Title of Article: Give up citizenship? Brothers must do NS first
Source: The Straits Times, Section B7
Writer: Amelia Tan
Date: 25 August, 2008
Commentary
In present day Singapore, it is expected of young men to serve the customary two-year long National Service (NS) to acquire basic combat skills, so as to ensure that Singapore has a credible defense force, to deter attacks and to defend our country if necessary. However, in recent days, the issue of whether Singaporeans or Permanent Residents who wish to leave Singapore should be forced to serve NS was raised, and this article presents the Ministry of Defence’s (Mindef) stand on this issue, which is that all persons who have enjoyed the privileges offered here will have to serve NS, even if they plan to renounce their citizenship. The Bugge brothers at the centre of this controversy left Singapore when each turned 18, and have failed to renounce their Singapore citizenships several times due to Mindef’s stand. I am of the belief that this is not the stand we should adopt, and instead, Mindef should exercise some discretion and flexibility when dealing with such cases.
Firstly, these brothers have decided that their political allegiance lies with their motherland, Norway, and hence they will not fight for Singapore even if they were forced to serve NS. In fact, they might gain access to technological know-how unique to Singapore and hence pass such information to the Norwegian Army where they are serving. In contrast, in standing by its position, Mindef would be wasting time, money, and resources to train such cases, for it is obvious that doing so would not bring about any tangible benefit to Singapore. Instead, Mindef should exercise some flexibility, and aim for a win-win resolution, by allowing the brothers to renounce their Singapore citizenship and avoid NS, freeing them to visit their parents who live here, and at the same time save valuable tax-payer’s money which would otherwise be wasted on training, housing, and feeding the brothers, during the course of their NS.
However, it is true that NS is a national policy, and that to send the message to Singaporeans that NS cannot be waived or avoided through any way, no exceptions should be allowed. This is as waiving NS for such people might set a dangerous precedence and trigger a flood of emigrants, who would view emigration as the perfect way to avoid NS once they have completed their education in Singapore, and this would seriously compromise the scale of Singapore’s army and its effectiveness as a deterrent.
Nevertheless, I believe that this problem can be solved with the appropriate National Education, to reinforce the message that “Singapore is our homeland; this is where we belong”. With proper measures, most ordinary Singaporeans would consider this place home, and be willing to go through NS, or at least not be as greatly motivated to avoid NS. Cases such as that of the Bugge brothers are still a small minority, and Singapore can afford or let such people who hail from a foreign country to not serve NS.
Finally, I believe that Mindef should exercise some flexibility and waive NS for the Bugge brothers since they genuinely did not leave Singapore to avoid NS but over a citizenship issue, as seen from how they enlisted in the Norwegian armed forces for a 19-month national service term, and how two of the three brothers are now career soldiers. Humans do have the freedom of choice over political allegiance, and hence the Singapore government not only should allow the brothers and other such people to renounce their Singapore citizenship and skip NS; it also has an obligation to do so.
To conclude, I believe that Mindef should indeed consider waiving the NS for people who plan to renounce their Singapore citizenship, especially those who were already belong to another country, on a case-by-case basis, instead of upholding its rules rigidly. Exercising such flexibility will only benefit both the parties, and Singaporeans certainly would not mind having their taxes channeled to more productive uses.
653 Words
Original Article
THREE brothers, born to a Norwegian father and Singaporean mother, want to give up their Singapore citizenship.
But the Ministry of Defence has said no. Not until they do their national service.
The Bugge brothers – Thorbjoern, 33; Ingvar, 31; and Frode, 30 – left Singapore when each turned 18 and have tried and failed several times for over a decade to renounce their Singapore citizenships.
They want to renounce their citizenship so they will be free to visit their parents – Mr O.M. Bugge, 65, and his wife Margaret, 55 – who still live here.
They cannot return here because they have been classified as NS defaulters and risk arrest on arrival.
They were all born here and are considered Singapore citizens. But they also hold Norwegian citizenships, like their father.
They first left Singapore when they were five, three and two years old respectively, and lived in Norway for 10 years before returning here.
But each left Singapore after their O levels, and just before they could be called up for national service.
Mindef sent them NS enlistment letters, but in turn, each brother ignored the call-up. Instead, they enlisted in the Norwegian armed forces for a 19-month national service term.
All three decided to renounce their Singapore citizenship when they turned 21, but Mindef rejected their initial bids to do so.
They tried several more times over the years, writing to the ministry, then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong and the late former president Ong Teng Cheong to explain their case.
Their parents have also met staff from Mindef.
But all their attempts have failed.
When contacted, Mindef's director of public affairs, Colonel Darius Lim, said: "Only persons who have emigrated at a very young age together with their families, and who have not enjoyed the privileges of Singapore citizenship, will be allowed to renounce their Singapore citizenships without serving national service."
He said the three men are Singapore citizens and are required to fulfil their NS obligations. Their requests to renounce their Singapore citizenships can be considered only upon completion of full-time NS.
The brothers said they were disappointed by Mindef's position.
When asked, they maintained that they did not leave Singapore to avoid NS. They preferred to be in Norway, they said, and their enlistment there showed they were not shirkers of NS, they said.
Mr Frode Bugge is a career soldier with the Norwegian army and has seen action in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Brother Thorbjoern is also a career soldier, while Ingvar is a postman.
For now, they will have to continue meeting their parents in Malaysia. Their mother spends six months in Norway each year.
Their father, a marine consultant, said he cannot afford to spend extended periods in Norway because his business is based in Singapore. He tries to visit his sons once a year.
He said: "My sons' cases are about a choice of citizenship, and not a case of national service...They would like to get this matter cleared up and be able to travel to Singapore for a visit like any other Norwegian."
He is hoping that the law will be changed.
"My sons' situations may seem unique now. But as more foreigners marry Singaporeans, there will be more of these cases," he added.
NS defaulters can be jailed up to three years and/or fined up to $10,000 if convicted.
Link to Article: http://newslink.asiaone.com/user/OrderArticleRequest.action?order=&_sourcePage=%2FWEB-INF%2Fjsp%2Fuser%2Fsearch_type_result.jsp&month=08&year=2008&date=25&docLanguage=en&documentId=nica_ST_2008_9793287
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Argumentative Response Essay - Democracy Creates Stability in a Society
Listen to George Bush speak about establishing democracies in replacement of flawed oppressive regimes around the world and one would think that democracy is one great system of governance on earth that can guarantee peace, stability, and even prosperity. “You can't put democracy and freedom back into a box,” he once proclaimed, reinforcing the idea that democracy is a fundamental need in the world today.
However, does democracy really create stability? Without doubt, the answer will certainly not be as straightforward as President Bush puts it. Nevertheless, it is my view that democracy creates stability to a large extent.
Before examining the question, it is first important to define stability due to its different possible interpretations. In my opinion, a stable society is one where life proceeds as per normal and is not subjected to major disruptions. As such, a political stable society is one where the government is recognized by all citizens and unlikely to be destabilized by unconstitutional means; a socially stable society is one where there is minimal social unrest and discord amongst the people. Economic stability would not be discussed as economics is a complicated affair which is difficult to predict.
The main reason why democracy can create stability is due to the way this system works. In democracy, all the citizens have the liberty to vote for representatives whom they belief can best stand up for their interests and govern the country, and hence the government in power will inevitably be supported by a majority of the people, minimizing unhappiness as at least a majority of the people would have supported the government and its ideals. Of course, there might be some people who object but as the saying goes, it is impossible to please everyone. If the government loses the popular support, the people understand that they can constitutionally replace it in the next election, as seen from how voters in U.S handed control of the Lower House to the Democrats in the 2006 elections.
I believe that this leads to social stability as the government would be voted in based on merit according the judgement of the people, and would likely do a good job governing the country and ensuring the people's well-being. Moreover, the government would often do its best to woo opposition voters by proving its ability to lead the country to prosperity, or even by handing out carrots to appease them, as seen from how the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) Government in Singapore attempted to win votes by promising to place residents in the opposition controlled constituencies on the Lift Upgrading Scheme in 2006. This ensures that the people are happy with the leadership and there will be minimal unrest.
Democracy also leads to political stability as the people understand and abide by the procedures of elections, allowing whoever has the most support to govern in a constitutional manner, specifically through elections, removing the need for unconstitutional means of overthrowing the government to express their dissatisfaction. As such, this government can always focus on governing the country, instead of spending time to quell insurgencies or riots.
However, since the time of Plato, scholars and laymen alike have labelled democracy as a “tyranny of the majority”, claiming that the rights of the minorities might not be respected by the government and people, who might not make rational decisions especially on issues that concern the minority due to prejudices. This is contrary to one of the key assumptions of democracy, which is that people can make rational decisions and decide what is best for the country. As such, this fault would certainly cause unhappiness amongst the groups which are discriminated against, leading to social and possibly political instability.
This can be seen from the case study of Sri Lanka, where the Sri Lanka Freedom Party won a landslide election in 1956, appealing to majority Sinhalese people with their promises of privileges for them. Subsequently, they and successive governments neglected the Tamils, implementing biased policies, but stayed in power due to support from the Sinhalese who formed the overwhelming majority. This led to resentment amongst the Tamils, culminating in the formation of numerous Tamil resistance groups such as the Tamil Tigers, creating much social and political instability with their acts of defiance, which included bombings and killings of soldiers.
Nevertheless, I believe that in modern times, many democracies have realized that a society cannot prosper if certain groups of people are denied of their rights. This realization can be seen from USINFO’s present stand that “All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.”
It is true that some democracies still have not adopted this approach but a glance at the many other democracies that have would prove its effectiveness at creating political and social stability. In the United States where there were protests, and even racial riots when the African-Americans were still being discriminated, these have now become a thing of the past and citizens now go about their daily work without major disruptions due to internal factors.
Evidently, modern democracy encompasses protecting the basic rights of all people, and the many democracies that have already adopted this policy are now enjoying social and political stability. In time to come, it is also likely that the other countries would also realize this need, and adopt similar policies.
In conclusion, although democracy may not be a perfect solution in ensuring stability, as seen from how some democracies still do not account for the basic human rights of certain groups especially the minority groups, leading to problems such as “tyranny of the majority” and causing unhappiness in the society, it is thus far the best solution mankind has come up with. Mr. Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of Great Britain himself said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” Still, most other democracies now have the foresight to protect minority rights, minimizing unhappiness and disquiet amongst the population. This coupled with the workings of a democratic system, which is that the government is elected by the people, ensures the long term political and social stability of the country to a large extent.
However, does democracy really create stability? Without doubt, the answer will certainly not be as straightforward as President Bush puts it. Nevertheless, it is my view that democracy creates stability to a large extent.
Before examining the question, it is first important to define stability due to its different possible interpretations. In my opinion, a stable society is one where life proceeds as per normal and is not subjected to major disruptions. As such, a political stable society is one where the government is recognized by all citizens and unlikely to be destabilized by unconstitutional means; a socially stable society is one where there is minimal social unrest and discord amongst the people. Economic stability would not be discussed as economics is a complicated affair which is difficult to predict.
The main reason why democracy can create stability is due to the way this system works. In democracy, all the citizens have the liberty to vote for representatives whom they belief can best stand up for their interests and govern the country, and hence the government in power will inevitably be supported by a majority of the people, minimizing unhappiness as at least a majority of the people would have supported the government and its ideals. Of course, there might be some people who object but as the saying goes, it is impossible to please everyone. If the government loses the popular support, the people understand that they can constitutionally replace it in the next election, as seen from how voters in U.S handed control of the Lower House to the Democrats in the 2006 elections.
I believe that this leads to social stability as the government would be voted in based on merit according the judgement of the people, and would likely do a good job governing the country and ensuring the people's well-being. Moreover, the government would often do its best to woo opposition voters by proving its ability to lead the country to prosperity, or even by handing out carrots to appease them, as seen from how the Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) Government in Singapore attempted to win votes by promising to place residents in the opposition controlled constituencies on the Lift Upgrading Scheme in 2006. This ensures that the people are happy with the leadership and there will be minimal unrest.
Democracy also leads to political stability as the people understand and abide by the procedures of elections, allowing whoever has the most support to govern in a constitutional manner, specifically through elections, removing the need for unconstitutional means of overthrowing the government to express their dissatisfaction. As such, this government can always focus on governing the country, instead of spending time to quell insurgencies or riots.
However, since the time of Plato, scholars and laymen alike have labelled democracy as a “tyranny of the majority”, claiming that the rights of the minorities might not be respected by the government and people, who might not make rational decisions especially on issues that concern the minority due to prejudices. This is contrary to one of the key assumptions of democracy, which is that people can make rational decisions and decide what is best for the country. As such, this fault would certainly cause unhappiness amongst the groups which are discriminated against, leading to social and possibly political instability.
This can be seen from the case study of Sri Lanka, where the Sri Lanka Freedom Party won a landslide election in 1956, appealing to majority Sinhalese people with their promises of privileges for them. Subsequently, they and successive governments neglected the Tamils, implementing biased policies, but stayed in power due to support from the Sinhalese who formed the overwhelming majority. This led to resentment amongst the Tamils, culminating in the formation of numerous Tamil resistance groups such as the Tamil Tigers, creating much social and political instability with their acts of defiance, which included bombings and killings of soldiers.
Nevertheless, I believe that in modern times, many democracies have realized that a society cannot prosper if certain groups of people are denied of their rights. This realization can be seen from USINFO’s present stand that “All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.”
It is true that some democracies still have not adopted this approach but a glance at the many other democracies that have would prove its effectiveness at creating political and social stability. In the United States where there were protests, and even racial riots when the African-Americans were still being discriminated, these have now become a thing of the past and citizens now go about their daily work without major disruptions due to internal factors.
Evidently, modern democracy encompasses protecting the basic rights of all people, and the many democracies that have already adopted this policy are now enjoying social and political stability. In time to come, it is also likely that the other countries would also realize this need, and adopt similar policies.
In conclusion, although democracy may not be a perfect solution in ensuring stability, as seen from how some democracies still do not account for the basic human rights of certain groups especially the minority groups, leading to problems such as “tyranny of the majority” and causing unhappiness in the society, it is thus far the best solution mankind has come up with. Mr. Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of Great Britain himself said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” Still, most other democracies now have the foresight to protect minority rights, minimizing unhappiness and disquiet amongst the population. This coupled with the workings of a democratic system, which is that the government is elected by the people, ensures the long term political and social stability of the country to a large extent.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Teenage Sex a Worrying Issue
The article ‘Fined $7k for having sex with girl, 15, he met online’ (The Straits Times, 4 March) concerns an incident where a twenty-two year old man paid 850 dollars to have sex with an underage girl after meeting her online. The incident was discovered when she mentioned it to her boyfriend, who later called the police.
This article brings to light one of the growing social problems in Singapore – Teenage Sex. As the country becomes more liberal and globalised, teenagers have become increasingly casual about sexual relationships, in part due to peer pressure and eroding moral values. One does not need to look far to find evidence of this: in my Secondary 3 class, there are already boys throwing around words like “sex” and discussing their love-lives, once tabooed subjects. Moreover, Ministry of Health statistics reveal that the number of teenage abortions increased by 258 between 1998 and 2001.
Some may argue that this is not necessarily detrimental to our society as teenagers, who are perfectly able to make their own choices, are now able to enjoy more freedom, but I beg to differ, due to traditional views instilled by my parents. I think that teenage sex and the possible teenage pregnancy pose a tremendous problem to society.
Teenage childbearing is expensive. Due to the demands of caring for the unplanned child, many teenage mothers are forced to drop out of school. They are hence deprived of the proper education they should have received, resulting in low education attainment and dealing a severe blow to their career prospects. In fact, a British survey found that 89-percent of teenage mothers were unemployed while majority of the rest held blue-collared jobs.
Also, most of teenage mothers are single parents and have to depend on social welfare, spending taxpayers’ money. Even then, they have insufficient life experience to raise a child, often subjecting their child to unintentional abuse or neglect. The journal Adolescence Medicine also reports that they are more likely to have repeat pregnancy as they had experienced sex before and being teenagers, would not hesitate to do it again, often with other partners, which exacerbates the problem.
Having multiple sex-partners greatly increases the risks of contracting Sexually-Transmitted-Diseases (STDs), especially since some can be transmitted though no symptoms are shown yet. STDs are transmitted easily through casual sex, and some like HIV can cause loss of life. I find it hard to justify allowing reckless teenagers to make their own choice whether or not to have sex, given their unconcerned attitude towards it. They ought to realise that their irresponsible behaviour not only endangers their own life, but also that of others.
Do we want to be settled by the burden of having to waste our hard-earned money to pay high taxes for the dire consequences of teenage sex? I think not, so let us treat sex-education as a serious subject, instil the right values in teenagers, and help them realise the gravity and consequences of their actions, through which I believe we can stop this worrying trend.
500 Words
Link to Scanned Newspaper Article:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/940/elblogxb8.jpg
This article brings to light one of the growing social problems in Singapore – Teenage Sex. As the country becomes more liberal and globalised, teenagers have become increasingly casual about sexual relationships, in part due to peer pressure and eroding moral values. One does not need to look far to find evidence of this: in my Secondary 3 class, there are already boys throwing around words like “sex” and discussing their love-lives, once tabooed subjects. Moreover, Ministry of Health statistics reveal that the number of teenage abortions increased by 258 between 1998 and 2001.
Some may argue that this is not necessarily detrimental to our society as teenagers, who are perfectly able to make their own choices, are now able to enjoy more freedom, but I beg to differ, due to traditional views instilled by my parents. I think that teenage sex and the possible teenage pregnancy pose a tremendous problem to society.
Teenage childbearing is expensive. Due to the demands of caring for the unplanned child, many teenage mothers are forced to drop out of school. They are hence deprived of the proper education they should have received, resulting in low education attainment and dealing a severe blow to their career prospects. In fact, a British survey found that 89-percent of teenage mothers were unemployed while majority of the rest held blue-collared jobs.
Also, most of teenage mothers are single parents and have to depend on social welfare, spending taxpayers’ money. Even then, they have insufficient life experience to raise a child, often subjecting their child to unintentional abuse or neglect. The journal Adolescence Medicine also reports that they are more likely to have repeat pregnancy as they had experienced sex before and being teenagers, would not hesitate to do it again, often with other partners, which exacerbates the problem.
Having multiple sex-partners greatly increases the risks of contracting Sexually-Transmitted-Diseases (STDs), especially since some can be transmitted though no symptoms are shown yet. STDs are transmitted easily through casual sex, and some like HIV can cause loss of life. I find it hard to justify allowing reckless teenagers to make their own choice whether or not to have sex, given their unconcerned attitude towards it. They ought to realise that their irresponsible behaviour not only endangers their own life, but also that of others.
Do we want to be settled by the burden of having to waste our hard-earned money to pay high taxes for the dire consequences of teenage sex? I think not, so let us treat sex-education as a serious subject, instil the right values in teenagers, and help them realise the gravity and consequences of their actions, through which I believe we can stop this worrying trend.
500 Words
Link to Scanned Newspaper Article:
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/940/elblogxb8.jpg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)