Dec 8, 2005
Changing nature of NS would hurt security
IN THE article, 'Rethink scope of national service' (ST, Dec 6), Ms
Ong Soh Chin called for a broader definition of national service,
in particular, the inclusion of 'civilian service', so that
Singapore would not lose 'another Singaporean like Melvyn
Tan'.
While I agree that it is sad that we should lose a talent like Mr
Tan or other 'would-be prodigal Singaporeans' like him, I do not
think we can afford to compromise national security by changing the
nature of our national service to accommodate the aspirations of
individuals.
And, yes, it does make a mockery of the 'many young Singaporean
males who have properly served their country'.
If national service were designed to cater to the 'special
aptitude' of a person by allowing him to be channelled to an
'appropriate industry', wouldn't this relegate national service to
a mere ritual of convenience and encourage people to become
self-serving in the name of serving the country?
Besides, though it is not for every man, our national servicemen do
have the opportunity to experience the non-combat aspects of
national service. There are already clerical duties, medical duties
and, as the writer acknowledges, overseas missions to 'Aceh or
other tsunami-hit countries to help out in the rehabilitation
process'.
Ms Ong says not every man is a warrior, so not all should carry
arms. But national service does not just turn national servicemen
into fighting machines with the ability to 'shoot to kill'.
In the army, soldiers are equipped with combat know-how,
understanding of sophisticated weaponry, principles of total
defence, survival and various life skills, among others, so that
they know how to and are able to defend their country and guide
their fellow countrymen in doing so when the call comes.
More importantly, the army instils discipline and prepares recruits
for life's realities in a way 'soft' attachments like 'coaching
young musicians' cannot.
If we rethink the scope of national service and give people a
choice to choose either 'military' or 'civilian' service, guess
which one most people would choose.
The strength of an army lies in its numbers, besides modern
technology. Considering Singapore's population of about 3.5 million
people of whom about 1.79 million are females, 937,000 are 19 years
old and below and 620,500 are 55 years old and above, and the
unique vulnerabilities that every country faces, to remain
sufficiently combat-ready we cannot afford to reduce our army size
at all.
Hence, not serving national service is not simply an issue of
having one's loyalty (and manhood) questioned; it is a question of
life and death.
Lena Soh Kwee Kim (Ms)
What does a woman like her know abt NS? pui. Oh i can safely tell
you i am one person who would choose civilian service. And since
you are so pro- NS, why not go serve before you think you even
deserve to talk abt NS? what a bitch. Obviously she think females
do not need to serve NS yet demand equality. 'Soft attachments'?
what do you know abt the ARTS? oh forget being a bitch. You are
just one lame fucking bitch that only knows how to shoot her mouth
first
