National Service - How can this be amended or improved further to alleviate the problem of dodging?

NS, short for National Service, refers to the compulsory conscription in Singapore of all male Singaporean citizens and second-generation permanent residents once they reach the age of 18. Full-time National Servicemen serve for a period of 1 year and 10 months to a maximum of 2 years. Despite a reduction in service duration of 2 months, Singapore has the longest compulsory military service in the world, only second to Israel and Armenia. However, each year, there would be a number of people who are charged under an Enlistment Act for their failure to enlist of refusal to serve in the military. These people, once convicted, have to face imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of $10,000. Unfortunately, the problem of dodging National Service has been ongoing for several years and there is a need for amendments or improvements in order to alleviate this problem.

Before thinking of ways to improve the situation, we have to try to understand the mindsets of these people who refuse to serve his NS duties. Firstly, there are some who think that NS is wasting their time and they could use this time to do something that they would prefer instead, for example continuing with their studies. Thus, these type of ‘dodgers’ would choose to go abroad during their enlistment age and avoid the involuntary conscription. However, they would have trouble getting back to Singapore as they would then be charged under the Enlistment Act. Next, there are also some who feel that NS is too straining and tough and they do not wish to undergo such vigorous training. Sometimes, there are those who feign a major illness and thereby being granted an exemption from serving their NS duties, but such cases are rarely approved by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Medical Board. Regardless of whatsoever reasons they have, it is vital these ‘dodgers’ realise the importance of serving their NS duties and being a Singapore citizen, they should bear the responsibility of protecting the country.

To tackle these problems, we need to instil a new mindset in these NS ‘dodgers’. The lack of nationalistic feeling is shown as many of them have the concept that NS is not beneficial to them and is in fact wasting their time. I feel that the government and the SAF should promote NS and its benefits to the public, through campaigns and advertisements, in order to reduce the ‘fear’ in these potential ‘dodgers’. Alternatively, schools can be encouraged to put forth an education system to cultivate the nationalistic feelings in students and at the same time, to introduce the positive effects of NS, thereby removing any ‘fear’ in them.

Another amendment which I would like to propose is a harsher punishment for the people who refuse to serve their NS duties. The government could extend the duration of imprisonment and increase the fine. This harsher punishment would serve as a better deterrent for people who are attempting to ‘dodge’ NS as they would then rethink their decision. Instead of alleviating the fear of NS, this solution instead creates a different kind of ‘fear’ in them, and in my opinion, this deterrent would serve to be very effective.

To end with, NS is very important for our country because without it, our country would be defenceless against external threats. As a country with manpower as its only resource, we cannot let such dodgers escape without severe punishment, allowing other people to think it’s alright to follow suit. Hence, there is a need to change the mindsets of those who want to ‘dodge’ NS and bring about a sense of patriotism within them.

Science: a Menace to Civilisation?

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge through observations and experimentations to account for natural phenomena. With more research done and more findings we make, we are able to understand our universe better and science advances very quickly, therefore technology becomes more and more developed. Science and technology is all around us every day. What we have today – computers, mobile phones, and even essential inventions which we usually take for granted such as light bulbs, are all possible because of science. It is man’s curiosity that leads to the development of science for the benefit of mankind. However, science does not benefit us totally as man has exploited the means of science to develop weapons of mass destruction which could take away millions of lives. Despite the pros and cons of science, it all boils down to how man makes use of it. Therefore, I feel that science itself is not a menace to civilisation, but rather it is a matter of how we humans want to do with science.

First of all, it is apparent to most of us that science has brought to us countless of benefits. Improved medical science has enabled us to fight diseases which used to be fatal, including the eradication of smallpox, a human infectious disease which killed hundreds of millions of people in the twentieth century, while technology has brought us aeroplanes and mobile phones which serve for our convenience. Without science, the caves in which man used to live in would not have transformed into our modern skyscrapers. Even most of our items of luxury are made possible because of science. In contrast with the high mortality rates in the previous centuries, advanced science has improved our standards of living greatly such that human’s life expectancy has doubled. Undeniably, many would agree that the benefits science has brought to our lives are indeed very significant.

On the contrary, there are also instances where science is indeed evil and destructive to civilisation. Despite improving the standards of living and bringing about convenience, science has also provided humans with the ability to develop instruments with destructive potential, such as poison gas and nuclear warheads. Perhaps the use of atomic bombs in World War II should be familiar with everyone. Evidently from the statistics, these bombs have caused tremendous damage to the cities, buildings and people. The devastation science can bring about has already been clearly expressed, and probably in the near future, nightmare scenarios of novels such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World would be realised. Slowly but certainly, the environment is being destroyed in our hands as developments of science and technology in various industries are using the earth’s resources so extensively that a depletion of resources might occur very soon. Therefore, science has also its destructive character and it is a menace to civilisation.

However, whether or not science is a menace to civilisation depends on how humans put it to use. No doubt science has provided us with much convenience and many other benefits, but it has also been exploited in the areas of warfare and research involving the sacrifice of animals during laboratory experiments. How is science to be blamed for bringing about the devastating destruction to civilisation when all these are in fact man’s doings? With that, I feel that science itself is not a menace to civilisation as long as it is being employed in a constructive manner.

To conclude, science has its pros and cons, but ultimately the decision of how it is being used lies upon us humans. By ensuring that we do not abuse the power of science, it would not be a menace to civilisation but instead an essential pillar of civilisation.

Should we exercise any form of censorship in the area of pornography?

Pornography can be defined as a sexually explicit material which is designed with the intention of creating sexual stimulation in the viewer. There are some who feel that pornography is morally objectionable as it degrades women as mere sex objects, while there are some who see pornography as a mere expression of sexuality. Undoubtedly, our conservative mindset about sex and pornography being taboos a few decades ago has evolved to become more liberal now. Furthermore, with the advancement of technology, we now have DVDs and the Internet where the public, even very young children, is able to access pornography very easily. I strongly agree that censorship of pornography should be in place as it is a degradation of the female gender in our society, an affront to moral values, and addiction to pornography can ruin one’s life entirely.

First of all, pornography is a degradation of the female gender in our society. Most pornography viewers believe that pornography is mere harmless entertainment and only care about satisfying their sexual desires and addiction. Pornography nowadays is designed to appeal to men, unfortunately, at the expense of the status of women. Most pornography materials are still based on traditional sex roles and portray women as slaves and sex objects ‘which’ are used to please men in scenes where the women is raped or physically abused. While most Western societies often endorse the idea of gender equality, they are yet more open-minded about the subject of pornography than the conservative Asians. In my opinion, the fact that pornography degrades women should not be neglected and therefore censorship of pornography should be exercised. Think about this, would you be approving of pornography if your mother or sister is the subject of ridicule?

Apart from my previous point about the dehumanisation of women, pornography is also an affront to moral values as the sexually explicit content of pornography is strongly offensive to some in our society. These contents are obscene and corrupt the minds of those who consume pornography. Consumption of pornography distorts one’s character and on the whole it causes instability within an upright society. The harm that pornography brings about may not be immediately noticeable, but certain attitudes and behaviours which pornography exemplifies will reveal in one’s character. One’s thinking and actions are often based on what we believe, and pornography is so appealing to many men that one will frequently fantasize about the scenes or even imitate them. Hence, pornography, being a highly dangerous threat to our moral values, should be censored.

Ultimately, the danger of pornography lies in the viewer’s addiction. This addiction can be so strong that it may lead one to a point of no return, but companies which produce pornographic materials do not give a hoot whether the addiction kills you or not. The more addicted you are, the better their business gets. Pornography addiction consists of five stages. Initially, you are exposed to pornography at a very young age. Next comes the addiction when you are unable to survive without pornography. Then escalation begins as you start searching for more graphic pornography. Eventually you are desensitised when even the most graphic pornography is not exciting to you. When crave for thrill arises yet you are unable to satisfy it, you will jump to the final stage whereby you act out sexually. This will result in under-aged sex or even rape, when one is unable to control his desire for sexual pleasure. Apparently, pornography addiction is extremely serious and censorship of pornography should be exercised in order to greatly reduce such possibilities.

To end off, pornography can be extremely dangerous to an individual of any age group, or even a society, and censorship of pornography should be exercised. Pornography is a form of disrespect and humility towards women and most viewers do not regard this as significant, as long as they enjoy the sexual arousal. Pornography is also able to corrupt one’s mind and eventually take control of his life, thereby taking away one’s moral values and overall affecting a society. Addiction is perhaps the main evil root behind the destruction of pornography. Because it is so highly addictive and people keep coming back for more, the danger of pornography is clearly evident. If censorship is not exercised to reduce pornography circulation, under-aged sex and violent sex crimes might be on the rise.

Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore

A virtual space with endless boundaries, the Internet is definitely a powerful free-for-all tool which can be used to spread news, be it truth or rumours. An authoritarian democratic city, Singapore has been imposing regulations specifically for internet content since 1996, but in this decade or so, the government has been applying this law with a ‘light touch’, evident from the little or no instances of censorship of political content online. Despite regulations such as the ban of political podcasting during election periods, Singapore is still an open society, as claimed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in response to the Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts’ handling of an incident where the government was criticised. Is this totally true, or are these words just used to protect the stand of the government? Talkingcock.com and Mr Brown are two examples famous for making political commentary on the Internet in Singapore.

Talkingcock.com is a satirical humour website which engages in social commentary, including political issues. It has been labelled as a political website, but Talkingcock argues for the otherwise and claims that the definition of ‘political site’ has been over broaden to which any site which features local politics is considered as a political site. This website writes articles which mock at the unique features of Singaporeans, politics being one of them, and eventually its aim is to ‘build a community of Singaporeans with a sense of humour and who enjoy life in all its complexity’. In my opinion, I believe that Talkingcock.com and perhaps other satirical sites which have been alleged as ‘political sites’ should not be regulated, as these sites merely relieve tension by poking fun at Singapore issues and I doubt these sites mean any harm or attempt to mislead the citizens of Singapore by affecting their opinions on different parties. Furthermore, it is much less possible that the articles are defamatory as Talkingcock.com has stressed that the contents are purely fictitious and should not be relied on. The regulation of political commentary on the Internet hinders our freedom of speech, and we are not given the space to engage in dynamic and creative thinking which is improper of a global, 21st century open society.

Another name which most of you would be familiar with is Mr Brown, whose real name is Lee Kin Mun. Known by many as Singapore’s ‘Blogfather’, Mr Brown is a Singaporean blogger, well known for his social and political commentary despite Singapore’s regulations, whose podcasts attract several thousands of downloads per day. In his satirical blog posts and podcasts, Mr Brown openly highlights the ironies in government policies and also injects humour into his discussion of the behaviour of Singaporeans. However, he has been seen as a ‘partisan player’ who distorts truth by criticising the government. From my perspective, Mr Brown is a groundbreaker himself as he opens up the use of new media in Singapore, thus pushing the boundaries of freedom of expression of us Singaporeans, and by touching upon issues regarding politics, this encourages the citizens to be aware of the current affairs.

Overall, I feel that although the reputation of the government should not be smeared by mere rumours spreading over the Internet, the public’s freedom of speech should not be compromised too. Therefore, regulation of political commentary on the Internet should be in place, but to a minimal. Talkingcock.com and Mr Brown are merely poking harmless fun to provide entertainment with their satirical articles on political issues, yet they are often considered as ‘partisan players’ who try to change the viewers’ attitudes based on their ‘biased’ content. On the other hand, there should be regulations to control irresponsible political commentaries which sole purpose is to create tension among the citizens. Certainly, there is a need to define the line between constructive political commentary and those that are full of meaningless criticisms.

President’s Star Charity Show - is there a need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations?

The President's Star Charity Show is an annual performance, broadcasted on the television, where various artistes and popular stars carry out stunts in the attempt to raise more funds for the needy through public donations. These stunts include life-threatening ones such as walking on a tight-rope and being immersed into an ice-filled container. Artistes have put in much effort in rehearsing these dangerous acts, and the result of their hard work is apparent when the show’s viewership is increased and hundreds of thousands of donation calls come flooding in, bringing the total sum up to over a million dollars. However, are these figures truly evident of the compassion the public has for the needy? Or are these people just paying a small tip for the entertainment by the stunt performers? In my opinion, I feel that performing spectacular acts is unnecessary to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations.

Undoubtedly, we Singaporeans are very stingy people. Due to our ‘kiasu’ (afraid-to-lose) nature, we usually think for ourselves before others and often, we are unwilling to donate generously. Perhaps this is the main reason why most charity shows include stunt performances. However, do people make the donation calls truly with the intention of helping the deprived, or do they treat those calls as payment for the entertainment? I am afraid that the latter occurs most of the time. Yes, stunt performances may help to increase viewership and raise more funds, but think about the actual purpose of the charity show. It is neither to provide entertainment to the public nor to showcase the courage and talents of the artistes. In fact, it is to tell the unfortunate stories of the needy and to spread the message that these people are in need of help so as to raise funds for them, funds which are donated solely for the sake of compassion.

We, as members of the public, know that there are many people out there who need our help; we do not need charity shows to tell us that. We know that we can help them by donating money but we are just reluctant to do so. If we are compassionate enough, we do not even need stunt performances to make us reach for the phone. On the contrary, these performances mislead us into thinking that we are donating because we have compassion, but instead they are actually convincing us to donate for the sake of donating. Furthermore, performing stunts has no relevance at all in helping the needy. Ask yourself, how often does one think about the needy while watching a stunt performance? Not even once, perhaps. He would be so engrossed in the show that he might even forget his name!

One thing the artistes and performers cannot deny is the large amount of time and effort involved in the countless rehearsals. Instead of doing something which does not help in gaining the public’s sympathy, these performers should attempt something more meaningful and relevant, or even play their part in the donation drive too. These artistes are just like any other ordinary member of the public, but the difference here is their fame. Being the idols of many, if these popular artistes are sincere enough to donate, I am sure the public would follow suit too.

To sum up, I disagree with the need for artistes to perform stunts to milk the public’s compassion for more generous donations. How is the public going to sympathise with the needy after watching the show when stunt performances have no relevance to helping them at all? In fact, the inclusion of stunt performances distorts the actual rationale behind organising a charity show. Often, it results in the viewers making the donation calls not for the sake of wanting to help the disadvantaged, but for the sake of acknowledging the effort of the stunt performers.