Not the most articulate leader
Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 12:33PM I am talking about our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong. I have done my fair share of criticism of his government, and most, if not all, are deserved. We expected, still expect, will be expecting, better. But that's not the point; my point is that he is not the most articulate of leaders we have seen or heard. And in this age where image and eloquence can help shape the message (ask President Obama), Mr Lee can come across as awkward and uncomfortable. His 10 minute National Day speech made me squirm, and makes British PM Gordon Brown look like a brilliant speaker.
In that context, I will do something that surprises even me: defend Mr Lee's statements on the policy of not mandating National Service (NS) on our Permanent Residents.* In particular, I'm defending the context where he made that one particular statement. I disagree with the policy, and his reasons defending the policy, but I agree with him when he said:
If we make it a requirement, we would not get the people we wanted. Secondly, if they did serve NS at 30, 40, or 50 years old, I would not like to be their platoon comander.
That statement can be so easily misinterpreted, and some already have, as invalidating the efforts of our citizens, who continue to be eligible for NS call-ups until the age of 40. It is easy to get blinded by our history as NSmen and misunderstand those very clumsy words. But let's parse them carefully, and you'll find that same bungling, ham-fisted manner that our leaders exhibit at every turn. Awkward, yet consistent.
I read that statement as "If we have 30, 40, or even 50 year old fresh recruits, we would have a hard time leading them". I fully agree with that statement; it is hard to imagine instilling battlefield discipline on mature adults when they have had zero military experience. Besides youthful energy and knowledge retention, this psychological malleability is why enlistment eligibility is set at 18 years old.
Like it or not, we are easier to train when we were younger. There is little getting in the way of making us into soldiers. Nothing stopping the discipline that will be inculcated into young minds. That is what PM Lee meant; it is difficult to integrate this demographic as fresh recruits into military life, and it causes more problems than it is worth. This is very consistent with the "integrate" message the PAP leaders have been spouting.
But does that vindicate the policy of "no NS for first generation PRs"? Not in my opinion. The military is just one avenue of serving NS obligations. If you are a foreign doctor, you could serve as a Medical Officer. A nurse? Serve in the Singapore Civil Defence Force, on an ambulance. A banker? Serve on a financial think tank.
I could go on, but you get the point. There are ways to fully utilise the resources that good foreign talent brings us, and we are not doing that; we are however, allowing PRs to milk the status for all it's worth. And why not? National policy allows, and encourages, everyone to exploit its generosity.
And this is why national policy must be changed. As citizens, let us get mad at our national leaders, but for good reasons, and not just pop a vein whenever they say something stupid. It's very unhealthy if you opt for the latter, and worse yet, makes us mirror images of the same people we criticise.
* For my friends from foreign shores, NS is mandatory military service that lasts for two years, and all male Singaporean citizens are obligated to serve unless they are medically certified to be unfit. Permanent Residents are not full-fledged Citizens, but also enjoy many of the benfits of Citizenship along with none of the baggage. NS included.
Gordon Brown, Lee Hsien Loong, National Service, foreign talent in Fail, Politics, Singapore
Reader Comments (21)
I agree too that it is going to be a nightmare leading mature recruits. But national service does not necessarily mean the SAF. They can be deployed in civil defence for instance, or community service. That's contributing national service too.
We get mad because they pay themselves millions and claim they are worh that much and when they talk we know they are worth the same as the man in the street.
@mypov:
That is exactly what I said. We should not get too hung up on our own perceptions of NS being military. At the same time, I still think we are not leveraging the PRs' talents enough. If they want to treat this country like a hotel, it's their choice. Our national policy allows them to. But we should not be afraid to utilise their talents more for the country.
@billy:
The pay of ministers is indeed a problem, but it is not the same problem as NS for permanent residents or immigration policy. They are related, yes, but it's not the same problem.
I am still at a loss as to why there is so much anger at the PAP, and yet people still vote for them. It could be generational, or it could just be a variant of Stockholm Syndrome. When push comes to shove (and we have gone past that point a long time ago), how many of our fellow Singaporeans would get the chance to make their vote count, and take advantage of it?
And has it ever occured to you that some of those PR's have already fulfilled their military obligations in their country of citizenship?
I, for instance, have already served time for my country before I came to Singapore. I am very honored that Singapore has accepted me as a PR, and I intend to stay in Singapore for a long time and contribute to the economical success of the country.
But ask me to serve time again, and I'll just leave - fair and square.
There is a difference between being the resident of a country and being a citizen, and the Government is right to point it out. Why it is so hard for some Singaporeans to understand this is beyond me, frankly.
As for the "many benefits" we enjoy:
- my CPF doesn't cost the nation one cent. It is paid by me and by my employer. Sure, there is a tax relief for me on the portion I pay to the CPF, but the government is still largely beneficiary for having me pay my taxes here rather than anywhere else.
- if I want a HDB, I have to buy it on the resale market, at a substantially higher price than a Singaporeans
- we need to get permission to buy landed property, and if we get it we can't resell it in less than 3 years
- subsidies for getting treatment in public hosptitals have been cut for PR's so that the money would be used in priority for Singaporeans (and I think it's perfectly fair)
So our benefits are essentially having the right to live and work here without having to constantly re-apply for an employment pass. Which surely would be time consuming for me, but would also be costly for the ICA to constantly re-process.
And before you start saying that I benefit from the low crime environment, well organized government, good infrastructure and should pay something in return, I'll reply that I do already. It's called taxes.
Just curious - does any one know if MIWs are required to do reservist?
If not, why?
@PR:
If you think "the low crime environment, well organized government, good infrastructure" are the only argument we have, then you are very much mistaken; that is a weak argument simply because Singaporean citizens enjoy the same. Citizens pay taxes too, you are not unique in that regard. But ask yourself this, what do citizens have that are worth holding on to that citizenship? If we have something that great, why are PRs not taking up citizenship?
This blog is just one of many carrying decent arguments that far exceeds the ones you have provided. I suggest you read the arguments in detail and understand them before saying all you get is "he right to live and work here without having to constantly re-apply for an employment pass". The NS obligation for males happen every year, and there is no reprieve. We have to take physical fitness tests, and if we fail we spend 2 days a week reporting for training. We spend weeks doing in-camp training. EVERY. YEAR. And that has resulted in a competitive disadvantage for the locals.
You have served militarily for your country, and I salute that. If you read my post, I'm not even advocating for military service, but to serve in a capacity that will leverage your professional skills. If that is not even acceptable to you, then we have no common ground to speak of.
@xtrocious:
What do you mean by "MIWs"? I'm not familiar with the term.
Why stop at 30 or 40, why not say that Singaporeans who are deferred for overseas studies when they leave before 16.5 yrs can be exempted if they come back after age 25????
If you are so peeved about having to do NS, you should lobby your Government to stop conscription and move towards a professional army.
But asking people who are not even citizens of a country to do a national service, in the army or a civilian institution, is daft. No other country in the world does this.
@Paul:
Then why have national service at all? My beef here is not with NS per se. My beef is with a necessary structure like NS becoming a burden and a competitive disadvantage to Singaporean males. I am conservative in the sense that I believe in strong national defence, and I don't believe we can do that without military national service.
What I want is for national service to not be solely military-based. We need to expand this in order to make it more meaningful, instead of NS being regarded as a nuisance. If I have misinterpreted your words, please let me know.
@PR:
You're still missing the point, which is the advantage you have as a PR over citizens. See above: I have no beef with NS. But you apparently have an issue doing more. I hope you have a better reason than "No other country in the world does this". Why do you have a problem serving in an extra capacity if granted PR status?
Don't frame the argument in your favour without considering the points I made. I want a discussion, and I want to see your perspective. You have not contirbuted either. And you have not answered the questions I posed. The government wants us to help integrate new citizens and PRs? Sure. This is what I'm willing to extend: a space for you to bring up a different angle, respectfully and thoughtfully.
Read my post again. The ball is in your court.
You obviously dont know PM Lee like I know him.
So you dont think him brilliant and articulate ?
Want to take him on in debate ?
If our leaders are bunglers, stumbling at every turn, they should be a pushover the next election.
To begin with, how about watching them tie themselves in knots debating you in any one of the 'meet the people' sessions ?
Lets see who is made of sterner stuff, they or you.
Name a place.
@fairdinkum:
Now this is interesting. Are you saying you can get our Prime Minister to debate me, a small-time blogger, when his ministers don't even want to debate the leader of an opposition party? You who refuse to leave your email address behind? I know I've made it when I get trolls on my blog.
On a more serious note, I think it is a fair assessment that PM Lee is not the best speaker in politics we have seen. His father, MM Lee, is far more eloquent and commanding in making speeches. Would you disagree? As for the next elections, we shall see. The current system clearly favours the incumbents, and I wouldn't expect any less from the PAP.
Also, if you even bothered to read the post, I defended PM Lee's statements..
OK: one more time: I have a fundamental issue doing NATIONAL Service in what is not my NATION.
Likewise in my country, I had to serve time while the equivalent of PR's there did not have to. I can't remember anyone back home moaning that this was unfair.
If your issue is that we have an advantage over Singaporeans, and that the Singaporean citizenship doesn't make for this "competitive disadvantage", then I am sad for you. Because then it means that it doesn't mean that much to you to be Singaporean, and it begs fundamental questions about what defines being Singaporean.
Tou your question about my taking the citizenship: if Singapore allowed for dual citizenship, this could be a consideration. But if this means, as it does currently, giving up the citizenship of my country of birth, then it's never going to happen.
@PR:
Let's get some context here. It would be helpful if you could tell us your country of birth so we can see if citizens are actually being disadvantaged enough for them to raise a ruckus. Give me the context.
Again, my primary problem is the disadvantages we go through for very few actual benefits. This is something you don't see because this isn't your country. If the same were to happen in your homeland, I don't think your people will let the government off that easily. And yes, we do have fundamental questions about the definition of being Singaporean. That much I will agree.
As for dual-citizenship, for arguments' sake let us assume this is allowed. Why then would you take up Singapore citizenship, and what benefits do you think that brings above and beyond your current PR status?
Stop the prevaricating , the small cheap sniping and merry go rounding if you will.
Keen or not ?
Afraid of turning into a trembling incoherent mass of jelly when put on a bigger stage?
Just contented to hide behind the anonymity of being a small time blogger ?
There is a time and place for everything for debate.
Come election time, all issues will be put on the table and debated amongst the political parties
@fairdinkum:
You are the one hiding behind anonymity. I use my real name and there is a contact form available if you are serious about it. If I am not keen for debate this comment section will not be available to you. Instead of constructing straw man arguments, go ahead, set the stage, and see the offers to debate flow in.
Lets see some real substantive action from you instead of trolling.
I have to agree with PR. There is no reason for a PR to serve "national service" in any form or fashion since he is just a Singapore PR with no citizenship responsibilities. I don't see green card holders in the US being called up for military duty, so why should a Singapore PR need to do any form of service whatsoever?
The whole point should be that Singapore cut the bloody reservist requirement altogether. What good is a 30, 40 or 50-year old soldier for that matter? It's got nothing to do with maturity or the malleability of fresh soldiers at 18-years of age. By the time they hit 30 the effectiveness of the soldier is so diminished that our ex-general PM is not even interested being his platoon commander.
So if it doesn't make sense for newly-minted citizens to be called up to serve NS at 30, why should a citizen who has already served NS still be liable for any form of national service at that age? Let them ROD once they have served their 2-year period. So many European countries (and remember they've been through World Wars 1 and 2) don't even require anything as long as 2-years. Besides, we'd also save buckets of money that MINDEF dishes out as make-up pay.
Civil Service College Wed : 1 pm, Reception
@anonymous:
I disagree with your assessment of 30 year old soldiers. And I'm not entirely sure what the impact of cutting reservist obligations out altogether, but it is something to debate about.
@fairdinkum:
Again, there is a contact form supplied on the top of this blog. The date and time is hardly convenient for people who have to work, and I do. Would you turn up when invited by anonymous people who refuse to be shown credentials? Also, if this is an official debate and meeting, I'd like to see that announced to the country.
If it really is true, then I might even consider applying for leave to attend.
Let's say Mr PR has smoked out, peeing in his pants in the face of sound logic and merciful disarmament of his fallacies...