to me. I hate to be mushy, but I am touched that finally there’s someone to speak up for me, and a small group of people in Singapore who are in the same boat as us- all those who loathe National Service. For a long time I know I’m not alone in my hatred against the fact that fate has to be resigned to this anti-human rights government policy. And here is someone who is standing up for the basic rights we are lacking. In my part I can’t convince people because I don’t have backup and my arguing language is not good enough. Now I have more to argue with. When the time is right, action must be taken. It will speak louder than words. Only then will NS be justified. But the question is, how? I know my ideas are crazy but, if we can rope in the International Court of Justice and United Nations, we may one day see the light for all of us, the ones who prayed every night for an end to this torturing slavery (just an expression).
January 20, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Hi, interesting post. I’m about to serve NS soon. I haven’t thought of these issues before.
But your stand is somewhat extreme, that NS = slavery. You’ve valid points but your arguments are flawed. I’m unable to buy them.
That being said, the points are food for thought; I’ll think through them when I’m inside.
January 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm
i think i’ve already shown how NS is tantamount to slavery, as I have pointed out the similarities.
it’s okay, you can don’t buy them. all the best for your NS, and remember that nobody loves you more than your parents, so there isn’t any point sacrificing yourself for the nation, when it doesn’t care about your safety or well-being
September 15, 2009 at 10:30 am
who says its flawed its perfect.why not you urself go to ns and find itout yourself. Anway in Ns u have no say isntit? if thats isnt a violation ofhuman rights what is it? use some sense please. In NS you will be like a dog , commander says 1 means 1 u cant finish or do it u go to detention. thats call human rights?. i also dontknow why someppl just fail to see they are like servants there? pherhaps their brain is a pea sized?
September 15, 2009 at 10:32 am
and dont forget there are people who diedin national service. THEY GO THERE TO DIE? WTH? IF THEY DIDNT GO THERE THEY WILL BE STILL LIVING AND HAVE PROMISING FUTURE. AND YOU ALL DARE TO SAY THAT NATIONAL SERIVCE IS GOOD? IF NEXT TIME SOMEONE IN UR FAMILY DIE COZ OF NATIONASERVICE I SEE WILL U STILL SAY THAT SAME THING ANOT> BUNCH OF RETARDS
January 5, 2009 at 10:49 pm
So kid, you haven’t serve your NS heh? I was like you hating NS, and cracking my brains in thinking how to get out of this hell. Tell you what, unless you get out of Singapore, and never come back again.
cheers.
January 6, 2009 at 1:07 am
hi big fellow. are you an idiot? -_-. with such description, does it look like i haven’t serve?
but you are right. you can’t get out of the hell. unless u get out of singapore and never come back again.
January 5, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Hi,
I would like to share an unbelievable story. But first, let me say a few things…
Is work really a choice? I have come across many who would rather not work but they have no choice. Pick any person on the street and ask if they are working because they choose to… most will say, ‘I have no choice, I got to survive’.
We choose our job? Yes, that’s the only choice one has. To choose which authority to submit to and to be rewarded according to the rules – again, because we really don’t have a choice. Shall we call that paid slavery?
But that’s the way life is.
The army was formed not to turn boys into men, it was never for that intention. Becoming a more responsible man is just a by-product that many who have been through army can testify. A conscripted army was a move towards survival. It was a choice of no choice. That was how it began. It is still for the same reason today.
What is it about. I have finally come to realize that if we never took our arms (rifles), no one would fight for our dads and moms and siblings and children who live on this little island.
As to whether we still need it today, well, just look around and we will get a real picture. In the real world, the one we live in, its a dog eat dog world. We cannot, not even with today’s civilization, assume that we can put on a friendly face and everybody will be friendly. We have been friendly enough to the countries around us, yet haven’t you seen their hostility towards this harmless red dot? I am referring to neighbors just next door.
No, it has never happened in history and it will never happen.
We owe our stability and progress to a few other factors, good governance, our relationship with Israel (they were the ones who first trained our soldiers), our relationship with the United States and other countries, a hardworking generation, etc. Without such, we would be easy prey, not to mention progress.
The unwise believes that all we have got came naturally, that is because they have not seen the sweat and blood of the previous working generation. Some believed our progress came because of our strategic position and so will not hesitate to devour us when the opportunity arises. I believe, Singapore, in the hands of our neighbors will still not amount to much because primarily, it takes character to excel. This, is what we have that many others do not. Its also the only thing we have.
Now, back to the army. Do I like the army?
I have been through army. I was from the 35th Combat Engineers. My first three months was hell. Let me tell you why it was hell. I went in disliking the idea. Actually I didn’t have a good grasp of what army was all about then, all I heard were horror stories. So, I went into Tekong camp disliking the idea of national service.
Obviously, I failed in everything and dreaded every activity – unarmed combat, shooting, I.P.P.T. (Individual Physical Proficiency Test), bayonet fighting and the worst of them all was the S.O.C.(Standard Obstacle Course). I especially dreaded those P.T.Is (Physical Training Instructors) who screamed at the top of their voice and demanded us to shout like Thunder and run like Lightning. I had a good share of shouting and cursing from the corporals too because I was under-performing. It was really living hell.
Finally, I flunked my ‘opportunity’ to be a commander so I got kicked out of Tekong camp and got posted to the combat engineer unit. Back in those days, most of those who ended up in the unit first were those who were lowly educated, the majority were people who some colorful background. Imagine my horror when I saw my new platoon mates – full of tattoos and vulgarities. We had pimps, gangsters, loan sharks, addicts, gamblers, all living under one roof. You can bet that they were not singing “I love you, you love me, we are a happy family.”
When I first saw their threatening looks, I thought my life was over. To be frank I almost fell apart. How did I end there, well, I chose right? Just like in the other aspects of life, we choose the type of life and the type of people we live with by our own attitude.
I did have a rough start. Had a couple of fights and got a few threats from some even though I tried hard just to mind my own business. Though I had a neutral buddy, life continued to be difficult.
Anyway, thanks to Jesus, I decided to change my attitude. I decided that I had to go against how I felt. I chose to like army. Believe it or not, I became the “volunteer king”. I beat everybody else in volunteering for tasks that would take away my rest time. There were many types of king in the army of yester-years – lazy king, escape duty king, fut king, etc. I believe things have not changed much.
Slowly, I picked up momentum. With God’s help, and with due diligence, I gained the respect of the whole pack of the underworld brothers. Things began to change: I began to like the morning run that I used to hate, I began to do well in IPPT and excelled in unarmed combat, suddenly I realized I could shoot pretty well too. I used to hate that book-in book, but that changed as well, I began enjoying booking-in. The friendship formed with the rest of the platoon was really the cream on the cake. I literally began enjoying army life. That was half a year after I was there.
Slowly, I began to accept the fact that my life came to a two year halt because of my family. I must carry the rifle and rough it out so that they may enjoy some peace at home. I began to do it for them. I even began to feel proud of that boring looking uniform.
Living in a 30 men bunk with all sorts of characters wasn’t that bad after all although I still did not like S.O.C.
I ended up becoming platoon best trainee and was a step from being the best soldier of the Company. I R.O.D. with a lot more close friends than when I began. In fact, I just met some of them during Christmas.
Now, I am not trying to boast here. What I want to say is that our attitude does make a difference.
Serve the army. Be the best that you can be. We don’t need a regular army – the best a regular army can do is to perform a job. What we need are men of valor. Men with the right attitude. Men who dare to lay down their lives because our little red dot needs them. The best army is you and me. And yes, we need to defend ourselves against any intentions from overseas. Let us not fall into the trap thinking that nobody’s after us just because all we have is a strategic port.
By the way, I was served a letter of completion quite recently. I actually felt sad about not having anymore chance to wear that uniform.
January 5, 2009 at 10:28 pm
thank you for your great story. let me try to rebut your points one by one, but before i start, let me be clear it is only targeted at the arguments, not the experiences.
if going according to what you say, everyone is a slave. that would really be a fatalistic view of the entire world. i, however, do not subscribe to that view. firstly, the fact that we can choose our job and choose what we want to do, and who we want to be under, is already not an abuse of our fundamental right to freedom, not serfdom. you are in fact, not a slave to the boss, but a slave to money, and that’s, once again, only because you chose to be. you can always choose not to work, choose not to earn money, disdain how the world runs on money and not be part of it. how you survive would really be your business. but work indeed is a choice. nobody pointed a gun at you to work. its because of the circumstances that most would work willingly, in exchange for rewards. in contrast, conscription leaves you with no choice. you are either forced to comply, or forced into committing a crime. i think that itself isn’t a choice anymore.
please just take a look at NS.sg and newsletters and all. there is always the “from boys to men”. and i strongly disagree with the “becoming more responsible men” part. judging by your logic, you are saying that without army, all of the guys would be irresponsible. that itself, is a major fallacy. i am pretty damn sure other countries’ guys are all not responsible men, because they don’t have conscription. would i be right in saying that?
it was a move towards survival. back then, perhaps there was still a justification. that was the time when singapore was still RELATIVELY poor, and couldn’t afford a professional army. today, that isn’t the case anymore. that reason has ceased to exist, and economic theory has shown clearly why conscription isn’t the way to go.
that would be a disrespect to the regular corps, to the other armies around the world that are not based on conscription. that would be appealing to personal sentiments in order to bring your argument through. if what you say is true, then why do we still have regulars? why not make them all NSFs?
i am sorry, i will have to disagree. the sheer arrogance of our politicians, our innate ability to blow out other people’s candles to make ours shine brighter, the constant trumpeting of our successes. all these do not paint a friendly, harmless singapore. all these paint a arrogant, flashy country that looks down on its neighbours. and i am not surprised why our neighbours behave so hostilely towards us. small isn’t a defence for ourselves. so saying that because we are small, we are always the victim. that isn’t the case, in many cases in fact. we make use of our economic positions and leverage to get what we want, often at the cost of damaging relations. in other words, they are hostile to us, because we are equally hostile and arrogant to them. but it takes two hands to clap. our neighbours must not be absolved of their responsibilities for poor relations too.
i am glad you brought this up. i will attribute our success to our previous working generation, people who wouldn’t mind hard work. this is frequently overlooked by ministers arrogant enough to claim credit for everything.
of course attitudes does make a difference. after all, shit does taste good if we want it to taste good. i congratulate you on your great attitude towards NS, but I am sorry to say I do not share your attitude, because of my beliefs and how conscription contravenes them.
on the contrary, we need a regular army. we need a army that is dedicated and professional enough to do their job, rather than an uninspired army made up of minions who cannot wait to book out or ORD. the best trained army can easily defeat such an uninspired army, which is the current situation today. i have never said that we don’t need a defence, that would be foolish. what i am trying to say is that this defence does not need to come from conscription.
you should have been a regular. why are you not a regular? regular corps need people like you who cannot wait to put on that uniform, not people who smoke out and try to throw everything to NSFs whom they can bully and run roughshod on and impose their extreme stupidity on. i have an alternative for you. do you want to serve mine?
=)
thank you for sharing your experience and contributing to this discussion. i am sure readers will all have their own views after reading such diverse comments.
December 1, 2008 at 10:03 am
That is precisely the difference between the NGO activists and most of the people now at HL park. These people now are protesting because they have lost money. Many of them will stop once they get back some of their money back and it will most probably be the end of the story and things will be status quo. However, the process of protesting and getting the together and feeling the strength in unity, hopefully, a number will wake up to the power of people’s unity that the MIW refuses to give to Singaporeans. Whereas the activists are not looking for personal gains.
November 30, 2008 at 11:48 pm
sorry
i can’t do it, im a lousy computer guy..so i have no idea how to highlight them in the comments. 
as to when will more Singaporeans understand this? when they all invest in lehman brothers and lose money then they will start mass gathering in hong lim park. without any loss in money, they will never act.
November 27, 2008 at 5:38 pm
By the way, ‘me’, it would make reading your replies if you could highlight them. There is more to life and politics than under the PAP. Sigh….. When will more Singaporeans understand this!
November 25, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“Of course you didn’t bring in equality, however the point I tried to bring across is merely about the system in which orders are given. A person of a ‘higher status’ will be giving instructions to those of a ‘lower status’. I brought it in despite the main talking point being about slavery (which you have defined as something you are FORCED to do) because I was attempting to justify why such a chain of command would exist, and hence, punishment to ensure that matters still run smoothly. A bit out of point on my part.
Slavery is always a bitter pill to swallow, and only exemplifies the protest of those that have their freedom taken away from them. It is also, a highly negative term. By setting the premise of the argument in such a negative light, I’m afraid there’s little we can actually discuss about
Though I would refute a small point: Work life is but another example in society where a chain of command exists, and you’re forced to do things (be it against your will, or not). Think back to younger days. Would your parents forcing you to do your chores before you go out to play, by your definition, counts as slavery? How about teachers who force you to finish a pile of homework and assignments?”
I honestly do not see the point about the punishment and the hierarchy system here. The fact is that if you are forced into doing something you don’t wish to do over a period of time(quite long in this case), its very much slavery. I reiterate that I used the “punishment” as an example to show the features of NS being slavery, since a feature of slavery involves punishment. The key idea is NS is still about being forced into doing something that one does not want to do. I would expect in a slavery system, such a chain of command would exist. Otherwise why would the slaves be slaves? In NS’s case, its a chain of command enshrined behind laws that prescribe NS. Legal slavery, in other words. I fully accept that the chain of command exists and “justified” in the context of upholding NS. Its just that I do not agree with the basic premise of NS and that it shouldn’t exist in the first place.
After all, we are not arguing how to better the system are we? We are talking about why is the system there and the legality of it.
And I reiterate my point about working life vs NS. There is simply no comparison. If you don’t wish to work, then don’t. Nobody will force you to. How you survive, that’s your business.Also, note my point about being your own boss. However, what about NS?
You can choose not to obey your parents. Your parents will punish you, or they won’t, depending on what kind of parents you have.same for your teachers’ example. Unless you are equating parental guidance as equal to NS, I do not see how your example can support your case, even though there SEEMS to be parallels.Please compare with appropriate context.
=========================================
““Firstly, I couldn’t find any sentence of mine saying “there is such a thing called freedom” Since I did not say that, I shall not respond to your comments on this..
But let me say that basic freedom includes not being enslaved or forced to do things that we don’t want to(if it does not hurt anyone else). I don’t see how me NOT doing NS would infringe on the freedom of anyone else, or anyone/everyone NOT doing NS for that matter. So I guess your point is moot?”
Of course you didn’t, in writing. It was what I inferred from your writing, so pardon me if I have inferred wrongly. How did I come to that conclusion? From your paragraph about the freedom of speech. I did try to steer my point to focus on this, so I apologize if I seem… muddled.
About your point however, you have defined one of the facets of freedom to be “Not being forced to do what we do not want to do”. This is not exactly true, this is more of a definition of “the oppression of freedom”.
If any of us is to stretch the argument and be a little far-fetched however, we can actually say that you not doing NS can actually result in others losing their freedom. We go back to why NS was conceptualized in the first place. By you not doing National Service and hence not gaining the basic military skills to defend the country, when war ultimately comes, because you aren’t able to defend your homes, your loved ones, families, friends will be enslaved to the will of the invaders, losing their freedom in the process. It is far-fetched, I know, but we are discussing about MINDEF’s rationality for NS in the first place.”
I see where you are going with this. This is like you say, stretching it alot, and which by the way the same argument MINDEF uses and Social studies textbooks tries to use to ingrain in our youths. Let me point you the flaws. Firstly, the basic premise is that you assume that without conscription, we will be invaded. The fact is that I pointed not to the abolition of SAF but the abolition of NS. I have accepted that my ideal world(world peace) will never come about, and that there is a place for a military organisation in Singapore. What I am trying to argue is that there is no place for conscription. Do not confuse and combine the two together, for they are not the same. Secondly, there are international laws in place that deters aggressors. Countries do not just go to war so easily, despite what they would like you to think. So do consider your assumptions too. There are many many countries that survive without conscription or have alternatives to the same problems we face. Ask yourself how valid are my points about NS being a social engineering tool, and whether this is the real meaning of NS.
==========================================
“Come on, we know its pay, we are being PAID for the time (office hours/staying-in) spent in SAF. and work done Its how THEY worded the thing to “justify” them paying lesser, and allowing arguments such as yours come about. You used parents’ allowances. I would say for the vast majority, parents would give allowances if they can afford because you are their child, and not expect you to “serve” them or anything. Same for NS?
Why did I call it a waste? Because I have seen it with my own eyes on how money is spent because it had to be spent or the budget would be reduced next year, and how money could have been better spent in many areas. In fact, start asking yourself why MINDEF needs such a huge budget? what justifies it? National defence?”
Your point on the parents is valid. However, I am still in my belief that the government is giving you an allowance, instead of a pay. My reason? The amount you get is the amount you take home, instead of a percentage being put into your CPF account. You may define it as pay due to the work hours, I would define it as allowance because of this reason.
I think I see what you are trying to drive at in that last statement, and it is one of my little irks of the government, that is, overly paid ministers. But that’s just one man, and I don’t even think that the pay of each minister comes from the ministry’s allocation in the budget. No, I think you are referring to our regulars and officers. And this is something that can only prove their worth, along with whatever expensive pieces of equipment we bought under the budget (my point about the F35 was to exemplify why a good portion of the budget is devoted to MINDEF, because in order to get just a dozen pieces of such equipment would be very, very pricey) in times of a real war.
You may doubt the regulars’ abilities from your experiences, but I can say that from my own experience, I have the confidence and can put my faith in them. This is something that differ from serviceman to serviceman, simply because I agree that middle management in the SAF needs to be severely reviewed.”
nope, I wasn’t getting at Ministers’ pay. There is another issue that irks me and alot of people, but too many people have brought it up I don’t wish to weigh in on that as it would just be a rehash of the old stuff.
I was getting at the wastage in the forces in expenditure and of course how redundant many of those regulars are. In any case, middle management takes up the biggest bulk of SAF =). In peacetime, they already cannot prove their worth. I shudder to think about war-time. They really need to evaluate their hiring policies.
Yes i accept that military hardware is expensive. Is there a need to get the latest technology when we are already so forward? Are they risking a arms race? When will this end? In my humble opinion, a more effective way is that Singapore reduces its arrogance in diplomacy and talk, and tries its best to reach out more to our neighbours. Soft power is the strongest power, greater than even military power, as USA has shown so clearly. They are not equal. Singapore’s long-time thinking of the equality of deterrence and diplomacy needs to change.
=========================================
yes i am pre-empting and actually presenting to you another argument against NS- by using economics to tell you conscription is one of the worst kind of economic policy, violates many basic rules of economics.
the so-called programmes are useless to me, to be honest, but I guess others might find it useful. Anyway, I accept your point about the serviceman making the most of his time and everything. What I am trying to say here, however, is still arguing against the very fact that the servicemen should be serving and that the fact that it cannot be chosen is very much slavery as I keep trying to say above.
I really can’t care much about how one best wants to make use/or don’t want to of his time in NS. That’s up to each individual. What I care more is the moral and legal violations of NS, that is not up to the choice of the individual.
=======================================
try google.
you will see alot.
November 25, 2008 at 8:41 am
“I think you need to think again what is slavery. Isn’t FORCEFULLY drawing on any pool of men to do something slavery? regardless of purpose? what if these men refuses to be drawn upon to serve the country or whatever you call it? how is this NOT slavery?
Please do not talk about equality in here. I did not say anything about equality. I quoted the examples of punishment to emphasize my point about slavery, that punishment during conscription itself is very much a feature of slavery. but that should not cloud the judgement on whether the idea of conscription itself is slavery, because the very idea is.
You used work life? Let me tell you this. Work by itself is a CHOICE. You CHOOSE whether you want to work in this company or that company or don’t work or be your own boss. Can you CHOOSE not to serve, other than giving up your citizenship? I don’t think so. Why should YOUR citizenship be equated to national service?By birthright, I am granted this citizenship, and thanks to my nation’s policies, I am “punished” for the simple reason of being born a male in Singapore.”
Of course you didn’t bring in equality, however the point I tried to bring across is merely about the system in which orders are given. A person of a ‘higher status’ will be giving instructions to those of a ‘lower status’. I brought it in despite the main talking point being about slavery (which you have defined as something you are FORCED to do) because I was attempting to justify why such a chain of command would exist, and hence, punishment to ensure that matters still run smoothly. A bit out of point on my part.
Slavery is always a bitter pill to swallow, and only exemplifies the protest of those that have their freedom taken away from them. It is also, a highly negative term. By setting the premise of the argument in such a negative light, I’m afraid there’s little we can actually discuss about
Though I would refute a small point: Work life is but another example in society where a chain of command exists, and you’re forced to do things (be it against your will, or not). Think back to younger days. Would your parents forcing you to do your chores before you go out to play, by your definition, counts as slavery? How about teachers who force you to finish a pile of homework and assignments?
=======================
“Firstly, I couldn’t find any sentence of mine saying “there is such a thing called freedom” Since I did not say that, I shall not respond to your comments on this..
But let me say that basic freedom includes not being enslaved or forced to do things that we don’t want to(if it does not hurt anyone else). I don’t see how me NOT doing NS would infringe on the freedom of anyone else, or anyone/everyone NOT doing NS for that matter. So I guess your point is moot?”
Of course you didn’t, in writing. It was what I inferred from your writing, so pardon me if I have inferred wrongly. How did I come to that conclusion? From your paragraph about the freedom of speech. I did try to steer my point to focus on this, so I apologize if I seem… muddled.
About your point however, you have defined one of the facets of freedom to be “Not being forced to do what we do not want to do”. This is not exactly true, this is more of a definition of “the oppression of freedom”.
If any of us is to stretch the argument and be a little far-fetched however, we can actually say that you not doing NS can actually result in others losing their freedom. We go back to why NS was conceptualized in the first place. By you not doing National Service and hence not gaining the basic military skills to defend the country, when war ultimately comes, because you aren’t able to defend your homes, your loved ones, families, friends will be enslaved to the will of the invaders, losing their freedom in the process. It is far-fetched, I know, but we are discussing about MINDEF’s rationality for NS in the first place.
=======================
“I would say that my definition did not fall short of anything. Its because of my definition of slavery, which I have tried to show as valid and by the way I feel you did not put up a strong counter-argument for,(this is not a personal attack, please understand), that my argument for social cohesion still stands. The “unique” society you mentioned about Singapore, is equally unique around the world. races and cultures distinct from one another? Let’s see. USA, former USSR, China, India, France, Germany and many others. In fact, I think they face a greater challenge than us, for the simple reason that their countries are much bigger, MORE diverse other than just 4 races, and more people. Make sense? Let me put my head on the chopping block, and tell you that the VP’s proposal will never go through, because USA does not have a tradition of that, and they know clearly(Democrats) that conscription is nothing much more than slavery and gross violations of human rights.”
No offense taken.
What I meant about your definition is that by equating National Service to Slavery, you have also dis-regarded it as a social engineering tool. As mentioned by this paragraph:
“National Service can barely justify itself when one uses the argument of national defence since it is nothing more than slavery, much less as a social engineering tool. ”
In your paragraph, my impression is that you have described that a social engineering tool is something used to create a world according to a set of rules and guidelines. This is your definition. You have not however described how slavery does NOT result in social cohesion as described by MINDEF.
About the other countries, yes, they do have much more diverse races than the other. The stark difference between those countries and Singapore remains the same: the different races of those other countries, are at least culturally similar to each other. In China and India, for example, the different ethnic tribes, dialects, etc still follow the same cultural system as the other. In Singapore, our cultures have very little, in common.
Your examples of the other countries however was already mentioned in my point of globalization, hence I say we pretty much agree with each other on that point. The point that I must emphasize about though, was that during the time in which National Service was conceptualized, Singapore had just come out from a period of severe racial tensions, as seen from the Maria Hertogh Riots, and the Prophet Muhammed Riots. Therefore, our leaders have felt that the need for a tool for social cohesion was necessary to provide a united front and create a peaceful society, hence their justification for NS as a social cohesion tool.
=========================
“Come on, we know its pay, we are being PAID for the time (office hours/staying-in) spent in SAF. and work done Its how THEY worded the thing to “justify” them paying lesser, and allowing arguments such as yours come about. You used parents’ allowances. I would say for the vast majority, parents would give allowances if they can afford because you are their child, and not expect you to “serve” them or anything. Same for NS?
Why did I call it a waste? Because I have seen it with my own eyes on how money is spent because it had to be spent or the budget would be reduced next year, and how money could have been better spent in many areas. In fact, start asking yourself why MINDEF needs such a huge budget? what justifies it? National defence?”
Your point on the parents is valid. However, I am still in my belief that the government is giving you an allowance, instead of a pay. My reason? The amount you get is the amount you take home, instead of a percentage being put into your CPF account. You may define it as pay due to the work hours, I would define it as allowance because of this reason.
I think I see what you are trying to drive at in that last statement, and it is one of my little irks of the government, that is, overly paid ministers. But that’s just one man, and I don’t even think that the pay of each minister comes from the ministry’s allocation in the budget. No, I think you are referring to our regulars and officers. And this is something that can only prove their worth, along with whatever expensive pieces of equipment we bought under the budget (my point about the F35 was to exemplify why a good portion of the budget is devoted to MINDEF, because in order to get just a dozen pieces of such equipment would be very, very pricey) in times of a real war.
You may doubt the regulars’ abilities from your experiences, but I can say that from my own experience, I have the confidence and can put my faith in them. This is something that differ from serviceman to serviceman, simply because I agree that middle management in the SAF needs to be severely reviewed.
===========================
“believe me, their time would be more fruitfully spent without NS unless you are arguing that the time spent in NS allows them to gain many intangibles/tangibles or whatsoever that CANNOT be gained anywhere else. Will you be attempting to argue using economics? I will tell you this straight. Using economics to argue NS would just completely fail. Trying googling conscription and economics to know why. Its not about the kind of experience here. Its about the why should the experience even exist, and can this experience be saved and time better spent without NS?
Active duty? sure, makes sense for a army clerk/storeman to waste 1 year plus doing clerical work, and still call it NOT wasting time.”
I wouldn’t dream of using economics (a good reason why I didn’t take it in JC), and am unsure where I have mentioned economics, unless it is pre-empting any future arguments from me?
I do agree that NS is not the only platform for growth, though. What I meant is that because NS is something we cannot choose not to do (well, you can, but you probably won’t be able to step into the country again), it is up to the individual serviceman to make the most of the time that he has. Driving lessons, language lessons, etc etc. These are not something that NS provides (well, mostly, I am aware of courses that MINDEF actually give a discounted price to servicemen), but is more of how a serviceman would be able to use his time.
Hence, my point about individual fortunes. I mentioned that some servicemen might not have the good fortune to be able to go for such lessons, and I empathise.
============================
Yes, indeed you have.
But these blogs that go against the Official Secrets Act… that is indeed interesting. I am pretty sure that MINDEF would value operational security higher than its own pride! Perhaps no one has raised these blogs to them? I must see them to believe them.
September 15, 2009 at 10:11 am
employment oppurtinuties would be gone thanks to NS. foreigners get allthe jobs thanks to reservist. understand?
November 24, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Thank you ‘me’ for answering so accurately. The droning of their standard MIW answer scripts was getting to me and started to rile me up. When will these ’salaried’ personnel of MINDEF and Civil Service get out of their cubicles and get with the reality of the private sector and the people on the ground. The only thing they have on their side is the law that has been imposed by the state on slaves.
November 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm
anyway thanks for your time spent on presenting an alternative view. Appreciate it.
Everyone who reads all these are welcome to make their own view, and refer to MINDEF for any clarifications.
If MINDEF personnel is reading this, you are welcome to defend your organisation or attempt to try anything to counter me or keep me quiet or punish me. I think there is no law that can govern my right to my own opinion. Just like you are entitled to yours, I am equally entitled to mine. thanks =)
November 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm
It can be seen that this article was written with several prejudices in the writer’s mind, hence reducing its credibility somewhat. I would like to take up this challenge, and offer this reply.
1) You are assuming that conscription equates to slavery.
The definition of conscription is simply about drawing on the civilian populace to create a military defense force. However, by your simple definition of:
“In the SAF, higher ranks order lower ranks to carry out their instructions. Any failure to do so could result in a wide-range of punishments, ranging from warnings to detention in SAF Detention Barracks, not unlike the olden days where the owner would flog the slaves. If this is not modern-day slavery, what is?”
You have simply equated conscription with slavery.
To answer your question, this is called discipline. There never was a form of freedom in any army that existed in the world, there has always been a hierachy of ranks and with that, a system in which orders are carried out. To follow the instructions of the superiors, your officers ensures that there will be no disruption in the running of an organization, in this case the army.
Such a system of discipline does not only exist in the army, it exists in society as well. Go to a company, you will have subordinates, peers, superiors and the overall boss. Orders are transmitted from those of a higher rung to a lower one. Refusal to comply with these instructions could result in you getting a reduction in salary, if not being fired from your job. By your definition, are you equating work life as slavery as well?
If you seek a system where everyone is equal, go find a communist state, where there is no ‘higher up’.
I think you need to think again what is slavery. Isn’t FORCEFULLY drawing on any pool of men to do something slavery? regardless of purpose? what if these men refuses to be drawn upon to serve the country or whatever you call it? how is this NOT slavery?
Please do not talk about equality in here. I did not say anything about equality. I quoted the examples of punishment to emphasize my point about slavery, that punishment during conscription itself is very much a feature of slavery. but that should not cloud the judgement on whether the idea of conscription itself is slavery, because the very idea is.
You used work life? Let me tell you this. Work by itself is a CHOICE. You CHOOSE whether you want to work in this company or that company or don’t work or be your own boss. Can you CHOOSE not to serve, other than giving up your citizenship? I don’t think so. Why should YOUR citizenship be equated to national service?By birthright, I am granted this citizenship, and thanks to my nation’s policies, I am “punished” for the simple reason of being born a male in Singapore.
2) There is such a thing called freedom.
This is indeed a bad thing to say, but there is no such thing as complete freedom. Complete freedom is ideally, the ability to do as you wish without facing repercussions from others. however, the contradiction comes from its application. If being completely free, you can choose to ‘enslave’ any person to do your will, but in so doing causing hurt to the other person and also, restricting his freedom. Sounds familiar?
Let’s put this in the perspective of speech. Yes, it’s good to be able to say what you think and what you want. By the same definition as above, you could be saying things that could bring about the hurt of a person or organization. This is the reason why tabloids are heavily criticized, because of the ‘freedom of speech’ they go on to expose the private lives of celebrities, juicy little nuggets of gossip for the hungry public. Why not? Freedom of speech!
The ideal form of freedom is restricted. The ability to do whatever you wish, within a certain set of guidelines.
Firstly, I couldn’t find any sentence of mine saying “there is such a thing called freedom” Since I did not say that, I shall not respond to your comments on this..
But let me say that basic freedom includes not being enslaved or forced to do things that we don’t want to(if it does not hurt anyone else). I don’t see how me NOT doing NS would infringe on the freedom of anyone else, or anyone/everyone NOT doing NS for that matter. So I guess your point is moot?
3) Your paragraph on social cohesion already falls short because of your view on slavery. However, I shall answer this:
“Another question: By using “building social cohesion” as a reason, are they saying countries that do not have National Service have divisive and fragmented societies, that will disintegrate in the face of trouble?”
Other countries do not have the same society as we do. Simply put, Singapore is a ‘unique’ society in the sense that we are made up of a variety of cultures and races that are distinct and different from each other. Most other countries do not have this feature, although thanks to globalization, this is becoming increasingly untrue.
Not to mention that the United States are already considering National Service for their youths. Their reason? Social engineering. They want their youths to do more and serve the country, and part of the plans include 100 hrs of compulsory community service per year. If the Vice-President has his way, it could also mean 3 months of compulsory military training.
I would say that my definition did not fall short of anything. Its because of my definition of slavery, which I have tried to show as valid and by the way I feel you did not put up a strong counter-argument for,(this is not a personal attack, please understand), that my argument for social cohesion still stands. The “unique” society you mentioned about Singapore, is equally unique around the world. races and cultures distinct from one another? Let’s see. USA, former USSR, China, India, France, Germany and many others. In fact, I think they face a greater challenge than us, for the simple reason that their countries are much bigger, MORE diverse other than just 4 races, and more people. Make sense? Let me put my head on the chopping block, and tell you that the VP’s proposal will never go through, because USA does not have a tradition of that, and they know clearly(Democrats) that conscription is nothing much more than slavery and gross violations of human rights.
4) National Budget devoted to defense is a waste.
Military equipment is expensive. An F-35 fighter jet for example, will cost US$200 million a piece, and that’s price being offered to Israel. You might think that getting the latest in technology is a huge waste, but the truth of the matter is that we cannot truly judge that. The only way that the government can prove that their money is well spent is to actually try them out in a war. The closest we can get are in military exercises, and those are easily countered by critics as mere ’shows’ and ‘wayanging’.
Until a real war comes, I do not believe that we can truly judge if the money spent on defense is well spent or not.
About the point of pay, the problem comes with the wording. It’s not a pay, not a salary. Its an allowance, no different from the amount of money that your parents give to you every month when you are still schooling. Do you complain when your parents give you less than $400 per month?
Come on, we know its pay, we are being PAID for the time (office hours/staying-in) spent in SAF. and work done Its how THEY worded the thing to “justify” them paying lesser, and allowing arguments such as yours come about. You used parents’ allowances. I would say for the vast majority, parents would give allowances if they can afford because you are their child, and not expect you to “serve” them or anything. Same for NS?
Why did I call it a waste? Because I have seen it with my own eyes on how money is spent because it had to be spent or the budget would be reduced next year, and how money could have been better spent in many areas. In fact, start asking yourself why MINDEF needs such a huge budget? what justifies it? National defence?
5) Time spent in NS is a waste.
I believe this is subjective, and heavily based on one’s experience in National Service. I hear different stories and accounts from different people, different experiences and different ways servicemen spend to serve their time. I have heard stories of servicemen able to get their driving license and part-time diplomas during their service time, and I have also heard stories of stay-in personnel who have absolutely no time for anything at all, even on the weekends.
It would depend on one’s fortunes on whether or not he would be able to have a fruitful experience during his National Service. Hence, in order to argue this we need to consider everyone’s experiences.
By the way…
” It takes 10 weeks to complete a US marine course, but it takes 2 years to train a Full-time National Serviceman to be a clerk, storeman, rifleman, armourer etc. ”
You should know this is a shortsighted statement. It takes much lesser for a Fulltime National Serviceman to learn what he needs for his vocation, the rest of the time is simply active duty until his ORD date. An officer for example, would spend close to a year to graduate from OCS before being relegated to duties till the end of his active duty stage.
believe me, their time would be more fruitfully spent without NS unless you are arguing that the time spent in NS allows them to gain many intangibles/tangibles or whatsoever that CANNOT be gained anywhere else. Will you be attempting to argue using economics? I will tell you this straight. Using economics to argue NS would just completely fail. Trying googling conscription and economics to know why. Its not about the kind of experience here. Its about the why should the experience even exist, and can this experience be saved and time better spent without NS?
Active duty? sure, makes sense for a army clerk/storeman to waste 1 year plus doing clerical work, and still call it NOT wasting time.
In conclusion, I think i have defined conscription, slavery and freedom very clearly actually. Please try to convince me otherwise.
As for your comment to Sylvester, I think I will help him make it clearer. He means “blogs that praise the SAF BUT reveal sensitive information such as units or unit’ activities thereby violating the Secrecy Act” goes untouched. I would expect them to clamp down harder on such blogs. Unfortunately, those idiots at MINDEF think otherwise, because its positive publicity. I am sure MINDEF or heck our government agencies love positive spins, no matter how hollow or how much violations there are.
November 24, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In response to Sylvester Lim:
“In contrast, blogs that praise the SAF were left untouch according to one of these bloggers.”
I am curious, what would you expect to happen to such blogs?
November 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm
It can be seen that this article was written with several prejudices in the writer’s mind, hence reducing its credibility somewhat. I would like to take up this challenge, and offer this reply.
1) You are assuming that conscription equates to slavery.
The definition of conscription is simply about drawing on the civilian populace to create a military defense force. However, by your simple definition of:
“In the SAF, higher ranks order lower ranks to carry out their instructions. Any failure to do so could result in a wide-range of punishments, ranging from warnings to detention in SAF Detention Barracks, not unlike the olden days where the owner would flog the slaves. If this is not modern-day slavery, what is?”
You have simply equated conscription with slavery.
To answer your question, this is called discipline. There never was a form of freedom in any army that existed in the world, there has always been a hierachy of ranks and with that, a system in which orders are carried out. To follow the instructions of the superiors, your officers ensures that there will be no disruption in the running of an organization, in this case the army.
Such a system of discipline does not only exist in the army, it exists in society as well. Go to a company, you will have subordinates, peers, superiors and the overall boss. Orders are transmitted from those of a higher rung to a lower one. Refusal to comply with these instructions could result in you getting a reduction in salary, if not being fired from your job. By your definition, are you equating work life as slavery as well?
If you seek a system where everyone is equal, go find a communist state, where there is no ‘higher up’.
2) There is such a thing called freedom.
This is indeed a bad thing to say, but there is no such thing as complete freedom. Complete freedom is ideally, the ability to do as you wish without facing repercussions from others. however, the contradiction comes from its application. If being completely free, you can choose to ‘enslave’ any person to do your will, but in so doing causing hurt to the other person and also, restricting his freedom. Sounds familiar?
Let’s put this in the perspective of speech. Yes, it’s good to be able to say what you think and what you want. By the same definition as above, you could be saying things that could bring about the hurt of a person or organization. This is the reason why tabloids are heavily criticized, because of the ‘freedom of speech’ they go on to expose the private lives of celebrities, juicy little nuggets of gossip for the hungry public. Why not? Freedom of speech!
The ideal form of freedom is restricted. The ability to do whatever you wish, within a certain set of guidelines.
3) Your paragraph on social cohesion already falls short because of your view on slavery. However, I shall answer this:
“Another question: By using “building social cohesion” as a reason, are they saying countries that do not have National Service have divisive and fragmented societies, that will disintegrate in the face of trouble?”
Other countries do not have the same society as we do. Simply put, Singapore is a ‘unique’ society in the sense that we are made up of a variety of cultures and races that are distinct and different from each other. Most other countries do not have this feature, although thanks to globalization, this is becoming increasingly untrue.
Not to mention that the United States are already considering National Service for their youths. Their reason? Social engineering. They want their youths to do more and serve the country, and part of the plans include 100 hrs of compulsory community service per year. If the Vice-President has his way, it could also mean 3 months of compulsory military training.
4) National Budget devoted to defense is a waste.
Military equipment is expensive. An F-35 fighter jet for example, will cost US$200 million a piece, and that’s price being offered to Israel. You might think that getting the latest in technology is a huge waste, but the truth of the matter is that we cannot truly judge that. The only way that the government can prove that their money is well spent is to actually try them out in a war. The closest we can get are in military exercises, and those are easily countered by critics as mere ’shows’ and ‘wayanging’.
Until a real war comes, I do not believe that we can truly judge if the money spent on defense is well spent or not.
About the point of pay, the problem comes with the wording. It’s not a pay, not a salary. Its an allowance, no different from the amount of money that your parents give to you every month when you are still schooling. Do you complain when your parents give you less than $400 per month?
5) Time spent in NS is a waste.
I believe this is subjective, and heavily based on one’s experience in National Service. I hear different stories and accounts from different people, different experiences and different ways servicemen spend to serve their time. I have heard stories of servicemen able to get their driving license and part-time diplomas during their service time, and I have also heard stories of stay-in personnel who have absolutely no time for anything at all, even on the weekends.
It would depend on one’s fortunes on whether or not he would be able to have a fruitful experience during his National Service. Hence, in order to argue this we need to consider everyone’s experiences.
By the way…
” It takes 10 weeks to complete a US marine course, but it takes 2 years to train a Full-time National Serviceman to be a clerk, storeman, rifleman, armourer etc. ”
You should know this is a shortsighted statement. It takes much lesser for a Fulltime National Serviceman to learn what he needs for his vocation, the rest of the time is simply active duty until his ORD date. An officer for example, would spend close to a year to graduate from OCS before being relegated to duties till the end of his active duty stage.
6) NS is unfair.
I have to agree with your stand on this. I do not like the idea of foreigners coming in and not suffering the disadvantages of Singaporean males. Clear examples can be seen from the recent PRC Scholar fiasco at Anderson JC.
I would believe that our viewpoints on certain matters, for example the definition of slavery, conscription and freedom, would no doubt force us to conflict with each other as there is no one true definition for the above terms. What I am trying to do, is to provide an alternative perspective on this issue altogether.
November 23, 2008 at 12:17 am
It really is a small world on the internet. I’m glad that you are back in full form and you have not lost your vigour and wit. Singapore needs young and vibrant people like you to turn it around under the hands of the narrow minded and gutless MIWs.
November 21, 2008 at 10:16 pm
sylvester, you and I communicate via email. =) I think you know whose the owner of this blog now..=)
and yes, NS has been used to neuter our men, to teach our men what it means to be submissive, to bow down to authority, to not question anything and just listen, in the name of patriotism and duty.
November 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm
On the subject of Article 19, I know of two NS bloggers who have been charged for blogging about their NS and their frustration with the SAF. No security breaches or pictures. Mindef is unable to handle critisim from NSmen as it affects their rice bowl. So, using what they know best to deal these bloggers, charge them. One of them was fined while another, 1 week DB. In contrast, blogs that praise the SAF were left untouch according to one of these bloggers.
Does this also mean that when you are a civilian, you still cannot blog about it? Have we carried the ‘Climate of Fear’ a little too far? So shit is still happening in the SAF because no one talks about it even when they are out of NS?
November 20, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Great article and arguments. For those who need to serve NS to be a man, by all means, knock yourself out. As you mentioned in your article, does this mean that most First World countries that do not have conscription, are the males less of man? Social engineering, yes, unfortunately, NS has been used to nueter our men.
November 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm
you should have seen the ridiculous attempts last time by some MINDEF spokeswoman trying to justify national service against the right to vote. completely laughable. and pathetic.
this is an official challenge to anyone who wish to debunk or break down my arguments or propose any counter-arguments to do it in open space.
IF anyone wishes to highlight this to MINDEF, GO AHEAD.
November 16, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Someone brought up on my website (http://mathialee.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/how-is-life-valued-in-court/#comment-33)
The .. point is Vote, ironically enough….. those guys who can’t even see an RA movie, CAN be “voted” to die in war (via mandatory military service or enlistment) by a government that they didn’t even have a chance to choose, and without even having to agree for the cause that they’ll die for….