This was one of the very first vigorous discussions on the mailing list

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:32:50 +0800
Subject: [youngrepublic] This is the sort of National Service that is for propaganda
purposes, not ours....
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

In case anyone here continues to insist that our national service is purely

to keep Singaporeans in line, here is a counter-example of how a 100%

propaganda exercise national service really looks like. Malaysia's

so-called national service isn't. The whole harebrained scheme ( which must

have been cooked up by Dr Mahathir) was to instill in Malaysians a sense of

loyalty and love for the country.

What's the difference between their national service and ours, apart from

the length? Yes, there is inevitably the "love of country" theme being

trotted out every now and then....but a country doesn't need to spend 4

billion dollars a year just to do that. For Singapore guys, whatever their

feelings about the gahmen or the system, as long as you happen to hold a

pink I/C you have to do it one way or another, which is in contrast to the

shameful random selectivity of Malaysia's national service. Najib then

tries to chide Malaysians for complaining about NS, whereas "Singaporeans

don't complain." Ahem.

No I don't like my job, and most other NSFs aren't particularly wild about

theirs either. But if we aren't its greatest enthusiasts, i observe that

people at least do the bare minimum to make sure the stuff works- and in

fact, many people go beyond that, and i think most people around here would

agree. But why, apart from the carrot of perhaps a meagre number of days

off and the stick of extra duties and punishments?

In contrast to what is indeed, essentially a momentous waste of time across

the causeway, it's a little different in Singapore because what each person

does boils down to a matter of life and death. Take what the technicians

do, for instance. If a gun can't fire when you need to use it, some

rifleman will die. Ditto for the grenade launcher which explodes in your

hand instead of away from you. Or the tracks breaking away from your

vehicle many miles away from safety leaving you quite stuck. (The last

situation is something I don't want to happen at all ). And so on and so

forth. It's all quite serious. Who's going to repair the multi million

dollar gadgetry were there no technicians? Or take away injured people

without any medics? Or "fight the front" without any riflemen? And so on.

So there is a purpose to what NSFs do, really. Ultimately, we are the first

line of defense should anything bad happen, so erm, maybe it is a good idea

to be at least halfway competent! Does this in any way imply that we are

ready to follow a hypothetical mad dictator's orders blindly to attack

another country? I don't think so. We are here for the country's defence,

not for some foreign policy whim. And for that reason, there should have

been tougher scrutiny over the decision to send our soldiers to Iraq. A

sound decision based on national security interests or another attempt to

suck up to our great benefactor, the USA?

To anyone who insists that National Service in Singapore is not so much for

defence purposes than propaganda, please give a good case for the following

points. If you can show that Singapore is unlikely to ever face external

security threats, or would probably be much better of[sic] as either a state of

Malaysia, province of Indonesia or colony of the USA, I'd be quite happy to

drop my support for National Service.

Don't be softies, Najib tells first NS conscripts

85,000 Malaysians have been chosen for the first national service draft,

and minister tells them not to complain

KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysia has drafted 85,000 teenagers for a new mandatory

national service scheme and has told reluctant recruits not to be 'softies'.

Young people will find out from today whether they have been chosen at

random by a computer search that used quotas based on gender, ethnicity and

location.

Advertisement

The draftees will have to take part in three months of basic military

training as well as community service, and will take lessons in leadership

and responsibility starting next February, Defence Minister Najib Razak

said yesterday.

'There is no escape. The scheme will not only benefit the nation, but it

will benefit participants personally,' he told a press conference.

Officials said the plan will help to stem religious extremism and instil

patriotism in mostly Muslim Malaysia's young people.

But critics fear it will be used to indoctrinate participants with pro-

government rhetoric and steer them away from the fundamentalist Parti Islam

SeMalaysia.

Recruits - who were drawn from a pool of 480,000 people born in 1986 - will

be placed in 42 camps nationwide, Datuk Seri Najib said.

He said teenagers would be able to call a hotline as of today to discover

whether they had been selected.

Responding to doubts by some parents and teenagers over whether the scheme

was necessary, he said officials had planned a 'productive' programme that

would not be a waste of time.

It would be shorter and less physically demanding compared with national

service training in many other countries. Datuk Seri Najib cited the

example of neighbouring Singapore, where every able-bodied male must do at

least two years of full-time military duty. Afterwards, they undergo annual

training for 13 years.

'Singaporeans don't complain,' he said.

'Don't tell me Malaysians are such softies to be complaining.'

Most of those chosen have just graduated from high school and those who

plan to further their studies will have the next several months free.

But many resent the national service scheme because it will prevent them

from taking up temporary jobs or travelling on vacations.

The scheme is timed so as not to conflict with the tertiary academic year

in Malaysia, which starts around June.

Recruits enrolled in foreign universities where studies begin earlier may

be able to appeal.

One teenager, Tee Ann Jie, said the scheme should be voluntary. 'National

service is not going to accomplish anything but cause frustration and

intense displeasure,' he wrote in a letter published at the weekend by The

Star newspaper.

'Forcing us to do something is not the way to endear our country to us.' -- AP

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:44:09 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 9
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Nobody suggests that Slavery here is *purely* to keep Singaporeans in

line, but can anyone deny that that is a large part of it?

I don't see why Jiekai finds the randomness of Ma-laysia's selection

system "shameful". We surely do not require so many Slave Soldiers to

keep the PAP in power here, so why make more people suffer than they

have to? Such is a gross waste. Of course, some argue that if only some

were selected, they'd feel resentful towards those remaining free, but

if this is sufficient logic to deprive everyone of their freedoms, then

we might as well move to a communist state, since otherwise the

proletariat would resent the bourgeois. Sure, you might say that the

bourgeois got to their place by means of luck and skill, but the same is

true for those who, by luck and skill, get downgraded or otherwise

escape the clutches of the Powers That Be in Singapore.

NSFs doing the bare minimum? Agreed, for most anyway, but I think the

fear of getting charged and going to DB is great, and doing your bare

minimum is not so hard anyway.

> To anyone who insists that National Service in Singapore is not so

> much for defence purposes than propaganda, please give a good case

> for the following points. If you can show that Singapore is unlikely

> to ever face external security threats, or would probably be much

> better of as either a state of Malaysia, province of Indonesia or

> colony of the USA, I'd be quite happy to drop my support for National

> Service.

You fall into the trap, then, of claiming, as the Powers That Be do,

that *any* alternative to our current system would result in

catastrophe. Thus cowed, the masses timidly accept the current system

without contemplating anything more than cosmetic changes.

And about Ma-laysia's "NS": At least they are not emphasising the

military aspect so much. Does anyone really think the SAF could fight a

war effectively? What with incompetent NSFs filled with hatred against

the system, Regulars whose job scope involves making NSFs suffer and who

only want money and Reservists who cannot remember anything?

To quote Tee Ann Jie, 'Forcing us to do something is not the way to

endear our country to us.'

Some myriad related thoughts:

I remember reading an article about how the American Right Wing has

managed to mould public thought in America by its clever manipulation of

language to its advantage. This puts me in mind of the SAF. Take the

word "National Service" for example. It implies that it is a way of

serving one's country, and has the connotation of duty. I refuse to

accept the paradigm that the apparatchiks are trying to implant in me

subliminally, which is why I call it "National Slavery". For, if not

similar then related reasons, Chinx calls it "Neverending Slavery".

Take, then, what the SAF, with its collective wapred mind, considers

"privileges". E-mart "breaks" are a "privilege". Canteen breaks are a

"privilege". Booking out is a "privilege". By defining basic rights as

"privileges" and using the term copiously, they get most slaves to

accept implicitly that they are fortunate to be given these

"privileges". I reckon that if they had their way, they would proclaim

that it was a "privilege" that us slaves do not spend 2 1/2 years

imprisoned at the bottom of a pit, wallowing in our filth and excrement,

with naught but unleavened bread and brackish water to survive on, and

"Property of the SAF" tattooed all over our bodies.

All this just goes to show once again that for all their glowing talk of

"duty", "honour" and "sacrifice", and the gold medals Lee Kuan Yew gave

the first batch of Slaves, it is all a sham to deceive pre-enlistees and

the fortunate members of the public who have not had the chance to

"serve" their country. Once you're in, the facade is dropped and you are

treated like the inhuman scum that you are, not deserving of humane

treatment, to be stripped of human dignity in the name of "discipline"

and "regimentation", all because you have little or no rank (a concept

that, in the end, is empty and worthless for a surefire way to get it is

either through good A level results or signing on)

Meanwhile, in an insidious if ingenious ploy, the best and brightest,

the natural leaders of any rebellion from among the ranks, are co-opted

into the system as Officers and given a few more "privileges" than the

rest to placate them. Some others are elevated to the posts of

Specialists - junior commanders and given similar "privileges", albeit

to a lesser degree. They are then turned on each other - BMT Sergeants

against their Recruits, jailers in DB against the inmates and indeed,

Local Third Sergeants against their Men. The fellow slaves who should

stand united instead fall to the strategy of Divide and Conquer, and the

slavemasters are satisfied.

More and more, I tend to agree with parts of He Who Must Not Be Named's

theory - "i admit NS has become more about social engineering and mind

control than it has about actual military defense." Why else do they

enslave everyone when not everyone is needed? Why can't conscientious

objectors choose to do non-military "service", as is the norm in other

countries with conscription? And why else is the philosophy behind NS

"make them suffer" rather than "make them defend Singapore"?

Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:03:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 9
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Bravo Gabriel for your informed, cogent, and sane reply. I whole-heartedly

agree with most of what you have to say, with the possible exception of your

comments on the co-opting of 'brightest and best' to become officers and the

granting of extra privileges as a divide and conquer tactic. That, I think,

goes too far and begins to sound suspiciously like some

pseudo-Marxist/anarchist bullshit.

The government doesn't need tactics to force through Natiional Slavery, it

already has a monopoly of arms and an impressive repressive machinery. If

you go AWOL etc etc, you go to DB. If you don't want, on principle, to

assist in the imprisonment of someone who was merely exercising his right to

freedom of labour and movement, you too will be banished to that place of

outer darkness.

From what my friends in OCS tell me, most of them do it for the extra money;

most of them don't enjoy it (well the intelligent ones anyway). And in any

case they don't get such a good deal. Certainly not in OCS -- a friend of

mine described OCS as a 'you get paid to get tortured' scheme. Once they are

commissioned they do enjoy greater freedom, but this is largely because

sycophantic and stupid (aren't these two qualities always linked?) WOs

kowtow before their rank. Furthermore, in my unit at least they have to do

more work than non-officers. The situation is even worse for sergeants. Many

would love to get a better (i.e. less regimental/less neanderthal) posting.

And so, some try to get downgraded. I agree with Gabriel that those who

force through a downgrade to ensure a more humane/human existence are merely

exercising their will and their skill. As they say, when there is a will,

there is a way.

As for DB gaolers, BMT sergreants and the like, actually they themselves

endure quite unpleasant working conditions. However, as I am sure many of

you have personally experienced, many of them also tend to act like mini

Gestapo/SS officers. One's attitude towards such ppl should not be one of

pity, or anger, or even hatred. One should merely accord them the contempt

they so richly deserve. You see, such ppl display a classic case of what

sociologists call 'empowerment through institutions'. In no other situation

would they enjoy such power. Granted, this power is in fact extremely petty

('sing louder!' 'March properly!' 'Never greet!' et al ad nauseum). But that

is not their concern. They merely take this as a chance to make themselves

feel important. They are 'instructors' -- a kind of priesthood which imparts

the well-guarded knowledge of how to kill other ppl in vicious and violent

ways to the benighted recruits. They are 'responsible' for their recruits'

'welfare'. This illusion that their pathetic lives are actually of value and

importance gives them an incredible kick. And hence, sadly, they delight in

their Auschwitz-like manipulations.

The other breed, slighty sadder and slightly more worthy of pity, are those

who think that by slaving away for their nation, they are doing their

masculine duty and not shirking their responsibilities like pansies. For

them, National Slavery is a phallic romp. This is not helped by the

propaganda images of tanned, toned and gun-wielding combatants which now

adorn buses, billboards, and other public places. In a way, I suppose it's a

way for jocks to extend their jockhood past school.

As for Jiekai's

I've-imbibed-so-much-propaganda-that-even-though-I-have-benefitted-from-an-RJ-education-I-still-buy-that-shit

comments, allow me to add a few more derisive points:

1. Gabriel is absolutely right. While it is true that most countries require

some sort of national defence to survive AND to exercise a reasonable amount

of clout in int'l dealings (the second point is de-emphasised by the govt

since it implies that NSFs are pawns to foreign policy considerations which

in fact we are), this does not mean that conscripting every bloody person

born with male genitalia for 2/2.5 years is the best way to go about meeting

this requirement.

It is true that far too many ppl are conscripted (including, for those of

you who don't know, post-op transexuals). It is also ridiculous and morally

repugnant that no non-military alternative exists. That JWs are imprisoned

for their objection to NS is testament to the fact that religious freedom in

Singapore is a farce. Furthermore, conscientious objection is a perfectly

sound moral stance which the state has a duty to accommodate. In fact, as I

shall explain later, conscientious objection in Singapore's case is perhaps

the ONLY morally acceptable stance. The argument that if such an alternative

existed, everyone would opt for it is rubbish. This has not been the case in

Sweden etc simply because many men think it is exciting/macho/whatever to be

a soldier for a year.

Which brings me to my other point. 2/2.5 years is surely too long. This is

not the 1960s where the world moved slowly and 2 or even 3 years was not

such a long time. This is 2003 where 2.5 years can almost get you a degree.

And believe me, Singapore and its increasingly lamentable economy SORELY

need a better educated and better trained workforce. Plus, from what I

observe, the SAF is not exactly the place to cultivate a good work ethic...

So you see, National Slavery is badly in need of reform. But it remains the

most sacred of cows in Singapore because stupid ppl do not realise Gabriel's

point: that there is no strict dichotomy between NS as it exists now and

catastrophe. A good place to start reform would be to shorten the length of

slavery. Conscription in all other civilised countries exists either to

ensure the military remains a 'ppl's army' i.e. to inject a civilian and

civilising element into the armed forces, or to ensure that when total

mobilisation is needed, the size of the competent force will be large

enough. Hence, the point of military service is to teach the conscripts how

to carry out their specific wartime roles. NOT to provide cheap labour to

beef up the manpower base of the military. The length of service with this

goal in mind should thus not exceed 18 months at most.

Furthermore, disruption to continue with further studies should be granted

to all, not just a select group of PSC scholars. The benefit to students

(not to mention the economy) will be immense (for reasons which are too

complex to elab here but should be obvious really).

2. Singapore is under no military threat. You see, the govt's problem is

that it thinks we are Israel. You know the story: surrounded by hostile

Muslim countries blah blah blah. Well that doesn't cut it for me. Let me

explain:

a. Singapore will never be engaged in a trade/economic war. The key reason

for the (now defunct) economic attractiveness of S'pore and SEA as a whole

is its relatively well-educated workforce, low labour costs, good

infrastructure and political stability. This would vanish with the advent of

a war. Infrastructure tends to get bombed, stability will vaporise. Plus,

war is VERY expensive.

So, for all the propaganda (which I am sad to say many imbeciles in the SAF

have deluded themselves into believing), no, Malaysia doesn't want to

'steal' our airport. It's just not worth it, baby.

b. Singapore will not be attacked for strategic reasons, unless the war is

not localised and has spread to the whole region. This is for the same

reasons as those cited above. No govt wakes up in the morning and decides to

take over some other country to improve its strategic position. The effect

would certainly be counter-productive. Besides, no superpower at the moment

considers S'pore of particular strategic importance. The only country to

qualify among our immediate neighbours is Indonesia, and we aren't a gateway

or anything to it. The only time S'pore might be involved in a strategically

motivated attack is if a regional/world war has erupted, since in that case,

economic considerations would take a back seat. However, in such a case,

Singapore is unlikely to survive anyway (see next point).

c. Should Singapore be caught up in a regional/world war or an ideologically

motivated war, it would surely lose. The cases I have examined above (trade

war, strategic war, etc) are cases of limited war. Now in a total war, as

Clausewitz has pointed out, sheer numbers are the most important factor.

Given S'pore's small population and strategic handicaps, it is extremely

likely to lose. The only way a loss might be averted is if it possessed an

absolute technological superiority. But that would mean investing a very

large percentage of GDP. Which is not exactly the best thing for its

economy.

For me, Singapore's existence has always been predicated on its economic

survival. It exists to make money and only for that reason. Thus its

greatest threat is not military but economic.

Plus, according to just war theory, embarking a war which one is extremely

unlikely to win is immoral, considering that war usually results in massive

loss of life. So.

4. So, as we have seen, any armed forces which Singapore should posses

should only have a deterrent function. This deterrent function should serve

to discourage invasion by making the cost of attack high (i.e. destruction

of enemy property by aerial raids etc). This deterrent function would

obviously not be well played by ground troups like infantrymen, etc. Such

ground troops should be kept to a minimum.

Singapore should rely on a largely regular corps to fulfil its manpower

needs, which should be kept to a minimum. It should invest in a credible

airforce, with suitably frightening bombing capability. This should be

enough to deter a casual attack.

Certainly, it should NOT conscript every little boy and turn him into an

unthinking pawn.

So, Jiekai, pls save your nationalistic hoorahs for the NDP. They will

appreciate it there.

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:19:18 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

no need to be so scathing, caleb; it's enough to show jiekai the failure of

his logic - ad hominem isn't required. i assume, of course, that you're

right and he's not, because your response is extremely long. if my logic

appears suspect then do excuse me, i can't really be bothered to properly

evaluate the debate so far.

anyway, you're as rabid an antiestablishmentarian as jk is a nationalist

('papist' wouldn't be correct) propaganda-puppy, so slamming jk that way is

rather unfair.

the justification for maintaining a system of conscription seems to me to be

rooted in the 1960s in the time when the possibility of invasion was very

real. by now we've become so entrenched in the artificial culture of

conscription that we can't shake off the feeling that we need a civilian

army to protect us from the barbarians at the gates. we're paying through

the nose for teeth and claws to scare off our neighbours just as Israel

does. no one high up in government is bold enough to speak up and say that

the entire juggernaut of NS isn't in concord with the defence requirements

of this nation - that it should be revamped, reshaped and streamlined

radically. i sure wouldn't have the balls.

of course, i don't know about the true political/strategic situation we're

facing at the moment, or will be in the coming decades. if there IS a

significant risk of war hidden somewhere beneath the veneer of diplomatic

relations, if some hidden, volatile tension simmers, then there'll be

grounds for a big ol' civilian army. and we're a pretty kiasee bunch.

-dennis

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:51:14 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

i'm not taking any sides. i just want to make a few points about the ideas and arguments that have been exchanged so far.

first. jie kai argued that because the SAF is primarily formed to play a defensive role, there should have been more debate before sending soldiers to iraq. i would completely agree with him if the soldiers who went were made to go en masse as part of their unit duties. that, fortunately, is not the case. as far as i am aware, when soldiers are needed for dangerous overseas missions (like in iraq and before iraq there was east timor), the units from which the relevant soldiers will come from will appeal for volunteers from their ranks. selection is strictly voluntary and no one who does not want to go will, in any way, be pressured to go. this explains why people who go are all regulars. they stand to benefit from promotions and lump sum bonanzas upon return. because these people, knowing the risks they would be facing, made personal decisions to take up the challenge, i am completely supportive of the sending of soldiers to iraq. after all, the move benefits singapore's international standing (which could in turn rake in many economic payoffs). if people were forced to go or "volunteered" en masse, however, it would be a different story but that is not the case.

second. gabriel and caleb both seem to be for the idea of having a non-military option for people who, perhaps due to ideological reasons, refuse to serve in the military. in theory, i am very much in support of this idea. but it seems to me a practical impossibility. if such an option existed (say people were given the choice to teach, do community work or serve in the civil defence forces), i'm pretty sure more than half the people would suddenly claim to be pacifists because of the significantly less hardship they would go through in non-military service. i'm not saying that pacifism is bullshit. it isn't. there are people who are strongly pacifist-leaning in this world (caleb would probably be one of them), and they should be entitled to their views. but it is impossible for us to distinguish between the real ones and the ones who just want to have an easier time. if 10% of the population opts to do military service (the crazy 10%, that is), will we still have a credible military to speak about? if there is some way of finding out for sure who the real pacifists are, i am in favour of excusing them from military service. but there isn't.

third. about gabriel and caleb's point that we don't need so many people in the military and that the remaining people should not be made to waste their time. i cannot agree more that the SAF is overstaffed. many people are doing nothing. many jobs can be made more efficient and many posts and be compressed into fewer. but the solution is, i feel, definitely not found in balloting. democracy is not just about maximising the society's welfare (presumably, if you do a ballot and spare some people from ns, you're freeing up productive labour and maximising society's welfare). it's also about equality of opportunity. now, this is not a communist/marxist idea. the communists want equality but democrats dream of equality of opportunity. the equality of opportunity epitomised in the words "all men are created equal" and the famous sentence, "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood." That's what democracy is about. that people will be given the same opportunities and a level playing field. it's not happening everywhere of course. but that's where we should be headed. and balloting is one big step backwards. i am more agreeable to the suggestion that we cut the length of ns equally for everyone.

finally. about caleb's point that we will lose a war anyway if a regional/world war breaks out. he's probably quite right. in a regional war, we will probably be overpowered eventually by numbers. the question, however, might well be how quickly we fall. if we fall in a week like we did against the japanese then the consequences will be catastrophic for the nation. but if we build up an armed forces strong enough to hold up long enough, our allies, or other world developments, might just be able to come to our rescue in time. britain barely hung on in the second world war and might have fallen eventually had the US not decided to step in. what we want potential aggressors to know (and fear) is that we have an armed forces strong enough to give a heck of a fight and to hold on until somebody somewhere decides to do something that saves us (perhaps our sending troops to iraq might be reciprocated then by uncle sam. we are, after all, the most important economy in south-east asia).

for those who know me by now, you probably know that i'm not a patriotic, pro-establishment yes-man. i have plenty of grievances and ns is certainly one of them (i'm for cutting the length, remember). but some points you guys made, i feel, need a little more perspective.

elgin.

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:13:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Hi there,

I'm not a 'propaganda puppy,' but I would like to contribute some views

about why I believe NS is still necessary. A common perception is that

the Singapore military exists to repel invaders in case of a war, and

this is a pretty valid interpretation, since militaries are obviously

used to fight in wars. And this argument extends that since the

prospect of war is increasingly unlikely in an inter-connected world,

the necessity for NS consequently decreases, and there's no need to

maintain a strong army anymore.

However, I believe that a strong Singaporean army is still necessary

even at such a time, for two reasons. First, while it may not seem

immediately evident at first glance, I would suggest that a capable

military provides the necessary preconditions for strong investor

confidence in Singapore, particularly when we are nestled in an area

surrounded by Muslim states, and particularly when we have frequent

diplomatic squabbles with our neighbours. MNCs would be deterred from

investing in a country that they perceive as being 'unstable,' or

'insecure,' especially if they are going to sink in millions or even

billions of dollars into building factories/other infrastructure here.

They'd rather go to Hong Kong or some other place that is free from such

uncertainty. So in a sense, the lynchpin for our phenomenal economic

success is our stability, and the lynchpin for that stability is the

existence of a strong defence. Of course, this argument can be mocked

by people when they say "oh are you therefore implying that if we don't

have a strong army then all the investors will immediately pull out?"

And to that I'd reply that it's always dangerous to pigeon-hole

arguments into extremes. Rather, it's a kind of a spectrum, where the

weaker our army is, the lesser confidence investors will have in our

economy, the lesser jobs will be created, and so on.

And like what Elgin said, if we were to make NS optional, while there

would certainly be some people who would want to be 'macho' and continue

in the army, the majority of people would just take the 'path of least

resistance' and opt out of it, and since a perfectly legitimate

alternative exists, and one's social status would not be diminished by

choosing the non-military option, thereby increasing its appeal.

The second reason why I think a strong military is important is because

it gives us a vastly increased diplomatic leverage. This is

particularly important when a small country (ie Singapore) is involved

in perennial negotiations and disputes with a big country (ie

Malaysia). A strong military by the smaller country would tell the

bigger country that you had better not bullshit around with us, you had

better not boss us around, because we have the military might to back us

up. Why do you think Malaysia balks at the idea of cutting off our

water supply? It's not because they don't want to lose the three sens

per gallon that they charge us for the water if they cut off our

supply. It's because our civilian leaders (esp LKY) and military

leaders have publicly declared in the past that if such a scenario

occurs, Singapore will not hesitate to launch a pre-emptive attack on

the southern part of peninsula Malaysia to secure our water supplies

again, and I believe that Malaysia is taking our threat seriously.

So while the possibility of a full-fledged, regional war might not be as

pervasive as it was three or four decades ago, I think a strong military

exists for two other important reasons, namely as a lynchpin for

economic growth in a volatile region and for increased diplomatic

leverage. While the causal links are not immediately evident, and the

successes in these spheres can easily be attributed to other mitigating

reasons, I think the necessity of a strong military is inescapable. Of

course, ideas such shortening the conscript duration can be examined,

but to suggest that the necessity for a strong army is anachronistic

nowadays would not be entirely accurate.

See ya guys next June!

Cheers

Shi Ming

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:31:23 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Hello again

Yes i must admit the ad hominem vitriol was somewhat excessive, but i find

'if we had no conscription we would be putty in the hands of (name country

of your choice)' arguments truly annoying. I am not suggesting that we do

not need any defence capability, what I saying is that we are not best

served by the current system of maintaining a large conscript army (with

large infantry and armour regiments). To serve as a deterrent, our military

only needs the capacity to inflict significant harm on the potential

aggressor such that, when they do the cost-benefit analysis, it's not worth

the money, loss of int'l credibility, etc etc that aggression would entail.

You must remember that in today's world, a reputation for military

adventurism would be absolutely disastrous to a country's FDI prospects.

Even Singapore has been trying to spruce up its int'l image, what with the

open arms for gay civil servants and all. And it was doing quite well (that

is until Headmaster Lee ratted on about how he 'made a few phonecalls' to

get preferential treatment in an NHS hospital and threatened to 'break

heads' if the union boys at SIA got naughty). Sigh.

As for the M'sia and the water supply issue, let me offer a few thoughts:

1. The endless scuffles between S'pore and M'sia should merely be seen as

the result of puerile attempts by the M'sian govt to shore up domestic

support for UMNO. This is a favourite tactic of Mahathir, as Paul Krugman

likes to point out in his NY Times Op-Ed. It is inconceivable that M'sia

would actually cut the water supply *until the agreements run out*. This is

because Msia and S'pore are too closely linked economically to for this to

bring any benefit to M'sia. But, then again, even if it did cut the water

supply after the agreements run out, there isn't much S'pore can do about

it. Launching a 'pre-emptive strike' on M'sia would certainly not be a good

idea, since it would then be illegal under int'l law.

2. S'pore fails to see that security is regional. Consider the EU. It is not

inconceivable that France and Germany should ever go to war. Yet 60 years

ago they devastated each other. Why this sea-change? Because their

far-sighted leaders took pains to achieve 'ever closer union'. In contrast,

ASEAN is a farce where leaders congratulate each other constantly and

basically get nothing done. If S'pore had been more persistent from the

start in integrating the region closer together, our security and economic

situation would have been far better today than it is presently.

Well, just a few thoughts ya

Caleb

Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:52:05 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Oops I meant 'it is inconceivable that France and Germany...' not 'it is not

inconceivable...' Sorry guys.

To address Elgin's point about non-military alternatives, one would have to

ask why the exodus he predicts from military NS has not occured in Sweden

and other countries which have conscription. Furthermore, I would like to

point out that non-military alternatives need not be cushy. My French

teacher, who was one of the last batches of French citizens to serve NS

before it was phased out in the early 1990s, opted for a civilian

alternative and was duly sent to teach French at a Ugandan university. He

once contracted malaria there and almost died. So, civilian service can

actually be equally if not more risky/unpleasant.

Btw, since Dennis mentioned the need for reform, why don't we discuss

reforming the SAF? I mean for an organisation which has such a pervasive

influence, it has very very little accountability. The Hu Enhuai thing was

probably only saw the light of day in the media because the advent of the

internet meant that such a atrocious lapse was already known by quite a

large number of ppl. I believe there was a similar case in the ninties where

a guy was killed (combat engineers) due to the negligence and stupidity of

his superior officers. But, this case was not at all publicised. Why is this

so? The govt likes to cite 'national security' as a blanket excuse, but I

think that as citizens of an (ostensibly) democratic country, we have to

right to know. Plus, there is almost no way for ordinary citizens or even

MPs to have a say in how the SAF is run. In other countries which practice

conscription, the military is expected to be fully accountable to the

public. (This is with the exception of places like China and Russia, but

well, let's not go there).

--Caleb

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:54:21 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

well caleb, i can't claim to know the swedish system well at all. but i am pretty sure that sweden and singapore are culturally worlds apart. i do know singapore very well, though, and it doesn't take a genius to predict a certain exodus from the armed forces. if you don't believe it, let's do a poll with this mailing group.

people, please respond to the following question in complete honesty: if you were given the option of serving your national service in a non-military vocation (examples of this could include, teaching, community work, civil defence forces and, perhaps, some civil service ministries), would you opt for the military or non-military vocation?

i will be the first respondent to the poll. i'm not a fan of crawling in the mud, digging shellscrapes (is that how you spell it), marching ridiculous distances with ridiculous loads, doing push-ups at the whim and fancy of bastards, waking up at 5.15 every morning and arranging the contents of my cupboard in an absurd fashion. so. civilian life here i come.

also, your french-ugandan anecdote is hardly relevant. please raise a possible local example to convince us.

elgin.

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 17:21:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Allow me to give a local translation of the French-Ugandan thing. Someone

who opts for the civilian alternative may, for instance, be posted to the

S'pore embassy in Jakarta or Mexico or Burma or wherever. Believe me, that

will not be fun. Furthermore, you must remember that at present, various

methods of escaping the cesspool that is combat military life exist. About

60% of the NSF intake is Pes C or below by ORD (info gathered by friend

working in medical centre). I hardly think that 60% of our male population

really is infirm. So, working as a clerk in some obscure S'pore mission

would probably be more unpleasant than working as a clerk at CMPB.

Secondly, in countries with civilian alternatives, ppl who declare

themselves as pacifists must undergo a rigorous interview to test their

pacifist views. If one's position turns out to be incoherent (or in the case

of many Singaporeans if one does not even understand the meaning of the word

'pacifist'), one's credentials as a conscientious objector would then be

cast in serious doubt. One's case for being sent to a civilian posting would

also be duly thrown out the window. Of course, this system is still open to

abuse by the intelligent/eloquent (such as, I assume, the members of this

esteemed mailing group). But the intelligent/eloquent are, unfortunately, a

minority in most societies, S'pore's not excluded. Manpower would thus not

be seriously affected.

--Caleb

p.s. Do any of you recall the classic answer by Lytton Stratchey when asked

by the military board considering his case for conscientious objection in

1914:

Q 'What would you do if you saw a German soldier violating your sister?'

A 'I would interpose my body between them'.

My main objection to this argument would be on the grounds of justice / equity. Is it fair that the intelligent and the eloquent are given a conduit to escape from the army, while those who are not as intellectually-endowed bear the brunt of defending the nation? Surely there's a gross injustice by saying that just because you are smarter, or more articulate, you can have an easier way out, and if you're stupid, then it's your fault, you have to take up the machine gun and charge into the field. While some people may argue that the current system allows intelligent and articulate people to take advantage of the medical system and wriggle their way out of NS, I think that this is simply not analogous. Downgrading your PES status requires medically-documented proof, and while one or two examples can be cited of people who have really taken advantage of the system and escaped even though they have no medical condition, the fact remains that hard medical evidence is required. On the other hand, the assessment of whether somebody is a conscientious objector or not rests *exclusively* on the articulation of thought, and hence the margin for abuse is far, far greater than medical abuse. The only other present system where an articulation of thought can get you out of NS, I imagine, is to declare that you are gay, but that has a massive social baggage against it (and other military consequences), and is thus another issue completely.

-- Shi Ming

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:27:07 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes I must agree that practically it would be impossible to send 60% of the

conscripted population on overseas missions. But by arguing the situation

from that standpoint, you are already assuming the failure of my argument.

Let me explain: if we have to 60% of our forces on overseas civilian

missions, then 60% of our forces would have opted for the civilian route.

i.e. a significant amount of manpower has been drained from the military

option. What I argued, however, was that a (well-publicised) announcement

that ppl opting for civilian alternatives would definitely face an overseas

stint at in some 3rd world country would act as a *deterrent* for those

thinking of choosing it as an easy way out. Hence your reason for why my

argument fails stands on the premise of the failure of my argument. Circular

logic i would say.

I must admit though, that this policy would be a bit of a gamble.

As for my comments about intelligence and eloquence, I was just trying to be

self-deprecating (in a roundabout way of course). Such a system would be

open to abuse, but so are all systems. The point is that it does not

institutionalise a bias in favour of the intelligent/eloquent. In any case,

documentary proof will be required. This is already the case with 7th Day

Adventists in S'pore, who are excused from handling firearms and get off

every saturday. One cannot suddenly claim to be a 7th Day Adventist. One has

to produce proof of one's commitment to this religion. (e.g. frequent

attendance at SDA church services, refusal to work on Saturday under all

circumstances, etc).

What I find troubling is that the govt has not looked into the situation of

the JWs though this has been a problem since the 60s. Every year, about 30

JWs are interned in DB for 3 years. Their commitment to their religion is

more than clear (since they willingly submit to 3 years of imprisonment). It

is time their situation is relooked. They are merely trying to practice

their religion and get on with their lives. I see no reason why they should

not be treated with more dignity by the law, which after all claims to

provide equal justice to all regardless of religious belief. Whether one is

committed JW is easily determined. Such ppl could then be sent to a suitable

civilian posting. I'm willing to bet that a move in this direction would not

result in catastrophe. It might even make us a more civilised society.

--Caleb

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:08:13 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2 > JWs
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

the JWs are a different case from the SDAs. let's first establish that the

goal of the government is to maintain conscription, and to deploy

medically-fit, able-bodied males in combat roles wherever possible. that

being the case, JWs are immediately a problem for this principle because

they as a group cannot be deployed in combat roles. if JWs were

automatically placed in non-combat (and probably more desired) positions,

they would be the only group allowed to do so.

but wait - why do JWs object to being in combat roles? because they must not

shed blood. because they believe in pacifism as part of their religion. but

surely they don't have the monopoly on sincere, wholehearted pacifism, do

they? if they can be exempt from combat roles, why can't other groups or

individuals be as well, if they're professed pacifists as well? but how do

we judge belief, measure conscience, test truth? we have to draw the line

somewhere. and if we were to draw the line to encompass a lone religious

group (a fringe one at that), we'd be inconsistent and arbitrary. a lot of

people (potentially!) don't believe in war or violence.

i won't argue that there'd be accelerated growth in the JW community because

of a hypothetical policy of exemption, because i cannot judge if it will

happen to any significant degree. but the principle of my argument still

stands.

practically speaking, though, i think it would be a better and more humane

to give JWs a semi-detentional NS. as matters stand, they are treated

relatively well in the SAF DB and have a lot of privileges that the other

detainees do not - but they lack the crucial element of freedom. i think

it's a fair concession to let them have weekends off like the rest of us,

and to have the right to phone out from the DB. their crime is different in

nature from others, and the extended duration of detention/service is

punishment enough. (it could be made slightly longer so the incentive to

adopt the JW religion in order to escape a physical NS is further

diminished.)

-dennis

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:16:55 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

your scheme to "threaten" anyone who opts for non-military service with the prospect of an overseas posting to a third world country is, in my opinion, doomed to failure. by even suggesting it would succeed, you're insulting the intelligence of singaporeans. and even if singaporeans were really stupid enough to believe you, it still wouldn't work in the long run. and even if it you were 100% sure that it would work, you still shouldn't do it because it is wrong.

firstly. singaporeans are a increasingly becoming a well-educated lot. they would realise in three seconds how impossible it is for you to send so many people overseas. in the first place, they know you don't need so many people overseas. intelligent journalists will hound ministers with figures of current overseas staff and demand a reasonable explanation as to how the sudden increase in manpower will be put to good use. intelligent people will write to forums dismissing it as a ridiculous threat. and even if there could be a justification for how the manpower was to be used, people will still question politicians with claims that the manpower will be better used in other places. (surely having an army of people doing paperwork in our ministries back home or even doing community service would be a lot more productive than having them serve in foreign countries!). you underestimate singapore, caleb. we are a democracy in which politicians are accountable to their constituents. the decisions they make do and will come under scrutiny. to think you can fool the public on an issue of such intense public concern is absurd.

even if it works for the first year, the scheme is bound to fail sooner or later because we know it is intrinsically flawed. there has to be some year when people decide that you can't possibly send everyone overseas. on that year, a more than average number of people will opt to do non-military service. and the moment you let some people work here, the scheme will fall apart because in the subsequent year, even more people will apply and the exodus will happen. you are suggesting an unsustainable plan. it could be done for one year, two years or even five years. we should be more concerned with a plan that works for the next fifty or hundred years.

your plot will never materialise simply because it is so absurd that it becomes extremely risky politically. such a scheme might potentially turn out disastrous, attracting tremendous amount of ill-will against the PAP. and since PAP consists of the canniest of politicians, i am convinced your scheme will never be adopted.

last of all, i want to state my objection to your scheme in principle. what you are basically suggesting is that we lie to the people. that is, on any moral or ethical measure, clearly wrong. any free human being who stands for the principles of democracy, honesty, justice and transparency will be as disgusted at your plan as i am. even if we knew we could lie to the people in a way that was sure to work, we should not do it simply because it is wrong. i will not do it if i'm in power. and i can't believe you will, caleb.

elgin.

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:24:03 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 13
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Just a few points,

[Deleted]

2. I think the army would grind to a halt if NS were reformed

manpower-wise. Regulars' jobs are to torture NSFs, and they expect to

get paid for doing little and making NSFs do all the work. Hell, the

money's why many of them sign on in the first place. Any transition

phase between the current system and a putative reduced-conscript base

or volunteer army would be necessarily traumatic, and I do not see how

we would be able to survive it without an extended moment of

vulnerability. So we've a lack of political, social and military will here.

About openness and accountability, I think the government has realised

that with the Internet, they can fool all of the people some of the

time, but they cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Spread

enough rumours and eventually they will be forced to come out against it

or face a public outroar. Since they've already committed themselves to

greater transparency, there can be no turning back.

3. Having an option of non-military service will not result in an exodus

if it is made sufficiently disagreeable so as not to be considered a

soft option and palatable only to those finding military service truly

vile. Consider why people dislike being slaves. Off the top of my head:

i) Low pay

To me, freedom is priceless, but many people, mostly the <A

level/diploma (O, N levels, PSLE etc) bunch rue the opportunity cost of

lost income. In fact, money is so important to some that they forgo

downgrades to retain combat allowance. The non-military option will

definitely pay less than the military one, so this will deter a large

chunk from choosing it.

ii) No freedom

A civilian alternative would definitely give the individual more leeway,

even if the SAF were to ditch the bullshit about regimentation and

discipline contributing to good wartime performance, but you still have

to do what they require of you.

iii) Doing military things

Interestingly, many people don't mind being a soldier for 2 years. They

find firing guns and running through jungles a novelty, a "once in a

lifetime" experience. If the other areas of NS weren't so screwed, they

might actually do it more-or-less willingly.

iv) Waste of time

The 2 - 2.5 years are viewed by many as lost years which could have been

better spent working or studying. My proposed non-military alternative

would be longer than current NS - at least 3 years. Methinks that should

be sufficient to deter those seeking an easy way out of Military Slavery.

Sadly, there are not a few people who have been taken in by the

propaganda about "honour", "glory" and "defending one's country" - not

everyone is an over-educated, cynical malcontent like Caleb and I. These

people would gladly choose the military option, so the army would still

have some cannon fodder. Not enough to make us waste our time doing area

cleaning endlessly and be cheap labour for the NDP as is the case now,

made possible by the blanket conscription of an overwhelming supply of

free labour, but enough for practical military needs.

As for the rest of us, no one is suggesting that we all go overseas.

There are plenty of areas where we could be deployed more productively,

usefully and happily than in the SAF. For example, watching grass grow

and paint peel.

4. People say that balloting would be inequitable and people would

rather everyone suffer than that only they suffered - the "equal misery"

principle, but it exists in other countries - Thailand for example.

Anyhow that is what a government is for - to force hard but socially

beneficial choices down the throats of an ignorant populace :)

Anyway, we should conscript women then, but for our outdated

anachronistic ideas about women being soft and gentle beings who cannot

stand the rigours of military life. Bah.

5. Would other countries come to our aid? What are we to them? As they

say, "There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests". With

our infrastructure damaged by war, and our population either fled (and

bear in mind the more economically productive you are, the more likely

you are to be able to flee in a war) or traumatised by war, we'd be useless.

6. Someone made the point that a large army ensures stability, which

makes all those heartless and immoral MNCs happy even though their

workers are yearly oppressed and made to do RT at Maju. However, the

flip side is that conscription makes people dull and prone to accepting

the status quo. That's why the government is introducing and trying to

teach (bah) creativity, albeit at a controlled pace, in tandem with its

loosening up on gays and malcontents (why do you think the Men In White

haven't come for me yet?)

Further, I think we're long past the point of diminishing returns. The

price we pay for conscripting everyone is far greater than any benefit

we get from an overly-large army. Bear in mind again the point about us

being able to have a strong armed forces without needing to enslave

every male.

7. You can pay for a downgrade at Private Specalists. Trust me - I'm a

medic, I know. You can also be a "P" (Psychiatric) case, but this has

"massive social baggage against it (and other military consequences),

and is thus another issue completely."

8. What happens to non-JW pacifists? Are they give the 3 year treatment

like JWs?

And JW are not well treated. My sources (some of them MPs with friends

in DB) say they are beaten up. Don't believe everything you read,

especially when it's a SAF PR exercise!

A friend has some other points to add, especially about the

political/social engineering aspects of NS, which I will post here in

due course.

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:26:29 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 13
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

>From: Gabriel Seah <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

>Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

>To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

>Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 13

>Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:24:03 +0800

>

>Just a few points,

<snippo>

>8. What happens to non-JW pacifists? Are they give the 3 year treatment

>like JWs?

>

>And JW are not well treated. My sources (some of them MPs with friends

>in DB) say they are beaten up. Don't believe everything you read,

>especially when it's a SAF PR exercise!

>

i AM an MP with friends in DB.

-dennis

(unfortunate phrasing, but oh well)

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:29:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Hey,

What a pleasant coincidence, while we are debating about NS on this

online forum, my Government professor sends us a speech he delivered at

Oxford University a couple of years back, and lo and behold, one of the

stuff he talked about was the morality behind having a conscripted army

vs a professional army. It's quite interesting stuff, may sound

slightly odd at first glance, but upon deeper reflection he does make

some good, philosophical points.

For those who are interested:

page 23-28 are the really relevant parts, but the entire speech

contributes to our understanding of some of the points he mentioned there.

Have a good Christmas!

Shi Ming :)

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:02:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Hmmm my point about arranging a suitably un-cushy non-military option seems

to be easily misinterpreted.

How can this be a dishonest policy? Many institutions work on similar

principles, most prominently, banks. If a significant larger number of ppl

than usual withdrew their money at the same time, a run on the bank will

result. But we know that this is unlikely to happen. Yet, it is *possible*.

One does not then pronounce all banks fraudulent.

In fact, all deterrent systems work on the same principle. I don't know if

they still do this, but they used to have this CWO thing for litterbugs. Of

course, only a token number of the many many ppl who litter are caught and

then publically humiliated. And it really is a token number. The police do

not spend hours scouring the streets for all ppl who litter. They merely

apprehend an unlucky few, whose sad fate then serves as a deterrent for

others. Does this mean that the CWO policy is unfair or dishonest? (Pls note

that I am not in any way advocating the CWO policy. Those neon orange vests

should have been confiscated by the fashion police long ago.)

If a larger than usual number of ppl opt for the non-military route, then

local but suitably un-cushy jobs can be found for them. My point was that

non-military jobs are not necessarily more pleasant. In any case, the

deterrent principle still stands. Even if some are posted to better civilian

jobs, an applicant for the civilian route cannot guarantee that he will not

be sent to some 3rd world bog. You must see it from an indiv perspective.

And btw, MFA does need manpower at its overseas missions. Many embassy staff

face great risks, esp in this time of terror blah blah. Sending ppl overseas

to work in embassies is not an ingenious scheme I have devised to support my

woolly lefty call for freedom of thought, it meets a real need. It is not a

scheme to deceive the ppl.

And for the record, govts, not just the S'pore one, enjoy immense powers.

Blair was able to launch Britain into a war which was bitterly opposed by

many intelligent journalists etc. Esp in a country where the govt faces no

danger of being voted out come the next elections, public opinion counts for

very little in the real scheme of things political. The govt can, and does,

push through many plans which are opposed by the public/the chattering

classes.

-- Caleb

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:32:13 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2 > JWs
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

Actually, JW opposition to NS is more complicated than mere pacifism. SDAs

are pacifists. They cannot carry firearms or shed blood. I believe (though

I'm not sure can someone pls enlighten me on this one) that they are always

given non-combat vocations. I would think that an infantryman who is excused

firearms perm would not be of much use...

JWs are opposed to NS because they are opposed to any secular

service/allegiance. Hence, they do not even accept being sent to non-combat

vocations. They must be given civilian positions, and at that, ones not

directly in the service of the state. This is a major problem.

But in fact, it is not intractable. All Singapore has to do is revise its

current position on immigration vis-a-vis NS, which is in fact irregular

under int'l law. Currently, any male who is a Singapore citizen from age 12

is liable for NS and CANNOT IMMIGRATE/TERMINATE HIS CITIZENSHIP UNTIL

COMPLETION OF NS.

Hence, for JWs who wish to reside in S'pore, they have no choice but to

submit to imprisonment. However, if S'pore, in line with int'l norms,

allowed JWs to terminate their citizenship (hence freeing themselves of any

obligation to perform NS) they could merely do so and reside here (at least

for the short term) as foreign citizens/ vagrants. They would then not enjoy

the privileges/protection which comes with citizenship. Or they could safely

migrate to Canada, etc. Currently, those who do not migrate before age 12

(and migrating at such a young age is often expensive and difficult for a

variety of reasons) but who migrate before enlisting for NS are considered

AWOL and will be arrested should they return to S'pore.

So you see in fact pacifists are accommodated to some extent in S'pore, in

the form of SDAs. This is prob because the constitution guarantees freedom

of religion but not (explicitly) freedom of political thought. Hence legally

religiously motivated pacifism is more recognised than politically motivated

pacificism. The legal reason for why JWs are not accommodated because JWs

are not a 'recognised' religion in S'pore.

--Caleb

Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:31:33 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] ns2 > JWs
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com

goodness; you're right, JWs do not serve simply because they will not pledge

allegiance to any cause other than their religion's. my apologies. i wasn't

aware of SDAs' status as legal/legit pacifists as well. all the same, if JWs

consciously reject all authority, they obviously don't fit with the gahmen's

plan for us all. and we know that the gahmen, as of the last few decades,

isn't given to bending over for the demands (which are political at that) of

any other group. things aren't going to change. and if the JWs' rejection of

authority is as complete as that, then there's really no acceptable way for

MINDEF to accord them greater freedoms in the form of semi-detention. it has

to be either let them migrate or imprison them all.

hope they're getting a humane deal there in DB, anyway.