was your reflection a result of an NS experience which defers from your expectations? NS is not there as a national building social exercise, but as a viable deterance to potential threats and a security measure. our miliary, like any military in the world cannot account and look after the soft needs for each and every soldier, rank and file.

we have to gain experience through our own pursuits within the framework of the military, and you will find the friendships and memories you have when you leave beautiful.

is it really viable to defend singapore on regular forces, split into the army,airforce navy? the army is not obliged to provide passion as part of its training, it supplies the means, we supply the passion.

Question of passion and service. I agree that much time is wated in NS. Packing National Day Freebies, setting up stands for national Day, watching out for VIPs at IMF meetings. It would be good if we get rid of the ’subsidy’ mentality and the govt start paying real salary.

Alas as a 40+ year old man, I find it encouraging that a young man like Eddie pause to think what it means to be a Singaporean. With all the emphasis by govt on foreign talent, etc etc – it is a good sign that our education system is producing young thinkers!

“Burma has allowed military helicopters from Singapore to deliver foods in the Irrawady basin, especially the areas inaccessible by roads, official sources said.

Singapore appeared to be only country that Burma has given permission to enter its territorial water and air space as the junta continue to deny permission to foreign naval ships and military helicopters and cargo plane from entering Burma’s territory.”
Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30074193

My main peeve is after NS, where career/family clash . The influx of FTs do not help, employers make no bones abt NS obligations affecting their bottomline. I do not need others to point this out otherwise because i had a PR boss tell it to me in the face. Reservist is a waste of time and resources to employers, yr job performance is affected n yr clients gets poached in yr absence, it is compounded when you hv to go overseas attachment. I still believe NS is very important, an effective deterrent but a lot hv to be tweaked in processes after that. Opening our doors wide do not help, we provide a safe haven, others come in to take advantage without the NS obligations. IT IS NOT FAIR.

Why NS before 1991? The mission of Soviet Union was to take the whole of Asia (ex-Japan/China) and Middle East
Why NS after 1991? The mission of former anti-Soviet Union force (insurgent) from Central Asia.

In my opinion, NS was started with the good intention of defending Singapore and Singaporean.. over the years, it is now for defending and protecting the LEE dynasty.. In my humble opinion, if LKY truly care for singapore, it would not allow his family members to participate in politics at all…..also if his family members are capable, they would not be in politic as well…..

Hell, in the private sector , companies have restriction allowing relations in the same company or related companies. Our government alway compare their salary against the private sector (only when it benefit them and their relations)

“\Why NS after 1991? The mission of former anti-Soviet Union force (insurgent) from Central Asia”

NS in year 2001 & beyond ? To protect against terrorism or Mas Selamat ?

NS in year 2010 and beyond ? So what’s next from the coffers ? To protect against alien invasion from Mars ? Mars attack ?

So what’s new from the coffers to keep delivering freak excuses over exorbitant spending on military when it really benefit the GLC with tons of taxmoney. They use taxmoney to buy markup weapons from own coffers’. Incredible, super-world class, only the fools will believe their nobility…

Gained some and lost some after NS and completion of reservists’
Best gain – learn how to shoot
Worst loss – jobs to foreigners while away in NS.
It is as simple as that, men.

A NSman has to play two roles – a factor of porduction and security guard of the territory. He receive only one salary.

A working mother also receives one salary by playing two roles – a factor of production and give birth.

A China scholar who study and work here. He return to Tsing Hua University (like MIT) for teaching. He promote Singapore to his folk !

NS…I used to feel so proud but now when I look around the country, it is been invaded by foreigners and there is nothing we the true born in Singapore Singaporean can do about it. Fight to defend this nation…for who? For the foreigners who come in earn their keep and leave? As a father of a boy, if possible, I wouldn’t want him to serve and waste his life here…

Who wash the backside of a patient in public hospital? China nurse !
Who take care the old folks in an old aged home? Philipine nurse !
Who take care your baby at home? Indonesia maid !
Where the special education teacher come from? Myanmar
How many Singaporean is willing to do above mentioned job?

“Why NS before 1991? The mission of Soviet Union was to take the whole of Asia (ex-Japan/China) and Middle East”

Cyclone, if you have some knowledge of Cold War history, you wouldn’t make such fatal assumptions that the Americans made throughout the 1950s to 1960s especially in the case of Vietnam. Kissinger and Nixon were smart enough to realize that the whole myth of a monolithic communist plot hatched by Moscow to dominate the world and used the Sino-Soviet split for US strategic purpose. If you do read, leaders like Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung and even Fidel Castro were hardly puppets of the Soviet Union. Declassified documents showed that rather than having an offensive objective in Afghanistan, Brezhnev and his comrades invaded Afghanistan due to the fear of an Islamic resurgence seeping into the Central Asian Soviet republics. Afghanistan was already in their sphere of influence before 1979.

Why so many comments about FT. It’s all the globalization issues. If we dont want external persons to come in here and take our jobs then the same case applies to Singapore companies buying assets overseas. Like Temasek going to Indonesia to buy telkomsel or GIC to buy the banks. Do we want that? Now SingTel getting their 80% revenue from emerging markets like india, indonesia, If we dont want their people then they dont want these companies to take the money from their countries. Is it acceptable to all of us?

NS is good only to train the boys and be responsible adult after 2 years. It is not for defending the country. I would not want to defend my country, because my country does not care for me. Why should I care for my country ?? Let it take over by other country, if there is a war because the persons in charge of this country are selfish.

“Who wash the backside of a patient in public hospital? China nurse !
Who take care the old folks in an old aged home? Philipine nurse !
Who take care your baby at home? Indonesia maid !
Where the special education teacher come from? Myanmar
How many Singaporean is willing to do above mentioned job?”

They are willing to do so because doing the above chores in Singapore pays them far better than back home. Even Labour MP Josephine Teo has said in a Straits Times column before that there are young foreign cleaners who are willing to take $450 a month. Honestly, is it possible for an old local cleaner to compete at that wage level? You can do the math especially in view of the current inflation woes. The race to the bottom is something one may want to reflect on.

“Burma has allowed military helicopters from Singapore to deliver foods in the Irrawady basin, especially the areas inaccessible by roads, official sources said.

Singapore appeared to be only country that Burma has given permission to enter its territorial water and air space as the junta continue to deny permission to foreign naval ships and military helicopters and cargo plane from entering Burma’s territory.”

I am afraid that priorities may have taken a wrong direction here. What matters now is get the aid supplies by whatever possible means as quickly as we can to the people of Burma. Without proper transparency and accountability, God knows what the junta does with all the money and supplies. There were reports that aid supplies can be found on sale in the Yangon street markets. The scale of disaster is such that it is beyond the capability of the Burma junta to help the cyclone victims. While the presence of Singaporean personnel is a good sign, without the unrestricted permission for foreign aid workers all over the world to help the victims, many are going to meet their doom, especially young children.

A symbolic gesture remains a symbol to cheer about, whether it can really help all the 2.5 million victims is a serious question we have to ask ourselves. By allowing only selected personnel into the disaster-hit region, isn’t it just another political exercise on the part of the junta at the expense of their people’s lives? Let’s be clear as to who is politicizing the issue and as we sit down to talk in various conferences, a child in Burma could be dying every minute without the needed assistance. I don’t find this to be something worth cheering about.

More and more Singaporean men feel the emptiness of serving. Even Vivian Balakrishnan’s son once questioned if he would be willing to die for Singapore.

As the value of citizenship becomes more and more diluted, through globalisation and the letting in of such a large number of foreigners, the question of patriotism and belongingness will become more stark.

Couple this with a recent survey which said more than 50% of young Singaporeans would leave if given the opportunity, we can see the depth of the problem.

I think the govt has given up on finding a solution. Just as they have given up on getting s’poreans to have more babies. The solution they have chosen is to bring in more foreigners.

Ironically, this is what will exacerbate the problem further.

Belongingness and patriotism runs deeper than just having a job and financial rewards. Sad thing is that the govt either does not realise this or, more probably, does not care even if they realise this.

What I was inculcated during my younger days about the value of citizenship (especially those as enunciated in our pledge) has evolved almost into one that is measured by numbers & figures.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I (and I believe a lot of other people) have seen through this facade & illusion. However, I am still hopeful about things here.

I think NS and foreigners getting our jobs are two seperate issues here not to be mixed up. We as citizens have our fair share of benefits as citizens, which such foreigners do not have.

I agree with Sliencer most of the time in his comment. I did benefited within the frameworks of military in that short time frame. And who do we protect? We can see it as protecting the foreigners that work and so call suck money out, but don’t forget that our families live and work in this same place call Singapore as the foreigners. you can chose to complain you are protecting the foreigners, or you can chose to see it as protecting your love ones.

We speak of it as if no one will ever attack us, just like we speak of the high security of Singapore of the Mas Selamat case. But the fact is that he still escaped. And we prepared to say that no one will attack us? If it does happen one day, will you bear the responisbility of having not enough men to defend the nation? Can you?

I believe NS wasn’t meant to be use as a way to make one patriotic.but rather to defend our nation. And as much as I wish to respect Eddie’s view, he alone does not represent the views of all male gender. and whether Singaporean Men have lost passion and purpose to serve, that we’ll have to see.

Regards

“I think NS and foreigners getting our jobs are two seperate issues here not to be mixed up. We as citizens have our fair share of benefits as citizens, which such foreigners do not have.”

If you tried to detach the issue of forging a strong national identity from NS, i think you would have overlooked the crux of the problem.

What makes people willing to sacrifice is the idea of belonging to a nation-state. If the identification with one’s nation is strong, you wouldn’t have the problem of people questioning the purpose of NS in the first place. Without nationalist sentiments, you can have the strongest armed forces in the world but you may still fail in the battlefield. As Napoleon had said before, “There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.”

As Catherine Lim has written, perhaps the problem has to do with the configuration of party-state relationship in Singapore. Most people here may express loyalty only to the “good life” that the country represents since partisanship may come into play with regards to patriotism.

“I agree with Sliencer most of the time in his comment. I did benefited within the frameworks of military in that short time frame. And who do we protect? We can see it as protecting the foreigners that work and so call suck money out, but don’t forget that our families live and work in this same place call Singapore as the foreigners. you can chose to complain you are protecting the foreigners, or you can chose to see it as protecting your love ones.”

Ultimately at the end of the day, we have to ask what we want Singapore to be: Singapore, the Nation or Singapore Inc.? If we go the way of Singapore Inc. where ruthless economic efficiency is the order of the day, the problem of questioning NS would stay with us in the near future.

To paraphrase Aime Cesaire in his Discourse on Colonialism:

“A Singapore that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent Singapore.

A Singapore that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken Singapore.

A Singapore that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying Singapore…

Singapore is indefensible.”

No citizen will want a Singapore Inc! Who dont want a caring gahmen? Ask yourself

this if your parents treated you like a slave? How would you feel, angry or happy?

Most NS guys felt betray by their nation, whom treated them worst than PR and

Foreigners. As MM had said, no subsidies to be given out so we citizen not only

do a FREE service to the country and watch how non-NS obligated

PR/Foreigners compete with us for everything. Homes to jobs. No wonder many

felt like a second class citizen…ask yourself what goods and services that are

free or cost very little to a citizen and is provided by our dear gahmen? You

probably cant list any out.

If we have NS serving the country why do we still need GURKAS? Are we telling our men in Sg they are not good enough to protect our nation’s leaders and assets? We should pack all this GURKAS back to NEPAL. The money spend on them can be transfered to enhanced the NS pays.

why the ministers house and govt building all guard by gurkhas. Is the govt don’t trust we the locals to guard their property. I heard gurkhas are very loyal. They are loyal because they get many benefits .

No matters what happens. I will fight to protect my motherland till the last drop of blood that is flowing in me, because my family is all I have.

The notion that national service is done to defend a material standard of living strikes me as somewhat absurd. What I refer to as a “material standard of living” refers to things which can actually be replicated or moved out out of the particular bit of territory they sit on. This includes things like the infrastructure, the shops, the schools, the hospitals, the cuisine. Even the family. All this physical stuff can simply be moved out of the country, or rebuild it somewhere else.

This is why the argument for national service based on this notion that “oh but we are defending a material standard of living/family” strikes me as ridiculous. Having received a high quality education, most young Singaporeans can really get out of this country and set up a way of life (with a few adjustments), which isn’t actually worse off than back home. These Singaporean-rich enclaves exist. They are known as Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Hong Kong, London, San Francisco, Cornell etc. Want the same level of general public safety as back home? Move to a decent suburb abroad buddy.

In any event, in a real conflict, your first thought of how to save your family won’t be to think “oh we must start building fortifications”. Your first thought would be to think- “which would be a suitable country to get as many of loved ones out to seek asylum BEFORE the shells start hitting the island”

In my opinion, the only coherent basis for national service is to defend a set of rights and values. For some reason, that concept has failed to enter the noggin of policy-makers on the island, who seem to think that efficient government and economic prosperity are enough to keep people on this island. History, however, has REPEATEDLY shown that the most resilient MULTI CULTURAL nations in the world are those who defend liberty, human rights, dignity and all that “waffly” human rights stuff that “realist” political commentators in Singapore so like to scoff at. But it works. Just ask ethnic-minority citizens of countries like America or Australia why they are proud to be Americans or Australians. Then compare that to the uninspired guff that spews out of even apparently the best and the brightest of Singapore which probably goes something like “well we’ve got great shopping…”

I didn’t like national service but now that its ten years since I left the army, I have allot of affection for the institution. My best friends all come from that period of my life. It was the one time I had the opportunity to meet people as they were rather than as sons of rich and poor men.

However, having said all of that, I really feel quite put off when the system fails to acknowledge the value of National Service. This is the country that was so disparate for more “Educated Chinese” that it went out of its way to offer people from HK citizenship and exemption from National Service for a few generations, if I remember correctly. Today, citizenship for some requires the price of 2-years of your life but for others there is a free pass (ok if your 80, I don’t expect you to wear green but your kids should).

I have nothing against foreigners. But I do feel that National Service should be just that – service to the nation and not to the commercial interest of a select few. I welcome people to come here but if they want to take up citizenship they need to pay the price as well as enjoy the privileges

we blame the government for its policies, its small heartedness in daily affairs, yet we are no different from them.

we cannot see the good that comes out of it, only the flaws in policy and systemic failures.

i personally benefitted from my army experience, not because it made me a man or made me grow up, but because it allowed me to defend a set of values i believed in, and demonstrate my loyalty to the country, Singapore which made me the person i am today.

i may not like the current government, its PR or methods in politics, but i enjoy Singapore.

i am a Singaporean living in one of those ‘paradise enclaves’ overseas, but is it really all that different? live here for a couple of years, and we’ll all be none the wiser.

Platoon! Fall in! Wake up your idea! My grandmother can run faster than you! Knock it down 20! 1,2,3…. 20 Permission to Recover Sergeant! Recover! Room! Good Morning Sir! See that lone tree over there? :)

Ahhhh…. sweet memories.

I enjoyed NS tremendously, and i think it truly help turn boys into men.

As for the passion, i believe, like some others here do, that it comes from within. it’s how you face it and what you choose to take away from it. you can go to the greatest amusement park in the world and not enjoy yourself. the converse is true for NS. and with reference to the title of your article, i would beg to disagree. NS isnt suppose to make you patriotic, you were to be patriotic before you entered NS.

Is NS still important? does it still play a part? definitely. I don’t think anyone can say war is IMPOSSIBLE. unlikely, yes, but not impossible. and i’d rather be ready than not. I’m not going to run away and let other people defend my fellow citizens.

as to what we are protecting, i’d like to borrow a line from george w bush in Harold and Kumar, and suggest to you that “You don’t have to believe in your government to be a good Singaporean. You just have to believe in your country.”

I believe in my country.

p.s. incidentally, i am an engineer too :)

NS didn’t make me more patriotic. But I do feel more patriotic by having done (and continuing to do) NS. I was never inclined to anything military until half way through my NS, btw.

Perhaps it also helps that I’m in a little higher level unit and get to see a little bit more of the big picture of how our military operates to know that it is not as ineffective and pathetic as many NSmen think it is.

Will I choose to stay and fight? If it’s a just war, I’m quite sure I will. (Easy to say now, of course.) But I’ll try to get my family out first.

Why fight? I can’t quite explain. Is defending the country I’ve sworn allegiance to sufficient reason?

Eddie Choo,

You are defending the assets and jobs of PRs and foreigners who are free riding on your NS liability!!!

Agreed w heads and legs up for Ronin. + you gotta add the so called “elites”. ya’al know what i mean…

Some said NS is good.
Some said NS is bad.
Some said NS is okay but …

Some said we are defending the foreigners and investors.
Some said we are defending the material wealth of Singapore Inc.
Some said I will fight for my family, the only ones I’ve got.
Some said I will fight for the values and allegiance that I have pledged.
Some said Singapore is defensible and should be defended.
Some said Singapore is not defensible, best to protect your family is to get them out of the danger zone as early as possible before bombs start raining.

So, NS is both good and bad, as well as so so only. Does that matter?

I think what actually matters most is whether the NS troops, with the kind of
present leadership and morale, will be able to defend Singapore effectively to
buy the necessary time for the UN to intervene, and whether Singapore is
defensible or not? How do we know?

First, we have to ask ourselves a few questions before we even venture into
answering the question: “Would I defend Singapore or not?”

Q1. Do I know the Terrain? Is the Singapore terrain defensible? Surrounded
all-round by waters with no natural features to obstruct invading forces, how
to defend such a piece of land? Forward defence concept? Pre-emptive
strikes? If so, wouldn’t Singapore be seen as an aggressor in the eyes of the
UN. Then how can we be sure that the UN will come to our rescue? Where is
the justification?

Q2. Do I know the potential Enemy? Who are the real threats? What kind of
forces Singapore would likely face? What will be the ratio of combatants vs combatants? Can technological advantage really help? What will the Enemy
or Enemies do? Are they as dumb as you think they are?

Q3. Do I know Myself? What kind of leaders do we have? Will our fellow NSmen
fight together with me as a cohesive team or I have to fight alone? How do others
feel? What is their emotional and psychological make-up? Will the govt take care
of my family’s welfare when I am fighting in the front-line, when it keep reminding
me that “Welfare is a dirty word”? How will my family feel? Should I put my family
overseas first or should I leave them at home under constant threats and fear when bombs start falling and bullets start flying? Can I be sure that they will be
safe and safeguarded while I am fighting with the enemies?

Q4. Do I know the Time and Space? How much time do we have to defend the
island? The Japanese took 70 days to march from Singora to Singapore, and only 7 days to finish up Singapore and force the Allied Forces to surrender. How
much space can we breath? Will there be enough room to maneuver our forces?
Will there be enough space for the non-combatants, the old, the children, the
women and the invalids to hide? Are the few meager bomb shelters sufficient?
Are our logistics and supplies sufficient to last that duration of time and space?

Second, after considering all that, ask yourself: Do I have the guts to fight against
overwhelming odds? Will I be dead before I even say “Enemy in front, charge!”?
It is very easy to talk in front of the computer screen and say I will his and I will
that. BUT when the bullets start flying and bombs start dropping and watching
your comrades dying and screaming of pain, will your nerves withstand the test?

Third, consider all options available to you, as an individual with your family, and
select the best option opened to you when war is eminent. Select that option and
then tell us what you would do.

Fourth, consider what the gahmen would do. Where would the leaders be under
such circumstances? Will each and everyone of the political leaders continue
to stay within Singapore when bombs are raining and bullets flying? How many
of them have already bought houses overseas? How many of them have got
bank accounts overseas? How many of them have already sent or are planning
to send their children to stay overseas? Why are they fattening up their pockets
with ever-increasing salaries sky-high, while simultaneously holding down our meager wage increase, using different sets of logics to make justification?

Now, tell us: Would you sincerely believe yourself that you will fight to your
last drop of blood to defend Singapore?

NS? It sure as hell didn’t make me more patriotic, but it is these very meaningless rituals which have actually kept the meaning of NS for me. You may say that it is meaningless, but that is what common ground you have with any male in Singapore. /and yes, sometimes you really feel like you are defending the elites, like your CO…

Patriotism? Nope. But a good experience? yes. Is it still relevant? Definitely. If nothing, NS is definitely a chance for us to see the situation Singapore is in. There’s a NE lesson in ns for us, and it’s not the kind of lesson the govt wants to teach in school!

“we blame the government for its policies, its small heartedness in daily affairs, yet we are no different from them.

we cannot see the good that comes out of it, only the flaws in policy and systemic failures. ”

The use of words like “blame” etc are bureaucratic cliches that display a certain slanted perception in terms of government-people relationship. As citizens of a republic, i suppose it is only right for even the granny in the wet market to critique the actions of those who are governing since they govern only because we give them permission to do so. Remember, government officials are public servants. Need i go into details to say why the word “blame” is inappropriate here?

As the comment about “cannot see the good that comes out of it, only the flaws in policy and systemic failures”, i suppose that is politics and what politicians would expect to face. As Harry Truman had said before with regards to politics, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

“You don’t have to believe in your government to be a good Singaporean. You just have to believe in your country.”

You are quoting the comment from a leader whose country has the liberal Anglo-Saxon tradition of calling political opponents “the country’s most loyal opposition”. This concept seems to be absent in the Asian model of “democracy”. Political opponents are portrayed as traitors, saboteurs, foreign stooges in some countries.

Hi all, I am a Newbie to this site.

Allow me to share my view. NS (police) has been a great part of my life & the truth is that I have served for almost 20 years cycle b4 ORD recently and I am proud to have contributed to the safety of the country.

I always remind my fellow PNS men that we are serving the Nation NOT the political party. The difficulty here is that we realised that many S’porean have confused themselve that the army & police etc are all under the control of the political party. (very wrong). This is extremely obvious especially when we were performing our duties during the election period (polling day) at the various rally sites.

Opp parties’ supporters even labelled us or shouted at us as “running dogs” of the party (u know which one !) without realising that we too are Singaporean who like them cast our vote during the election. And trust me , not all men in green or blue = voting the ruling party !

It is simply this; we do what we need to do FOR THE COUNTRY , once again not for any particular political party !!

Let tackle all the unhappiness with a sober mind. I am in support of the FT policies in Singapore ; just that I am unhappy with who MOM classified as FT ?
I am supportive of Foreign Workers policy But not indiscriminatly approving the applications across all sectors !

Leaders must be in touch with the people on the ground & explaination/reasons given should not be the typical civil servants reply , or answering to just part of the questions or worst of all just give the impression that “they dun care”.

And to add insults to injuiries, we were told to bite the bullet when time are bad, when time are good, frankly I do not see the returns. And i certainly agree that one should work to remain active BUT not to work just to meet end needs at the year of 67 , 77 or till the day you drop !!

A world class country cirtizen (as what our leaders always wants Singapore to be for good reasons) expect world class explaination and that I believe that is every citizen’s rights !

Just my 2 cents worth opnion

“I always remind my fellow PNS men that we are serving the Nation NOT the political party.”

So are the soldier from Burma junta serving the country or the military ruler ? So they feel they doing the right thing by suppressing the people ? To think you are serving the nation but the political party is just a wishful thinking but reality speak otherwise. A country that does not take care of your need and only do if it meet economic growth and need, and you call this a nation ? What is a nation ? Could you define it ? But really the gahmen spend billions on military hardware and infrastructure, why do they still need NS ? Why not create a IRONMAN ?

“Opp parties’ supporters even labelled us or shouted at us as “running dogs””
Not only opp parties, people on the ground will do likewise. Not that people are not apathetic that those in civil people has a job to do, but people question them their conscience. If it is wrong and still execute it believing that if the top think it is good, it should be good to execute the order without questioning. So if that’s not running dog , what is it ? Walking dog ?

“I am in support of the FT policies in Singapore”
No one says that FT policies is bad or economic growth is bad but to take it to the extreme as this pathetic government always for many policies is detrimental to the social order. Notice majority of speech by the minister take on extreme case eg No foreigner or investor is harmful to Singapore growth… So who kidding who ?

“You don’t have to believe in your government to be a good Singaporean. You just have to believe in your country.”

A country is dead entity by itself. It is the leadership and the people and the environment that keep it alive. When there is true democracy and human right, the quote applies, in a dictator country , do you think it applies ?

If you agree on the ground that Government = PAP = Singapore , then what then to believe in ?
Let’s not kid ourselves. You can start believing if you do something to dispel that otherwise stop dreaming if you wait until the opp party do dispel that.

LKY : You don’t have to know the reserve of Singapore.
This alone says a lot of things whether it holds true that PAP = Singapore.

Oh yeah, Singaporeans are very educated people saying that knowing too much will jeopardise competitiveness… come on, let’s not kid ourselves again, we know too much of a blunder the government make to even talk about reserve, right ?

I don’t know how many PR’s come here, reap the benefits and then let thier son’s desert without pay-back. What has the authorities done to chase after these deserters while our sons and parents, indirectly, continue to support them through NS?
Look at this forum:
http://www.expatsingapore.com/forum/index.php/topic,43523.0.html

@anon May 30th, 2008 2.01 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.

and as for government = PAP = Singapore, i don’t agree with that. maybe it’s true if the government is truly representative of what the citizens as a whole thing. but do you think pap is representative of the ppl? do you think the people of singapore think like the PAP? furthermore i think there are some… intangible things that you will associate with singapore regardless of the government. so yes i do think it is possible to love singapore, even though i do not love the PAP. after all, if we do not love singapore, will we even care what is happening to our people and our country? will you even be reading this site? ;)

anyway consider the alternative if you leave singapore in times of war. what are you gonna be? a war refugee? a PR? an FT? and suffer the same scorn that we are heaping on the foreigners in our country? no thanks… i’d rather be a citizen. :)

Daniel, keep it up with your well-argued analysis. Kudos to you.

“but do you think pap is representative of the ppl?”

The question is not whether it should be in theory or not, but in practice, do you see it actually happening ? My observation is that PAP act as representative of the people even though idealistically it shouldn’t.

The same idea hold. A president should speak for the people, but in practice, did he ?

A country consists not of only government, a country comprises of your friends and relatives , and this is where the bondages are. It will be same for any other country. The same people in Burma will like their country even though it rule by the ruthless Junta. Emotion attachment is strong.

Of course, everyone is entitled to love what they love but the way the government rule the country as though it belong, one have to accept the government’s policies, regulation etc.

“anyway consider the alternative if you leave singapore in times of war. what are you gonna be? a war refugee? a PR? an FT? ”
Why not raise the question to our leaders ? We like to hear it from our leader too and yes, no more but this, but that in times of war. Either you fight for a country or you don’t…

Daniel, your last post seems to indicate that you are in agreement with me that a country is more than the government, yes?

“My observation is that PAP act as representative of the people even though idealistically it shouldn’t.” I think the reverse is true. the PAP are not representative of the people, even though idealistacally it should.

as for asking the leaders… no point lah. public affairs officials are well trained when it comes to answering thorny questions. Deny, deflect, misdirect. that is the mantra they live by. Keep the 3 words in mind when you see how they answer questions and see if it is true! Deny deflect misdirect!

What’s the point of defending the front door when the back door is open to foreigners. Whats the point of spending so much money on military defense when the social defense of our country is eroding away.

Foreigners are taking away our jobs and are destroying the social cohesion of our society! This threat is more real than the perceived threat of another country taking over.

NS has made me less patriotic and I will leave this country if I ever have the chance.

NS for locals, Jobs for foreigners!

Hi!… I hope you guys don’t just stop at making comments here. The next time when you return back to your camp, don’t keep your mouth sealed about the issues you discussed here, talk to your NS mates. I will. Sure, some will say you are over zealous about serving your country, or spoil market, cause friction or nuisance, let them, (they just sound like your ruling party’s behavior don’t they?) But still tell them. If it is not you who makes this change, who will, them? My reservist is coming, I’m going to spread the news. :) Let’s all do that.

why NS ?? privatise it ? get paid security guard to do lah. since they have no work to do. armed forces have sophisicated equipment that uses less man power. get more gurkahas since they more loyal than singaporean. just protect our leaders will do cos they are elite, but just ‘DON”T INVOLVED ME’ cos i rather protect my pet fish than to waste time on money-face leaders.

Agree with ErniesUrn. Don’t just vent your frustrations, displeasure here. Voice your opinions at places where it counts. We all have to be pro-active if we hope for changes.
Perhaps the writer of this article is still too young to appreciate the value of NS. It is not meant to be a fun camp, nor to provide enjoyment for bored teenagers. It may be boring and repetitive and doesn’t make a lot of sense in peacetime. If you find NS boring, take action to make it meaningful. Don’t sit and wait for things to happen.

@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?

Socratic Discourse…

Here’s a good article on “Why 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 natio…

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