Should Singapore abolish National Service?
-
But the term of service is stated in the MINDEF statutes, which are subordinate to the SAF Act too.Therefore, they are valid.
-
There is no question about NS. However, I do feel that some of our sacrifices may be in vain. The comments of Philip Yeo on "whining" bond-breakers and the reluctance of SIA to release foreign-baased pilots from their contracts make me feel that way. Are we actually protecting our families or the fat-ass bureaucrats and foreign talents?
Another thing is exit controls. We have to go through the procedure of making an exit permit just for a day trip to JB or Batam, while German citizens liable for conscription can go in and out of France and Holland without using their passports. -
Exit Permit (EP)Originally posted by iveco:Another thing is exit controls. We have to go through the procedure of making an exit permit just for a day trip to JB or Batam, while German citizens liable for conscription can go in and out of France and Holland without using their passports.
You are required to apply for EPs if you intend to stay outside Singapore for more than 6 months. You are to seek approval from your NS unit before applying for an EP if:
Your overseas trips are less than 1 year and you have been scheduled for NS activities within the period of overseas trip; or
Your overseas trips are 1 year or more and you have been scheduled for NS activities within 6 months from the date of exit permit application.
Notification of Overseas Travel
All NSmen who wish to travel out of Singapore for more than 24 hours but less than 6 months are required to notify MINDEF of your overseas trips. You may do so through the following means:
1. Through phone at 1800-364 6333 (1800-eMINDEF)
2. Through SMS at 97646333
3. By faxing to 1800-364 6333
4. Through Internet via miw.com.sg
5. Email to [email protected]
6. Mail to MINDEF eServices Centre
7 Bedok South Road
Singapore 469272 -
Hi Relm,
I understand that you are not a native. Thereby, arguing on the fine prints of laws in my country will definitly put you in a precarious position. Beside, as moral citizen of whatever country you are from, one should respect the laws and regulations stipulated in another country and restrain from debating legal loophole (if any).
I welcome you to feedback or to engage in a healthy debate on international politics and warfare strategies but I will advise you not to question the law.
Regards.
-
But I have to say that he did find a legal loophole.We have to address this.Originally posted by TooFree:Hi Relm,
I understand that you are not a native. Thereby, arguing on the fine prints of laws in my country will definitly put you in a precarious position. Beside, as moral citizen of whatever country you are from, one should respect the laws and regulations stipulated in another country and restrain from debating legal loophole (if any).
I welcome you to feedback or to engage in a healthy debate on international politics and warfare strategies but I will advise you not to question the law.
Regards. 
-
I am more curious as to where Relm is from,perhaps Relm would like to tell us?Originally posted by TooFree:Hi Relm,
I understand that you are not a native. Thereby, arguing on the fine prints of laws in my country will definitly put you in a precarious position. Beside, as moral citizen of whatever country you are from, one should respect the laws and regulations stipulated in another country and restrain from debating legal loophole (if any).
I welcome you to feedback or to engage in a healthy debate on international politics and warfare strategies but I will advise you not to question the law.
Regards.
ADD:Found his e-mail in his profile:
[email protected]
So if he isnt Singaporean might he be a Chinese spy to disarm us?
Just kidding,or maybe 'longyuan' is some novel/comic character or a location? -
thats it..its bye bye singapore for me after ord'ing.
-
Where got... ? I am amused.Originally posted by LazerLordz:But I have to say that he did find a legal loophole.We have to address this. You actually think that that is a legal loophole.
There are Sections and Clauses in the Enlistment Act or Oaths and Declarations Act that overrule it. You just need a magnify glass. -
Loophole or not, the people up there will somehow plug it up.Originally posted by LazerLordz:But I have to say that he did find a legal loophole.We have to address this.
The four protestors at the CPF building was a pretty good example of this. An 'illegal assembly' is legally defined as 'five people or more', but they still got into trouble anyway.
-
Ah well, sometimes legal reform is needed if we want to plug those loopholes. Did the Law Ministry revise the number of people for illegal assembly from 5 to 4?Originally posted by fudgester:Loophole or not, the people up there will somehow plug it up.
The four protestors at the CPF building was a pretty good example of this. An 'illegal assembly' is legally defined as 'five people or more', but they still got into trouble anyway. -
Originally posted by fudgester:
Loophole or not, the people up there will somehow plug it up.
The four protestors at the CPF building was a pretty good example of this. An 'illegal assembly' is legally defined as 'five people or more', but they still got into trouble anyway.Originally posted by iveco:
Numbers stipulated in any law context is often a vulnerable measure and not a loophole, as seen in this particular case, there were only four protestors at the scene. So, the focus now rest on their intent instead of their assembly. Since, they were caught red-handed with signs of protesting nature, they ran afoul of other laws.
Ah well, sometimes legal reform is needed if we want to plug those loopholes. Did the Law Ministry revise the number of people for illegal assembly from 5 to 4? -
This is one instance that i believe they did a good thing with the interpretation of the law.And the AG's chambers motion to overthrow is simply farcical.Originally posted by fudgester:Loophole or not, the people up there will somehow plug it up.
The four protestors at the CPF building was a pretty good example of this. An 'illegal assembly' is legally defined as 'five people or more', but they still got into trouble anyway.
These guys were not creating trouble and the normal concept of nuisance would not see a riot platoon and a DSP being summoned.It just so happened that there was a political slant and you know how that is tolerated here..such a farce. -
Oath and affirmation
128.—(1) Before the president of the Military Court of Appeal enters upon the execution of his office, he shall take in the presence of the Chief Justice the oath or affirmation of allegiance in the prescribed form.
(2) An oath or an affirmation in the prescribed form shall be administered by the president of the Military Court of Appeal to every member of the Court before the commencement of the appeal.
(3) An oath or an affirmation in the prescribed form shall be administered by the president of the Military Court of Appeal to every shorthand writer or interpreter (if any) in attendance at the appeal.
(4) Every witness before the Military Court of Appeal shall be examined on oath or on affirmation, which the president of the Court or other prescribed person shall administer in such form as may be approved.
Correct me if i'm wrong but it does not say anything about the need to take the oath. It did not say it is a must.
Duty to report for enlistment.
10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the proper authority may by notice require a person subject to this Act not below the age of 18 years to report for enlistment for national service.
(2) A person required to report for enlistment for national service shall report to the proper authority on such date and at such time and place as may be specified in the notice and shall attend from day to day until duly enlisted.
(3) Enlistment for national service shall be in the manner approved by the proper authority.
(4) No duty of any kind shall be imposed on a person required to report for enlistment or service unless he is found fit for service.
The act is called an enlistment act. which means recuritment. I am wondering why all the stuff which follows are in the EA.
There is indeed a loophole as mentioned yesterday.
About my email, well, i'm currently in singapore. It's a singnet email ad.
But of course, i'm not always here. I can be anywhere. -
NS has been with us for 40yrs? and thousands of singaporeans got enlisted each yr and among them young men studying overseas come back just for NS, children of lawyers and rich parents who can employ all kinds of lawyers, and even children of PR facing NS for the first time in their families, surely many would be keen to find a way out not having to serve NS. I am surprised nobody found the loophole.Originally posted by LazerLordz:But I have to say that he did find a legal loophole.We have to address this.
If there is indeed a loophole, I am glad that nobody is so eager to run away from NS using such loophole. -
The so-called loophole is for certain religious groups that doesn't want to serve in NS right?
-
Are you sure? Jehovah's Witnesses get sentenced to DB for not wanting to do NS.Originally posted by sillyme:The so-called loophole is for certain religious groups that doesn't want to serve in NS right? -
Originally posted by fudgester:Are you sure? Jehovah's Witnesses get sentenced to DB for not wanting to do NS.
' Any person affected by a notice given under section 3(1) who, without lawful excuse, fails to present himself for registration in accordance with the notice shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both. '
Yes, that is why I asked if this section was used when they send Jehovah's Witnesses to DB. -
I would say so.After all, it is still a conscious choice not to do NS but to serve jail time.So yeah, in essence and in all technicality, they did make the choice to reject NS>Originally posted by sillyme:[/i]
Yes, that is why I asked if this section was used when they send Jehovah's Witnesses to DB. -
The religion of the JWs forbids members from bearing arms. Whether it is good or bad, it is anyone's guess.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I would say so.After all, it is still a conscious choice not to do NS but to serve jail time.So yeah, in essence and in all technicality, they did make the choice to reject NS>
The followers of JW are treated like common crooks. So much for religious freedom.
-
Originally posted by Relm:
Hi Relm, I am curious as to where you got our Singapore legal acts from?
Oath and affirmation
128.—(1) Before the president of the Military Court of Appeal enters upon the execution of his office, he shall take in the presence of the Chief Justice the oath or affirmation of allegiance in the prescribed form.
(2) An oath or an affirmation in the prescribed form shall be administered by the president of the Military Court of Appeal to every member of the Court before the commencement of the appeal.
(3) An oath or an affirmation in the prescribed form shall be administered by the president of the Military Court of Appeal to every shorthand writer or interpreter (if any) in attendance at the appeal.
(4) Every witness before the Military Court of Appeal shall be examined on oath or on affirmation, which the president of the Court or other prescribed person shall administer in such form as may be approved.
Correct me if i'm wrong but it does not say anything about the need to take the oath. It did not say it is a must.
Duty to report for enlistment.
10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the proper authority may by notice require a person subject to this Act not below the age of 18 years to report for enlistment for national service.
(2) A person required to report for enlistment for national service shall report to the proper authority on such date and at such time and place as may be specified in the notice and shall attend from day to day until duly enlisted.
(3) Enlistment for national service shall be in the manner approved by the proper authority.
(4) No duty of any kind shall be imposed on a person required to report for enlistment or service unless he is found fit for service.
The act is called an enlistment act. which means recuritment. I am wondering why all the stuff which follows are in the EA.
There is indeed a loophole as mentioned yesterday.
About my email, well, i'm currently in singapore. It's a singnet email ad.
But of course, i'm not always here. I can be anywhere.
Have you read the full chapter on the Enlistment Act? You can't claim there is a legal loophole just because you only read Section 10. The whole Act does not consists of only Section 10 for your information. -
actually relm did bring a fresh perspective on ns for me. i have never thought of ns as a violation of my human rights. i has always thought of ns as a duty that i must do, but i have never thought that it violated my human rights. i suppose i was brain washed. ns is not necessary a violation of human rights but i can see how it can be argued as as a violation of human rights. i wonder why i never thought of it that way. arrrrr, i have been brain washed.
-
Well, that's something you have to weigh.When I was a kid,I despised the idea of NS because I feared that I would not live to ORD(don't ask me why).Originally posted by Ara:actually relm did bring a fresh perspective on ns for me. i have never thought of ns as a violation of my human rights. i has always thought of ns as a duty that i must do, but i have never thought that it violated my human rights. i suppose i was brain washed. ns is not necessary a violation of human rights but i can see how it can be argued as as a violation of human rights. i wonder why i never thought of it that way. arrrrr, i have been brain washed.
When I enlisted, I hated it.When I got my stripes, I began to accept it and find peace.
When I became a NSmen, and looking at the security and geopolitical state of the world today, I'm thinking that I might one day appreciate what I've been taught.
Face it, the only thing that stands between the actualisation of freedom..democracy and fundamentalism/anarchy is a standing army of people who are willing to protect it.
We may protect this ideal in our own way, because in the end it's what you find within yourself that counts.Were we forced at gunpoint to do NS?Some might despise the JW for not willing to serve and bear arms, but to voluntarily go into prison for your belief is IMHO, as honorable as charging up a hill with your mates.
That does not affect the security profile of Singapore that adversely.What we defend must be worth defending too, and that includes the ideals that we hope to work towards, of equality of men, liberty and justice. -
becuase if they allowed them to get off scott free then perhaps half or mroe of the agonistic/free thinker population will suddenly find a religion, i'm guessingOriginally posted by iveco:The religion of the JWs forbids members from bearing arms. Whether it is good or bad, it is anyone's guess.
The followers of JW are treated like common crooks. So much for religious freedom. -
Hi again. According to what i know, the US enlistment act is pretty similar to the one in Singapore. This is beacuse most countries are trying to make you guys 'volunteer' for NS so that there is no legal backing for you to quit once you join. It is also because these countries have signed the UN universal declaration of human rights which forbids forced labour but, yes, it did say NS is not included. But most countries will never take that risk so they had this as some kind of back up plan in case the UN law fails in some way.
About Toofree's comments, I was just answering to Toofree's last post. Thus, since Toofree had my comments directed to the various sections on the Enlistment act, I had only used those sections to justify my point at that time.
If the US enlistment act is the same or similar to the one in Singapore, the same 'loophole' will be visible.
One thing strange about the Singapore enlistment act is what it has added after the main enlistment part. Wonder why Singapore chose to add that.
Next, propaganda has also been used by Singapore. The media has been playing adverts about the armed forces, am i right? Then, have you seen any other country doing that? Few does. So don't be fooled by what you see. Ask yourself, if that's really what's going on.
Is Singapore's armed forces large, too large. And is way enough? That, I can't say. For i have no stats on that, unless anyone can provide some stats. If Singapore has more than expected, I would suggest lessening the intake and spending the money and time to train on the present unit. Experience and not total strength is the one that wins at the end.
Well, I will be away for a couple of days. I'm truly sorry if i can't respond to your comments. Will be back sometime next week. [/img] -
The world has indeed changed. For democracy and stuff, we need the military to see that things are going smoothly. Sigh. But have we ever asked ourselves what caused this changes.
We seem to careless about others.
What is tomorrow's image of the world if this persists.
We may be like 'robots', concern of the duties that we must do. Only those duties.