5 Great Things about Singapore 2

1 Best Zoo, Best Night Safari, Best Birdpark

Singapore of course has the world renowned Zoo, Night Safari, and of course the Birdpark, places which make Singapore such a wonderful place to live in. Now, not only can we get to see monkeys in parliament*, we get to see them in natural habitats in an artificial zoo, something that defines the very essence of dramatic irony. Never mind that we only visit them once a year or once a decade, our primary school kids visit the places more frequently than us (twice a year or twice a decade). In fact, when I think of the parallel success of both Sg and its wonderful zoo, I reflect in wonderment and awe. This is because I think of the Zoo and all its animals in captivity, well taken care of, no fear of being hungry or thirsty, no fear of being liberated into the wild to fend for itself, I cant help but heave a contented sigh that I am living in Sg, where I am well taken care of, no fear of being hungry or thirsty, no fear of being liberated into the wild to fend for myself.

*Because I heard that when you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Just kidding, don't ISD me!

2 No uncertainty or indecisiveness

Of course, with such a wonderful government controlled by an extremely capable political party, there is no uncertainty for our country's future. Even when the time comes when every citizen is called upon to make a decision which could either make or break the country, we can be rest assured that such a weight is virtually lifted off our shoulders because there is no doubt who we will vote for and who will once again return to power. As such we will never make a wrong decision that we may live to regret in the future. Neither do we need to consider differing viewpoints, which may result in confusion or disillusionment. As I say something which may be quotable, 'If there is no other way then there is no wrong way'.

3 Finding Love is never easier

Unlike other countries whereby selfish governments leave their citizens in the lurch, expecting them to find their own life partners or dwell in the meaningless ether of solitarity, we have in place sound policies to ensure we are given a helping hand. To facilitate this process, we are even spared the effort of sifting through those which are not worthy of consideration. This is achieved by having 2 separate entities, SDU and SDS, so as to separate the elite mould from the averages. No where else in the world would you have everything laid out in a platter like Sg!

4 No gambling (at least for now)

Sinful gamblers are denied the chance to spread their vile habits and their negative contributions to society because gambling is banned in Sg. They are exiled to a cruise ship where they can sin away their lives and money.

No casinos, no betting shops. Hey wait a minute, I forgot about Singapore Pools. Oh and they are thinking of building a casino. Oh damn. What will happen to our once pristine society if it is stained by the presence of this vile institution of casinos? A mindnumbingly grand total of one of them, on a not obscure island off Singapore's coast. There is a high chance that its evil sphere of influence will spread like a sneaky plague across the bridge and engulf singapore in a wave of avarice, and stain our very souls with its inherent evil.

Although we certainly could do without the evils, even if this happens, Singapore would still be a great place to be in, because we now have one more place to go to during our weekends! Not to gamble, mind you! Thats evil! But just to 'look and see'.

5 We are entitled to cars!

Unlike other countries whereby buying and selling of cars only result in acquisition or relinquishment of the car, in Sg we actually get a wonderful certificate proclaiming our ENTITLEMENT to usage of the car. This saves us the hassle and dangers of being acquiring ownership to cars (So much responsibility!) and also makes it easier for us to get rid of it because we sure as hell don't want to be using them after 10 years because the exhaust will give out outdated quantities of carbon monoxides and other toxic substances which is not good for our health. Never mind that the piece of paper is more expensive than the car itself, it has the side benefit of regulating the number of cars on the road so that there will not be traffic jams, especially in the peak hour. Also never mind that public transports have human jams during peak hour. BO can be tolerated, but not exhaust.

Superficiality and the City

Anyone who has watched Desperate Housewives, a popular American TV series, would know that the premise of the show is about how, beneath a seemingly normal and peaceful neighbourhood, there is a whole backlog of politicking, bitching, backstabbing and secrets which are not evident on a superficial front. A visit to Mysteria Lane (the title of the street where the protagonists reside) would give a would-be visitor an impression of a pleasant neighbourhood, one where the residents are always happy and rich and throw parties. These protagonists hide their troubles and secrets from their neighbours, such that in each of their eyes, their neighbours are seemingly perfect people, and consequently they feel inadequate at their own imperfection.

In short, on the surface it looks a wonderful place to live in, yet beneath this facade, their lives are not as perfect as it seems.

In many ways, I sometimes can't help but liken a comparison between the denizens of Mysteria Lane and the citizens of Singapore. On the surface, Singapore indeed looks the perfect place to live in. Spotlessly clean, mindlessly efficient, hearteningly safe, caring government... these are but a few examples a Singaporean can boast about when he proudly acclaims the wonderful place that he lives in.

The state controlled media plays a big part in instilling a fine sense of wellbeing in the nation. It maintains a front that Singapore is virtually a perfect place to live in, one that our children can grow up well educated, one that we can go out at night without being mugged, one that we can achieve happiness by being the best amongst our peers. It boasts the achievements of the nation and downplays or conveniently neglects to mention the various social ills that are plaguing the society, among them, the problem of illegal immigrants, the plight of homeless old folk and the shockingly high suicide levels, among a myriad others.

The competition between the housewives in DH is certainly not a foreign trait to Singaporeans. Desperate to keep up and look like 'successful housewives', these 'friends' do not share their troubles with each other. Instead, they put on a show that they are 'coping' and 'enjoying' their lives, competing to be 'superior' to another. Lets take an example: TaiTai, who has a son is studying 'in a premier JC in the Bishan-AngMoKio district' can proudly tell her 'mahjong kakis' that her son is an elite student. Of course, she will also conveniently neglect to mention that her son has stress related problems, and is currently seeing a shrink, To another 'mahjong kaki', LaoPo, it would seem that she is such a perfect parent. LaoPo then thinks back on her own lazy child who only manages to get mediocre grades in a 'neighbourhood' school. Not understanding why their own child is more stupid, and not wanting to accede that she is more incapable as a parent, she rails at her child, coercing him to work hard and get good grades. Consequently, this child develops low self esteem, and hangs out 'with the wrong crowd'. Of course, all these bleak realities will be covered up by LaoPo as well, as LaoPo may well 'lose even more face' should Taitai realise that not only is LaoPo's son stupid, he is a paikia (gangster), something which is a great stigma in our society. Showing weakness in public is a no-no. Everything must be to perfection.

The misfeasance of adhering to such a mentality is not to be blamed squarely an individual's Singaporean's shoulders. Our government encourages meritocracy but is perhaps overzealous in ensuring productivity in its citizens, resulting in a societal consciousness which is attuned to such facade and competition. One such example is the introduction of the School Ranking System, a bible to many a parent. The Ranking System of Primary Schools, for example, highlights the schools with the best academic output. Consequently many parents will resort to almost anything to get their kids into the best primary school to get a 'headstart'. However, these Ranking Systems are ultimately one-dimensional, as they fail to account for other critical factors, such as the 'Stress Level' of the school. So, this primary school may be absolutely elite as an academic institution, but it may not be quite as wonderful for a child's social development. Just because the Ranking Systems states that Elite Primary School is the best school academically doesn't automatically mean that it is the best overall environment for every child.

Similarly, just because the ST paints a wonderful picture of Singapore, doesn't mean that everything in Singapore is fine and dandy. Of course, when revolutionaries such as Royston Tan try to paint a true alternative picture of Singapore, they receive censure. We are denied the truth of the real situation. We are offered a rosy picture, one where we all live in a happy environment of litterless streets and airconditioned shopping malls, where all the social ills are swept under a carpet and disappear from our consciousness. Out of sight, out of mind.

No doubt, there are people who have never experienced the 'rough' side of Singapore before and consequently do not know the real picture of the situation. As their sources are entirely from a skewed perspective, the 'not so nice' aspects clouded from their view, they reason that there is no problem at all with society. Of course, this line of thinking is inherently defective in itself, since it would be naïve to think that a society can exist without a share of its problems. The problem is that these issues are either downplayed or concealed from public consciousness, leading to ignorance or apathy.

Then there will be another class of people who are 'vaguely aware' of the societal ills from alternative news sources. However, they cite that 'Singapore is still better than X, Y and Z country in many ways'. Again, this is another example of being sucked into the fallacy of 'comparative happiness', which is certainly not a positive characteristic of any individual or society especially when taken to obsessive levels, which may just be the case in Singapore's situation. Incidentally, when I raise issues about the repression of societal ills from our consciousness, I do not consider if X, Y or Z is worse or better off than us in this particular aspect. I only consider what these socials ills are, how bad they actually are in our particular country, and whether there are ways and means to combat it.

Perhaps if we were tourists on a transit stop to Singapore, we would see the first-class airport, the wide expressways, the splendorous cityscape, the impeccably clean streets, and we would think; what a paradise this city state is. But we live here. We know better. Or do we?

If the true picture of Singapore is incorporated into our social consciousness, will it shatter our egos, destroy our self belief? Or will it makes us stand up and take an active stance against combating such ills? Will we learn to appreciate what we already have instead of pining for what others have that we do not? Is it really so bad to realise that Singapore is not as perfect as it seems? That we are not as perfect as we'd like to believe?

Is it better to be 'Number 1 in the World' economically at the cost of our social lives? Is it really better to have new airconditioned generic food courts over grimy, smoky back-lane food stalls? Is it better to subscribe to the adage that 'ignorance is bliss' and an apathetic 'that is not my problem' stance, or to have transparent access important statistics of our society, such as our migration, suicide and divorce rates, so that we can reflect on the bleak reality and accordingly take counteractive measures so as to lower such rates?

Should we pull the wool over our own eyes and pretend that everything is fine and dandy, and delude ourselves? Should we 'rank' happiness by degree of 'superficial success'?

Perhaps not.

Final Summarised Response to Critique

I shall share a bit of my personal experiences here (something that I try to refrain from doing, and rightly so), mainly invoked by HUICHIEH's and Olorin's assertation that perhaps there is a bit of 'personal issues' involved.

For reasons of security (and my own peace of mind), it is not possible for me to divulge my unit nor my rank. I do have a personal take on the SAF and for good reason. I won't go so far that I would go to the extent of betrayal or for that matter even 'chao keng' (I am PES A and have no intention of downgrading just for the sake of it). What happened during those days are over, and I do not wish to elaborate what happened as it is no longer consequential. All I will maintain is that while I proposed 'The 3 Mentalities', the irony is that for a good part of my army life I actually did not fall into any 'The 3 Mentalities', though I exited it with a Type 2 mentality, because I realised that there was no viable alternative other than the 3 Mentalities that I just proposed. HUICHIEH states that I generalise Type 2s without consideration for the fact that certain Type 2s 'could question (internally) all the time while recognizing there are inherent limits to what can and cannot be done or be changed in the short run.' I still maintain that such 'internal questioning' is still considered Type 2, unless one explicitly questioning the reasons during that time, which is tantamount to questioning a superior's command, which is not prudent as it may end one up in serious trouble (which I learnt). I would elaborate more but in the spirit of national security I feel it is not prudent to publish such facts in such an open environment.

What I can say is that it left me was a feeling of disillusionment, resentment, frustration, disappointment and betrayal (probably more extreme than most people, I hasten to add). Just as Olorin recognises the positive attitudes that many conscripts and reservists take, with himself as one good example, what I have taken notice is that there is a good number of people who can otherwise contribute so much to Singapore who feel negatively, with myself as one good example. And to make it clear it is not SAF but conscription that is the issue (whereas HUICHIEH focuses mainly on SAF's capabilities in general), although of course SAF and conscription are inextricably linked.

These 'negative' people, intolerant of such 'BS' (again, i qualify that what is BS to some may be Gold to others) may choose an escape route, migration. Quitter, whiner? No point stigmatising them. No matter how righteous souls feel that such people are detestable, many of these people are people we need because there is an evident lack of talent in Singapore. They may not be cut out for military life but it may be a totally different matter in Singapore civilian society. We need talent, we do not need to scare them away. Just as we are attracting foreign talent, we should not scare away our local talent.

I am not stating that SAF or conscription is absolutely useless. What I am saying is that there is a possibility that its importance may be overrated, and/or disproportionate to the sacrifices we make as a result of conscription. Definitely, there will be a risk, a trade off. But we are already risking disillusioning our talents who may be inclined not to stay on in Singapore and contribute to the economy. The trade-off for having conscription could be more costly than beneficial, both individually and collectively. Even if the qualification that the importance of conscription is overrated is rebuttable, it is not an automatic result that the scales will tilt back toward conscription's benefits rather than conscription costs. Where exactly does the scale lie? I cannot say for sure, but I offer a suggestion that perhaps it could way more in favour of Costs rather than Benefits.

Another issue I feel the need to address is the concept of 'security', and the expectation for me to offer 'revolutionary alternatives' to conscription. While the manner of my writing was perhaps suggestory I have repeatedly qualified in my statements that I am focusing on the 'perils' of conscription. The 'alternatives' I suggest are actually suggestions of lessening or eliminating the need for a conscripted force. Note that I encompass a wider definition of 'security' than that of pure military strength alone. Imho, economic, poltical and social circumstances play a big part in security as well. As HUICHIEH pointed out in one the earlier sections of his critique, social awareness of our defense situation indeed contributes to national security as well.

Let me give an analogy by way of a household. If there were people in the house, intruders would be deterred. Therefore it would be prudent to have people in the house (military force). Someone could choose to stay at home (volunteer). If no one wants to stay at home, then some will have to be grounded (conscription). A security alarm could be installed (technology). Or we could hire a security guard (mercenary). These are the military aspects of security.

Now, no doubt, if the house was located in a safe neighbourhood, we would similarly feel more secure (surrounding circumstances). If we did not depend on our neigbour for our groceries, we will feel more secure (self sustenance). If we did not continually pick petty quarrels with our neighbour, we would also feel that much more secure (diplomacy). These are non military aspects of security (there are more which I did not cover).

Gist of the 5 posts

Conscription has its benefits for the individual and the society. However, one cannot neglect to recognise that the costs for the individual and for collective society may weigh more than the benefits.

The essence of the posts were to weigh up the costs, and weigh down the benefits of conscription.

Most of the 'Counter-Critique' and 'Counter-Counter-Critique' can be found here.

A critique to the 5 Posts on Conscription

HUICHIEH and Olorin offers a very detailed and analytical critique on my 5 parter on Conscription.

Critique on Parts 1-3
Part 4
Part 5

Do read it for a more complete and rounded picture of this issue.

Also see The Singapore Commentator's comment.

What I wish to say is best quoted from The Singapore Commentator, who aptly states

Nevertheless, the value of analyses like those in the above posts is that they lay out the issues involved so that policy makers can try to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives, while individuals can be made aware of the issues, arrive at their own conclusions and preferences, and act — write, analyse, advocate, vote etc. — accordingly.

Conscription Part 5/5: Is Attack the best form of Defense

Even with the number of conscripts in our army, the size of our army is paltry compared to neighbouring countries in the south. Should any nation south of us choose to wage warfare, it will only be a matter of time before the siege succeeds in breaking us down. Of course, the plan is to 'hold the fort' till our 'dearest allies' aid us. Mobilisation of a distant army takes time, and much damage will have been done, including probable near-total decimation of our army and much of our populace, before it can be righted by our 'dearest allies'.

Our army is actually assembled for a primary singular purpose which involves a country north of Singapore which rhymes with 'Truly Asia' (hereby TA), whom which Singapore shares a relationship that can be best described as 'decidedly frosty'. This is due to another anomaly in the developed nation that is Singapore. Unlike most other advanced nations, Singapore ultimately lacks a basic essential resource required for self sustenance. Whatever the historical basis for the anomaly, it is an issue which is still unresolved today. In a completely non foolproof way, a treaty which is by all accounts an exploitative one lying much in favour of Singapore is adhered to by TA, not because they feel that it is ethical to 'honour the contract', nor is it because they are a benevolent nation extending the hand of goodwill, but because of the fear of a reprisal from a military primarily poised to defend(attack) should TA attempt anything funny, such as turning off their taps.

So what is the best standard of defence? Instead of thinking on military terms, why not think in terms of social, economic and political policy? Instead of depending on TA for a vital resource, why not be self sustaining? Self sustenance is vital for every nation, and despite our advanced society we are ultimately not self sustaining. Perhaps some of the funds which has made Singapore to an advanced society could be funded for alternative sources of this scarce resource? The stigma attached to NEWATER is perhaps unfounded but certainly one which is largely unacceptable by the masses, so why not turn to desalination? The argument against it is that it is costly, but so is building the Esplanade, the NEL lines, the Circle Lines, etc. We are an island surrounded by water. Perhaps there is more to meets the eye in the reluctance of turning to desalination.

And instead of insensitively making jibes about our neighbouring countries, could our leaders perhaps be more tactful when it comes to sensitive issues? Pride brings downfall and it is undoubted that our neighbours are catching up with us economically. Our leaders should take steps to improve diplomatic relations, decreasing the need for military presence. Where there is a lesser threat, one may take lesser steps to counter a threat. In many amicable neighbouring countries (such as US / Canada), there is virtually no military presence. The size of Brunei's military is less than 100k, and they are in the same region as us. Admittedly our demography is considerably different from theirs, but ultimately the point is that it is possible that national security can be achieved in other ways than conscription. In fact, given the state of our conscripts, not to mention the social benefits should conscription be discontinued, perhaps pursuing such methods would better ensure the national security we so desire.

Such collateral issues may not be instantly recognisable as safeguarding our national security since they are by and large indirect means rather than direct means. But as I have said if we are being conscripted, we must know why we are being conscripted. 'For National Security' would be the popular response, but if one opens his eyes wider he will perhaps realise that there is probably more to it than meets the eye. There are alternate/better means to achieve this aim, but it would take a toll on other resources such as government finance and even government pride. I reiterate that it is very possible that we are truly being exploited as a source of labour, by playing to our nationalistic pride and our the fears for the security of our families and ourselves. The government reaps the benefits of our manpower, for the supposedly 'incidental' purposes of National Day Parade, SAF Day Parade, and various marathons etc. Again, they benefit from these Parades as these parades instills a sense of patriotism (or cynics may say, nationalism) in the average citizen. The presence of the conscripts are the source of manpower required to carry out such a scaled event on a regular basis. So that also answers your question about whether NS instils patriotism in Singaporeans. Yes it does, in a most indirect way. [For those who are unconvinced by the power of such parades, attend one such parade rather than catching it on TV]

While they advantageously reap the toil of our labours, it can be seen that on their part they have hardly lifted a finger. They are indisposed to invest more resources on overcoming the self-sustenance issue. While the Gov has taken some steps towards resolving this issue, you would be inclined to think that as the very issue of 'self sustenance' is one of first-rate importance and given the efficient standards of the gov, something foolproof would have been done by now. Why then is there still so much uncertainty? Also, a certain leader's pride is valued more than the toils of the entire nation. He simply cannot hold back on his jibes on a nation that 'broke his heart' so many years ago. Consequently, we must bear the brunt of the costs of his pride.
_________________________________________________
This concludes the 5 parter on Conscription.

The intent is to make people think about why they are serving 2 years of their lives, rather than just taking it as something that is in the natural sequence of life, and going through the motions, since it involves 2 prime years of their lives. I would think that one is entitled to know WHY and WHAT FOR he has devoted 2 prime years of his life and that one SHOULD be interested in knowing.

It should also be fairly obvious to most who have gone thru or are going thru NS that it is a total load of BS, not quite what most of us expected when we were enlisted. The gov should stop treating its citizens as if they are naive kids to be exploited and manipulated at their will. The least they could do is paint the real picture of the situation and stop the pretentious 'wayang', the single thing that the SAF excels in.

Conscription Part 4/5: False Security

Most supporters of conscription would argue that conscription is vital to national security, without explaining why, thinking that the answer is glaringly obvious enough.

It is in effect, a baseless truism. We are always told that Singapore is a small defenceless nation (but see Liechenstein's counteraction to the issue of size), and that we are the 'Israel' of Asia. As such, it is crucial that we have the means to defend our nation. In other words, it is drilled into us the vulnerability of our situation. We are manipulated into feeling fear, fear for our livelihoods, our families. We are brainwashed into thinking that conscription is the solution to allay such fears. Fear is a highly motivating factor, the fuel that drives us into accepting conscription for what it is.

Offering an alternate view, I suggest that it is possible that not only is conscription not providing the National Security we so desire, but that to ensure the safety of national security of Singapore, conscription of our population may not be the appropriate or exclusive way.

Firstly, the conscripts (usually 18-20 year old boys fresh out of college or polytechnic) are hardly army material. A true soldier is one who is born a soldier, not one who has spent his lifetime indulging in the excesses of civil society. Granted, the 2 years spent 'militarising' these conscripts do make them tougher as persons, but to expect these people to go to war against professionally trained soldiers who spent their entire lives in the military...well, to be very optimistic, underdogs do sometimes win, especially in Hollywood movies.

Secondly, the reservists (usually 30+ year old potbellied men), who will be even more unlikely to be in the shape which is required in the army if we are to win wars and defend our country.

Thirdly, the regulars. Not only are their numbers insignificant, most of them (with the exception of certain Special Forces which I unreservedly admit are quality military personnel) are too civilianised. Lets face it, our military is hardly militant. Many of them still lead a life with the excesses and comforts of civil society. Most regulars you see are not at all combat fit, nor are they militarily skilled. As an organisation they are perhaps efficient at peace-time operations such as National Day Parades and paperwork but their capabilities should the uncertainty and tension that would ensue should a war arise will be in doubt.

Then there is the unfortunate forced mix of regulars and conscripts. The concept of meritocracy through the ranks is undermined because very often, there are conscripts who are more competent than their superiors, who are the ones promoted by virtue of their permanence in the army. When this happens, there is an imbalance of power which will result in incompetency and conflict.

When you have such a unfortunate mish-mash (rojak) of personnel who are clearly not of military mould, the army is nothing more than a facade of numbers, which is actually the case-plan for the army. The numbers are merely used as a deterrent rather than any cause of action. This discomfiting thought sits uneasily with the whole concept of security because this means we are basically employing a false sense of security as national security.

Perhaps, the hiring of external forces (mercenaries) should be extended, so that our army can not only bark, but also deliver a vicious bite. Many will of course question their loyalty to Singapore but conversely, I suggest that these mercenaries, if hired to defend Singapore, will actually show MORE loyalty than our local troops. This is because they are skilled and trained in the codes of warfare, which includes HONOUR. In contrast 'civilian soldiers' are more attuned to the civil society where it is basically a rat race, 'every man for himself' mentality. When such a mentality is brought into battle, it will only result in self interest trumping the duty felt towards safeguarding the country.

And this discourse assumes that the threat to our security is real and that our army is primarily purposed to counter such a threat. We have already seen how futile our attempts would be to defend our nation with such a system.

Now, would there actually be a nation that would attempt an invasion of Singapore? Our paltry defence is just a minute factor to be considered by a would-be invader. More important considerations a would be invader would take into consideration is the possibility of military, economic, social and political repercussions of their own. Only in the unlikely event of a nation amassing enough economic and military power to launch a World-war degree of war would they attempt an invasion, in which case, our defense would hardly be viable against such a force.

If so, that would make conscription for the purposes nothing but a sham, a sham that toys with our minds, by playing to our fears, by playing to our sense of duty. A false sense of security that doesn't achieve the security we were psyched to believe. One that doesn't justify the sacrificies we make to uphold. Even the bluffs about how hiring mercenaries 'will not work as we need indigenous citizens who will be loyal' can be easily unfounded. Perhaps a more truthful reason would be that 'indigenous citizens are a cheap and viable source of manpower'.

Then why does the government insist on conscription? Granted, we are a viable source of manpower, but the costs expended on our training is not minimal. There must be a specific reason for NS.

P.S There are other military and also non military alternatives (to be loosely summarised in the final part) conscription but I limit considerations to options appropriate to our situation.

Conscription Part 3/5: Pointing Fingers

The opinions toward conscription to a certain extent can be divided down to sex. Many girls are of the opinion that guys owe a duty to protect Singapore and should quit 'whining' about it, but that they themselves should not be conscripted alongside them because 'they are not suited for army'. This is ultimately double double standards. The first double standard is that of self-stereotyping themselves into the role of the fairer sex, at the same time demanding equal treatment, unfortunately quite a common practice in our contemporary society. The second double standard is that of volunteering others but not willing to do something themselves, again another typicality.

Guys (those that are against conscription), in the meantime, get all defensive and start to point these points out and state that girls should join them and serve in the army so as to achieve 'fairness' and 'equality'. Guys and girls, side by side, fighting the enemy. They reason, given the modern day technological era of the military, there is certainly no reason why girls cannot serve in posts more suited for 'their feminine traits'.

As both guys and girls debate on their ideals of conscription and whether it should incorporate girls as well to achieve 'equality', they are missing out on the finer detail. This is the kind of 'an eye for an eye' mentality that is so self-destructive in purpose. A guy thinks 'Since I am forced to be in the army, why can't girls be in the army as well, to be fair?' Even if this misguided notion of equality is fulfilled and girls are consequently drafted into the army, what does he stand to gain? He will still be stuck as a conscript until the end of his term.

If 'equality' is what guys want, why not just campaign for themselves NOT being conscripted? Won't that be 'equality' as well? Rather than having both guys and girls in the army, why not have both guys and girls NOT in the army? Instead of hauling their female peers down the drain with them, why not haul themselves out of the sewers? Wouldn't that be more constructive?

Guys and Girls, both in civil society, living the civil life side by side as they should be entitled to, rather than pointing fingers at each other on who owes a duty to national security.

Perhaps, the answer to national security could be sought through other means. There is no reason why the answer has to be through conscription. I will elaborate in the next parts.
__________________________________________________________
Part 4: Is National Service really a service to our land?
Part 5: Are there alternate avenues to conscription?

Conscription Part 2/5: Social Anomaly

During social outings involving both guys and girls it is commonplace for guys in the midst of their NS to start discussing about their army bravados. While it may seem interesting to the guys, it is often extremely boring for the girls, since they have never been exposed to the environment and thus do not have a clue to what is being discussed. To keep conversational topics in a group interesting to every participant in a social setting, there should be discussion of a common issue which everyone can identify with.

This is not the issue I wish to address. What I wish to illustrate is the disturbing difference in the social settings of guys and girls of the same age when the guys are of conscription age. Such an age also happens to be the prime age for social awakenings with the opposite sex. Unfortunately, conscription is yet another factor which causes social inadequacies in our society.

Most youths at such an age in other nations without conscription will perhaps share the most common interest during this age, converging from the toy guns for boys and dolls for girls (being stereotypical here but bear with me) to things like dating, networking, music culture, movie culture and other popular common interests.

A military world is very different from a civilian world. As such, a civilian (girl) will never be fully able to empathise with the rigours of military life that a guy goes through. A guy attuned to a military lifestyle similarly finds it difficult to appreciate a viewpoint which in its entirety is restricted to the civilian world. Clashes occur. Of course, this is the time whereby many pre-army relationships are strained. Sadly, many do not withstand the strains of army life and breakup occurs.

Additionally, it is a fact that the 2 years served in army is a 2 years break in progress, whether in education or in employment. Many claim that the 2 years are 'not wasted', rather, they 'teach important lessons in life'. That is a statement more of 'self-comfort' than of reason. Military skill and knowledge has no place in the civil world. Simple as that. As for other 'life lessons', such as learning about bureaucracy, hierarchy and civil skills, the experience could as easily be gleaned if the 2 years were spent anywhere else besides a hermit's hut. Furthermore, in a society such as Singapore, paper qualifications trumps anything else. Experiences which cannot be transcribed into qualifications are as good as thrown into a wastebasket. Thus the only way the 2 years are 'not wasted' is if the 2 years were NOT spent in conscription or a hermit's hut.

So how can this social anomaly be addressed? Now, if both Guys and girls were conscripted, could this solve the problem? Or are there better solutions?
________________________________________________________
Part 3: Are opinions on conscription divided by sex?
Part 4: Is National Service really a service to our land?
Part 5: Are there alternate avenues to conscription?

Conscription Part 1/5: The 3 Mentalities

Every Singaporean male has to be enlisted in the army so that he 'can serve his duty to his country'. While this is superficially a fair and noble cause, the sacrifices that the Singaporean male goes through is often overlooked, taken for granted, because it is his 'duty', something every boy goes through. In fact, many of the boys themselves think likewise.

There are generally three attitudes which enlisted boys take when going through their army days, using colloquialisms, (1)'siao on' (taking a gung-ho and positive attitude towards excelling in army (2)'lan lan' (taking an attitude that it is something that has to be done and got over with), (3)'chao keng' (taking an attitude that this is something that is horrible and should be avoided at all costs, resorting to malingering)

The first type can be subdivided into two types:(a) The high flyers, those that top their company in every aspect, ending up in OCS with the Sword of Honour, etc. These are usually competent and capable people in civil life also so it is just their nature to be good at what they do. (b) Those who think that to serve his country is an honour and a duty, an act of patriotism, an opportunity to prove their love for their nation. These people are usually righteous and fanatical and hate it when others skive. Those who take it upon themselves to do something better than others just so as to impress their superior, even if it is not required nor requested, just to show their patriotism. Those who use rank as an excuse to extol their bigoted mentalities. While this could be laudable it can also be abrasive.

The second type are those who serve army, do things for the sake of doing although realising the futility of doing such tasks. Basically, just grinning and bearing through the times. Most do things blindly without giving much thought to why they are doing it. They do not question why they are doing the things they do. Such mindlessness dulls even the sharpest of brains and since the large proportion of conscripts fall within this category, this may cause an irreversible damage to a conscript's ability to think and adapt for himself once he is out in the civil world again. Just ask the countless undergraduates who have just passed out of army to return to university.

The third type are the type that all superiors detest. These people fear the regimental nature of army life and will do anything to avoid it. Sick leave, a popular escape route even in civil Singapore, is the most common method. Some make minor injuries into major downgradable disabilities. These lot feel that they do not need to subject themselves to such a life if there is another route out. What they fail to realise is that this route is usually equally strenous, and may even backfire, since they will become sitting ducks should they fail.

Whichever mentality a boy chooses when he enters army, it is undoubted that by the end of the 2 years, there is much change in him. Not necessarily positive, not necessarily instantly noticeable to the subjects and his family/friends.

________________________________________________________
Part 2: Social Anomalies as a result of Conscription
Part 3: Are opinions on conscription divided by sex?
Part 4: Is National Service really a service to our land?
Part 5: Are there alternate avenues to conscription?

Blood on our hands

In most developed nations, there has been absolute abolishment of the death penalty. One such developed nation that has not followed this trend is Singapore. Indeed, not only is the death sentence a mandatory sentence for criminals convicted of homicide, but also for drug traffickers (if their cursed cargo exceeds a certain specified limit) and other 'serious crimes'.

While most of the population do not seem to have an issue with the death penalty, feeling that it is this an appropriate punishment for people who breach such laws, given the perceived seriousness of homicide and drug trafficking. Righteously, they feel that such people should be punished and it will serve as a deterrent to prevent other people from attempting to commit such heinous crime.

But I do not wish to attempt a critical measure if the death penalty is proportional or appropriate response to the crime committed, or if the criminals deserve what they get as they had or should have full knowledge of the punishment awaiting them. Neither is this a consideration if the very concepts of human rights, in this case the most fundamental right of them all, the right to life, should be adhered to in Singapore. What I wish to question is the very ethics of the death penalty itself, since the death penalty is effectively an intentional termination of one's life.

Granted, murdering someone or ruining peoples lives by drug trafficking in itself is not ethical and is a bane to society, but to impose a death penalty is akin to an 'eye for an eye' mentality, which as we know, results in everyone becoming blind. By imposing the death penalty, a judge* is effectively playing God since he decides if a person lives or die under his hammer. In other words, it is akin to cold blooded murder, albeit with 'justification under the law'. Just as I would never want to be put in the position of a potential murderer, I similarly would not be inclined to be put in the position of the judge. Both ways, I have blood on my hands, albeit in very different circumstances.

*Of course, a judge has to abide by the laws of the State, so he does not have absolute discretion per se. The President has a theoretical power to pardon but of course, there is social and political pressure and therefore it is not an absolute discretion as well. Thus there is a contributory responsibility of the law enactors (Parliament) and the judiciary.

While the actions of criminals who warrant a death penalty are usually heinous and contemptible, for the State to impose a death penalty is stooping to the low level of the criminals themselves as the State is effectively conciously and intentionally taking away a life. Just like a murder victim has no right to take away the life of his victim, why should a State have the right to take away the murderer's life? It would be highly dangerous to proclaim a 'he deserves death for his dastardly deeds' mentality as it is this self-righteous and hard-line mentality which is the primary cause of much strife and wars of the past.

The bottomline is, just like in a war, in spite of the fact that you can take lives in the name of territorial defence, ultimately, there will still be blood in your hands, whether the person's whose life you take similarly has blood on his hands. (In case you are wondering, that is why I am against war too. Too much blood on one's hands).

Being part of the global equation, Singapore cannot take an absolutist 'mind your own business, we'll enact our own laws' attitude. For our global society to progress, the first thing to do is to stop infighting and killing fellow beings within the human race. Anything that justifies intentional death of a fellow human being falls within the ambit. This will include both wars and death penalties in any part of the world. Of course, for wars and death penalties to be completely eliminated from our world will probably not happen within our lifetimes, if ever. There is, however, no doubt that this is the path for our species' advancement in which we, as a global (as opposed to territorial) race, should take. Archaic laws such as the death penalty may have served well in times past, but they should be gradually phased out and replaced with laws (such as life sentences without possibility for parole, perhaps?) which will better suit the modern social climate.

Voicing an Opinion

And so, a bold young voice who dares to speak about sensitive issues against the almighty, no less.

Something that is commonplace, inane even, when it occurs in other democracies.

But of course, Singapore is not just 'any democracy'. Hence one soul who dares to speak out generates enough publicity and interest that even an attention seeking Mediacorp artiste would be proud of.

Some say his foolhardy bravado has no place in Singapore, and will only earn him nothing but trouble.

Others feel that he is the voice of the future. Should everyone sit up and listen to the issues he raises, and likewise take the same steps to voice their issues, there will be change. Change that is good for society.

This is of course, the consequence of one of the human species's most basic fallacy . The abject illusion of self-importance.

What had occurred is just an exchange of ideologies, nothing more, nothing less. Talk is not going to change anything. Even if he had actually trumped the debate, over the almighty (somehow, i think this is quite unlikely), no less, nothing is going to change for society. What he will earn is the right to boast of his 'achievement'. And consequently perhaps get some chicks as part of the package as well. That always helps, but of course.

So all the hullabaloo about whether he is going to face a lawsuit on defamation can be thrown out the window. I will again repeat that what had occurred is just an exchange of ideologies in a medium specifically designed thus, nothing more, nothing less. The reason why opposition parties faced lawsuits is because they posed a real threat. Should their 'lies' be believed, they could turn the political tide to their favour. This has happened before.

The less drastic reason is because as opposition members they are still public political figures, and they are the voice for the people they represent (their followers). As for our brave soul, he purports to speak on behalf of 'Singapore society' but ultimately his voice is but for...himself.

[Edited]
Incidentally, the use of defamation lawsuits against opposition parties is...uniquely Singaporean. Most suits that have been ruled in favour of the plaintiff in Singapore would probably fail on the basis of the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege in other jurisdictions.

So, what ultimately occurred was an interesting debate between the almighty and students, nothing more, nothing less. Unless something inconceivably extraordinary occurs, I do not see how anyone's life will be much affected by such a debate. Nor do I envisionage drastic changes as a result of this debate.

[Updated to address the issue of his insolence against the almighty]
Was not present at the event but from what I gathered most thought he was being a little rude. The first step when you wish to present some issues is NEVER to make it personal. Stooping to rude behaviour is amateurish and immature and you are throwing away your credibility. To improve on this, it would be prudent to keep one's emotions in track (easier said than done) when delivering one's opinion.

This also shows that the almighty won the battle of the mind games. Comparing their age and experience, it was perhaps foolish to expect any other outcome. That said, this is still a big ruckus over nothing. Rude behaviour is more character deficiency than defiance. The almighty with his decades of experience is sure to recognise this fact, and it is highly unlikely that someone who has gone through so much would take it personally. So, there is no need to feel defensive for our almighty leader here as well.

Incidentally, being rude is NOT being defamatory. Neither would the almighty take an action against a student in such an event, as it would certainly look very bad for his and indeed the country's image, picking on a student.

5 Great Things about Singapore 1

Of course everyone has been speaking about how great Singapore is as a place to live, work and play in. From your friendly welcoming Merlion to your happening Restricted Zone, so happening that you have to pay to go in, there are countless things which we can boast about. I have just listed 5 of the myriad of things we can all be proud of.

1 Best Airport in the World

Changi Airport has been voted time and again as the best airport in the world by various leading magazines and such. Singaporeans can be proud to have such an achievement.

Of course, with the best airport in the world, not only can we leave the country in comfort and efficiency (on average a grand total of twice a year), we can actually travel all the way to the airport to dine at its overpriced restaurants. If that is not enough, students actually have an alternative place to do their revision in public, rather than the boring standard old fast food chains. But of course, the best part of having 'No 1 Airport in the world' is to go to airports in other countries and criticise every flaw they have and proclaim that 'fortunately our Changi is the best in the world'.

Indeed, when we have such a great airport, all the shortcomings and struggles we encounter in our actual everyday life in our workplaces and homes are dissipated when we think about Changi!

2 World's First Driverless MRT Trains!

Any self respecting Singaporean should take the NEL since it is a state of the art, highly revolutionary piece of technology that is being used to ferry people from the previously inaccessible north east. Amazingly it has no drivers, so there is the novelty of being transported by a driverless vehicle! This is of course something that has been a secret desire of everyone since childhood.

The fact that such an automated system is exorbitant compared to a standard manned system is not a big issue. The important point is that they save on having to employ drivers, except that now they may have to hire more technical staff to overlook the system.

I can now boast to everyone that I have sat on a driverless train and lived to tell the tale.

3 Protection from Bad bad things!

We are very well shielded from the evil things in the world, such as boobs and more boobs. This is because we have R(A) shows which basically bans minors below 21 from watching any show that has a hint of a nipple in it. This is absolutely essential because they are the most evil objects ever known to mankind, although about half the world's population have them and they are actually used to nurture the young. Decapitation, gun violence and other stuff is not as evil because they are not sensitive issues. Seeing a guy get his head lobbed off is not as bad as seeing boobs.

So, when you are 20 years old, it is alright for you to have sex, which is legal, but not see boobs on the big screen. One is also mature enough to kill people (as an army conscript), because, ultimately, 'see no evil' does not extend to actions.

4 Speak Mandarin Campaign

First they told us that it is good to speak English because that is a universal language. Now they are telling us that it is 'cool' to speak in Mandarin because it is our mother tongue, our native language, and therefore we will understand our roots better. And oh, because China is rising as a world power so it will benefit us economically.

Yeah, of course mandarin is our root language, but not hokkien, teochew, cantonese, hainanese, hakka, and the other dialects. Those are vile languages only renowned for its foul vocabulary. They must be banned!

We can now pretend that we love and enjoy speaking/learning Mandarin because of our 'cultural roots' as a pretext for learning the language to benefit economically with China's ascent to power.

5 A wide variety of media to choose from

Oops, I forgot that Mediacorp and SPH have merged. Oh well, we still have a wide variety of channels to choose from, except that they all offer the same fare, mainstream propagandist material aimed to make model citizens of us. Wow, not only are we entertained, we are educated as well! How's that for multipurposedness!

Hmm, at least we have quite a fair number of newspapers. In descending degree of propaganda level they are ST, TNP, Today, Streats(now defunct – miss the weather girls :(:( NOT). I especially enjoy the way the same news are reported in each newspaper in virtually the same vein, probably because they all came from the same source. This is essential because if one forgets about a certain piece of news, he will be reminded when he reads the other newspapers later on! This is why whenever any controversial article is submitted to the Editor, it will be censored as it might cause uncalled for confusion. Wow, very thoughtful of the Press indeed!