Increasingly young singaporeans are beginning to question the purpose of national service as the PAP government bring in more FTs and relegate the local to 2nd class status
http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Defending what's (y)ours!
Singapore faces devastating exodus of foreigners (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5557447.ece)
When I read the above, I thought about the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) television advertisement, Defending What's Ours.
For more information, male Singaporeans are forced into National Service and most have reservist obligations. They also take an oath (a verbal social contract with the state):
"We, Members of the Singapore Armed Forces, do solemnly and sincerely pledge that: We will always bear true faith and allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore. We will always support and defend the constitution. We will preserve and protect the honour and independence of our country with our lives."
I think the oath has to be revised. We need to protect our economy, our foreign talents and do the jobs foreigners cannot and do not want to do, i.e. National Service. Mind you, time and again, the government has force fed us with the rhetoric and reason that foreign talents in Singapore are recruited to do the jobs Singaporeans cannot and do not want to do. Well, that is true to a large extent. If we saw beyond the xenophobia, we (us Singaporean men, who also happen to be voters, *hint hint*) will come to realise, "Hey, is it worth it defending what's 'ours'?"
What on earth is "ours"?
Maybe defending Singapore is about getting the injuries and post-injury conditions like rheumatism (I have that in most parts of my left leg any way) after National Service.
Maybe defending Singapore is about getting your head dunked in the water till you die from drowning, and I am sure that figures very well in defending the economic imperative. And since we like to "re-enact" and re-create history during the huge propaganda party (with fireworks) that is National Day, why not we reenact every accident and death that have occurred during National Service, right smack in the middle of the performance grounds? After all, Singapore needs to remember its forgotten sons, right? The Singapore story we are told are void of the pains and failures of Singaporeans, and that is why some of us do not identify with it.
Are Singaporeans defending the PAP government and its interests? Are we defending the stratification of society? Are we defending the large income divide? Are we defending the institutions that cause elder people to continue to work when they can retire, to continue to be rubbish bin scavengers and all?
I do not share the same definition of "ours" as the government and its self-professed state-independent military organisation do.
Most of us will not buy one morsel of the advertisement/infomercial. It is merely to justify what is already there. If such a segment is to advertise and provide information, then let it stand in a country where military service is voluntary. Let us see how many Singaporean men will sign up (maybe since times are bad, more will sign up voluntarily, we won't know).
Make National Service voluntary, and you will see the extent to which people identify with the government's message of "defending what's ours". Make it voluntary and you will get what people think about how things are run. Maybe in the advertisement/infomercial, there was a minute parenthesized "y" before the word "ours". It sort of speaks from the perspective of the Singaporean male, wherein we are asked to defend the second person (yours) that is the state and its interests.
I personally do not believe in National Service. It tears me away from my family, my work and the things I love to do. I do not want to be part of any organisation that promotes and reinforces dominant gender norms and structures.
I am not willing to do defending what is "yours". Because we have seen the way our Singaporean sons are forsaken and forgotten, and could have known even more, if not for the state secrecy and media machinery that protects the military organisation.
When times are bad, it is the (immobile) Singaporeans that stay behind, while foreign talents will become foreign talents in other places. But I guess Goh Chok Tong's "quitter/stayer" binary does not apply to foreign talents, because such a rhetoric would clearly disincentivise their arrival or thoughts of coming to Singapore in the first place. Such a binary would be a better guilt-trap and consciousness manipulator for Singaporeans. Horses for courses, and the Singaporean horse is the better horse for doing the master's bidding.
You can't buy loyalty, but you can create legal institutions to enforce compulsory loyalty. And since you have that infrastructure, you can abuse this loyalty. There is nothing any government can do if its people do not believe in its message and ideas, but to enforce rules that sanction, disincentivise and punish these non-believers.
National Service is like pouring thinner down the back of Singaporeans and setting them alight - and there's nothing any one can do about it. Our families and loved ones will also get burnt trying to put out the flames that engulf the remainder years of our youth.
National Service is currently better than going to jail because there is a greater social stigma and discrimination associated with going to jail. The only things that work in favour of National Service are external to the consciousness of some/most Singaporean men, that are the institutions and infrastructure that compel and threaten these men into service. This reminds me of the trafficking of human bodies (live ones of course), but in this instance, within borders.
I will never want to serve military service even if the SAF could give me back my confidence and sense of self-worth, my sanity, and restore my left ankle and knee to its pre-NS condition. I will also not give you son(s) if I had children; you can go "buy" other children, and defend what's yours.
http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Defending what's (y)ours!
Singapore faces devastating exodus of foreigners (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5557447.ece)
When I read the above, I thought about the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) television advertisement, Defending What's Ours.
For more information, male Singaporeans are forced into National Service and most have reservist obligations. They also take an oath (a verbal social contract with the state):
"We, Members of the Singapore Armed Forces, do solemnly and sincerely pledge that: We will always bear true faith and allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore. We will always support and defend the constitution. We will preserve and protect the honour and independence of our country with our lives."
I think the oath has to be revised. We need to protect our economy, our foreign talents and do the jobs foreigners cannot and do not want to do, i.e. National Service. Mind you, time and again, the government has force fed us with the rhetoric and reason that foreign talents in Singapore are recruited to do the jobs Singaporeans cannot and do not want to do. Well, that is true to a large extent. If we saw beyond the xenophobia, we (us Singaporean men, who also happen to be voters, *hint hint*) will come to realise, "Hey, is it worth it defending what's 'ours'?"
What on earth is "ours"?
Maybe defending Singapore is about getting the injuries and post-injury conditions like rheumatism (I have that in most parts of my left leg any way) after National Service.
Maybe defending Singapore is about getting your head dunked in the water till you die from drowning, and I am sure that figures very well in defending the economic imperative. And since we like to "re-enact" and re-create history during the huge propaganda party (with fireworks) that is National Day, why not we reenact every accident and death that have occurred during National Service, right smack in the middle of the performance grounds? After all, Singapore needs to remember its forgotten sons, right? The Singapore story we are told are void of the pains and failures of Singaporeans, and that is why some of us do not identify with it.
Are Singaporeans defending the PAP government and its interests? Are we defending the stratification of society? Are we defending the large income divide? Are we defending the institutions that cause elder people to continue to work when they can retire, to continue to be rubbish bin scavengers and all?
I do not share the same definition of "ours" as the government and its self-professed state-independent military organisation do.
Most of us will not buy one morsel of the advertisement/infomercial. It is merely to justify what is already there. If such a segment is to advertise and provide information, then let it stand in a country where military service is voluntary. Let us see how many Singaporean men will sign up (maybe since times are bad, more will sign up voluntarily, we won't know).
Make National Service voluntary, and you will see the extent to which people identify with the government's message of "defending what's ours". Make it voluntary and you will get what people think about how things are run. Maybe in the advertisement/infomercial, there was a minute parenthesized "y" before the word "ours". It sort of speaks from the perspective of the Singaporean male, wherein we are asked to defend the second person (yours) that is the state and its interests.
I personally do not believe in National Service. It tears me away from my family, my work and the things I love to do. I do not want to be part of any organisation that promotes and reinforces dominant gender norms and structures.
I am not willing to do defending what is "yours". Because we have seen the way our Singaporean sons are forsaken and forgotten, and could have known even more, if not for the state secrecy and media machinery that protects the military organisation.
When times are bad, it is the (immobile) Singaporeans that stay behind, while foreign talents will become foreign talents in other places. But I guess Goh Chok Tong's "quitter/stayer" binary does not apply to foreign talents, because such a rhetoric would clearly disincentivise their arrival or thoughts of coming to Singapore in the first place. Such a binary would be a better guilt-trap and consciousness manipulator for Singaporeans. Horses for courses, and the Singaporean horse is the better horse for doing the master's bidding.
You can't buy loyalty, but you can create legal institutions to enforce compulsory loyalty. And since you have that infrastructure, you can abuse this loyalty. There is nothing any government can do if its people do not believe in its message and ideas, but to enforce rules that sanction, disincentivise and punish these non-believers.
National Service is like pouring thinner down the back of Singaporeans and setting them alight - and there's nothing any one can do about it. Our families and loved ones will also get burnt trying to put out the flames that engulf the remainder years of our youth.
National Service is currently better than going to jail because there is a greater social stigma and discrimination associated with going to jail. The only things that work in favour of National Service are external to the consciousness of some/most Singaporean men, that are the institutions and infrastructure that compel and threaten these men into service. This reminds me of the trafficking of human bodies (live ones of course), but in this instance, within borders.
I will never want to serve military service even if the SAF could give me back my confidence and sense of self-worth, my sanity, and restore my left ankle and knee to its pre-NS condition. I will also not give you son(s) if I had children; you can go "buy" other children, and defend what's yours.
