DB for Protest/ Insubordination?
-
saf finally give their side of the story now. oh oh like some bmt co kena soon . actually the pte is real priest or not, his temple also like not recognised. those jehova witness at least serve db all the way. they believe in their faith and they accept the saf's action. i heard in db those ppl treated well and not like detainee.
July 25, 2009
NSman drops protest
Teen punished for disobeying orders despite counselling
By Melissa Sim
A FULL-TIME national serviceman, who objected to having his hair cut and refused to eat camp food, claiming it was against his religious beliefs, was charged and sentenced to five days' detention.
In response to media queries, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) confirmed that Private Madana Mohan Das, 18, a trainee driver, was tried on Friday for refusing orders to cut his hair according to SAF requirements and eat military food, despite being counselled and given ample opportunity to comply.
The sentence was backdated to Monday, when he was sent to the SAF Detention Barracks for repeated misconduct which undermined discipline in the SAF. He was released from detention on Friday afternoon and returned to his unit, after he complied with orders.
His father, Mr Sundar Gopal Das, described himself and his son as priests at the Sri Krishna Mandir, a Hare Krishna temple in Geylang Lorong 29.
He maintained that as priests, they could not cut all their hair and had to keep a tuft at the back of the head. As for meals, he said they could only eat food prepared at the temple as prayer offerings.
He said his son was initially allowed to keep his hair and have temple food delivered to him, but this was stopped later. While in detention Pte Madana ate only uncut fruit.
Mr Sundar said his son dropped his protest only after he found out that he could face three years in detention.
He said his son became a priest when he was 15 years old, after two years of training here. The temple is a registered society but does not come under the purview of the Hindu Endowment Board, which manages several Hindu temples and organises major Hindu festivals here.
Mr Sundar's views are also not shared by all Hindus. Mr Shriniwas Rai, the Hindu representative of the Inter-Religious Organisation in Singapore, said Hindu priests can eat food prepared outside a temple, as long as it is vegetarian. He added that priests should be trained in India, and not everyone can claim to be a priest.
Mindef said Pte Madana was treated like any other serviceman and all personnel had to follow orders and abide by rules on military turnout and bearing, and discipline. 'The SAF cannot allow deviations from its rules and regulations for any serviceman as this weakens military discipline which could compromise the SAF's operations effectiveness and safety of SAF servicemen.' -
Well, since this report is from the Straits Time, you'll have to wonder how accurate it really is.
I thought the SAF had always been giving leeways to requests more serious than this? Requesting to eat special types of food and keeping his hair long seemed like a comparatively simple request when you compare it to people whose religion forbids them from picking up arms and being allowed to be posted to the SCDF instead.
Why can't the private here be allowed to eat his own food when the muslims are allowed to have their Halal food, and some other religion allowed to have Vegetarian meals?
Being allowed to keep his hair long seemed like a pretty simple request in my opinion. The 'Today' newspaper mentioned that Skihs were allowed to keep their long hair because it's always been so since the colonial times, and no further leeways can be given to other people. Some Hindus were also given permission not to shave during certain periods of the year due to their prayers. So what is this? Special privileges granted to a group of people while denied to another group?
How can the SAF force it's soldiers to go against their basic religious requirement when if handled properly, such simple requirements will cause minimum disruption to their service?
Just my opinion here. Seeking to clarify some things, and not going against the SAF or what.
-
the power of the internet really forced mindef to come out with a statement...
-
Originally posted by Acidshuriken:
saf finally give their side of the story now. oh oh like some bmt co kena soon . actually the pte is real priest or not, his temple also like not recognised. those jehova witness at least serve db all the way. they believe in their faith and they accept the saf's action. i heard in db those ppl treated well and not like detainee.
July 25, 2009
NSman drops protest
Teen punished for disobeying orders despite counselling
By Melissa Sim
A FULL-TIME national serviceman, who objected to having his hair cut and refused to eat camp food, claiming it was against his religious beliefs, was charged and sentenced to five days' detention.
In response to media queries, the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) confirmed that Private Madana Mohan Das, 18, a trainee driver, was tried on Friday for refusing orders to cut his hair according to SAF requirements and eat military food, despite being counselled and given ample opportunity to comply.
The sentence was backdated to Monday, when he was sent to the SAF Detention Barracks for repeated misconduct which undermined discipline in the SAF. He was released from detention on Friday afternoon and returned to his unit, after he complied with orders.
His father, Mr Sundar Gopal Das, described himself and his son as priests at the Sri Krishna Mandir, a Hare Krishna temple in Geylang Lorong 29.
He maintained that as priests, they could not cut all their hair and had to keep a tuft at the back of the head. As for meals, he said they could only eat food prepared at the temple as prayer offerings.
He said his son was initially allowed to keep his hair and have temple food delivered to him, but this was stopped later. While in detention Pte Madana ate only uncut fruit.
Mr Sundar said his son dropped his protest only after he found out that he could face three years in detention.
He said his son became a priest when he was 15 years old, after two years of training here. The temple is a registered society but does not come under the purview of the Hindu Endowment Board, which manages several Hindu temples and organises major Hindu festivals here.
Mr Sundar's views are also not shared by all Hindus. Mr Shriniwas Rai, the Hindu representative of the Inter-Religious Organisation in Singapore, said Hindu priests can eat food prepared outside a temple, as long as it is vegetarian. He added that priests should be trained in India, and not everyone can claim to be a priest.
Mindef said Pte Madana was treated like any other serviceman and all personnel had to follow orders and abide by rules on military turnout and bearing, and discipline. 'The SAF cannot allow deviations from its rules and regulations for any serviceman as this weakens military discipline which could compromise the SAF's operations effectiveness and safety of SAF servicemen.'
I think that are the few reasons why his religion case is not strongly backed...Of cos , when comes to religion issue. SAF always is sensitive abt it. But unless it comes from such high establishment. Most probably , SAF will hack care abt it.
-
Originally posted by stellazio:
the power of the internet really forced mindef to come out with a statement...
i stomped it but never come out...
-
Originally posted by stellazio:
the power of the internet really forced mindef to come out with a statement...
Mindef wasn't 'forced' to release a statement because of the internet, don't be naive.
The malingerer's father tried to stir shit with high-ups, including emailing the president and PM, the father himself said so in the Asiaone forum.
Mindef's response to him: too bad. The statement released to the press is to tell everyone including the malingerer: too bad. And also to say it won. Don't want to serve, can .. just fuck off and make sure you don't come back also (ala Melvin Tan the pianist). How you can evade seeing the crystal clear fact that this story is reporting on the guy backing down is amazing to me.
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
Well, since this report is from the Straits Time, you'll have to wonder how accurate it really is.
I thought the SAF had always been giving leeways to requests more serious than this? Requesting to eat special types of food and keeping his hair long seemed like a comparatively simple request when you compare it to people whose religion forbids them from picking up arms and being allowed to be posted to the SCDF instead.
Why can't the private here be allowed to eat his own food when the muslims are allowed to have their Halal food, and some other religion allowed to have Vegetarian meals?
Being allowed to keep his hair long seemed like a pretty simple request in my opinion. The 'Today' newspaper mentioned that Skihs were allowed to keep their long hair because it's always been so since the colonial times, and no further leeways can be given to other people. Some Hindus were also given permission not to shave during certain periods of the year due to their prayers. So what is this? Special privileges granted to a group of people while denied to another group?
How can the SAF force it's soldiers to go against their basic religious requirement when if handled properly, such simple requirements will cause minimum disruption to their service?
Just my opinion here. Seeking to clarify some things, and not going against the SAF or what.
You're doubtful about ST as to whether he really was disallowed to keep his hair long, or doubtful that he was in DB? or doubtful about whether he is for real? hahaha what a joke. I'd believe ST over any of the dumb jokers in "forums" any day.
And get with the programme. This is very old news http://armedforces.sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/369159?page=10#posts-9263329 and the whole of sgforums except for a few deluded ostriches here and there knows that the Indian "priest" is just malingering.
-
Thread closed.