1/18/2006
is there a problem?
i am not too sure about this. but what i have gathered so far is that a born singaporean can only exercise his right to become a citizen of another country only when he attains the age of 21. this means that all male singaporeans who intend to take up another citizenship will still be a defaulter if he does not serve his ns. he is thus liable to be charged in court when he steps into singapore even if he is now a foreign citizen. cannot even be a pr here until after he has been charged as a defaulter.
'sway' to be born a singaporean. if born from anywhere else, malaysia, india or china, or indonesia, can come here and work as pr and be treated as a foreign talent. there is no possibility for the govt to accede to a request to defer ns pending application for foreign citizenship at 21. so technically cannot escape.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hi Redbean,
This question of whether to do NS or not is very personal. Some may feel that it is a duty to do NS. Some may feel that because it is the law they will do it grudgingly. However, there are those who are totally against it either for moral reasons or because of personal ambition. For these latter category, do you not feel that it is totally a waste of time, effort and resources to train them and force them to give up 2 years of their life. The saying, " you can lead a horse to water, but you can never force the horse to drink if it does not wish to" rings true here.
I will try to contribute to your blog when I leave this lovely city of yours. However, without the ST I will be writing blind. Maybe I will concentrate on my blog. See you there sometimes.
Good luck and many thanks for your interesting views. Hope I have participated helpfully.
i think no one would want to serve ns if it is voluntary. and many serve with some grudges but still accept it as a necessity and responsibility. they are just conscripted by the state. sure no choice.
but as to the point of can't force the horse to drink, that is true. but as a national policy, cannot afford to let horses that don't drink not to go through it. that is why there are some religious group would still be enlisted but kept in some kind of detention camp. one of these groups' position is that they cannot carry arms. but to let them go without ns, soon you will have everyone coming with similar reasons.
i enjoy your discussion here. actually for people like us, it is not so much factual discussion but a sharing of our views and experience in life. we relate to events that are happening and apply our values on them, interpret them from our own perpective. nothing about right or wrong. and often we do see things differently.
matilah is another animal, in a way like me. trying to see things from a different angle. not necessary right and not easily acceptable to many people. we disagree strongly and express our views strongly.
i think that makes it more interesting.
i will look forward to your return. and when you are on holiday, and when bored or miss us, just hit the button and we will be with you.
Sure I will visit your blog from time to time. Btw I am not going for holidays, I am going home. Will be back here in Singapore in March 2006.
so nice to have so many places to call home to. have a good trip. when are you leaving? and where is home exactly?
To serve or not to serve one's cuntry militarily should be a voluntary choice
What gives the state and its civil serpents the right to dictate edicts to the young males of S'pore? Absolutely nothing.
Every male and his parents should take stance and boycott this abomination. Not everyone can be a lawyer or a doctor or a rock star. By the same argument not everyone can be an effective soldier. That is why "rational" cuntries (if there is ever such a thing) opt for voluntary professional soldiering instead of conscription.
I urge a stand of civil disobedience on this issue. If this is seditious speech, so be it. I have a one-finger salute to the civil serpent who seeks to prosecute me :-)
HAH. Now they've dropped the time to be served in NS
haha,
as i explained in the other post, it is between the devil and the deep blue sea. no ns, and if we don't have a standing army, our security will be compromised.
let's say the people defeated this motion of no ns. then will we be in a better state? i doubt we can afford such a huge army. we are counting on every man as a soldier.
given the stakes involved, just hope the rich with all their million dollar properties will not treat the heartlanders too miserly. treat the heartlanders well.
Aha. There's your unexamined assumption: the need for a stnading army.
How come you are so "attached" to the idea?
There is abosolutely no proof that a standing army is required here. "Security" is all based on amyths and lies.
Still, your assumptions are unexamined.
Singapore WAS "well defended" against the Japs. (ooops. govt cock up).
Everyone was played out, because the govt failed to defend its citizens from a foreign invader... and now your suggestion is more govt (the last govt cocked up), and this one will cock up too... a govt mandated FORCED conscription of young males?
How does that solve the defense "problem"?
My solution: Allow the citizens to arm themselves, and encourage them to emabrk on their own weapons training.
Operate a well trained, well-paid black ops militia, with a small but deadly navy and airforce.
I guarantee you, That's all you'll need. No one would dare attack your country. Because... even if they defeated the military, the would-be conquerers would be facing an angry, deadly armed local population of ordinary people doing extrordinary things - defending with their lives, that which they love.
Let's say there are 2 million able-bodied men and women in S'pore (about half the population). Imagined if they all were armed, attended weapons training, and were pissed off at an invasion that has got thru the strong but small militia.
The invaders are sure lose. Imagine trying to beat and disarm 2 million people? No way!
With the spontaneous order left alone, these 2 million gun owners and self-defense enthusiasts, will naturally devolve into groups - gun clubs, gun forums, expositions, community out-reach etc., as can be expected from a rational population. (Do I believe the population of S'pore as "rational"? Yes. Quite OK)
When people devolve into groups, there is an increased amount of activity and interaction. In this way a "healthy gun culture" is possible: where people respect each others rights and don't interfere with each other.
With a well-armed population, you can do away with NS, a large standing army... and possibly most of the police force.
National defense begins, and ends with self-defense.
Post a Comment