soma said:You never served NS? WHy?
Sweat yes but can forget about the blood la, the tears of wasting 2 freak year yes.:sweat:
u go ard assuming ppl never served NS ah...why?
soma said:You never served NS? WHy?
Sweat yes but can forget about the blood la, the tears of wasting 2 freak year yes.:sweat:
skinnylatte said:And I'm sorry to have riled you on the point about the hypothetical son (since erm, for me to have a son in the first place, it would mean I would have to be away from Singapore and I'm not allowed to get married here, if you know what I mean). Let's just say this system isn't conducive to people who can't help but still believe in individual liberty.
vince123123 said:Actually I think the practice of shooting deserters during wartime is rather extreme. Anyway if I were to desert and I know I'm going to get shot, I'll shoot them the officer first heheThe men have no authority to shoot me anyway.
Belle&Sebastain said:oh please, have you not seen anyone ever do into a Correction or Detention Barracks just bacause he/she AWOL? i have seen 6 cases over my 2 year saint
That sentence is just so fake! that lawyer must have been serving his/her duties in mumuland!
melnjes said:AWOL cases are a regular sight in the office I worked in during NS.
However you're referring to the military court, which is totally different. The military court only comes in if the offender is in the army. Chicken and egg issue, get it?
evq said:So... am I right saying that;
if U wan to avoid NS, avoid it entirely. Dun even report to MPB for the call-up. This only carriers a max fine of $5k.
If u served half way through, AWOL, U go into DB.
I'm going to keep a copy of the Sunday's ST papers. Who knows, I may need it for my 'future' son huh?:bsmilie: He may becomes a reowned photographer. $5k can't even get a 5D or D2X.
Get a P&S/Webcam for him & the rest use to pay that $5k fine.:thumbsup:
melnjes said:AWOL cases are a regular sight in the office I worked in during NS.
However you're referring to the military court, which is totally different. The military court only comes in if the offender is in the army. Chicken and egg issue, get it?
skinnylatte said:I never said it was right for the pianist to have been 'let off', especially when I know one of my closest friends might be sent straight to another Changi should he set foot at Changi airport, and I don't agree with having allowed this pianist to have 'gotten off so lightly'. But I don't believe that this was because he was 'rich' or accomplished or whatever; in the same way, for example, if the law says someone who steals is likely to be sentenced to a fine of $10 000 or 2 years' jail or both, in the sentencing of people who have stolen, some are likely to have been fined up to $10 000, others simply jailed, others slapped with both. But it is still all within the law and up to the discretion of the judge of the specific case. One person 'getting away' with a $6000 fine, while somebody else had to do time, is not a comparison in this case; and so it shouldn't in the case of AWOL-ing, either. It's just an emotional issue for most people because of their own personal experience in having to serve NS, while only a number of people will ever have the same experience with theft..
skinnylatte said:And I'm sorry to have riled you on the point about the hypothetical son (since erm, for me to have a son in the first place, it would mean I would have to be away from Singapore and I'm not allowed to get married here, if you know what I mean). Let's just say this system isn't conducive to people who can't help but still believe in individual liberty.
zaren said:Excerpt from SAF Act;
"3. The following persons shall be persons subject to military law and this Act shall, subject to such exclusions or variations in relation to non-uniformed servicemen as may be prescribed, apply to them:
(a) regular servicemen and full-time national servicemen in the Singapore Armed Forces from the time their liability to report for enlistment or service arises until such time as they are lawfully discharged or released;" (underline added for emphasis)
this means that he should be subject to military law because his liability for enlistment or service arose and he was never lawfully discharged or released as long as he was in the UK.
dkw said:People like to talk about individual "liberty", but only when it benefits them. If you feel that you have no duty or obligation to the state, then why should the state have any obligation or duty to you? Why should they care to provide potable water to your house, lighting, electricity? Why set up an emergency medical response system to help you in case you fall and hurt yourself? Why have a intelligence service to pre-empt terrorist acts? All for you? Someone who cherishes individual liberty above duty to country?