there are other alternatives, national service does not mean serving the millitary only. are we not also require firefighters, a post, a post just as noble? can we also bring back the ‘white mouse’ – vigilante corp, maybe to realign their duties to assist the shortage of patrolling constables.

There are traitors among citizens, and there are patriots among non-citizens. (My definition of patriot in this case is a little stretched, perhaps even oxy-moronic, but you get the idea.) If the powers that be decide that it is worth the gamble to have foreigners in the SAF, then I guess we have to go with them, or voice our dissent in one way or another, and ultimately through the ballot boxes if it really means so much to us. History will decide whether this gamble turns out to be another Changi Airport (where LKY, inspired by the Logan airport, went against the counsel of international experts), or a fiasco fresh out of Ho Ching’s investment playbook.

I’d like to note that the CIA, NSA, FBI, Secret Service and other federal apparatus deemed critical to US national security do NOT hire non-citizens at all. Even NASA does not directly hire non-citizens (from what I was given to understand).

Do I consider the SAF to be lesser than FBI-CIA-NSA on the grand scheme of things? No.

Would I stake my nation’s security on a game of chance? I would not; for if I had lost, I’d have betrayed the faith my citizens have placed in me. Besides, the history books will not be kind when describing my exploits, especially when the mighty Roman empire has left us a lesson.

Do I have a suggestion or alternative? Not really, but I’m sure there is no shortage. You just need to look at the blogosphere to tell. Besides, I’m not paid top dollars to solve the problem… if we are getting trivial solutions to address complex problems of national importance, I start to wonder if it is meaningful to be paying top dollars for the top talent we supposedly have in our government.

I think words like “xenophobic” have no place in this discussion. Gerald has stuck to critiquing the policy so there is no need to critique him. Point out the flaws in his reasoning (if any) but leave out the name calling. It actually diminishes your stature, and weakens your argument. This is a forum for concerned citizens to respectfully discuss issues close to their hearts.

“Unlike you and a few hundred thousand other boys, these men chose to spend two years of their life serving our country.”

I’m not sure what YOU are talking about. I served not 2 years, but 2.5 years of NS plus 7 years (and counting) of reservist. It’s nothing to do with being xenophobic. This is a national security issue.

TT Tan – Thanks!

Imran – Thanks for your comment. Are you sure the US army allows in foreigners? Even if they do, I don’t think they make them officers, like we do here. Anyway, I think your understanding of the purpose of NS in Singapore is not quite right. NS was never intended to be a national integration / ‘Singapore Experience’, unlike the Malaysian NS. It was and is for national defence, full stop. Any other benefits of NS like “making men out of boys”, racial integration and what not are just incidental. I think my third suggestion would serve the ‘Singapore Experience’ purpose just fine.

cy – Security clearance, yes. But the first criteria for security clearance should be that the person is a citizen, no?

contrarian – This article was not meant to be an attack on PRs/new citizens. I was criticizing the policy, not the people. I have no argument with granting citizenships to men who have already served NS. They deserve it, I agree. But my argument is that they should get their citizenship first, then serve NS.

Chee Ken Wing – I don’t think anyone is being forced to take up citizenship. I disagree that no NSF is privy to sensitive military info. I have been privy to that for much of my NS life, and so have some PRs and new citizens serving alongside me.

“PRs should not be required to be Singapore citizens before serving NS. It is nonsensical to assume that PRs will necessarily want to take on Singapore citizenship in addition to the NS burden.”

We cannot allow PRs to freeload — not at the expense of our local boys. Yet security concerns dictate that PRs should not have access to military secrets.

singa – My bad. I forgot that we all just *aspire* to defend this country with our lives. :)

You have erred in bringing out the SAF pledge. The SAF pledge is just an aspiration.

Thank you.

It is definitely awkward that Singaporean Malays are not allowed to join certain combat vocations in the SAF. Rather than them, all PRs should have lower security clearances… But to exclude them from the military altogether or positions of higher authority is just ludicrous. There is no meritocracy in that because it’ll just erect glass ceilings where there should be none, at least in terms of NS rank. No NSF is privy to very sensitive military information anyway, so it can’t be that bad for PRs to serve as 2LTs or LTAs even in the SAF.

And finally, PRs should not be required to be Singapore citizens before serving NS. It is nonsensical to assume that PRs will necessarily want to take on Singapore citizenship in addition to the NS burden. PR is not some kind of transient status. It means *permanent* resident because it is a status specifically reserved for *non-Singaporeans* who wish to reside in Singapore *permanently*!

It is technically not meant for some gold-digging foreigner to work in Singapore for a couple of years, get PR status, buy a HDB flat, resell it at $100-200k profit, and return to his country of origin.