In the previous article “Total Defense – (Total Control)”, KJ posited that Singapore’s doctrine of Total Defense is as much about the defense of Singapore, as it is about state indoctrination for social control. This article continues where it left off, and in collaboration with blogger Molly Meek, they attempt a further deconstruction of the rhetoric of Total Defense.
By KJ and Molly Meek
Discursive Impossibilities, Overdetermined Failures
It seems to be a sign of successful hegemony when our reactions to the unknown – the Other – dance in tandem with that very behavior prescribed by state-mandated ideology. In the Singaporean context, this would refer to the stubborn and permanent state of vulnerability and its citizens’ subjecthood, the erasure of their individuality, and the outright rejection of the in(de)finite possibilities of the Other (the impossibility of war, for example).
We are vulnerable, and we must continue to be vulnerable. So that we can continue to defend ourselves.
And so it seems that when we come to confront the issue of defense, ‘defensive’ is the stance we strike. When state ideology become naturalized in society and internalized in ourselves, but for some reason is questioned, or punctured, and our cognitive dissonance is jogged, our automatic response is: be defensive by taking offense.
This swiftness and passion with which we take offense, hint at a perceived importance of that something which must be defended. It could also be a front from which we hide the absence of a clear idea or object that needs to be defended.
What will Singaporeans defend?It seems, foremost, the ideology of defense itself.
1297, from O.Fr. defens, from L. defensum “thing protected or forbidden,” from neut. pp. of defendere “ward off, protect” (see defend). First used 1935 as a euphemism for “national military resources.” (Online Etymology Dictionary)
According to conventional wisdom, you are called upon to defend when you are attacked (though it is not necessarily always the right response). You expect to be called upon at any time too, and hence you have to maintain vigilance. And these ideological compulsions of vigilance and defense have rendered themselves irrefutable except to those of us who reject the ideology upon which these convictions are built.
We could start off by considering which actions might be classified as ‘defense’. In the most extreme cases (or rather, in what has become understood as the most extreme cases), one fights physically, takes up arms and inflicts harm upon someone else who has been defined as an enemy. The English novelist Jeanette Winterson’s The Passion provides a deceptively simple definition of ‘enemy’:
“Henri, What is enemy?”
“Someone who is not on your side.”
In this definition, it is worth reflecting upon how the conception of ‘enemy’ is fluid, but can be misguided, manipulated, or monopolized by those in power, with dire consequences for those without power. The ideology of ‘enemy’ regardless of who/what it inhabits on the other hand, is static as well as irrefutable.
In other cases, we might imagine the enemy as an entity that is always a potential, even if it doesn’t yet physically exist. (But as long as someone is not on your side… whichever side you might happen to be…). This entity’s potentiality consequently enhances its irrefutability. Thus, we try to always be ready for the extreme actions, i.e. force and violence, by equipping ourselves with the resources to draw our swords.
Yet, this does not tell us what the difference between defense and, for instance, fighting is (which can be a synecdoche or perhaps a representation of other acts of defense). In addition, we not only have to know what we are fighting for, but we also have to believe in the cause of our fight, and be made to see its relevance to ourselves.
In other words, when it comes to defense (whether in Singapore or elsewhere), indoctrination and ideology inevitably occupy a prominent position, often under the guise of nationalism. A soldier (again, this can be a synecdoche) will fight for the ruler if he can be made to believe that the act benefits the country, and that good done for the country is for the good of those he loves, and so his actions ultimately benefit himself.
Consider this: in the same novel The Passion, the protagonist Henri, a French peasant boy, joins the army and fights for France only because of his (inexplicable) love for Napoleon. This specter of Napoleon as king (and desire), of course, can be a metaphor for that which we form the basis for our allegiance, love, and defense. How else might Napoleon as the king and nation embodied, decree that he be loved and followed, other than to make sure that his vision appears to everyone as if it is their very own?
Thus egotism and self-centeredness become recoded into the notion of self-sacrifice. This displaces the self from the original rhetoric because when one sacrifices for someone else, or something, ‘someone else’ takes centrality rather than the sacrificial self as it originally was intended, since it does not make sense that we sacrifice ourselves for ourselves: I fight for myself (ultimately). But, I sacrifice for my nation (vaingloriously). It becomes a noble sacrifice, as ego and vanity become irresistible. The faces at the center of this discourse of defense keep rotating, until there is but a blurred defacement of the defender-subject, as well as the object of defense.
The supremacy of the defense rhetoric confers upon the individual a privileged place as an individual, only to then commodify every individual it encounters. But first, reification has to take place. Total Defense is a process of reification. It reifies state vulnerability and the perpetual need for its defense, and in the process exalting this ideology to a status of untouchability, like a body that has acquired immunity to what it calls ‘diseases’ (the enemies). And when Total Defense is instituted primarily as a form of political control, the reification of Total Defense as ideology commodifies it for mass consumption by individual citizens. Hence, the call: ‘What will you defend?’, when really, it is not about you.
Who does not know that there are various facets of defense? For instance, if you do not have enough money to feed the soldiers, there will not be an army to fight for you. Calling it ‘economic defense’ does not elevate it above the banal. Defense is constructed as an ideological factory that reduces the ostensible object of protection (‘Singapore’, including the citizens) into tidbits for mass consumption, which then becomes a loop of self-consumption. As our Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean suggests to the young ones: How about defending your favorite toy?
(Die defending your favorite toy?)
Defense becomes not about protecting Singapore, much less about defending its citizens. It becomes, rather, that Singapore and its citizens are about defense.
Hence: Are you defending a nation of which you are a part, or are you being used by a territory/group to which you are a tool, to defend itself?
Are you defending the nation, or are you being used by the nation to defend it?
When reification is entrenched, the ideology of defense becomes immutable, irrefutable, and irrationality commences.
‘What will you defend?’ is a question that privileges objects and mechanizes people.
When defense is total, so is reification.
Protected Territories, Protracted Defenses
Over at the Total Defense website, Total Defense is defined:
Total Defence about [sic.] the different things that we can do everyday in every sector of our society to strengthen our resilience as a nation. When we take National Service seriously, participate in civil emergency exercises, upgrade our skills, build strong bonds with different races and religions, and feel the pride of being Singaporean, we contribute to Total Defence. [Even without intending to?]
It sounds so persuasive that it can be seen as nonsense. The message is a fairly simple one: everything you do can be related to defense, which is why it is described as ‘total’. Of course, the relation can be a positive contribution, or an undermining of defense. But there doesn’t seem to be much sense here: I upgrade my skills and POOF! I have participated in the economic defense of Singapore. One can perceive one’s actions this way, of course. (The next time you are called up for reservist, tell them you have to upgrade your skills, or perhaps to make friends with your neighbor of a different race to foster social defense, to defend Singapore.) Surely the armed forces cannot prevent you from defending Singapore?
But it is important to note here that even the given definition of Total Defense involves a process of reification, where every single action of a citizen is tied to the defense of Singapore. This is intrusive, for it ties the individual irrevocably to the state, so much so that it is impossible to imagine anything truly individual. This is one aspect of its totalitarianism.
Total Defense consequently portrays the state as defending itself against what is actually its biggest potential threat – the people who could radically reconfigure the definitions and objectives, if not the very entity, of Total Defense. Simply put, should Total Defense be of utmost importance as the state’s ostensible defense against external enemies, then arguably, an even bigger threat would be the ones who can refute, reject, or alter the functions of Total Defense.
And who else might these people be in this instance, but the Singaporean citizenry?
If Total Defense is a tool for socio-political control, then citizens’ willing (but unwitting) consumption of Total Defense’ rhetoric and reification will invariably serve to strengthen and intensify state power over citizens. Thus, Total Defense renders the citizens totally defenseless against itself, against its originators – the state.
Even though the notion of defense externalizes threats, the concept is self-sufficient, as threats can be purely imagined (and imagined for), even if they are not always manifested physically. But this compels one to trespass into the defensum, i.e. the forbidden territory that would trigger defenses, if not defensiveness, where accusations meet defenses, counter-accusations and counter-defenses, where sacrifices precede war, and where silence groans as cacophony, where there is neither dialogue nor truce, but conflict-orchestrated peace-keeping, and where it is necessary to read subversion as madness without denigration. To read subversion as against mandatory paradigms of proof.
What will you defend? (Yes, I will.) No, what? (But why?)
* * *
There are truths, there are truths institutionalized, and there are truths disqualified. Disqualification:
graduates refusing to retrain and sell fried chestnuts in the market could be seen as undermining Economic Defence, and decrying governmental social engineering in the form of HDB racial quotas could be seen as injurious to Social Defence. (Excerpt of ex-Wikipedia Article on Total Defense of which a trace is detectable at the talk page; the main article is questioned, but does not suffer the same fate)
[The last we saw, the main article was plagiarized from the Total Defense website (assuming that different authors are involved).]
Something happens when satire, which may be more truthful than what is allowed to exist, is expected to conform to encyclopedic standards of truth. You cannot make your point in any other style or form; you cannot make your point with deliberate ambiguity or ambivalence. Play by the rules or go to another site.
Perhaps Singapore is a kind of Wikipedic space. There is little to stop unrecognized forms from cropping up, but the entire Wikipedized community would appear to censor, to disqualify.
But which other site is there?
How could you defend yourself?
(Sorry, Wikipedia, you were merely a metaphor. A mere metaphor.)
Accusations and Defenses, Nonsense taking Offenses
Of self-reflexive apologia, inevitable schizophrenia, and a parodic table in the spirit of temporal efficiency and intellectual rationality, apparently offering irreverent interpolations and rupture within structure.
(And of course, presented for the leisurely self-indulgence of our dear readers.)
| Neutral Judge: I generally do not disagree with Objective Reviewer. But I don’t think the masses are all brainwashed. If everyone is brainwashed, then KJ would not have been able to make such a claim in the first place. The people on the ground have eyes to see for themselves. People like KJ are unable to convince others of their ideas, with his pseudo-intellectualisms which most people would find inaccessible. [molly: but you have accessed him, haven't you? otherwise, how would you know that he is being pseudo-intellectual?] With the better educated who are able to deal with the density of his words to reveal the dismal lack of substance in them, his ideas have no purchase because they are essentially hollow. Of course, no one can stop KJ from expressing himself, but what Singapore needs is not self-indulgent people like KJ, but those who are able to arouse people from their slumber and excite changes. [molly: so, it all goes back to what “Singapore” needs, not what KJ is! Poor KJ!][KJ: Err! Neutral judge’s judgements, rather than being neutral, are contradictory and value-laden! Neutral Judge certainly judges more than he neutralizes!] | Objective Reviewer: You are not being fair, KJ. You accord far too much to propaganda, as if Singapore is a conspiracy hub. As a government critic, you need to express balanced [molly: that depends on the sort of scales you use . . .] and well-substantiated views, not polemical senselessness. You have to work within the system. Play by the rules, even if you think they are unfair. It is counter-effective embarking on semi-fictive critique when you are dealing with real issues in the real world.By saying No to defense, you are effectively undermining the nation for the sake of undermining the government and you are not going to get much support. [molly: how does one gain support from those who do not even know they are supporting one's adversaries?] Such radical discourse will alienate the masses. No doubt, you might say that the masses have already been brainwashed by the dominant ideology, but you need to appeal to their sensibility before you can bring about change. |
| Third Party: Molly, it is very rude and disruptive [molly: aha! that's the word!] of you to invade Neutral Judge’s and Objective Reviewer’s comments with those frivolous interpolations of yours. Such issues bring out the worst in you, showing that you simply fail to be constructive and engage others especially when the need arises. Go away, we don’t need people like that.Look at Neutral Judge and Objective Critic. Their comments are valid, well-reasoned and lucid, exemplary critique that Singapore needs and lacks. Unlike the many netizens who churn out nonsense, their writing is structured and make sense.KJ, you spout nonsense compulsively. If you know nothing about defense, do your research before you meander and ramble on and on. Stop bringing shame to the blogosphere. If you feel that your point has not gotten across [molly: maybe it is impossible for the point to get across other than by means of a desperate provocation because it is beyond the parameters of sanctioned intelligibility.], it’s your fault for failing to be lucid. | KJ: I don’t belong here |you are here, face it|, but the question is not “Will you defend”, which could also be a rhetorical question, so the question preempts and has defended itself against the possibility of a deliberate, subversive “No.” We can, of course, answer “Nothing”. But that would mean we would not defend ourselves, not even against the rhetorical violence |what’s that?| inflicted on us. This would be a self-contradictory reply. If we answer “Myself”. We would be acknowledging ourselves as the objective/objectified functional “what” in the question.“What will you defend?” Is “will” possibly an ambiguous indicator of the future, allowing for a constant deferment of the acts of defense which indefinitely prolongs the moment of projection of potential threats?|The story is seductive, but it fails the test of truth. You are making things up.|The person answering does not even have to articulate “I”. The question is “what” and the answer could simply be the object. The “I will” of the answer might present a semblance of agency, but it is ultimately redundant.The question is also notably not “What will we defend”? even as the word “we” would have generated a rhetoric of togetherness. Every individual exists as a target. By virtue of the existence of a question being asked, there has to be an “I” in some form—the speaking “I” of power. The questioning “I” is an unspoken but stable “I” that can be reproduced for every addressee whereas the redundant answering “I” exists only as a rhetorical complement to the absolute “I” of power. The self of “I will defend [insert right answer]” is only legitimate insofar as it is a product of the absolute self of Power personified. We, answerers of the question, can only be a self via the proxy of power. There is sovereign power and there are subjugated subjects. |
| -DELETED-[Moderator: That's not constructive, Molly.] [KJ: I thought we were tasked to be deconstructive?] |
KJ: I’m ashamed of my perpetual gibberish and myself. I don’t know what came over me. I think Molly drugged me. I can’t even make sense of what I wrote.[Derrida: You shouldn’t. Like me, you’re dead.][molly: stop it jacques. not everyone has the right to rise from their graves when they sense something is wrong. please, return to where you died!] |
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Now that I think deeper into the subject, who or what does the gov want locals to believe they are defending against? Perhaps they want locals to defend against any possible threat that might arise in the future. Gov get males to sacrifice their time & risk their health & pay ‘em peanuts when they could earn lots more even with a Macjob. All in the name of total defense, to “standby” just in case enemy comes while giving males unfavorable conditions for their compulsory service to the country.
This is a disgusting attitude which extends even to other facets of society. Companies can hire more than enough foreign workers to rip agent fees off of them, & to keep ‘em on standby till there’s jobs for ‘em to do. While not giving ‘em work & $ in the meantime. Unfavorable conditions. Just too similar to NS.
This country seems to outright abuse the saying “Ask not what the country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” What for? I’m not gonna do my part to the best of my ability if you’re gonna subject me to unfavorable conditions. I can’t expect you to treat me like royalty if you treat me like dirt. I wish gov would stop speaking on behalf of local males & say everyone supports NS. Total propaganda.
I truely enjoyed reading articles by KJ and Molly Meek (whom i believe has his/her own blog). Simply scholarstic and bombastic articulation. bravo!
I like to share a doubt in my mind.
I have always wondered, is ‘country’ an artificially invented concept?
I mean, at the beginning of time was there the concept of country?
How did this term come about? what kind of person’s idea?
Country : a leader + followers?
why separate the earth into artificially created borders?
can 1 earth be 1 world be 1 country and thus no country?
technically possible. afterall, it is artificially created.
but don’t be mistaken, there is nothing big wrong with this term or concept of ‘country’ to me. I am just sharing a doubt in my mind. comments welcome also.
Chua Mui Mui, you are one of the rare people on Earth with high existential intelligence. You question what no one else seems to do. You question the existence & concept of what modern people has always known to be there ever since they were born.
Civilization progressed & through its journey, it discovered that they can survive better in groups. & groups survive better with good leaders. & all these are steps in evolution in humans’ way of life. Of course, from there on, comes greed & after the leader has already established a firm hold & absolute control over its group, it can do whatever it pleases no matter how much it seems to favor itself over the rest of the group.
Sidetracking a bit, I believe Earth will be united under one banner & Earthlings will be looking to colonize other forms of habitats in the universe, as well as interact with other forms of intelligent life out there. Mind you, they might not even be biological. Humans do not have the brain capacity to conceptualize & conceive all the possibilities out there in the universe. I am sure biological beings are not the only intelligent beings in the universe.
Benedict Anderson usefully defined the “nation” as an imagined community, where its “members” do not actually meet face-to-face but perceive themselves to be part of a greater whole (i.e. collectively imagining.. or Dreaming, as it were). The sense of belonging is artificial–one need only remember a certain prominent someone who recently still cherished hopes of Singapore being subsumed into a greater Malaya *cough*. well…
Anyway, a lovely parody of Total Defense (not just Our TD, but that of all imagined entities under siege) is Southpark’s ‘Imagination Land’ trilogy: “they’re invading our imagi(nation)!”
Congratulations to KJ and MM (heh) for this lovely exercise on deconstruction. I would like to add just this one thing, though: that Total Defense is predicated on citizens not leaving (more accurately, not being Able to leave) the country, and hence requires and utilizes the rhetoric of nationhood to justify the paranoia and the idea of a collective self-interest. A lot of people don’t buy into it, the state is aware of it, but these are people who don’t actually Have to… they can leave; they are mobile. usually intellectuals, but not necessarily. I believe the state realises this, and but they’re aiming for statistical success.
An entertaining article in the least.
But IMO Total Defence is just a mere medium to encourage people to do their own job and not stir any trouble for the country/gahmen. There isn’t really any reason to act upon it or deny it from happening. I have no reason to fret over TD anymore since I don’t bother with it ever since I was out o secondary school.
And also, seriously, doing everything given by TD would only make yourself a silenced citizen. (No Trouble For You, You Won’t Trouble Me.)
And the final excerpt was most amusing, I’m pretty entertained by it, so I thank you for your time to make that up.
NS is there to make you the singapore male obedient to what the government said. Or put it simply, just follow law.
while i am not here to complain or voice dissent about the concept of nation or country, i would like to mention 1 thing.
the concept of country actually has many good that it brings.
however, it also allienates and differentiates peoples of different countries.
What i mean is, it leads to creation of differences.
Case in point, some french dislike americans. french people continue to be differentiate from english speaking countries, just like japan. while it is good to have character, it creates a difference and thus can lead to friction.
people are all the same and only difference is color.
it is culture, language and borders that artificially creates differences.
The world can be 1 united without the concept of a country, on paper. Already, with internet and technology, the world is already beginning to become borderless. Already common language is becoming a reality. maybe common bilingual? or trilingual. travel half way round the globe takes less than 1 day.
differences can still exits as with views, opinions and thinkings and believes.
but this does not mean country less world is not possible.
but would the leaders be affected or welcome this thingie?
to preserve myself, i must say that this is only a scientific fictitious scenario for purpose of discussion. i actually am fine with the concept of country.
If I were to “Simon Cowell” your article here, there are at least 4 ways to read it:
POSSIBILITY 1
The author sincerely believes that the whole concept of Total Defence is a sham. it is a cover for an insidious and systematic programme of brain-washing and Govt propaganda to achieve total social control. Our citizenry of simpletons are especially vulnerable to such a scheme. Having realised this, he urgently writes a second article to belabor the same message, but in an even longer form to open our eyes. But is he giving the Govt too much credit in saying that the question ‘What will you defend?” is a loaded one?
POSSIBILITY 2
Having received some flak from some netizens for his first article, he defiantly writes a second just to spite them. By labeling this 2nd piece formally as a ‘deconstruction”, he hopes to deflect criticisms. But, I’m afraid he has written it in bad faith.
POSSIBILITY 3
It is a satirical and humorous piece not to be taken seriously. But why am I not laughing?
POSSIBILITY 4
The author likes to play circuitous intellectual games at the expense of readers.
Possibility 4 is the most probable!
Haha.. Don’t be surprised that there are people who really will stay and defend the country..
but then it’s because they have no money to rush out the exit doors… kakak..
so lan lan.. have to defend.
Thanks small voice585, at least I am not alone in finding the articles drained my mind with all its twisted and turned words which seem quite intellectual but hollow in substance.
Every government, organisation, political parties will have its propaganda to preserve its own agenda. We, the citizen will need to look beyond these footworks and evaluate whether the mass population is benefitting from such policies. Just like TOC, we hope it to be a moderated online voice, for objective reporting.
In maintaining a Defence force, it does have deterrence effect. Would you dare to steal your neighbour’s toy if each day you passed his front door, you see him punching sandbag, exercising on treadmill, feeding on health supplement pills, stock up first aid kit, extingusher, having muscular friends visiting him often? Each time I saw the SAF or Airforce advertisment on tv… I immediately pictured that this is also being watched in southern Johore and Batam & islands etc…. We have a wider audience intentionally or not????
I used to think that HDB flat ownership is also where the Nation tied most of us down to defend it. So, unless one can just uproot and plant their family elsewhere at a flick of a finger, one have to stay put and face the invader.
So, whether we have real or unreal threat. TD is a insurance policy. Males paid a 2 years premium…
( NS is also another bonding time for guys which can turn up lasting friendship).
Quoted from frankumcity, “TD is a insurance policy. Males paid a 2 years premium…”
Is the insurance of this country worth the exorbitant premium of 2 years of one’s life? It’s subjective, but personally, it’s not worth it. I’m not satisfied with life in in this country & its policies & the way this it’s run enough to warrant 2 years of my life to defend it.
smallvoice585, you seem to be a true supporter of PAP. It’s great to have you posting in this web portal! Diverse opinions make for interesting, constructive debate. Who needs moderation from other parties if we have it in our hearts to be courteous to one another despite our differences in beliefs & opinions? Then again, not everyone agrees with Confucius to treat everyone with courtesy. Such is the world we live in, where everyone has different opinions that could lead to friction & war if not handled tactfully by individuals.
frankumcity:
People who commit crimes don’t usually think of what the consequence would be if they are caught. They do it because they think (or know) that they can get away with it. I don’t think that your imaginary pumped up, well-stocked neighbour would have any toys worth stealing anyway. His lifestyle does not seem to have any space for play-with-toy time. Unless you’re referring to his dumbbells.
And if you think that tv advertisement is enough to deter “hostile forces”, well… we may have a bigger issue brewing here.
Oh, who cares…we’re all gonna die once North Korea Finishes that missile of theirs and sells it everywhere else. And if they don’t someone else would probably finish up their satellite weapon somehow and finally piss someone else to blow everything up.
We might want to show everyone else that new underground ammo storage facility.
More missiles = more defense, we might look into that LOL.
j/k, I’m too hyper right now to think up anything optimistic.
ref #9 isa,
“what will you defend?”
i have nothing. no property, no money, no wife, so what will i defend?
compared to a millionaire, he has property, tons of money, family (and maybe 1 or 2 mistresses) and assets – these are what he will defend.
i have nothing to defend,
no money, no house, no family,
so, what will i defend?
Dear #pugdragon,
I do not believe in coming here to merely exchange niceties and pleasantries – it would be a hypocritical waste of time to do so. I believe I can be blunt, honest, sincere and courteous.
It appears that in the small mental universe of a Singaporean netizen at TOC, people are either pro-PAP or anti-PAP. Doesn’t it remind us of the disastrous attitude of George W Bush – “you’re either with us or against us!” – and you know what that finally led to. I believe in the motto of the Enlightenment – “Sapere aude” = HAVE THE COURAGE TO USE YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING.
Yet, regrettably, I know I’ve been a little harsh on KJ because he appears to be pulling a fast one on readers here and has not been writing in good faith. I trust that KJ knows that all this is part of the rigorous, yet friendly, intellectual exchange that we all enjoy.
Almost the ‘death of man’ if not for the final ‘disclaimer’ of a ‘self-reflexive apologia’…
I choose to be a subject of Total Defense…becos i kindda like NS as the chance to catch-up w old frens to conduct live-firing missions at the KTV range. like that how?
excellent analysis!!! Kudos to the writers for highlighting the points abt TD that’re repressed in this country, well, for obvious reasons. hopefully readers can ponder over more carefully the points raised in the article.
forgot to add.. the commentators seem just to be repeating what’re being said in the boxes .. hahah. mine included reckon. brilliant. just brilliant!
It is really very simple. KJ is telling us that we should not defend our country, since we could be brainwashed by PAP to do so. In fact, we shouldn’t even call this our country, no, because this is actually PAP’s country! Why should we all defend Singapore to keep PAP in power? Forget NS and defense! If Malaysia says it wants to annex us, let’s all go to the Malaysian embassy and exchange our passports for Malaysia passports, and welcome our new existence under our new masters, the bumiputras!
What is a country, a nation? KJ tries to convince us that our notion of a nation is merely a meaningless concept, invented by our rulers to make us fight for them. He hides behind existentialism but his agenda is nihilistic. Indeed, looking through the lens of nihilism, nothing has meaning – no nation, no family, no friends, no ego. Where then, is the human spirit? Why even talk about concepts of justice, equality and freedom, for are these not even more nebulous?
Let me then define what ‘nation’ is. Very simply, a nation is an ‘identity’. Just like family is an identity. Your group of close friends have an identity. Humankind is also an identity. And if you want to encompass everyone, Earthlings is an identity. WHAT IS WRONG WITH IDENTITY, AND WANTING TO DEFEND IT?
In attacking and undermining our identity as Singaporeans, KJ is alienating himself from Singapore. Is this the right attitude for any opposition party or candidate to have? Can Singaporeans trust such people? Please reflect on this.
PAP is NOT Singapore. Defending Singapore is NOT equivalent to defending PAP. Similarly, an attack on Singapore is an attack on Singaporeans, not PAP. KJ needs to get this concept sorted out.
Wrong Panache. KJ’s saying Total Defence is NOT just about defending Singapore. I think he’s already stated clearly he is not against NS or defending the country. BUt that we need to reflect properly before we think of laying down our lives. THer’s nothing wrong in giving it deeper thought than we already do. It’s mindless people that is doing singapore that is not the PAP as u said, that are doing singapore a disservice. u can also do everyone a service by reading properly and thinking before saying what is quite wrong :)
20) Panache on February 28th, 2009 2.09 pm
“In attacking and undermining our identity as Singaporeans, KJ is alienating himself from Singapore. Is this the right attitude for any opposition party or candidate to have? Can Singaporeans trust such people? Please reflect on this.
PAP is NOT Singapore. Defending Singapore is NOT equivalent to defending PAP. Similarly, an attack on Singapore is an attack on Singaporeans, not PAP. KJ needs to get this concept sorted out.”
While you are right in your explanation and while we are struggling with our internal rationale, don’t you think that the emotional part in us has been moulded to identify PAP = Singapore.
Well, most of us did not say the followings but have you ever heard of something which goes like this “Send in military if there is freak election” & “Single party”. Mr. Panache, who do you think the military will listen.
Thank to Panache for making KJ’s article into simple language. But then I will have a delimma to defend sg or pap if the subsequent posts brings out this trouble spot.
So, should we ns man do nothing when missiles are lodged into pap wards or Instana or bt gombak? We called our CD friends to stand by only at potong pasir and hougang to offer first hand assistance?
The american using their smart bomb and whatever sensor homing aid could not pin down Mr Saddam Hussien. So, I wonder whether can our attackers wipe out identified pap target as efficient as the american?
So, while the debates rages on who and what to defend? our fellow singaporean civilians, women and children will suffer much from enemy fire.
Some one please help my understanding here.
Although m humble learning from chinese culture is : 国家:- 有国才有家.
I do not see or feel one. A country by the name of Singapore yes, it once belonged to the British Empire and was controlled by the Japanese for a while.
This country Singapore has yet to be a nation and it is barren to nationhood.
In any case many nations have strong defence force without National Service.
Total Defence is possible when the citizens have good homes, good families, good leadership and the individuals have good livings. Do Singaporeans have these ?
The society must be cohesive for the success of total defence, is Singapore a cohesive society ? Or is it a fragmented one ?
Sorry, for my other races citizen, the chinese word at the last para means ” Nation – (the chinese word contains 2 mono-term to form the word, i.e:.Country & Home; literally that you need to have your country first before you have your home.
Dear #20 Panache,
Well said. Congrats!
It’s no wonder Singaporeans are this brainwashed with simpletons like panache.. sigz.
I have a simple theory. Humans want to defend what they love. They would not want to bother defending something they do not care about. The justification of defending the country or not lies in the individual’s feelings of it.
There is nothing wrong with disliking the governmental system, culture, climate or population density of the country you’re in. Different individuals have different opinions of how a perfect home country should be like. Although, there is no such thing as a perfect country, so all an individual can do is to hope that his country holds beliefs as similar to his as possible.
Or he could choose to change himself to suit the environment he’s in to fit in with the crowd. I, with reference to the Guiness stout advertisement a few years ago, would prefer to change the environment to suit myself.
In unpacking ‘Total Defense’, I think KJ & MM are trying to do us Singaporeans a favor by demonstrating how we could or already have been seduced to serve state power. While Panache is on the spot when she/he identified that we are not spaced-out, brain-washed subjects, I feel that we need that constant vigilance – an ethic of thinking that KJ & MM are performing to keep our ‘selves’ in whatever identities in check.
“What will you defend?”
It is really sad to read from some of the responses here that the answer to the above question might be – “nothing”. In that case, our nation-building has failed. Singapore will fade into history, like thousands of weaker civilizations before it. Maybe the lightning strike on the Merlion yesterday is an omen :p
There are people who build and there are those who destroy. Reflect on which one you are. And trust me, people can sense what you are from what you write and what you say.
panache: it’s even sadder that people unthinkingly ‘beleive’ in their country. duh. such blind nationalism and visions of greatness is precisely what start war.
Dear #31jon,
If while you are walking along the street, someone suddenly throws a punch at your face, would you duck, parry or counter his punch in some way? Or would you do nothing because reacting to the assault would be “unthinkingly believing in self-defence”?
Defending your country is defending your own body writ large. Both are as natural as night and day! If defending your own country is repulsive and nauseating to you, you should change your citizenship. Nobody is forcing you to stay here in Singapore.
#31
Jon, I think each of us think the other is naive :p
You think I am naive because I ‘unthinkingly’ believe in nationalism and self-defense.
I think you naive because you expect ‘others’ to respect our sovereignty and some ‘global police’ or UN to protect us if attacked.
Which one of us is right? :D
All I know is that the world will get unstable very quickly as the financial system breaks down. A big fist is a good insurance policy.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed that our ability to defend is never tested.
There is truth that many citizens have mixed feelings about whether this country
called Singapore is worth defending. Can’t blame them though, it has to do with
a sense of ownership, emotional attachment to family, friends,colleagues and
fellow citizens. The first generation of PAP leaders have a strong bond with the people because of shared burden,sweat and sacrifice. However I cannot say the same for the subsequent generation of PAP leaders, more so for the present lot !
There is no question it is about defending Singapore and my fellow citizens, and not the elites.
However the biggest doubt is our elites, whether they will be around, whether they have the stomach for it. Past and present behaviour is the clue.
Honestly, the paper generals and our present political leaders
do not inspire me one bit !
32/ smallvoice , what you said is laughable. When I was an exchange student in NUS last year what struck me was how Singaporeans don’t even realise how ingrained with far-right (fascist, lah!) ideology they are.
Your comment would’ve been laughed out of high school classrooms in Australia and the UK (i can only cite these two from personal experience.
It seems Singapore has a long way to go in terms of intellectual development. LOL Asking people who were unhappy with the state to leave was exactly what Hitler and Mussolini and their propagandized supporters did: Smallvoice par examplar!
Asking dissenting voices to ‘leave Singapore’ is childish and dumb and exactly the reasons why Singapore is and will never become democratic and mature.
There will be no doubt that Singaporeans will be in complete and full defence of their wealths and many will leave the country to the dogs when the country is in troubles. There is no need for war to scare or drive these people away, they will naturally run away from trouble spot. Self preservation is in the blood, ‘ren bu wei ji, tian zhu ti mie’ meaning one who does not care for oneself will perish. What this means is that most will leave the defence of a country to other fellow countrymen and find all kind of reasons to excuse oneself, it is normal behavior you know ?
It is so comforting and great to know that we do have Singaporeans here who swear to defend the country to the last drop of their bloods. To all the Loyal Singaporeans, i say YOU HAVE MY GREATEST RESPECT AND i SALUTE YOU !
Keep it up !
#35
Aiyo, Jon… you should have mentioned that you are not Singaporean.
You are welcome to your opinions and prejudices about Singapore and Singaporeans. They do not concern me :D
All I feel is a little sorry for your country, and hope that you never become a Singaporean. As you must already know, since you haunt these forums, we abhor serving NS to defend new immigrants who have no loyalty to Singapore.
#36
Haha… did you realize that you just validated Total Defense? It is precisely because Singaporeans have their wealth in properties here, that we will want to defend it. The more stake we have in the success of Singapore, the more we want to defend it. Let’s not rule out the elites and wealthy so soon. Lim Bo Seng was an ‘elite’ too in his time.
Which is more worthy ?
Life or Property(ies) ?
Dear #35 jon,
I think you must have misunderstood me. I did not ask ‘dissenting voices to leave Singapore’. All I suggested was that if defending your own country is repulsive and nauseating to you, you should change your citizenship. Why stay and punish yourself?
If I hate my country or have no belief in it, I would leave in a minute. It would be against my integrity to stay here, sponging on others to defend Singapore and refusing to do my part, yet demanding my share of its prosperity. I wouldn’t be happy living such a shameful life.
I am puzzled as to how taking such a stand qualify me as a fascist. Maybe, you do not understand the meaning of ‘fascism’. Perhaps, can you tell us your understanding of fascism?
You are right – my comment would’ve been laughed out of high school classrooms in Australia and the UK. I believe that the concept of integrity is beyond the understanding of frivolous youngsters – they wouldn’t know how to respond except to laugh in embarrassment.
Of course, I now understand why you said what you said – because you are not a Singaporean. If you are willing to learn more about Singapore, you will eventually understand what I’m saying. If not, don’t you think you transgressing basic human etiquette by passing irresponsible comments on questions of defense and loyalty in another country?
We need more Leopard tanks to defend Pedra Branca
Dear #36 “Total Defence for your wealth”
You are wrong to say that it is NORMAL behavior to abdicate your responsibility in defending your country.
Perhaps, you never had the opportunity to experience the joys of virtuous citizenship and love for one’s country. If you do, you will realise that participating in a fulfilling national life is beyond wealth, selfish gains and personal survival.
Most people find it uncool to declare one’s loyalty to one’s country and would deliberately say something negative just to be with the in-crowd. I advise more Singaporeans to show some moral courage and try to inspire others to a higher level of existence.
The truth is, the thought of defending singapore which seems to have changed its face completely from the 80s is nauseating to me. I liked singapore in the 80s. It’s comfortable & full of local flavor. I felt that I belong here.
Fast forward 20 years later to now, not anymore. I WILL change my citizenship if i could, & denounce my singapore citizenship. I think the main problem is no longer having a sense of belonging due to the rapid change in the country & not liking local the system & lifestyle.
It’s not that I didn’t try to leave. I applied for jobs overseas, no dice. I didn’t have the skills that most 1st world countries are in need of. I need to be there physically to attend job interviews for ‘em to even consider me.
If my salary’s not high enough for me to save a lot amidst the local cost of living, it’s very difficult to save enough $ to get my ass overseas & stay there while I attend job interviews. So, dissidents simply leaving singapore for countries more suited to their individual ideals is easier said than done.
I am 100% Singaporean though was once a British Subject. We, the people of Singapore have played and are playing our parts to prosper this country all our live. Is there a need for any of us to leave because we feel that National Defence can be better accomplish by having a proper fighting force and not neccessarily through conscription ?
If anyone feel shame to partake or share the prosperity of this country, they should feel free to go, no one will stop them.
I assure post 42 that the very reason many have stayed despite their abilities to live elsewhere is simply because they have played a big part in contributing to the developments of this country which bears no sign of nationhood since the day of its’ independence and there are absolutely no sign that it is capable of it.
Fren , all the noises here You are hearing here are all for the good of this country as all the noise makers do not want to see this country ruin by poor management. How do You expect the citizenry to respect their money-loving leaders selling national assets, making their citizens slog like water buffaloes? Have You used to conscience to look at the realities ?
Dear #43 pugdragon,
I appreciate your forthrightness and honesty in sharing your thoughts about wanting to leave but couldn’t because of practical constraints. I empathise with your predicament and I know there are many people in your shoes.
But perhaps, may I humbly submit to you a suggestion to reconsider your stand – the unalterable fact that Singapore is YOUR country, no matter how bad the changes, system, lifestyle or leaders may be.
Even if you are to change citizenship, psychologically at least, you are still inescapably a Singaporean.
Dear #44 Fair deal,
What is “Singapore” really? Singapore as a concept is the sum total of all life and life activities on this island. You and I are all integral parts of it. If we dislike some parts of it, we are all jointly responsible for these bad parts. If we think that Singapore is poorly run, we should put our heads together to make things better. Running away is an admission of defeat and failure.
I hope Singaporeans will not lose hope. Keep your chins up, brothers!
Dear 45 Smallvoice 585;
You are perfectly right, do not suggest to Singaporeans to leave, that’s exactly the point. It is our country, it does not just belong to the leaders ! Every Singaporean has his inalienable rights to be here either to defend this country or to fight selfish, self-serving, problematic and conceited regime. Enemy inside could be worse than enemies outside. Let us give priority to internal problems first, be You, the Patriotic, or those who have lose their feelings for the land their feet are on, let us stay and work together for a better country. You are very wise and have all my support.
That’s right. Every Singaporean has a vote. Use it wisely. This government needs to wake up its idea.
Fair deal & smallvoice, you guys are right. Being proud of one’s country need not equate to being satisfied with the country’s government & the changes & system they brought upon the country.
Fair deal, I like your point that Singapore does not just belong to the leaders, it belongs to citizens as well. That’s probably why I’m so frustrated. Under the current system, I feel that I have no part here at all. I have no say & the government is changing the country to the way that I am against in every aspect.
I like nature & greenery; Construction everywhere, even now. I like peaceful & quiet environment; floodgates of mass immigration opened, all in the name to boost the economy & brought about a population way above optimum level for comfort. I enjoy freedom & hate to be be trapped; I got roped into NS against my own will.
We want to make things better but we can’t ‘cos we ain’t got enough human rights to make our voices heard & opinions taken seriously by the government.
“like nature & greenery; Construction everywhere, even now. I like peaceful & quiet environment; floodgates of mass immigration opened, all in the name to boost the economy & brought about a population way above optimum level for comfort. I enjoy freedom & hate to be be trapped; I got roped into NS against my own will.”
How would you like the small red dot to accomodate : 2M, 4M, 6M, 8M people to occupy this small land mass. How are we going to add value in this congested place with inherent externalities where the costs are not immediate and sometimes hidden (e.g close physical friction, pollution, more roads and sometimes widen closer to your houses which are built smaller even they have the same title of 3-rm, 4-rm or 5-rm as compared to previous). Where we can claim that we are on par with international standards (comparable or even better than the other equally congested cities around the world). If you compare shit with shit and get used to it, some shit does smell a little better.
How this squeezy yet squeezy value-addition is going to be re-allocated where your heavy weight ministars are commanding global record salari and where foreign exchange may be lost (now paper loss only which has a chance to be recovered under the grand long term plans) to foreign investment tours..
that’s why Total Defence is not the ideal Total defence as practised in other democratic countries. Seem like sg’s Total defence is an ADDITIONAL tool for social control and engineering. on this point i totally agree with the writer.
it’s amazing how a critique of tyranny has descended into shallow nationalism when the writer seems to be arguing for a more informed patriotism. some of the ocmmentators’ misreading here is rather unfortunate.