Eddie Choo
Why? Because in NS, it really goes like this: I pretend to be a soldier, and you pretend to treat me like a soldier. NS has become so ritualised that serving the nation has lost its meaning.
When something becomes a ritual, it loses its meaning, and whatever passion there was is lost, and what you get are the tired faces and the bad-ass attitudes that are commonplace among the guys serving.
Unless and until the question of purpose and service can be answered, Singaporean men (and some women) will find themselves losing passion for the country they’ve been asked to serve, longing for greener pastures always.
I don’t exactly know where this story should start. Should I start when I left the camp gate for good on the day I officially achieved Operationally-Ready Date (ORD) status? Or should I start when I began school and my first National Education (NE) lesson?
I guess the only way to truly begin this narrative/commentary is at the hospital, where mothers give birth to their baby boys. The moment a baby boy is born and registered, a chain of paperwork is created for him, culminating in him receiving the conscription letter at 18 and donning the camouflaged green uniform, serving out his time on an offshore island roughly northeast off the coast of Singapore.
Of course, all this is provided the baby boy is and remains young and healthy right up to the time he enlists to become a citizen soldier for the Republic of Singapore – a soldier who swears that he will protect the President and the Constitution of our Republic.
Why National Service?
I mean, any decent Sec 3 student will be able to tell you why Singapore needs National Service (NS). He would need to know that, because it is examinable and part of the Social Studies syllabus. If not, it’s likely he would know anyway, because he’d have been told the reason for it enough times in NE – National Education – lessons that he would be able to answer just as well.
Well, we all know how the story begins. Once upon a time, a prince from some Indonesian kingdom chanced upon a piece of rock, encountered a beast he called “Singa”, and promptly called it Singapura. Fast-forward a few centuries, and a British fella came along, bought this place on behalf of the British East India Company (yes, the very same from Pirates of the Caribbean, no Johnny Depp here, sorry), called this place a colony and set up shop here, for the next one hundred years or so.
Then the British abandoned us (sort of, despite investing in defences as well), and the country’s people suffered under the Japanese Occupation. After the Japanese surrendered, the Brits came back, but didn’t stay for long. Then, for a brief moment, we joined Malaysia; but just as quickly as we came together, we parted. Absorbing the lessons from our history, the leaders then decided that to defend ourselves effectively, we had to have our own military, and since we didn’t have the numbers for a full-time army, we learned from the Israelis, and created a soldier out of every able-bodied man.
A sacrifice of 2 – 3 years of each man’s life, spent in training to be a soldier. Then we release them and let them contribute to the economy as workers, recalling them when we need to.
This is the whole scheme known as National Service.
With such good intentions, how come NS didn’t make me patriotic?
Why, because in NS, it really goes like this: I pretend to be a soldier, and you pretend to treat me like a soldier. NS has become so ritualised that serving the nation has lost its meaning. It’s one thing to have parades every 3 months, but having it every other week is senseless. When something becomes a ritual, it loses its meaning, and whatever passion there was is lost, and what you get are the tired faces and the bad-ass attitudes that are commonplace among the guys serving.
I am not questioning the commitment of military regulars – I merely wish to highlight that sometimes, inevitably, even they might get drawn into this attitude of going through the motions. This is not an issue of complacency or throwing caution to the wind. This is about the nature of military work. Yes, a soldier should behave professionally, but professionalism is hard to come by when being a soldier is a really. boring. job. Just watch Jarhead. Yes, we would all like to be the heroes in Blackhawk Down, but unfortunately, military life is more Jarhead than anything that exciting. And then sometimes you encounter the military professionals who serve in the military not out of a sense of duty or patriotism, but for the need of money.
What exactly are we defending?
Sure, we are all here to ‘defend the nation’, but then, ever so often, the question comes to mind: what exactly are we defending? I don’t think anyone has ever sufficiently answered that question. Sure, we say we are “protecting our way of life” and “keeping our families safe”, but at the core of it, what are we really doing? I mean, if war comes, I think most people would have already sent their families away on any available flight to anywhere. Other families would be safe overseas, and might even have had the time to transfer their assets overseas to begin anew. So, with our families safe, would there be anything left to defend?
Would we be left to defend those who couldn’t manage to buy the tickets in time? Does that mean that the rich would have had priority in getting out? If only the rich get to survive, then would we still be committed to this nation’s defence? If there was a threat of mass military desertion, would the state actually hold our families hostage to force us to stay here and fight? Of course, if it comes to that, we would take up arms, but with a heavy heart. Even if we won the war, we’d have lost any loyalty and love for this country, and it wouldn’t be worth staying here at all.
For me, I would rather be a second-class citizen elsewhere than be treated like collateral here. But of course, this is only a hypothetical scenario – a gedanken (“thought”) experiment. Whether such a scenario plays out remains to be seen.
What other options are there? Are we defending our multi-racial society? That might actually be something worth defending. But then again, around the world, there are so many cosmopolitan global cities which are melting pots of various ethnicities., where an industrious and innovative Singaporean would be welcomed. Of course, these other places might never be as efficient and effective as Singapore, but if we could live reasonably well, why not? So why, then, would any Singaporean stay to defend our unique, multi-racial way of life?
A question of purpose and service
So let’s consider the question again. What is it about Singapore that we are actually defending? If the values that we are defending are not unique to Singapore, then what is left? A happy island, by virtue of geography and geology?
As it is, the importance of NS is inscribed into nearly every Singaporean’s heart – from National Education in school to the hard, physical tests at Pulau Tekong. It isn’t as if NS is pointless – we still need to guard against conventional military threats or terrorists – but security alone can’t be the be-all and end-all of National Service.
Because at its core, National Service is about defending what is dear to us, and from there, deriving meaning and passion to the things that we do when we fulfil our NS duties. But if NS brings boredom and disillusionment, then the hearts of Singaporeans will be drawn elsewhere, and the hearts of those that stay will be conflicted over whether this nation deserves their defence.
Unless and until the question of purpose and service can be answered, Singaporean men (and some women) will find themselves losing passion for the country they’ve been asked to serve, longing for greener pastures always.
About the author:
Eddie Choo, 20, served as a Field Engineer Pioneer during his National Service. He is waiting to study Chemistry at NUS.
———–
@Weijia on May 30th, 2008 9.50 am
“not sure if you watched the movie, but that wasnt the real GWB talking but a popular imitator. I doubt GWB really said that. but regardless of the source, i think he had a point that we can mull over.”
I did not quote that; i was merely answering to you when you cited the quote, clearly you wouldn’t deny that that the concept of “loyal opposition” is clearly absent here, right? What we want is inclusive nationhood where differences in political beliefs does not matter as long as you are loyal to the nation. However, with Hougang and Potong Pasir being denied upgrading and other public goods and wards being warned of turning into slums should they vote non-PAP candidates, i am not sure if this undermines a sense of inclusive nationhood among the people. As Chiam See Tong says, “People in Potong Pasir serve NS too.”
Singapore should learn from first world countries and stay revelant to the changing world condition. Countries such as Netherlands stop NS in 1996, Germany NS – 10 months & literally no reservist training. Do you guys know of other first world countries that have NS and period?
Daniel, your last post seems to indicate that you are in agreement with me that a country is more than the government, yes?
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that Singapore is more than a political party or government. That’s essentially a non-issue.
The more important issue at hand is: With the kind of configuration of party-state relationship here, does it undermine a sense of belonging and national identification?
As LKY has said in the aftermath of the 2006 elections, “Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don’t understand this.”
And he also said, “Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”
To his first quote, what’s your take on your sense of belonging?
To his second quote, i would like to know what you would do if you happen to be in the barracks during re-service.
I was frustrated with my NS experience (guards) but thankfully I managed to skip my reservist liabilites since I have been living out of the country for the past 10 years. :)
I gave up 2.5 years of my life and I don’t intend to give even a second more to those morons!
If I must be frank, i find parts of this article quite elitist. Especially ” if war comes, I think most people would have already sent their families away on any available flight to anywhere. Other families would be safe overseas, and might even have had the time to transfer their assets overseas to begin anew.” This assumption that most of us enjoy the kind of trans-border mobility that the writer presumably does is simply not true. Most of the people here are tied to this country for better or for worse, and have no choice but to stay. Globalisation has not seeped in that deep yet. That is what most people, even those who profess not to be patriotic, will defend.
I hated my NS, and found the whole concept of being part of a mass killing machine repugnant. But I think the writer would be surprised if the SAF were to be put to the test in real combat. Just because most soldiers hate having 2 years taken away and probably do not see anything unique or special about their country, it does not necessarily follow that they will not grit their teeth and fight.
This is because of how an army fundamentally works. When soldiers are in the trenches under fire, their thoughts are not with their flag or their politicians’ rhetoric, but simply with the fucker beside them and of the espirit de corp with their immediate comrades. That is how all but the most ideological of armies fight, and I reckon as long as the conditions are not too abysmal in the SAF, it will still retain its battle-worthiness.
Besides, most people will probably just stay and do what they are told because that’s human nature. Like my friend once told me when I asked him why he was willing to put up with the shit his superiors in the army pile on him, “Boh bian, understand?”
@ Anonymous on May 30th, 2008 2.27 pm
please bear with me while i try to understand your point; I take it that your trying to differentiate between US and Spore to show that the statement isn’t true? Yes i do agree with you on that, but don’t you think that this difference is because of the government and not because of the country? I think the reason why “Political opponents are portrayed as traitors, saboteurs, foreign stooges” is because of the stance taken by our government. hence my statement that we can believe in the country and not the government.
i think you’ve shifted issues, but i’ll answer you directly.
my sense of belonging?
well that’s a very.. complex question, but yes i believe the party state configuration undermine the cultivation of a sense of belonging and national identity. treat us like sheeps and we’ll have the loyalty of sheeps ; when the wolves come we’ll scatter. having said that yes i do feel a sense of belonging. i’d like to think that i’m more than a sheep ;) If i don’t I wouldn give two flying phucks about the future of this country.
and for my response?
it really depends on the circumstances, but i trust myself to make the right decision, even if it means defying direct orders.
how about you? or anyone else reading this for that matter. You really think we can leave the defence of this country to merceneries?
@Weijia on May 30th, 2008 3.10 pm
I think we share somewhat similar opinion on this issue about NS and national identity. What is different, however, is that while i am mainly concern with what is going on here, your concern seems to be more normative i.e. what should things be, what we should be. I think you have the valid point on”we can believe in the country and not the government.”
Nevertheless, i am more concerned with what hinders us from being able to have a sense of belonging beyond partisanship. Given the way i observed Singaporeans’ attitude, though i may be mistaken, most of them remain as sheeps. Sometimes, i would think what will happen to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Aung San Suu Kyi etc if they were Singaporeans. My intuition tells me that most Singaporeans will not cheer them on, but jeer them with remarks like “Siao”, “Stomach full nothing better to do” etc. Those who were not sheeps ended up being ridiculed by the sheeps, will you be optimistic about the nation’s future?
Look, i am not saying that NS is needed and we should leave our defence to the mercenaries. My main concern is that with the big party-state special relationship as such a formidable obstacle in forging a truly inclusive nationhood, what are its implications for the morale of those who serve?
As you declaring your will of doing the right thing, i will salute you for that. But we are human beings after all, so have you heard of the Milgram Experiment? I admire your courage and will not doubt your sincerity but under group pressure, is it really that easy to make a decision?
This quote really sums up the dilemma of nationhood in this country quite well:
“If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it.” – Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. As a NS man, what’s your take on this?
NS is a “necessary evil”. There is no real need to question it . – These were my own thoughts some time ago.
The young man’s Eddie Choo’s posting got me thinking; still I am somewhat happy with my own feelings.
In a war involving Singapore, the armed forces will be in the front line taking bullets, and I guess reservists will be thrown into battles too.
FTs, PRs and some rich people can take the next flight out – and that is their freedom to do so. They make money here, they can also take the money out with them.
I only have one lingering and sad thought which can transcend to a plea – do treat your own people well; do not make them feel second class in their own country vis a vis the continuous hype to attract foreigners here.
The only reason I decided to stay on – is because I know that I will be treated second class elsewhere in any of the western countries who have thousands working and staying here.
Singapore is our home – show the love and help when needed ; learn from China – the aftermath of the disatrous earthquakes is a good example.
@on May 30th, 2008 3.08 pm
“Most of the people here are tied to this country for better or for worse, and have no choice but to stay.” , “Besides, most people will probably just stay and do what they are told because that’s human nature.”, “Boh bian, understand?”
If the fighting men in the military fight because of “no choice”, “boh bian” and “do what they are told” and not because of the higher, worthy national cause, then we may face defeat Waterloo style and become POWs. That was one of the reason why a superpower like the US or even the USSR lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan respectively. A US serviceman didn’t know what he was fighting for in Vietnam when a Red Army marched into Afghanistan only because he was told to do so. Both lost despite overwhelming firepower, why? Because the two wars lacked a genuine sense of national purpose in the first place. Ultimately, one may lost not because of lack of manpower or military hardware but the one deadly phrase in the mentality of the fighting men: Boh Bian .
This is because of how an army fundamentally works. When soldiers are in the trenches under fire, their thoughts are not with their flag or their politicians’ rhetoric, but simply with the fucker beside them and of the espirit de corp with their immediate comrades. That is how all but the most ideological of armies fight, and I reckon as long as the conditions are not too abysmal in the SAF, it will still retain its battle-worthiness.
The logic here looks sound but it doesn’t address the problem here. When US soldiers did not know their sense of purpose in their mission as in Vietnam, what they are fighting for, the brutality of war slowly start to wear them down mentally. True, in battle, you only care about keeping yourself alive by killing the enemy in front first but what decides victory in the end? The US soldiers were so brutalized and war-weary (because they didn’t know what the hell they were doing in Vietnam for) that they started running amok and killing innocent civilians in the My Lai massacre. Over 200 years ago, the zealous conscripted citizen army of France triumphed over the professional soldiers of the First Coalition because they had a stronger sense of purpose with the idea of defending “Liberty, equality, fraternity”. As history has shown, a military battle is more often than not a battle of wills between the belligerents.
NS is a must! All males should do NS! Whether you are patriotic or not, just blame yourself for being born here.
I would suggest that all NSmen be paid a much higher salary and better benefits. Unfortunately our gahmen thinks that you should give your life and service to the nation and ask of very little from her. This thinking is very wrong. We give our life and service to the country but at least a decent pay should be given as a reward for good service rendered.
If the Gurkas who is non-singaporean paid very well risk their life for our country. Why cant our NSmen who are singaporeans risk their life too are paid well?
Gurkas have loyalty as long as you keep paying them their good salary. Why not pay them with NSmen’s pay and see if they still willing to work afterall our money still bigger than NEPAL currency rite? They should be able to feed their mouths in NEPAL.
NSmen also have family to feed in Singapore so why is there a difference? Gurkas are more loyal than NSmen(Singaporean)? Says who? Who is the final judge? Fighting the Japanese in WW2 not only the gurkas, average singaporeans risk their lifes too. Many get executed by the Japanese are none other than singaporean chinese, malay and indians. They too shed their loyal blood for the country.
I hope the gahmen treat all NSmen with pride and not second class to a Gurkas Regimental Soldier even when their kind carelessly let a TOP JI LEADER ESCAPED FROM the TOILET. REALLY AMAZING!!
FG
“our last post seems to indicate that you are in agreement with me that a country is more than the government, yes?”
Yes, a country is more than the government but the government here is acting as though the government is more than a country, dictating every aspect of a country.
The people, environment and the leadership, culture have been moulded into the likeness of PAP. Don’t you think so ? Fear of speaking, Fear of been wrong, fear of failure etc…
The fact that people still fear the government of retaliation show very much that the government is more than country than the other way round.
Don’t you agree ? So what happen to speaker’s corner ? How come no one speak there but in here ?
@ anon,
having read your posts i think i agree fully with you. we need to have a sense of belonging to this country if we are to achieve anything, whether in war or in peace time, we need to be more than sheeps. as to how we can do it… i think TOC is a good start. and all of use as readers need to help spread the word, to offer alternate view points. raise awareness. make people think.
yupp i’ve heard of the milgram experiment.. and yeah i’m aware of the dangers and potency of peer pressure. i can’t promise anything! like i said, i can only trust (and hope!) myself to do what is right. hopefully that’s a good starting point. hopefully we’ll never have to come to that.
anyway i think we can agree there’s something wrong with the country and the people, and i think we can trace this problem to the fear of opposition that our government have. so the question now is how to solve that. and i think first we need to stop being treated like sheeps. first thing to do is to start speaking up ourself!
@Anonymous on May 30th, 2008 7.43 pm
Vietnam, Afghanistan and the French Revolutionary wars are not appropriate counter-examples bro. You must take into account the kind of war that is being fought.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are political rather then military defeats. All they showed was that in modern warfare no army, no matter how powerful, can occupy countries indefinitely if the citizens of the occupied countries resist through asymmetric guerrilla warfare. The US army retained its battle-worthiness til the bitter end. My Lai simply showed that an army of occupation must needs commit atrocities to perpetuate its rule, not a break-down in army discipline. In Afghanistan the USSR withdrew because Gorbachev needed to cut costs to initiate perestroika. The Soviet army likewise retained its battle-worthiness. Even if they have lost their ideological edge.
Counter-example: The IDF likewise were forced to withdraw from Lebanon 2 times in the face of determined guerrilla warfare. You can’t find a more ideologically-driven army then the IDF. But even they cannot occupy indefinitely. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
And I would attribute the successes of the French Revolutionary armies to the levie en mass which gave France the largest army in the continent and the military reforms instituted by Guibert during the time of the ancien regime which gave France the most modern army in Europe. The only battle I can think of won purely through ideological zeal was the battle of Valmy. otherwise it was French might rather then ideals that gave it its victory. The armies of the Empire were certainly superior to the armies of the Republic and they didn’t have liberty equality and fraternity to fight for. If you read the letters and memoirs of the soldiers of that period, their concern was ultimately staying alive and not letting their comrades down.
And the French revolutionary armies committed virtual genocide in the Vendee too, much worse then My Lai, does that mean they lacked ideological unity?
Most importantly, the SAF is not made for a war of occupation. Under such circumstances it will inevitably lose. It is built on the IDF dictum of aiming to achieve swift decisive victories through training. Most armies are products of coercion, not ideology. Always have been, always will be. It is how well-trained and well looked-after the soldiers are that determines its battle-worthiness. Not whether its soldiers can sing the national anthem with pride.
God I hate the army.
The truth of the matter is male Singaporeans have a big liability that permanent residents don’t and that’s full time national service and reservist thereafter.
All the talk about the defence of our nation is rubbish. Our proud boasts of having the most high tech toys and state of the art equipment got shoved up our behinds when we showed to the world we couldn’t keep a crippled 40 something “terrorist” behind bars. Even more shameful is how our great deputy prime minister goes on about how our “intelligence” confirms that this crippled “terrorist” is still in Singapore and our great defence forces are still unable to locate him on this tiny island after 100 days of searching. So what if we have F16s and other state of the art equipment? A few years ago, we had a very nice expensive gunboat get run over by a commercial tanker. And we had the “state of the art” radar on that ship.
We have a bunch of generals, the majority of whom enlisted in the armed forces because they were academically good performers but wouldn’t know a thing about real leadership other than what they’ve read in their text books. And after a few years of nice postings about the armed forces, these generals get pushed on to cushy jobs in GLCs or the civil service. Does anyone really think they connect with the real national serviceman? They’re just like our ministers, totally disconnected from the real people.
National service was never meant to make us males more patriotic. It was initially to show to the potentially hostile forces around our part of the world that we’re able to bite back if provoked. Unfortunately, like a lot of the PAP policies, the whole well intended idea got lost along the way.
During the past 10 years, Singapore has aspired to be a global city and has welcomed foreign talents and foreign workers. These people compete with our Singaporeans for jobs. Our Singaporean males will be placed at a disadvantage, due to national service.
I suggest the following:
> Pay our national serviceman a higher allowance, similar to the pay that they can get from a full time job.
> In fact, they should be paid more, as their soldering experience may not be relevant to their future employment.
> Reduce the full time national service period to 18 months (which is probably sufficient to train a soldier). I understand that in Switzerland, it takes only 9 months for training.
JK,
Scholars GENERALS are another issue in SAF/MHA. Are they worth the salt? Many make mistakes but do they get sacked? Those that got sacked are the farmers. Elite are always one step above the law than the commons. That ‘s becoming a reality.
FG
@Robs on May 31st, 2008 3.33 am
When i used Vietnam, Afghanistan and the French Revolutionary wars as examples, it is to show that even the best armed forces in the world would fail because of a lack of national purpose and cause.
“Vietnam and Afghanistan are political rather then military defeats.
I don’t know about your stand on these wars but this is a clichéd argument used by those who argued that the US would have won if it has chosen to hang on for a while longer. You can argue that the US Army maintained its battle-worthiness right till the end (after all they had carried out the longest and largest bombing campaign ever in history from the 1960s-1972) using tonnes of napalm, cluster bombs and Agent Orange. But those are only “hard” factors and tangible strengths. An army can look very impressive on paper, but on the battlefield, it’s mostly, if not always the “soft” factors such as morale and sense of purpose (e.g. what the hell are we fighting for? defending a way of life perhaps?) that largely determines the outcome. As Ho Chi Minh had summed it up quite succinctly way back in 1946, “You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.” He was confident because he knew that the Vietnamese were willingly to suffer heavy losses for Vietnam (nationalism) but will the French and the Americans be able to do the same for the vague aims of colonialism and anti-communism? This also happened in Afghanistan: young Soviet conscripts being packed to a hostile land under Kremlin orders versus fervently religious mujahideen from all over the Muslim world. Who will triumph in the long run? You think even if Gorbachev had not retreat, the USSR would still stand a chance with such a huge lack of purpose in the war?
The atrocities at My Lai showed that what happened when an army is made up of disgruntled, unmotivated fighting men, who were drafted to fight for all sorts of reasons except for national pride. William Calley, the main culprit of the massacre, enlisted into the US Army as a young and unemployed man and was rushed through officer training course as a new recruit. More often than not, it was the rich who managed to dodge the draft or avoid being posted to Vietnam. George W Bush was a classic example. (served as Texan National Air Guard) SO where was the national purpose? It was America’s most divisive war ever.
A counter-example to your case against the role of ideology is that of the Japanese Imperial Army. Sure, they were the aggressors and foreign occupiers. Not that i endorsed it, but their willingness to die for the Japanese Emperor and their samurai spirit was a decisive factor as to why they triumphed in the Asia-Pacific theatre at least until the turning points in 1942. Even as they were on the verge of defeat, the Japanese carried out devastating Kamikaze attacks on Allied vessels closing in on Japan. It was also one of the decision why Truman decided to use the atomic bombs (though the USSR was one of the factor).
“And I would attribute the successes of the French Revolutionary armies to the levie en mass which gave France the largest army in the continent and the military reforms instituted by Guibert during the time of the ancien regime which gave France the most modern army in Europe. The only battle I can think of won purely through ideological zeal was the battle of Valmy. otherwise it was French might rather then ideals that gave it its victory. The armies of the Empire were certainly superior to the armies of the Republic and they didn’t have liberty equality and fraternity to fight for. If you read the letters and memoirs of the soldiers of that period, their concern was ultimately staying alive and not letting their comrades down.”
I am afraid i have to disagree with that. Modern conscription came about during the French Revolution (not during the ancien regime period), which gave a France in domestic chaos to defend itself from the professional armies of European monarchies such Austria. This conscripted army later formed the backbone of Napoleon’s Grand Army which battered other professional armies in many battles.
The IDF is indeed made up of committed men because they have the Jewish state to defend, having suffered the Holocaust and thousands of years of anti-Semitic persecution. Zionism is a strong motivation factor and reinforced the Jewish state’s will to survive despite all odds (won despite svereal collective Arab attacks from 1956 onwards). Even then, when they faced on an equally strong-willed Hizbollah consists of fervently religious fighters, even such a motivated force failed to subdue the Hizbollah (note that they did not attempt to occupy parts of Lebanon this time). What then makes you think that an group of fighting men who may fight because of “no choice”, “Boh Bian” or “just do what they were told” can do any better than the Israelis on the battlefield?
@Anonymous on May 31st, 2008 12.54 pm
I do not like to hurl accusations but you’re being very selective in what you choose to rebutt here.
For Vietnam and Afghanistan, please note that I am against both invasions and occupations. I’m a virulent anti-imperialist and I am glad both powers withdrew (though the USA’s abandonment of Afghanistan after they’ve manipulated the locals was pretty low). But that does not disguise the fact the defeats were political rather then military defeats. Both armies were too advanced and well-trained to be truly defeated on the field of battle. You have not disputed that.
You have ignored two main points that i raised so let me just reiterate them briefly.
1) Vietnam, Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon War 1 and 2 (btw, Arab states did not invade it in 1956. I think you’ll find that it was Israel who invaded Egypt in collaboration with France and Britain) simply proved that “in modern warfare no army, no matter how powerful, can occupy countries indefinitely if the citizens of the occupied countries resist through asymmetric guerrilla warfare.” Eventually the citizenry of the imperial power will get tired of the black hole they’re being sucked into and demand withdrawal. This is the case regardless of how ideologically determined the occupying army is. The French in Algeria were determined to protect the way of life of the Pied Noir in Algeria but was also unable to outlast the guerrilla tactics of the FLN.
2) And this is the most important point that you ignored. The SAF is not built for occupation, but for swift decisive victories. Singapore’s size and prevailing political needs dictates that. In wars of annihilation rather then occupation, the importance of training, technology and battle-worthiness far surpasses that of ideological zeal. Even if its soldiers are only fighting because of all the factors I listed, it can still fight effectively as long as it does not seek to occupy another land.
About the French Revolutionary wars: Agreed that the Levie En Mass was instituted during the terror. That is precisely my point. The hard power and numerical advantage French achieved was THE decisive factor in its ability to fight in 3-4 different theatres of war at once. The reforms of Guibert, however, WERE instituted during the ancien regime which gave the French the most modern army in Europe. These two factors, moreso then ideological zeal, were the decisive factors. Only the battle of Valmy was won through ideological zeal. The Grand Army was also powerful because of its training, advanced military doctrines, technology and numbers.
About Japan in WW2: Agreed that the Japanese army were crazy-patriotic. Its initial victories were a result of its training, technology and ideological zeal. But think about how they were defeated. It was defeated by superior American technology and aircraft carriers. The patriotism of the Japanese soldiers reached its height as it neared its total defeat with the kamikaze campaign. But it was still no match to superior American training and technology and the guerilla warfare of the Chinese and the British in Burma.
waste of time… get the super elites of foreigners and PRs to fall in IN the parade square too…let’s be democratic to one and all. seriously, the army recalls are disrupting our lives.
FG, elites don’t get sacked, they just make “honest mistakes” and “move on”. There is no culture of accountability in the government or the civil service. Khaw Boon Wan once said something to the effect that we cannot expect government officials to be held accountable because if we did that, none of them would want to take on positions of great responsibility. This is the culture that seems to have evolved in our country’s leadership. I fear that Singapore is heading down a very slippery path.
For those who said that NS is not suppose to instill a sense of patriotism, maybe what former Defence Minister Tony Tan said will clear the air somewhat:
“Beyond the physical training of your men, you will also be responsible for instilling in them a strong sense of patriotism and commitment to National Service.” said Dr Tan in his speech at the parade.”
Mindef: “Future leaders of the RSAF”
Yes, I must admit that I do have the sense of patriotism when I did NS in the 1970s, and then throughout the reservists’ years.
Looking back, and then now with 33 years in between, I can sense the disquiet – can it really be the FT/ PR issues?, or has NS not been updated to be more relevant today ?, or is it because there are few good exemplary leaders for NS people to look up to nowadays?
@Robs on May 31st, 2008 2.35 pm
Relax, if my comments are blunt, i apologize for that. I did not said that you favor imperialism. But our definition of victory are poles apart.
But that does not disguise the fact the defeats were political rather then military defeats. Both armies were too advanced and well-trained to be truly defeated on the field of battle. You have not disputed that.
Like it or not, i still have to say that i disagree with this. Defeat is defeat. Categorization into political and military defeats are only useful for academic pursuits. What makes one think that victory and defeat is only decided by the “hard” elements of manpower, firepower and technology on the battlefield? That’s a rather myopic view. What’s more important is strategy and morale. As Sun Tzu had put it, “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” In saying that those are political defeats rather than military, are you also implying that if the US and the USSR continue with the war, they will stand a chance in victory? After all, this was what some, like General Westmoreland, had argued. They blamed US defeat on politicians, the media and the public for weakening US resolve. So since you classified them as political defeats, are you taking a similar view that further escalation and commitment would have won the war in Vietnam for the US? Note that this is not implying that you are imperialist.
Taking a step further, if political and military elements of defeat and victory can be detached from one another like you have said, then the South Vietnamese regime could not have lost it when the US withdrew. They had almost if not more manpower than the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and the US left them so much equipment that the South Vietnamese Air Force became the 6th largest in the world at one point in time. They are certainly not occupiers, but they still lost the war. Why? Because there was no morale to speak of in the ARVN. Leaders like Ngo Dinh Diem and Nguyen Van Thieu had no credibility and support and were hardly “national” leaders unlike Ho Chi Minh. With this kind of leadership with no nationalist appeal in Saigon, the regime was doomed right from the start. Instead of like you saying that it is only a political defeat, i would say it is political and military because you cannot have one with the other. It seems absurd that and bizarre to say that you can remain militarily potent and viable without winning the political struggle. If that’s the case, General Gerald Templer would not have been credited with devising a comprehensive war plan against the MCP in Malaya during the Emergency. He pushed for genuine steps towards Malayan independence and totally disarmed the MCP’s struggle as a nationalist campaign. By losing the political struggle, the MCP lost the military conflict swiftly. So while i see the political and military elements as inseparable, you chose to pigeonhole them as if they have nothing to do with one another. I will continue with the next post on your other points.
@Robs on May 31st, 2008 2.35 pm
You have ignored two main points that i raised so let me just reiterate them briefly.
Let me deal with the first point. My bad, it should be way back in 1948 when Israel faced collective attacks. I did not dispute “in modern warfare no army, no matter how powerful, can occupy countries indefinitely if the citizens of the occupied countries resist through asymmetric guerrilla warfare.” What i disagree with with your following statement “This is the case regardless of how ideologically determined the occupying army is. The French in Algeria were determined to protect the way of life of the Pied Noir in Algeria but was also unable to outlast the guerrilla tactics of the FLN.” Sure, the colons were determined to hold on BUT so were the FLN were equally determined for self-determination. In the end, it became a battle of who has the stronger will. The FLN’s nationalist cause proved more potent than the colonialist dream of colons in a continent where a wind of change was blowing and the growth of national consciousness cannot be ignored. That convinced de Gaulle that the struggle in Algeria was futile because independence have to come sooner or later and he knew which side would have the resolve to see it to the end, definitely not the colons. It is not that the colons were not ideologically determined, they were. BUT they were not be able to be as ideologically determined in the long run compared to the FLN. Just look at South Africa. Who would deny that the white supremacist regime didn’t have the hardened resolve to maintain their grip on power? But the blacks resolve to be free proved much stronger in the long run. Get it?
With regards to your second point, the scared cow, i have never denied that the SAF is not built for occupation, but for swift decisive victories. The problematic part of your argument is “In wars of annihilation rather then occupation, the importance of training, technology and battle-worthiness far surpasses that of ideological zeal.” It goes to show that you ignored my previous post on the Israeli strategic failure in the Lebanon conflict with the Hizbollah in 2006. It was definitely NOT A PROTRACTED WAR OF OCCUPATION . Yet even a well-equipped, trained and committed IDF could not annihilate the Hizbollah in swift and decisive victories. If the Hizbollah, which is far behind the IDF in terms of professional training and equipment had not held out against the Israelis because of ideological factors, i don’t know what else give them that kind of strength. Given that the IDF, a highly well-trained, well-equipped and solidly motivated force which had defended the Jewish state successfully had failed to subdue a supposedly much weaker foe, what makes you think that had the Israeli soldiers been less committed, with minds filled with attitudes like “bo bian”, “no choice” on the battlefield, would it have been worse for the IDF’s effectiveness which was built as a force for swift decisive victory? So what’s the lesson and implications here for the SAF? Morale doesn’t can’t as much in wars of annihilation? I suggest you give it a second thought on this.
Another thing is, never make the fatal assumption that you can get out of conflicts with swift decisive victories. Sure, look at the PLA in 1979. They expected to have “swift” decisive success against Vietnam. But it ended up as swift and heavy casualties and a quick withdrawal. Surely, you would not doubt that the PLA had more men and more advanced weapons right? Nobody, not even Napoleon or Sun Tzu, can decide how a war can begin and end at their will. Once a war begin, a lot of factors come into play which are beyond one’s prediction.
The same applies to the Japanese case. America did not win solely on material strength. Tokyo committed treachery when she attacked Pearl Habor in a surprise attack. The whole America was outraged and soon mobilized as a nation as the Axis. This psychological strength cannot be underestimated. After all, the US losses in 1945 was over 100,000 and it won. But in Vietnam, they lost around 50,000 and yet was defeated. Again it boils down to a sense of national purpose in war. Similarly, what made Britain stood defiantly alone against Hitler with all of Europe under its control? Because the Britons were fighting to defend their way of life and Churchill’s inspiring speeches stiffened their resolve to resist. They did not cowed with the blitzkrieg attacks on London but increased their determination to stand up against Hitler. It’s not that the Axis powers did not have resolve but ultimately the Allied powers had the stronger resolve.
i served NS, I believe in serving NS and i enjoyed my time. looking back yes the 2 years could have been put to better use. but the 2 years were 2 of the more enjoyable years of my life
to Anonymous @ May 30th, 2008 1.58 am
the choice of the words ‘blame’ highlight the perceptions of the local layman in sg context, which underscores the mentality that the government (read politicians) is responsible and thus apportioned blame because of their long term in power. Ministries (civil servants) take direction from politicians, and thus addressed under the same terms. it is rare for one to say he hates the general leading the war but not the soldiers fighting under him.
Thus, when the words ‘blame’ or ‘shame’ are used it is solely directed not at the ministries and civil servants, but at the people that maketh be.
However civil servants must not be completely shielded from blame. he must know the work he is asked to do, under the direction of someone he knows of, and make a decision if he is prepared to do so. If civil servants remain completely apathetic , they are empowering the powers that be to further abuse.
i am not encouraging civil disobediance; once you are part of that ministry you should do what you signed on to do. however before signing on, think carefully and consider the image, future and social backlash you wil acquire.
As the author of the post, I feel obliged to add to the amazing discussion that has been happening ever since the article went up. Thanks to all who have read the article and wrote their comments.
I would like to state again that I’m fresh out of army, and I guess that makes me ill-qualified to make statements about NS and its implications simply because I’m not working yet, and the economic realities have not yet sunk in for me. I’m not sure how I would add to this high-quality discussions, but I shall try.
First off, I would like to say that because NS has become so interwoven with Singapore society, then in some sense, the cause of NS should also be the cause of the society at large. What I mean is, the reason that we serve NS, should also be the same reason why we want to Singaporeans.
I am reminded by the discussions here, that NS is a service to the nation, not to any political party, or to any segment of society (ie, not for the elites). It means that we are serving the nation because we truly and genuinely feel that Singapore is a place we should defend, not for the sake of any material reason. But since we can’t accept negative reasons, the intent of my essay in part was also to look for positive reasons to why we want to serve NS. I was thinking about the United States and why people would want to volunteer for their armed forces. As it turns out, people want to serve in the nation’s forces because of the benefits and the security of the job (provided, of course, you survive the next IED in Iraq intact..). That is why in America, there are debates regarding the provisions of the GI Bill, which of all things, pays for the college fees of those who are discharged from their service.
It reflects the kind of commitment the country has to their people, and this is sorely missing in the country that we have today. What we have today instead is a political party that tries to distort its survival with the survival of the country.
If what we have is a government/country that doesn’t bother to seriously look into the interests of its people, and instead comes up with lame reasons cloaked in economic and bureaucratic language, then, all is lost – the reason for being a Singaporean, the reason for doing NS.
I think the PAP Government bundle the issues together so they can have a large army at a cheap price and hence produce huge budget surplus frequently and claim credit.
An army is necessary to defend Singapore. However National Service may or may not be ncessary. What are some other options?:
1) A larger regular force
2) Full pay for NS men at market rate for the 2 + years of national service
3) When called back for reservist/ in camp training, IPPT etc, they should paid at least a 20-30% premium to their civilian pay to reward their sacrifice ( no point using your mouth only to reward somebody)
I ORDed last year and I fully understand the author’s intention of writing this article.
I used to think of NS as being able to contribute to national defence against foreign enemies, but as time goes by and the society constantly changing, with so many foreigners in singapore and not to mention multiple incidents of how foreigners shame singaporeans through uncouth behaviour, I’m made to believe that there is nothing meaningful for me to defend anymore except my own freedom.
Honestly speaking, as a fellow Singaporean, if I have the money, I will choose to get out of this country for good.
Upon making this statement, I’m not saying I’m being un-patriotic despite serving 2yrs NS and betraying my integrity for this country where I’m born and bred. Yes some people may disagree with me and say I’m a coward but I stand by the viewpoint “to each his own”. I have my own freedom of speech in order to make that statement.
“Yes some people may disagree with me and say I’m a coward but I stand by the viewpoint “to each his own”
If you stand by your viewpoint and act on it, you show bravery not cowardice. There is really nothing about been patriotic if Singapore is run as Singapore Incorporated and everyone treat as digit. One can only be patriotic if he found something meaningful to bond with.
I found that there are comments that do not really address the real issue of defending our nation of Singapore, and the issue of serivng NS, does it really make you a soldier to defend, again here, our nation Singapore.
Let me say as a citizen, and as having done NS I would defend and fight for our nation Singapore. But, a big BUT here is, PAP is running the nation, controlling our nation, as though it is theirs, and theirs alone. Tell me honestly, in the first place, how much are you part of our Singapore, as a nation?
Tell me also honestly, how much PAP has made many many ordinary law abiding but critical Singaporeans ( I mean those who opposed the PAP and criticised the PAP) part of the country ?? How much has PAP made all the auntie and uncle toilet cleaners, hawker centre cleaners etc etc to be valuable citizens?
Lets be upright honest about this, PAP do not value loving-Singapore citizens who dislike and critisize PAP. Worst still PAP might go to the extent of catigating those who are not ontheir side.
Fever Guy, PRs don’t get treated “better than the Citizens” as you claim. Contrary to what you say, PRs have to fulfill every aspect and every responsibility that a citizen of Singapore has, without the benefits. PRs have to serve NS, but they don’t get medishield, medisave, edusave..and when the government has excess income to issue shares to its people, the PRs get none of them.
I think the overall consensus you gather from relatives, friends, etc before you enter NS or during your services is that it is not exactly a national thing but of somewhat of an inconvinient obligation ….so far not every male is excited to be enlisted into NS as compared to an American citizen begging to join the US marines. Why?
If you’re not truly proud of being a Singaporean or do not have a deep understanding of the reason why you need to serve, then I guess to you, it is somewhat of an inconvenient obligation. Probably, your country’s history isn’t in your vocab.
And that sense of being proud as a Singaporean, comes from family values that focuses on national pride. Friends would talk about our countries affairs with zest and energy and so forth. National pride would be a second mother tongue to all.
Well as you all know, you have been conditioned to values like “study hard, earn more money”….all your life.. isn’t that true? Have your parents not told you to save enough money so that you can retire somewhere else …isn’t that true? So how many people you know have had open discussion/celebrations/parties on their own free will about national pride and NS? I guess everyones still hush hush …isn’t that true?
Where does all these national values originated from? It has to come from the GOVERNING BODY that needs an army. And the people from this governing body need to have national values imbued into him/her who preach & practice about people first before thyself or anything else.
How many civil servants do you know can testify to you that they will die for their country at a moments notice? Or do they tell you it’s all about the pay at the end of the day? For the sake of argument, post this question to a regular in the Army? If he/she is silent or hush hush about his views ..you have the answer. Morale is reflection of leadership. What sort of leadership? PAP leadership?
Do you know any regular who believes in the system and is zestful about national pride or is he/she there for the better perks in life?
Same question goes to civil servants. People first? or perks first, growth first, reserves first, pay first, bonus first, ….?
I think I honestly feel there is a missing value somewhere.
Now ask me again if I feel patriotic….
I don’t feel patriotic at all, in fact I agree that while I’m serving NS, foreigners are taking away my school vacancy or jobs in the outside world. Any assurances the govt will give us to ensure we get our jobs back after NS?
NO.
Now I see Singapore as PAP nation, not Singapore anymore. This is because the only people I see who is smiling all the time is the PAP, not Singaporeans. Malaysians and Taiwanese seem to understand politics much much better than Singaporeans.
2011 is last chance.
Too bad I not rich, if not I sure denounce my citizenship. I’m ashame to call myself Singaporean.
singapore is not a nation. It is own by certain people who would not listen to you, and they are constantly intimidating the people by saying if they fail, we will be in trouble, we dont have resources, our reserves will run dry, opposition in charge, they will steal our money etc etc…. so no point I be patriotic!!!
can’t agree more with the army doesn’t make me patriotic thing. was searching for something totally different when i saw this, and i totally agree. I mean stop kidding ourselves man, who do you thing are going to destroy us? the only resource we have is our ppl and when they attack, that resource is gone. And as long as we dun do stupid things, like building bigger and huger armies, no one in the right mind will think of attacking us.
And i got this from some online researching. Singapore has 16.40 troops per thousand singaporean citizens, which means by this ratio we are ranked 12th in the world ahead of the world largest countries US (4.76), China (1.71), Canada (1.93), military controlled countries Myanmar (11.40) and densely populated cities such as Monaco (no army), Hong Kong (volunteers) and The Vatican City (neutral and armyless) or the next densely populated country in the world, Malta. Also, we are ranked 61st by number of active troops. Ahead of countries such as Australia, Netherlands, South Africa and Portugal which are all at least 10 times the size of singapore, and in Australia’s case hundreds of times. e are 22nd in the world in terms of defense expenditure ahead even of Iran and North Korea.
Do we need such a force?
so if NS doesn’t serve its purpose of protecting singapore what’s left for it? to be abolished?
questions questions questions….
Hi Fever Guy;
The Gurkhas are to protect the leaders.
SAF and NS men to standby for freak election result, agree?
#Weijia 56;
“you really think we can leave the defense of this cuntry to merceneries?”
IT IS ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF MERCENARIES, agree?
puppy.
>>Too bad I not rich, if not I sure denounce my citizenship. I’m ashame to call myself Singaporean.
where else can we give ourselves a cosy home like here without racial discriminant and security? China,Taiwan,HK are off my list
War is an extension of politics, diplomacy by other means. Hence, NS in the form of military defence is important for security of Singapore.
However, what is worth and left to defend when Singaporeans have to compete with foreigners for jobs and housing? Singapore has already been conquered by foreigners by economic means.
Moreover, the NSmen, who have to sacrifice 2 full years and 14 days per year for 10 years are pay little to serve military service. But the regulars in the SAF have to be pay a premium above market rate in order to serve the country. So, NSmen are being punished for their loyalty to the nation. We are now POWs in our own country – held captive by the army regulars who charge you if you did not go back for ICT, and by Foreign Talents who are taking away our jobs and houses.
So, who are our neighbour and who are our enemy? If a foreign power can give us a well pay job and a house, and promise our family security in this land, why should we fight him?
Why should we fight for the SAF regulars who have to be paid a premium above market rate?
Being a Singapore citizen, I strongly felt that I am betrayed by the Singapore Government. As a citizen, since I was a child, I had been taught to love Singapore and defend the country because this is our home. As Singaporeans, we have to serve NS and attend ICT every year and pay for income tax and GST to fulfill our duties and responsibilities as a Singapore citizen.
After working for more than 13 years, and being eligible to purchase a HDB flat, I suddenly found that I cannot even afford to buy a 3-room HDB flat because I am not eligible for a HDB loan and grant because my pay is more than $3,000. As single, I am also not allowed to buy a new flat. If I were to take up a bank loan to purchase a resale flat, I have to pay 5% of the flat in cash, other than the COV. So, if I do not have enough cash, how to purchase a resale flat?
Even if I were to get married to be eligible for the HDB loan and grant, I also need cash to pay for the wedding expenses, dinner, house renovation, etc. Again, no cash how to get married? So, without a house and a family, where is the home I am taught to defend since I am a child?
With the influx of foreign talents and PRs pushing up the HDB resale market and pressing down the salary range, I felt that Singapore is not worth defending anymore, because Singapore is no longer the home of Singaporeans. Hence, what’s the purpose of wasting the time of Singaporeans serving NS to defend a Singapore that has been ‘colonised’ by foreign talents and PRs, who are taking away the houses and jobs of Singaporeans? Why should Singaporeans lay down their lives to defend a Singapore that is a home to foreign talents and PRs?
Moreover, unlike the SAF regulars whose salary are given a premium above market rate and paid a large sum of money when they retired from SAF at the age of 50, a NSman is not pay by the SAF to defend Singapore. So, why should a NSman laid down his life for Singapore when in peacetime, the SAF regulars are paid more than a normal NSman?
As a Singaporean guy, I have experienced lotsa dissonance in regards to NS and what it really means to be a Singaporean these days. I have not crystalised my thoughts but this is my story, pls bear with me:
I believe I am a perfect product of the Singaporean education system – A patriotic Singaporean male, who is willing to serve and protect the country. I looked forward to NS. In fact, enjoyed myself thoroughly in BMT and OCS. Of cos there are were the challenges and hardships in training, but so was the friendships and teamwork.
Well into my NS life, I began to seriously pause and think if it was really all WORTH IT. I compared myself to my female counterparts and reassessed if all that I have done is worth it. Then I read reports of foreigners getting paid to study in Singapore’s uni and work in Singapore’s jobs without NS obligation. I came to the conclusion that It is just NOT FAIR.
After NS, I went abroad to study. I met many Singaporean friends in Australia we often talk abt our plans for the future. Mainly to remain in Aus and get a PR, or go back to SG to be with family, friends and report for ICT annually. Many Singaporeans are inclined to take up PR in Aus and be a new citizen of the very under populated in comparison to it’s land mass. Since the British times, Aus has been receiving migrants from all over the world for many generations and that is how the convict settlement grow to be a great nation as we know it to be today. As I toured the museums in Sydney, and learn about the generations of migrants that enter the country year after year, I realised that in a few ways Singapore was like Australia right in the beginning years of opening it’s door to new migrants.
These were my thoughts: Singapore is a young nation. I am a 2nd generation Singaporean, as my grandfather came from China. What makes me more Singaporean than the new Chinese family who just migrated to Singapore? My family’s 2 generations of Singaporean heritage? 2 generations – What is that compared to the scale of migrants that arrive in Aus year after year since colonial times?
Yes, we should embrace new migrants. And they should assimilate into our community and be Singaporeanised as quickly as possible. That is for the good of the country. But in addressing my dissonance in regards to NS and now reservist, the question I often I ask is who am I fighting for? Because Singapore is no longer Singapore and Singaporeans are no longer Singaporeans as I know it to be.
However the fact is NS is essential to Singapore cos we can’t afford a full-time army. And in being Singaporeanised, these new migrants would become Singaporeans and my son and their sons would then grow up in the same pri and sec sch, and serve NS together to protect the new notion and idea of Singapore and Singaporeans that we are now developing and will continue to develop.
** In addition to my previous comment, I would like to add that there are 2 major differences among many in comparing Singapore and Australia in regards to the assimilation of new migrants into the community and the perpetual evolutionary notion of the countries and their citizens.
Language – Everyone in Aus speaks english. Italian, chinese, middle eastern etc will all speak the single common language in the society. The language binds and is the common denominator of being an Australian. However not everyone speaks a single common language in Singapore.
Land availability – There are lotsa underutilised land in Aus and the many developing cities all around the continent. Singapore is becoming an overcrowded concrete jungle to say the least. Everyone is fighting for the same sch, job, HDB…etc.
Well, does a strong and large SAF necessarily bring security to Singapore and serve as a deterrent against invasion? As Singapore does not have the strategic depth, a large SAF organised based on an offensive posture and strategy (or ”
forward defence strategy”) created the risks that a war between Singapore and its neighbours may be sparked off in times of crisis due to military necessity of 1st strike. With the military necessity of committing the 1st strike in the event of crisis, will Singaporeans become the invaders or the invaded in times of war with its neighbours? Even if Singapore really win the war militarily, can Singapore survive politically and economically in the aftermath of the war, when Singaporeans and foreign investors divest and flee elsewhere?
Hence, if Singapore CANNOT survive a war, why bother to spend so much of Singaporeans’ time and money in the SAF and let the foreign talents and PR become the free riders of Singapore’s prosperity?
In peacetime, SAF regulars has to be given a pay above market rate to serve the country, while NSmen are not. In wartime, SAF regulars stay in aircon room to “direct” the battles, while NSmen go and die for the country. After wartime, foreign talents come in and rebuild the economy, and married the wives of NSmen who died for the country. For those wives and daughters whose husband or father died in the battle to defend Singapore, they had to earn a living to provide for themselves. If cannot find a job becos of influx of foreign talent or new citizens, the wife and daughters of those NSmen who died for the country had to sell their body to these foreign talent and new citizens. This is the price to pay for being a Singapore citizen.
Why would Indonesia or Malaysia attack Singapore?
what is there to obtain or conquer?
it’ll be a better option if they decided to conquer brunei isn’t it?
NS is not to defend the country but to get to know each other better [among races]
but with the influx of FT,I don’t even see a point of NS
maybe it’s just because not many Singaporeans wants to be part of the uniform group or hate the uniform life
I will leave for good by the time my NS term is up. Somehow USA, no matter what, will always be my greener pasture, especially when I can’t stop shaking my head to the regime that I’m confined to. Good luck to you (PAP) on your quest for local talent when I go through naturalisation with the US Immigration bureau.
Well, I done my full cycle of ICT, yet don’t even have a photo taken in No 1!
At least make me feel good ma!
Then at least if ever die in battle, can put on the lorry front.
Eddie – a very well written piece. I think it resonates with most young people your age. I remember my children asking the same questions, and I have been wondering too, what is the purpose of NS? What is there to defend, really when war comes, Singapore would at least be half empty. And soldiers remain here to defend the $36m bungalows at Sentosa Cove?