Let those who intend to emigrate opt out of NS
-
I think you missed his point. He simply does not wish to continue his life in Singapore. And if he had a choice, he would have left long ago.Originally posted by TooFree:I am bemused by where Mr Pavin Limanont shown his loyalty to. He claimed that he held dual citizenship because of his SinThai parentage but intend to renounce Singapore for Thai citizenship in near future. This fully justified his last second sentence 'Patriotism and loyalty cannot be forced'. Later he talked about that as a child, he grew up watching and listening to classical American movies and music genre. So now he wants to base his loyalty to US and even come up with the absurd idea of what happen if war breaks out between US and Singapore.
Wow!
He definitly fits the bill of someone who will either defect or commit treason !!! -
The reality is : It is easier to be said then to be done. You think its so easy to leave when you want to leave?Originally posted by Parka:
I always feel that if people want to leave Singapore, they should leave now*.
Now - adverb
a : at the present time or moment b : in the time immediately before the present c : in the time immediately to follow -
A point to note. It was not he who applied for the passport.Originally posted by geodome:Actually, Mr Pavin can avoid serving national service by returning his passport to the government of Singapore. If the Singapore passport is really so coveted, why not trade 2.5year of your life for it? After-all, Mr Pavin has already enjoyed the best English education one can get in Southeast Asia.. Mr Pavin is still entitled to his Thai passport.
I am not exactly pro-NS, but why should he treated differently from anyone else who grew up in Singapore. Everybody should be treated equally. As long you grew up in Singapore, and has the Singapore passport, please serve the National Service. If you do not intend to serve the national service, do not apply for the Singapore passport.
A Note to Mr Pavin: read the fine lines in future. -
u know what? lets just sum this whole fracas up. Its fucked up to be Singaporean. U have to face so much bullshit from the ruling party that singapore citizenship is a curse. Many of us would definately love to up and leave because we're so sick of the rubbish. But if someone WANTS to be a Singapore citizen, well they better jolly-well do all the shit that comes along with being one, instead of whinging.
-
He was being sarcastic.The cracks are starting to appear in the way this place is run, and the only real solution does not include plastering it over, no matter how attractive this option might be.Originally posted by shade343:You are uttering rubbish. If you had the intention to leave the country, would you wait 27 years to do so?
If you do not wish to stay, it is a crime to hold you back, simply put. -
Oh Lord give me strength, am I doomed to spend the rest of my life dealing with literalists?Originally posted by shade343:You are uttering rubbish. If you had the intention to leave the country, would you wait 27 years to do so?
Of course it's ridiculous, of course it's rubbish, and of course it's what that idiot Pavin is blathering on about.
You, my literal fellow, have just so astutely picked up on the obvious flaw in dealing with the intentions Pavil proposes as grounds for NS exemption.
Surely there is not entirely avoiding it, but when working out aa agreement, it is best to avoid basing the framework on tentatively proposed conditions, is it not? Rather, an agreement would be more soundly-based upon known existing conditions, would it not?
In this case, Pavin can swear black and blue upon his late great beloved grandmother's grave that, because he has faithfully watched Sesame Street since the age of six weeks, he WILL become a US citizen one day, and therefore should not serve NS now, because theye MAY be a war between Singapore and the US one day and he MAY have to fight against Singapore.
Alternatively, he can get Daddy and Mummy to ship him out, stay out until his 21st birthday when he can renounce Singaporean citizenship and therefore avoid serving NS.
Putting what his porposed intention-based system against a system that deals in hard fact i.e., he has left Singaporean territory and renounced citizenship, can you see why his proposal is utter rubbish? -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
OK. Do include sacarsm tags in your post next time. This is a Speaker's corner and we all tend to take each other's post seriously.
Oh Lord give me strength, am I doomed to spend the rest of my life dealing with literalists?
Of course it's ridiculous, of course it's rubbish, and of course it's what that idiot Pavin is blathering on about.
You, my literal fellow, have just so astutely picked up on the obvious flaw in dealing with the [b]intentions Pavil proposes as grounds for NS exemption.
Surely there is not entirely avoiding it, but when working out aa agreement, it is best to avoid basing the framework on tentatively proposed conditions, is it not? Rather, an agreement would be more soundly-based upon known existing conditions, would it not?
In this case, Pavin can swear black and blue upon his late great beloved grandmother's grave that, because he has faithfully watched Sesame Street since the age of six weeks, he WILL become a US citizen one day, and therefore should not serve NS now, because theye MAY be a war between Singapore and the US one day and he MAY have to fight against Singapore.
Alternatively, he can get Daddy and Mummy to ship him out, stay out until his 21st birthday when he can renounce Singaporean citizenship and therefore avoid serving NS.
Putting what his porposed intention-based system against a system that deals in hard fact i.e., he has left Singaporean territory and renounced citizenship, can you see why his proposal is utter rubbish?[/b]
Well, from the writer's letter, we can conlcude that the writer has no intention of spending his future in Singapore. Since this is the case, it would be appropriate that this fact be considered an "exisiting condition"of the writer.
Again, what is the logic of serving a country which you have no feelings for it? It is not beneficial to the country and to the individual. If you were ordered to do something "for singapore" and you had no feelings or loyalty for singapore, would you be able to perform the task wholeheartedly?
It would cost his parents 75k to ship him out. Why should the parents or him even pay? This isnt right. This is akin to coercing an individual to serve NS by imposing conditions that make it difficult for one to leave the country.
From what I see, he is merely against a system that imposes controls of freedom on the individual and the public. This isnt rubbish. -
Two words, shade, two words: buyer beware.
Fact of the matter is that this system has been in place for coming to four decades. When the parents decided to move here, the $75,000 question was already there to be asked and their very presence in Singapore is proof of their acceptance of the conditions, ignorance being no excuse. What's unfair about it?
As I've said before, the government's done its part in making the conditions of residency known. There's no democracy known that takes responsibility for people's ignorance. As such, this matter is purely between Pavin and his parents. The chose to accept the government's conditions on his behalf, and if he wants to bleat about it, it's their ear that should be bent since they're the ones who screwed his pooch.
One cannot accept the statement of one's intentions as anything approaching concrete. If I were to say that I would give give you a million dollars when I made my first billion, would that be enough for you to go out now and buy a new private apartment? No, because you're not going to believe it until you see it, right? Why should we then believe young Pavin when he says that he wants to leave Singapore? The proof is in the pudding, and right now that baking tray's empty, so our young friend is simply talking out of both sides of his mouth here.
Speaking as someone who has left Singapore and now qualifies to apply for Australian citizenship, should I decide that I no longer want to be liable for NS duties, I will have to switch citizenships before telling Mindef to leave me alone. Until such time, though, I have no business complaining if I get called in for an ICT, do I? -
Being a singaporean does not necessarily means I must agree to every single rules and conditions of the country. As a citizen, Im sure one has the responsibility to voice out any unfairness in the system. It is thus the duty of the respective government agency to look into the problem and correct it. What happens when the appropriate government agency does not look into it or refuses to rectify the situation? Unhappiness occurs.Originally posted by Gedanken:Two words, shade, two words: buyer beware.
Fact of the matter is that this system has been in place for coming to four decades. When the parents decided to move here, the $75,000 question was already there to be asked and their very presence in Singapore is proof of their acceptance of the conditions, ignorance being no excuse. What's unfair about it?
As I've said before, the government's done its part in making the conditions of residency known. There's no democracy known that takes responsibility for people's ignorance. As such, this matter is purely between Pavin and his parents. The chose to accept the government's conditions on his behalf, and if he wants to bleat about it, it's their ear that should be bent since they're the ones who screwed his pooch.
Take for example the HDB resale levy. Im sure many singaporeans are against it and yet it has been in exsistence for over a decade. Was anything done to correct the unfairness? No. This is why you still see a number of complaints on the subject.
Im sure Pavin is not the first person to voice his opinion on the unfairness of the system. There are many others before him who had voiced out but had failed to change it. The flaw also lies in the fact that you can only renounce your citizenship at the age of 21. Why 21? Why not 18 or 17? Why 21? That is the question which needs to be answered. -
Well and good, shade, but IS there unfairness in this case? If Pavin was stuck in Singapore, he may have some grounds to complain, but the fact is that he himself has said that he holds Thai citizenship as well, so where's the problem? It's not as if he has nowhere else to go.
The situation MAY be unfair if his parents had no choice in the matter, but again, the fact that Pavin is perfectly entitled to settle in Thailand shows that there WAS a choice, the choice WAS made by his parents and not the government, and if anybody is answerable for Pavin's unhappy circumstances, it is the parents.
If there's any change to be affected here, it is to occur on the Limanont family's end of things. If Pavin wants to complain to the government and not to his parents, what changes can he expect, and what improvement does he have a right to expect?
I said it before, I'll say it again - this is entirely a matter for Pain to take up with Mummy and Daddy. They chose to put him the the tragic position of being liable for NS by CHOOSING to reside in Singapore and not Thailand, something that was entirely preventable and currently changeable by them. -
Well, this pavin dude by all means can leave sg right away for all I care. As I see it, this dude wants to stay in sg but dun want to serve his NS. This shows alot for this character.
One thing for sure, for all his "American" upbringing, he sure is one certified sg whinner. -
Exactomundo.
-
Maybe it's the weather that makes everybody in singapore whine.
Just maybe. -
can someone clarify all that's been said about the system from some official source ? ...
my understanding is that you can have the option of taking up either citizenship at anytime till you're 21, by which you'll have to choose, for the army can't wait forever to draft you eh .... what if the chap decides to get a Singapore citizenship at 35 ? ... he would be too old to serve then eh ? ...
I'm sure you can fark off anytime you want to ... and I don't think you'll be compelled to finish NS first ... I have a friend who gave up his singapore citizenship for a British one 6 months into NS ... he just flew off to london, just like that ... and he's back regularly for visits too ... not like he's detained at airport customs as an Ns deserter or something ... I think that mervyn chap got fined cos he never renonce his Singapore citizenship when he took up his British one ...
Can someone put this matter to rest once and for all ? ... I find it pretty amusing to see how some chaps describe things here ... "Hostages" to the system indeed eh ? ... -
I want to go other country, I dont want to go NS. I cant go to other country because I'm too poor. I have to suffer 2 years of NS. It's pay back time for my parents.
-
depress san,
i agree that for ppl like you, it best you leave singapore and stay in american. and if one day singapore fight you yankees try hard, i hope i can use my rifle and shoot you down.
reason are plenty but it all down to dogers of NS.
when i was NS age, i question what the hell i waste my 2.5 years traing for something that maybe thoughout our life, you probably wont need it. as we grow older, we feel NS are like part of our duty to protect our family and loves one. we wont use it but we deter our enemy from attacking us.
i am a proud first seageant now, and i will be completing my full circle soon. looking back when kopi with bros, NS talks become part of our kopi topic which we dont share with anyone else but singaporean only.
i might migrate one day, but when the call from my singapore motherland comes one day, i will back right here where i was born and fight whoever though of taking inch of singapore soil. -
We have our right to defend, and this defence includes protecting those who might disagree on our points.Originally posted by reyes:depress san,
i agree that for ppl like you, it best you leave singapore and stay in american. and if one day singapore fight you yankees try hard, i hope i can use my rifle and shoot you down.
reason are plenty but it all down to dogers of NS.
when i was NS age, i question what the hell i waste my 2.5 years traing for something that maybe thoughout our life, you probably wont need it. as we grow older, we feel NS are like part of our duty to protect our family and loves one. we wont use it but we deter our enemy from attacking us.
i am a proud first seageant now, and i will be completing my full circle soon. looking back when kopi with bros, NS talks become part of our kopi topic which we dont share with anyone else but singaporean only.
i might migrate one day, but when the call from my singapore motherland comes one day, i will back right here where i was born and fight whoever though of taking inch of singapore soil.
I still think that we need to address the 18 vs 21 divide.Lower the age of suffrage to 18, and we will have less headache.It is only vested interest that is holding us back.
If you choose to stay in a place and love it well, you jolly well defend it.But I would not ask a person to give up his life for a nation he has no interest in. -
for me i will try not to enter NS......arrgh
-
Lower the age to 18?Originally posted by LazerLordz:We have our right to defend, and this defence includes protecting those who might disagree on our points.
I still think that we need to address the 18 vs 21 divide.Lower the age of suffrage to 18, and we will have less headache.It is only vested interest that is holding us back.
If you choose to stay in a place and love it well, you jolly well defend it.But I would not ask a person to give up his life for a nation he has no interest in.
Can vote and determine the future of the country but cannot watch 2 people hump each other?
Hmm. -
I like to comment many servicemen had gone to other country to stay for good.Originally posted by reyes:depress san,
i agree that for ppl like you, it best you leave singapore and stay in american. and if one day singapore fight you yankees try hard, i hope i can use my rifle and shoot you down.
reason are plenty but it all down to dogers of NS.
when i was NS age, i question what the hell i waste my 2.5 years traing for something that maybe thoughout our life, you probably wont need it. as we grow older, we feel NS are like part of our duty to protect our family and loves one. we wont use it but we deter our enemy from attacking us.
i am a proud first seageant now, and i will be completing my full circle soon. looking back when kopi with bros, NS talks become part of our kopi topic which we dont share with anyone else but singaporean only.
i might migrate one day, but when the call from my singapore motherland comes one day, i will back right here where i was born and fight whoever though of taking inch of singapore soil.
There is unlikely conflict with other countries except for terroism which is a real thing. Respect for those disagreed with NS. The proposal is going to make those awolees stay for good, benefitting the their adopted countires. -
What flaw??? This is and must be an equity society.Originally posted by shade343:Im sure Pavin is not the first person to voice his opinion on the unfairness of the system. There are many others before him who had voiced out but had failed to change it. The flaw also lies in the fact that you can only renounce your citizenship at the age of 21. Why 21? Why not 18 or 17? Why 21? That is the question which needs to be answered.
May God forbid the law from amending to one's ability to renounce citizenship at the age of 18. This is to prevent the discrimination against the rich and the poor. Have you ever spare a thought to those who are from low-income families? Despite how progressive our nation is moving forward, they are still many around you know. So what happen if such a law is passed? The rich man's son will gets two choices - Serve or Renounce. Then the poor man's son get only one choice and that is to suck thumb because the family has no means to migrate! FAIR? -
Like the state ever was that interested in social equity...In our current situation, the poor man's son could have a better life abroad.This issue will not go away, and it's going down a path, both ideologically on the edge, and psychologically too.Originally posted by TooFree:What flaw??? This is and must be an equity society.
May God forbid the law from amending to one's ability to renounce citizenship at the age of 18. This is to prevent the discrimination against the rich and the poor. Have you ever spare a thought to those who are from low-income families? Despite how progressive our nation is moving forward, they are still many around you know. So what happen if such a law is passed? The rich man's son will gets two choices - Serve or Renounce. Then the poor man's son get only one choice and that is to suck thumb because the family has no means to migrate! FAIR?
Let's see, if we have universal suffrage at 18, it will not favor the rich any more than it impacts the poor.This is because we are not talking about citizenship policy with an emphasis on emigration, but rather it is a subset of a bigger issue, that of letting young men who can be sent to their deaths, the ability to have a say in running their country.
The rich already have a way to escape NS, but with the lowering of the age limit to 18, it will also ensure that whoever leaves, they do not leave with a cloud hanging over them, and avoiding inadvertant animosity towards the State.Furthermore, it will avoid cases where minor dual nationalities(which is an increasingly international policy) or PRs have to serve, because of their ability to choose their citizenship is hindered by a age differential in suffrage.
Is this the foundation for a loyal force of a conscript army?Or are we just vacuuming up whoever we can find, just to go through the uniquely Singaporean concept of going through the motions for the sake of doing so.. -
Capping the legal age to 21 for renouncing citizenship, in my opinion, beside to compliment the compulsory National Service, is also the standard universal age for voting in elections. Your argument for universal suffrage at age 18 can only be based on one point and that is "if one's can bear arms at the age of 18 then one's should be mature enough to vote."Originally posted by LazerLordz:Like the state ever was that interested in social equity...In our current situation, the poor man's son could have a better life abroad.This issue will not go away, and it's going down a path, both ideologically on the edge, and psychologically too.
Let's see, if we have universal suffrage at 18, it will not favor the rich any more than it impacts the poor.This is because we are not talking about citizenship policy with an emphasis on emigration, but rather it is a subset of a bigger issue, that of letting young men who can be sent to their deaths, the ability to have a say in running their country.
The rich already have a way to escape NS, but with the lowering of the age limit to 18, it will also ensure that whoever leaves, they do not leave with a cloud hanging over them, and avoiding inadvertant animosity towards the State. Furthermore, it will avoid cases where minor dual nationalities(which is an increasingly international policy) or PRs have to serve, because of their ability to choose their citizenship is hindered by a age differential in suffrage.
Is this the foundation for a loyal force of a conscript army?Or are we just vacuuming up whoever we can find, just to go through the uniquely Singaporean concept of going through the motions for the sake of doing so..
Let me reiterate a few points. Firstly, for the majority Singaporeans, the calling for National Service generally starts at the age of 18 (JC) or 19 (Poly). From the society propective, these newly enlistees have just completed college education. These young bods are at their fittest level hence is the best time to conscripts. From the economic viewpoint, it is often more productive to draft enlistees early to minimise the disruption in their career later on in life. Therefore, it seem that age 18 is the most suitable age afterall. It seem, the government cannot get a better time then to draft at age 18 yet somehow leads to argument for lowering of legal voting age. Alternatively, we can do it another way. And that is to allow conscipting before certain age limits say 27. In this way, most people would have past the age of 21 when it come to bearing arms because more people would want to further their studies as first priority. For this, althought I foresee more problems than the original age for NS drafting, do not conflict with the voting age.
I think you make a very unfair statement (highlighted in red) for the citizens from low-income families. The concern is not for whether the rich will bear an animosity against the state or whether they chose to migrate or not but instead it should based on a fair and just system. Every Singaporeans' son who is of legal age for National Service, should do their part irregardless. That is the price for being a Singaporean and that is also the price for foreign couple migrating here.
Hence, in summary. By fine-tuning the NS legal-age system, your argument for universal suffrage cum renoucing citizenship at age 18 would be proven fallacious and most Singaporeans I believed, prefer the original status quo when it come to legal voting age. But what is most important is that a system should always be based on equity priniciples and not at the whine and fancy of the rich and powerful.
"What use is a loyal force of a conscript army without righteous?" ~TooFree
-
depress san,
If that message was meant for me, first of all I am not Pavin Limanount. Secondly altho I am thinking of migrating, I am not going to migrate to America.
i agree that for ppl like you, it best you leave singapore and stay in american. and if one day singapore fight you yankees try hard, i hope i can use my rifle and shoot you down.
reason are plenty but it all down to dogers of NS.
when i was NS age, i question what the hell i waste my 2.5 years traing for something that maybe thoughout our life, you probably wont need it. as we grow older, we feel NS are like part of our duty to protect our family and loves one. we wont use it but we deter our enemy from attacking us.
i am a proud first seageant now, and i will be completing my full circle soon. looking back when kopi with bros, NS talks become part of our kopi topic which we dont share with anyone else but singaporean only.
i might migrate one day, but when the call from my singapore motherland comes one day, i will back right here where i was born and fight whoever though of taking inch of singapore soil.
cheers -
I understand where you are coming from, but the use of National Service enlistment at 18 to hold back individuals who wish to leave this place(thus not enjoying any future benefits as a resident of Singapore), is skating closer to involuntary restrainment.Not everyone who wishes to leave, is rich and powerful.In fact, if you are wealthy, chances are that your path is planned out for you right hre, and you have no problems overcoming our high standard of living.Originally posted by TooFree:Capping the legal age to 21 for renouncing citizenship, in my opinion, beside to compliment the compulsory National Service, is also the standard universal age for voting in elections. Your argument for universal suffrage at age 18 can only be based on one point and that is "if one's can bear arms at the age of 18 then one's should be mature enough to vote."
Let me reiterate a few points. Firstly, for the majority Singaporeans, the calling for National Service generally starts at the age of 18 (JC) or 19 (Poly). From the society propective, these newly enlistees have just completed college education. These young bods are at their fittest level hence is the best time to conscripts. From the economic viewpoint, it is often more productive to draft enlistees early to minimise the disruption in their career later on in life. Therefore, it seem that age 18 is the most suitable age afterall. It seem, the government cannot get a better time then to draft at age 18 yet somehow leads to argument for lowering of legal voting age. Alternatively, we can do it another way. And that is to allow conscipting before certain age limits say 27. In this way, most people would have past the age of 21 when it come to bearing arms because more people would want to further their studies as first priority. For this, althought I foresee more problems than the original age for NS drafting, do not conflict with the voting age.
I think you make a very unfair statement (highlighted in red) for the citizens from low-income families. The concern is not for whether the rich will bear an animosity against the state or whether they chose to migrate or not but instead it should based on a fair and just system. Every Singaporeans' son who is of legal age for National Service, should do their part irregardless. That is the price for being a Singaporean and that is also the price for foreign couple migrating here.
Hence, in summary. By fine-tuning the NS legal-age system, your argument for universal suffrage cum renoucing citizenship at age 18 would be proven fallacious and most Singaporeans I believed, prefer the original status quo when it come to legal voting age. But what is most important is that a system should always be based on equity priniciples and not at the whine and fancy of the rich and powerful.
"What use is a loyal force of a conscript army without righteous?" ~TooFree
Maybe we come from different perspectives and backgrounds, and I will stick to my belief that this freedom to determine your own life and citizenship is marginally more important from the individual's perspective, and that the noble cause of social equity, has to be taken care of by the State, and should not be at expense and nor unduly infringe on the individual's right to suffrage or renounciation.
Personally, if you choose to stay, you must serve.If you choose to leave, you are not obliged to serve.Obligation should only come into play when your decisions are made by your own free will as an adult.It's also the same reason why I advocate new migrants to undergo reservist induction training, so that they know and realise that they must defend the land which they choose to settle in.
See, I'm not against NS.I just believe the system can do with an overhaul, and make it much more efficient and logical.