SDP’s policy paper on National Service
-
Originally posted by parn:
I predict none will turn up, all will think they won't be missed even if they're absent and happily making one LAST horrific love to their girlfriends.
I predict the price of your joo chiat counter will rise higher than sgx index.
my counter is pegged to Wall street NYSE. What is sgx?? just a subsidary of NYSE. -
Originally posted by eagle:
Check your facts
Is petrol tax only a few cents?
And is petrol tax in terms of percentage?
Less than $1 can be regarded as cents.Why don't you go find out for yourself regarding how the petrol are taxed per litre?
I'm not going to spoon-feed you if you don't want to start using your brain.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Check your facts
Is petrol tax only a few cents?
And is petrol tax in terms of percentage?
per litre, yes. only a few cents -
Originally posted by eagle:
I guess you already know how most people think of you here
I stated a fact, and you are giving a great reaction all of a sudden, to the point you have to tell me there's retardiness from me, and that I'm looking dumb and stupid. It's not even about whether I'm a SG guy or what.
You are getting really hopeless.
Well, if you just want to win, you can win. I won't stop you from further displaying your tiny IQ number around.
This is exactly the reaction that is commonly found in all SG Guys. They always like to bark like this and assumed they have the last say even when they've obviously lost the argument.
I'll be expecting your next retarded post. I know it's not going to your last post cos you're SG Guy. And you rather be dumb and stupid than to lose right?
If you cannot afford to lose, then don't come and quote me. People with a brain will know that you are the SG Guy that simply can't afford to lose.
-
Originally posted by parn:
This is exactly the reaction that is commonly found in all SG Guys. They always like to bark like this and assumed they have the last say even when they've obviously lost the argument.
I'll be expecting your next retarded post. I know it's not going to your last post cos you're SG Guy. And you rather be dumb and stupid than to lose right?
If you cannot afford to lose, then don't come and quote me. People with a brain will know that you are the SG Guy that simply can't afford to lose.
ya, quite true, i met alot of sg guy, most are like this, they dun mind get their ass poked, investment failed and PRC gal cheated. But if you said they small size or retarded, they very angry and simply cannot control themselves. That is why most died becos of their high male egotism and chauvinism. -
Originally posted by parn:
Less than $1 can be regarded as cents.Why don't you go find out for yourself regarding how the petrol are taxed per litre?
I'm not going to spoon-feed you if you don't want to start using your brain.
You mean you can't read that you said a few cents?
And you are now silent over your claim of "Petrol tax % per litre"
I guess you just have to twist yet again to make sure no one realises your mistake -
Originally posted by parn:
This is exactly the reaction that is commonly found in all SG Guys. They always like to bark like this and assumed they have the last say even when they've obviously lost the argument.
I'll be expecting your next retarded post. I know it's not going to your last post cos you're SG Guy. And you rather be dumb and stupid than to lose right?
If you cannot afford to lose, then don't come and quote me. People with a brain will know that you are the SG Guy that simply can't afford to lose.
Yawns
I have already said let you win. Guess you just showed that you can't read again.
Try again, girl. To resort to personal insults when someone points out something to you is not very nice. It shows nothing great about you. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
per litre, yes. only a few centsIt's 40 cents, stated in the newspaper, and had been discussed aplenty in sgforums
-
Originally posted by parn:
Really? You all NS guys so brave and good?Then why do I always see the weekends shoutbox got a particular lonely wussy begging for people's attention to listen to his accumulated whine?
Talk about fighting in WAR........none of the SG Guys are even proud to do their NS, so do you think they will be fighting when WAR comes?
They can all hide under my dress.
if sg ever goes to war, will you fight? guys will whine and whine and whine but when the time comes to defend and protect their loved ones, im sure they will fight.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
out of 300,000 army forces, i predict 180,000 will not turn up when war really come, but of course during normal time, all will turn up for recall.nice prediction. 40% desertion rate
base on what? If war comes to singapore, the whole world will probably be at war. want to run, run where? you sure you so zai can take all your family and friends and run? and 40% of the ns people is able to do that?
try another number.
-
Its interesting though. The last Open Mob I remember that was in reaction to a real security threat showed that an entire division could be mobilized. I'm not sure the 40% is a good estimate given the turn out for unannounced open mobs.
I think it also highlights SAF's forward defence doctrine. When they run an unannounced Open Mob, most of the NSMen who turn out will just think its another one of those exercises. They could be mobilized for war without realizing it until they've been issued with a full load of live ammunition.
The desertion rate may not be justified.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
if PAP abandoned NS, will you then support them?
You think NS is the issue? You're been living a really sheltered life.Let me copy something from another forum here.
___________________
The problem with the PAP is they are just way too greedy. They want to make every cent they can from everything they can.
They take on 2 hats as a business and a government and utilize these two hats to ensure they squeeze every last penny from us.
If, like a business, they are going to charge us top dollar for everything including basic needs like housing, utilities, food, transportation, etc. If they are going to bring in foreigners to compete with us in what they claim is "an open market" (why the 3/4 rule at the causeway if we're an open market?); Then we're not citizens, we're customers. Remove National Service, all taxes and compulsory CPF.
If, like a government, they are going to tax us, make us serve the nation and put a portion of our salary with them every month; Then take care of us like citizens and give us some welfare. Look after us in our old age, give us affordable housing (real affordability, not your bull shit "market rate" crap that's design to steal from us), keep your thumb on utilites and transport operators, put proper guidelines in place to ensure we have priority in our own job market.
So PAP. Which are we? Citizens who voted you in to take care of us, or customers you conned to squeeze dry?
What are you? A government put in place to look after your citizens, or a business out to make every last red cent you can?
Is Singapore a country with living, breathing people, or a company with faceless, nameless digits? -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Its interesting though. The last Open Mob I remember that was in reaction to a real security threat showed that an entire division could be mobilized. I'm not sure the 40% is a good estimate given the turn out for unannounced open mobs.
I think it also highlights SAF's forward defence doctrine. When they run an unannounced Open Mob, most of the NSMen who turn out will just think its another one of those exercises. They could be mobilized for war without realizing it until they've been issued with a full load of live ammunition.
The desertion rate may not be justified.
If they think its exercise, i bet many will die. Abt the desertion rate, i bet many people wont even show up at the base
-
don't show up, than hide at home?
try to flee the country?
both not very practical.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
nice prediction. 40% desertion rate
base on what? If war comes to singapore, the whole world will probably be at war. want to run, run where? you sure you so zai can take all your family and friends and run? and 40% of the ns people is able to do that?
try another number.
You guys/girls here keep saying guys will desert the country when she is in need... Ok... BUT I think the bigger problem should be WHY? why would singaporeans not feel a sense of belonging and fight for the country? WHY?
The answer is blowing in the wind... -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Sorry I couldn't quote the whole post as its really quite long. You really don't have to quote me in future unless I forget that I've said something. =)
Now, I don't see how what you've said has actually served as a counter argument to what I've reasoned to be AGAINST the reduction of national service terms and NS reservists liabilities. And its fine that you say that I'm not "open to ideas", because I'm really trying to look at this from a very practical and realistic angle in context of what we've seen the last couple of years.
I'll just try to go through your counter points one at a time so I don't get too confused from the myriad of quotings and rebuttals.
Before I actually move on, someone asked if the SAF's manpower indeed will reduce due to shortening of service terms in Full Time NS and of Reservist liabilities. In theory, I'm speculating, it won't if we have high birth rates. But the current situation is that we don't, and we do have a problem with ageing population.
Firstly, Yes. Bush was indeed distracted by the Iraq war. It was perhaps one of the most questionable decision to invade Iraq without first concluding Afghanistan. What it shows as well in your argument, is that when you don't focus resources into one area of operations, and instead take resources or divert them else where, your troops can't get the job done. Similarly, SAF may not be able to carry out its role in successfully defending Singapore if it doesn't have enough manpower.
Secondly, the surge of 2007 introduce and did increase the number of combat troops in Iraq. Again, insurgency levels dropped because they finally had the manpower and resources to deal with gaping holes in their plans. I think its fair to say, due to the largely urban terrain, even greater numbers need to be deployed in order to seal-off an area to prevent insurgents from escaping. Perhaps to paraphrase yourself, OUR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP will fail us if they allow a term reduction, limiting SAF's deployable manpower.
To ask why they failed their job was not the point to which I brought it up, but that a smaller insurgent force DID tie up a larger technologically superior force, EMPHASIZING that TECHNOLOGY is not that all powerful. It is a force multiplier, yes. Yet so is the manner in which the insurgents waging their war. Its hidden nature is a force multiplier working for the insurgents as well. Hence, there is still an undeniable quality to Quantity. This is the point to which you have to argue to convince me: No, Technology makes up for everything, a proposition implied by SDP's paper.
Thirdly, the principle of redundancy, in which you argue that given our limited population pool, resource, whether we can or should practice it. I don't understand how that tied in with human wave tactics by PLA. Perhaps maybe you ought to find out more about this before commenting on it.
Redudancy doesn't mean that I practice I throw away all my resources wave after wave to achieve my objective. Its keeping resources in reserve to commit when I need them too. One example of redundancy is when I talk about attrition replacements, suppose one of our SAR Battalions take 2 companies of losses in men and equipment in battle. Does that mean I have to thus disband this battalion because its no longer effective? No, I pull out reserve equipment and men, and essentially "reinforce" this battalion again.
Every military on earth knows that there will be situations in war which they will have to do this. And this is definitely NOT human wave tactics. Redundancy can be having sufficient resources in reserve, it can be having people cross trained such that he can double up as another man's job, so that when losses are taken, crucial combat components wont be lost.
Redundancy is to ensure that losing one link, doesn't destroy the whole chain.
Its like why people keep savings and not spend every single cent of their salary. Its an exercises of building up slowly, some level of financial reserves to use it when its needed.
However, I concede that the only arguabe point of "How much", is something I am not qualified to suggest.
Fourth, you are correct that Switzerland is not part of EU, my mistake. Turkey is part of NATO, not EU. My bad for not clarifying. However, my point was that a lot of the examplers brought up in the paper are have some form of collective security agreements, and not necessarily mirrorings Singapore's strategic situation. That is the point to refute.
Fifth, it does matter whether Russia's actions were a landgrab or not. What matters is that, quite suddenly, Europe's strategic situation changed again, with not much forewarning. Countries like Germany were happily selling their MBT reserves to "streamline" their military in an "era of peace" suddenly woke up to see a major security challenge right at their doorstep. So the point to refute here is: "Strategic situations can change quickly and suddenly."
Well, I admit I am harsh to say that "conscientious ojectors" ought to be shot but thats just my own opinion towards these people. Fortunately, they are just get direct mono-intake to the detention barracks. I feel that the law has been fair to them as to us who have served our NS liabilities to in whatever capacity that we have. The law would have been unjust, if they allowed conscientious objectors to avoid NS without consequences.
Again, we need the manpower, based on what I mentioned above. But its a good point that you've brought up about some people not being called up. Honestly, that is a very good point in criticising SAF's administrative inefficiencies, and thats putting it mildly.
On my point on the nature of modern day conflicts, you've missed my point completely and thought that I was refering to redundancy. My point was that modern conflicts, in conventional ones, rear-line troops are NOT as safe as the SDP think. Technology has given lethality a long reach, and rear-echelon troops are consider of high value simply because they are soft (meaning less defended) but are vital in supporting front line troops. In non-conventional warfare, we have seen Iraqi insurgents targeting soft maintenance units rather than front line combat units that are packed with firepower. It was not a point on redundancy; the point to refute is that, Today's warfare, frontline and rearline distinction has been blurred, rebutt that, and I concede my point.
On what I agreed with SDP was the level of openness and compensations review. I really don't understand your following paragraphs relations to it. What was your point? I simply said, soldiers need to know that should anything happen, SAF will compensate and take care of their families. At the same time, these soldiers have to be motivated to perform their duty. I pretty much didn't argue anything here, and I don't know what led you to make such "passionate" replies that led to Singapore's political system. What are you trying to say about openness and compensations with SAF again? Are you saying that Singapore's political system is what causes SAF's lack of accountability? Hahaha, I fully agree and thats a moot point.
Finally, this is really OUTSIDE what I've argued earlier. You can't really compare Singapore's political system to that of the US. The US has a Presidential system with a bicameral legislature seperated from the executive arm, seperated from the judiciary. Seperation of powers is a very huge characteristic that is different from ours. That is something that the US has intentionally incorporated in their system to prevent too much power being consolidated in one person.
When we examined Presidential systems like the US, we see that majority of countries that try to emulate it fail, resulting in civil war and "revolts", OR that a single President that becomes too power, essentially becoming a dictator. Their system, has a large potential to become the opposite of what its trying to avoid.
Singapore's system is more akin to UK's parliamentary system, no surprise there. If there is ever a comparison of openness, it is best to compare against UK's. However, even the UK doesn't have a good track record for that.
Funny thing though, US's "openness" has pretty much fallen on its face when all the dangers of the Subprime blowing up in their face was essentially covered up for so long. Perhaps we can really consider that "Openness" to have very little in relation to the type of system. Just something to think about.
Thanks for a very detailed reply made in a moderate tone, compared to your earlier knee jerk reaction towards SDP - and CSJ in particular.Responding to the summarised points of your reply - firstly, concerning your view in comparing Bush's moving of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and undermining the hunt for Osama, it is quite far fetch in linking this analogy to the SAF not having enough troops to defend Singapore - in the manner that you have described.
The point mentioned in reducing the length of NS training is not about reducing troop strength for the SAF, which is already facing a shortage due to the shrinking pool of MANpower in Singapore.
You have mentioned the shortage of human resource is due to the declining birth rates, and this has also placed a challenge to the Economy, that will eventually have an impact on the politics of Singapore.
As matters stand, the Singapore Political Leadership is facing resentment from Singaporeans to the open door policies to Foreign Talents, even as there is a need to increase the population size to allow for population growth and to provide the replacement in human resources for both the economy and the SAF.
Given a shortage of manpower, and continuing the length of National Service inflexibly will ultimately affect the other dimensions of the FIVE Prong Defense Policy promoted by MINDEF - of which a strong economy is one.
You must remember that when NS was first introduced in 1967, it had two objectives - firstly to quickly create a large pool of Singaporeans able to defend Singapore against military aggression; and secondly - to absorb the annual release of a large pool of tens of thousands of young Singaporeans from secondary schools, colleges and university. This was at a time when the government was sweating to find a solution to create jobs as the British Military Pull-out from Singapore was throwing thousands of adults out of job.
In the beginning, National Service was 3 Full Years - and the time was a buffer for the government to solve the problems of the economy and jobs.
At this stage, Singapore is not facing the same crisis, but a totally different one now that require a revision of the NSF period which has seen a reduction to two-and-a-half year, and now to about twenty-five months.
Many Singaporeans have the misplaced notion that two-and-a-half years of Full Time National Service will make one a Professional Soldier. This is a false gung-ho self-deluding, morale boosting image fed to the young minds of the 18 and 19 year olds.
The two-and-a-half years of Full Time National Service - even when cut down by a full year - is to be backed up by the very intensive Reserve Training that are now taking place overseas, and with higher training objectives to be achieved as each year progresses for the unit.
As the years pass in the Reserve, the young 18 year old NSF will mature in mind, physique and intellegence - {i.e. cunning, survival instinct, daring, and ruthlessness}.
The individual skills training is reinforced with higher echelon and combined arms training, and is reflected in the Singapore Military Budget that has exploded over the years as these overseas training are conducted at a very high tempo.
With a limited pool of human resource, what is the troop strength needed to defend Singapore ?
My previous example given with the Israeli experience - in facing the Palestinian Intifadah, and the Israeli horror experience with their last invasion of Lebanon - had shown that no matter how much resources - {manpower or equipment} - the Israelis can throw into the fight, it still need a superior strategy to make use of their limited resources within a time frame to defang the oppoinent.
It is simply useless for Israel to conduct a war of attrition - and the same will apply for Singapore irregardless of the size of the SAF, which stand at 300,000+ mobilised. [See below: Tim Huxley]
This bring us to your second point concerning the plugging of the gaps with increase in resources by the US in Iraq.
It was not that a small pool of insurgents had tied down a large force of US military in Iraq. The opposite is true, when the dismantled Iraq Military of 300,000+ men had turned insurgents, it simply overwhelmed the two US Divisions that Rumsfeld sent to invade Iraq, and caused more casualties to the US Military during the Occupation then during the invasion.
The fact that the two US Divisiion suffered the limited - although mounting - number of casualties during the occupation, should be considered remarkable, and largely due to their superior training, equipment and strategy of combined arms support.
The surge in 2007 was not merely to plug the gaps at their rear, as the two Divisions that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had insisted on limiting - was simply causing the military to be stretched to the point that US troops were being kidnapped.
In any case, the surge was not enough to plug the gaps in the manner that you had envisioned - as the surge was not the addition of another few more divisions to swamp the whole of Iraq with US troops; but only adding two or three Brigades in rotation in order not to exceed Rumsfeld limits to the troops deployed.
This allowed a reinforced 2 Div+ of combat troops to conduct a wider and simultaneous operations across several hot areas, when previously the insurgents were able to filter from the combat zone into another region. None of the US Troops in the surge were used to protect the rear supply lines, or replace the fallen in the manner you suggested previously.
The US was simply under manned to occupy Iraq. in the failed Rumsfeld policy for Iraq.
Here again, the US also had their limits in suffering casualties in a "War of Attrition" with the local insurgents, and had recognised in time that the short-sightedness of their political and military strategy in dismantiling the Iraqi military - instead of retaining their service in the manner that the returning UK forces had used Japanese Troops in maintaining law and order in the liberated British Colonies during WW2.
Thirdly, with regards to the "Principle of Redundancy" - my description of the pre-Desert Storm PLA 'human wave' strategy was to show you that the Chinese appreciated that their 'Human Wave' strategy is no longer feasibile nor valid when they reviewed US Military Strategies in Desert Storm and the Afghan war against the Talibans. [see references below]
The Chinese PLA "Human Wave" approach was simply to swamp their enemy's position by literally a "tidal wave" of men that flowed wave after wave, based on the redundancy principle that you have in mind - and not in your present form of 'cross-training' of personnel.
Have you forgotten that it was during the Korean War, when the UN forces under US Military Leadership were swept into full retreat - from the Yalu River to the southern most corner of the Korean Peninsular - by the Chinese PLA Human Wave assaults ? [see references below].
Fourth and Fifth, in the SDP list of EU countries - they had all come to realise that they are facing declining birth rates - as is happening for Singapore - and their combined military strength in NATO allow each participating countries to maintain a force level that is sufficient for their NATO effort to face their perceived global threats.
As matters stand, Russia today is not perceived as a threat to EU since the dismantling of the Communist System of Government.
Russians who are down and out of luck in facing the competition of an open market economy, may have the inkling to return to the good old days of Socialism, but those Russians who have tasted and grown accustomed to the open market economy will hardly want to return to the Communist ways.
The European Think Tanks are keeping watch on the pulse of their neighbors and the global affairs, and will be in a far better position then ourselves to comment on their region, or the sutiability of their decision concerning their defense.
Suffice to say that their combined economic strength is much bigger then Singapore, and yet - if they will collectively feel that they cannot afford to have a bigger military force without destroying themselves economically - should we not be asking if we are about to destroy ourselves in the manner that we are spending on our military budget, and at the same time our reserves are being knocked around in failed overseas financial adventures by GIC and Temasek - while Singaporeans are continuously milked dry to seemingly replenish the Treasury ?
Considering that Singapore's manpower is dwindling due to low birth rates, and that the demands of the economy for manpower has also to be considered, it is not wrong for the SDP to put up a paper for discussion - with the list of EU countries as references to be looked at.
With regards to comparing the political system of Singapore and the US - or to that of UK - it is not merely about the executive role or power of the Singapore President compared to the US President, or the forms of government.
My comparison is about the openess of the Political Life in the USA - or even UK - where the Citizens' Rights are respected, and given the space for each Citizen's to voice their concern through their Political Representative in Congress - who in turn are not dictated by Party Politics to vote along Party lines and instructions.
Our Members of Parliament - the majority of whom are from walk-over constituencies - are locked into PAP policies rulings even as their conscience tell them that their own constituents are against those policies.
It is the quality of Life that provides the motivational factor for the Citizens to bear arms and defend what they value, it is not merely material or financial rewards or compensation that motivate Citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones.
Seriously, the Sub-Prime problem has nothing to do with any cover up from the open US Political System. The Sub-Prime problem has as much to do with failed Executive Policies, as it has to do with "Pork Barrel" politics. The sub-prime issues will soon generate alot of 20-20 hindsight reports, which will soon reveal the failures of the Bush Administration in coming out with early guidelines to have prevented this disaster, when some Congressmen had warned of this event at least 1 to 2 years earlier.
In Singapore, we have sacrificed the best part of our youthful life to delay our tertiary education, and serve Singapore - and we deserve better treatment then what this government has dished out to us.
Compensation for NSF ?
The amount payable - for those Singaporean men and women who were injured or dead - is less then satisfactory, considering that some are not even NSF but contracted service.
Under such circumstances - where there is no political motivation or cause for NSF to be committed - the motivation of NS soldiers requires imagination, courage and leadership - as much as it requires empathy, fairness and intuition.
In the paper submitted, CSJ and SDP have made valid points for consideration, and it is worrisome that a person of your stature will take a jaundiced stance in so sweepingly dismiss CSJ and the SDP to be rabid, and went out of points in several instances to link their studies with the situation that the US Military encountered in Iraq.
With the passing of JBJ, Singapore need as many dedicated and committed voices willing to be in the Alternative Parties, and it is simply disheartening that no one attempt to reach out to CSJ to inform him of his wrong directions but will cruxify him based on some distorted emotional hang-ups based on a scarred memory.
People change - so do you and I.
I believe CSJ has changed since his first baptism under fire - when first entering politics on the side of the Alternative Parties, and having to make the ultimate sacrifice repeatedly. His skillful confrontation with MM LKY and PM LHL in their recent confrontation in the High Court showed his maturity compared to his first confrontation with then PM GCT - which was capitalised by the PAP to deface CSJ as a political gangster.
If ever there is a political gangster that exist in Singapore, it is the one person who has publicly boasted that he is a hatchet man, and will not hesistate to use a knuckle-duster to meet his opponent in a cul-de-sac. It is all bluster, as he will not dirty his own hands with the use of the knuckle-duster, but will instruct his hatchet men to do so.
"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997
‘Tim Huxley – Defending the Lion City ’
‘US Military Manpower in Iraq ’
‘China’s views of Future Warfare’
‘Desert Storm changed China’s Human Wave Strategy’
*** By the way, the SAF was not being inefficient in not recalling some people for Reservist Training, the budget maybe large, but the places are limited as only so many thousands can be sent overseas in a year; then the important units will need to be kept sharp annually.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You mean you can't read that you said a few cents?
And you are now silent over your claim of "Petrol tax % per litre"
I guess you just have to twist yet again to make sure no one realises your mistakeAnything value that is less than a dollar can be regarded as "few cents". Which part of my sentence do you not understand?
I mentioned "few cents", don't distort the meaning by putting an "a" in front of my "few cents".
The petrol tax is imposed on a certain % of the current petrol price. Check it up if you don't believe.
SG Girls don't really have to twist for SG Guys, we only twisted them around our little fingers for fun.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Yawns
I have already said let you win. Guess you just showed that you can't read again.
Try again, girl. To resort to personal insults when someone points out something to you is not very nice. It shows nothing great about you.Wait ah....let me remind you one fact,
Can you even win in the first place?And you're wrong, I'm much greater than you in every sense. But as usual, you're going to fight back like a SG Guy. So I'm waiting to see you eat your own words about letting me win.
Cos I know SG Guys are not reliable. And none of them will worry about bringing the rest down with their retarded behaviours.
-
People here can say that our soldiers will run if there's war, they won't show up, scared die etc etc....
with comments made here by our fellow singaporeans like angel and parn, which soldier will have morale to fight? Our own fellow singaporeans are our own worst enemy.
'i don't mind if the enemy is handsome?' Are you telling me if you got raped tonight on the way home by a handsome guy, you won't make too much a fuss out of it? IF singapore is involved in war and we win, would you offer yourself legs spread wide open for our army boys? I seriously hope you are not speaking for the women of Singapore! Some of the forumers here really post without thinking! But it goes to show that our defence is working very well, because people like Angel and parn can come online, post utter trash without thinking, and they don't need to worry if an enemy missile will come flying through their bloody HDB flat! They can sleep peacefully because our soldiers, police etc are working around the clock, drawing a barely survivable allowance, sacrificing time with their loved ones so trailer trash like Angel and Parn can BE with their loved ones! Ungrateful wretches.No wonder my sargeants all tell me, being a soldier is a bloody thankless job! Go through all the shit and suffering to protect STUPID BIMBOTIC CIVILIANS like you people who's only worry is where are you going to get the money to buy your next Gucci bag!
Blessed are the ignorant! -
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
People here can say that our soldiers will run if there's war, they won't show up, scared die etc etc....
with comments made here by our fellow singaporeans like angel and parn, which soldier will have morale to fight? Our own fellow singaporeans are our own worst enemy.
'i don't mind if the enemy is handsome?' Are you telling me if you got raped tonight on the way home by a handsome guy, you won't make too much a fuss out of it? IF singapore is involved in war and we win, would you offer yourself legs spread wide open for our army boys? I seriously hope you are not speaking for the women of Singapore! Some of the forumers here really post without thinking! But it goes to show that our defence is working very well, because people like Angel and parn can come online, post utter trash without thinking, and they don't need to worry if an enemy missile will come flying through their bloody HDB flat! They can sleep peacefully because our soldiers, police etc are working around the clock, drawing a barely survivable allowance, sacrificing time with their loved ones so trailer trash like Angel and Parn can BE with their loved ones! Ungrateful wretches.No wonder my sargeants all tell me, being a soldier is a bloody thankless job! Go through all the shit and suffering to protect STUPID BIMBOTIC CIVILIANS like you people who's only worry is where are you going to get the money to buy your next Gucci bag!
Blessed are the ignorant!Don't go and purposely edited some of my words to twist the meaning, you can always ask me if you don't understand my sentence.
I won't mind ONLY if the enemy is handsome like BRAD PITT. You think you're Brad Pitt or Brad Shitt? I think you're just full of shit like another SG Guy who got shit up in their brains.
And yes, if like what you have requested for SG Girls to be fucked by SG Guys who participated in defending the country, Do not forget that your girlfriend, sister and your mother are all included in the tiny bonus package called SG Girls. You sure you want to push for that to happen or you're just unhappy with SG Girls cos you got rejected and denied one too many times in your real life? And this clearly shown a good example of a SG Guy who post without thinking.
Defence is good? Are you kidding me? Look at the amount of RETARDED REBELS in here! Are you blind or you need to be re-educated again? Read more posts in SgForums first before you start stammering on your next Patriotism crusade again.
And yes, I thank your Sergeants for removing himself from the society, cos TRASH like him who demands gratitude from CIVILIANS should not be made to SERVE the country. WHO DO YOU THINK PAYS YOUR SERGEANTS THEIR SALARIES+ BONUSES? Go ask them if you don't want to admit the answer ok?
Soldiers who demands for gratitude are just not professional enough to be a soldier in the first place. They do not have the conviction required to serve their duty and have zero loyalty to the country they are serving. So now you know why the confidence levels are super low?
Your Sergeants asked to have sex with your mother you also obey is it? No wonder SG Guys all sucks....dumb ones following the retarded ones.
And ya...GUCCI.....is that for your Mother or your Auntie?
-
Originally posted by parn:
Anything value that is less than a dollar can be regarded as "few cents". Which part of my sentence do you not understand?
I mentioned "few cents", don't distort the meaning by putting an "a" in front of my "few cents".
The petrol tax is imposed on a certain % of the current petrol price. Check it up if you don't believe.
SG Girls don't really have to twist for SG Guys, we only twisted them around our little fingers for fun.
44 cents is definitely not few cents, but if you want to die die argue, feel free to do so.
Petrol tax is not a certain % of current petrol price. Don't bullshit. It has been stated in the newspaper that it is a fixed rate of 44cents per litre (listed too on shell website) => this is spoonfeeding a spoilt kid like you.
-
Originally posted by parn:
Wait ah....let me remind you one fact,
Can you even win in the first place?And you're wrong, I'm much greater than you in every sense. But as usual, you're going to fight back like a SG Guy. So I'm waiting to see you eat your own words about letting me win.
Cos I know SG Guys are not reliable. And none of them will worry about bringing the rest down with their retarded behaviours.
I don't need to win you. I just need to know you are definitely of lower intelligence. I have perfect confidence that you are nothing compared to me in your contributions to sgforums and most likely your real life achievements too.
I'm letting you win because you are behaving like a spoilt kid; adults don't bully kids. There's no point taunting, because it puts you in worse light. Unless you are still insistent in displaying your idiotic nature, do continue to entertain.
-
27101111- Motor spirit, premium leaded = $7.10 per dal
27101112 - Motor spirit, premium unleaded = $4.40 per dal ($0.44 per litre)
27101113 - Motor spirit, regular leaded = $6.30 per dal
27101114 - Motor spirit, regular unleaded = $3.70 per dal
http://www.customs.gov.sg/leftNav/trad/List+of+Dutiable+Goods.htm
I think the 98 octane rating ones we used would be classified under premium unleaded, cost like $4.40 per decalitres ($0.44 per litre).
The amount you pay at the pumps still excludes GST.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
40 cents is definitely not few cents, but if you want to die die argue, feel free to do so. Most likely to you, 40 billion dollars is also few billion dollars.
Petrol tax is not a certain % of current petrol price. Don't bullshit. It has been stated in the newspaper that it is a fixed rate of 40 cents per litre (exact is 44 cents from shell website) => this is spoonfeeding a spoilt kid like you.
If you're not smart enough to compare cents against cents but preferred to compare cents against dollars, then you can win.Anything that is below a dollar is referred to as few cents. IF you can come up with a new term for values that is under a dollar and above a few cents, then you can win.
I think you need to have a brain to understand that taxable amount are never fixed. It won't be called tax if it's fixed, it's called levy.
Keep learning from newspaper ok?
-
Originally posted by parn:
If you're not smart enough to compare cents against cents but preferred to compare cents against dollars, then you can win.Anything that is below a dollar is referred to as few cents. IF you can come up with a new term for values that is under a dollar and above a few cents, then you can win.
I think you need to have a brain to understand that taxable amount are never fixed. It won't be called tax if it's fixed, it's called levy.
Keep learning from newspaper ok?
Obvious bullshit again.
The petrol tax is imposed on a certain % of the current petrol price.
Try again