there was another thread about this. wonder if the
administrators wish to put them together.
anyway, Mr Yeo appeared on the news again today and i'm quite
disappointed with his reply. this was his opportunity at saving
grace and yet he blew it. in the first place, the issue of
contention has been hidden and stashed away and will never see the
light of day so when he claims that the concerned scholars were
being whimpy, we would never be able to tell how true that is,
would we? without seeing both sides of the coin, how can we decide
who is right on the basis of one sided arguments? in any case, as
with most arguments, there will always be two sides and i dun think
anyone concerned in the issue is 100% right.
frankly this shouldn't be a big deal and the way it's being handled
goes to show just how unsophisticated the protagonists can
be.
Mr Yeo hoped to see sky diving individuals but we know in the army
the closest thing to that we do is skiving (combine the two words
together). if macho men is what he wishes to see and not withery,
willowy weaklings, then i'm afraid Mr Yeo is not setting a good
example himself.
lastly about the effects of national service. i don't think
toughness is an issue. most of us go through fitter, stronger,
tougher ... physically and mentally. however in terms of helping us
make better decisions, i beg to differ. i mean, army is all about
regimentation ... following rules, following orders, accepting the
unreasonable ... and after two and a half years of being
incacerated the last thing you would hope to see is being treated
similarly in a civilian context.
