Talk:National service in Singapore

C-class assessment explanation
Some non-trivial things are still uncited, and the section doesn't cover any attempts to reform this/public perception of the service. Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National service in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070716162821/http://www.todayonline.com:80/articles/176695print.asp to http://www.todayonline.com/articles/176695print.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

major error in "types of services" chart
for some reason there's a chart explaining how much the various ranks have gotten paid over time. ok, cool. But it's WRONG.

There are some columns in the middle that go like this: [march 2012] [blank] [blank] [april 2012] and those blank columns have data in them. What those numbers correspond to is a mystery.

the chart iS WRONGGGG

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National service in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407183827/http://iprep.ns.sg/faqs.html to http://iprep.ns.sg/faqs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140929224230/http://iprep.ns.sg/ to http://iprep.ns.sg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Section 14 of GPA
Section 14 of GPA applies to not just SAF but whole of government. The controversy is applicable and in scope of this article as it relates to the death of an NSman while performing National Service. As pointed out by SDP, the government has a moral duty to look after those performing National Service. Section 14 of GPA shields the government from accountability. The same could not be said of regulars who made the choice to join SAF.

Proposed text:

Government's immunity from civil lawsuit for deaths of NSmen
According to section 14 of the Government's Proceeding Act, "Nothing done or omitted to be done by a member of the forces while on duty as such shall subject either him or the Government to liability in tort for causing the death of another person, or for causing personal injury to another person, in so far as the death or personal injury is due to anything suffered by that other person while he is a member of the forces..."

In response to Dominique Sarron Lee's death and subsequent lawsuit initiated by his family against the SAF that was dismissed by high court, the Singapore Democratic Party said that Section 14 "unfairly protects the government from being held accountable" and creates "moral hazard". Jane Dawson (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I see, so it is more of a political debate in your country. Regardless, an issue of legal immunity in the death of a soldier be it volunteer or conscript, including the related debate of whether such legal immunity is appropriate, remains a considerable distance off from a policy of compulsory service to supplement manpower in various uniformed services which also include the police department and fire department. It ultimately remains out of the scope of this article. It must be noted that the text quoted above does not discuss the policy of conscription either, while the source itself barely references the conscription policy - it mentions the localised term for conscript ("NS man") once, and the form in which the term was used was as an appeal to the conscripts as an audience ("Which NS man will not feel aggrieved that...") rather than any comment about the merits and demerits of the conscription policy itself. Otherwise, the remainder of the source consists of allegations of unaccountability on the part of another political party that are even less relevant here. Be reminded that the scope of this article is for discussion of the conscription policy only.


 * While this particular issue as it currently stands cannot be on this article, there are certainly other ways to handle political debates on Wikipedia that you may like to consider:
 * If this policy of legal immunity is itself notable per WP:N, you could consider creating an article for it and discussing it there, along with the arguments for and against it.
 * If the person who died was notable, and whose death this statement was a direct consequence of, you could consider putting it on the person's article.
 * You could also consider putting it on the article of the political figure that formulated this policy. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a parliamentary response pertaining to section 14 of GPA with regard to Dominique's death https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/law-protecting-servicemen-civil-suits-vital-ng-eng-hen I think it is very relevant to be included in this article the whole controversy surrounding his death since it pertains to National Service. I would leave it as it is for now till I have time to provide a fully response. Meanwhile anyone is free to add in this discussion. Jane Dawson (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This news source does not even mention the issue of conscription once, so it is even less relevant here. I am aware you feel that it is pertinent, but the relevance must be proven before it can be included. It must be emphasised that the linking of topics together, as with all content on Wikipedia, must be supported by reliable sources. Forcing an association where not explicitly stated in reliable sources is considered inappropriate synthesis or, at worst, original research, both of which are prohibited per WP:OR.
 * I also failed to mention this earlier, but now that I am aware that it is a political debate, I should remind you that in general, controversial topics on Wikipedia - including political topics - are bound by the requirements of WP:RS, which favours secondary sources that discuss the topic rather than merely reproduces a statement. Because of the potential of disputes and edit wars, unsourced or poorly-sourced content that relate to controversial topics are treated even more strictly than, say, content about the ingredients of a Chicken Divan. As a result, even if you were to find a statement by a person that ties topic A to that of topic B, but is not discussed by established secondary sources, it may be considered an undue inclusion (see WP:UNDUE).
 * I know you might feel impassioned about this particular issue, and that is understandably the case in events that involve the loss of life. However, remember that Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader, of thought - if it is truly an important issue, then let the discussion occur in reliable sources first, and then it can later be described on Wikipedia. There is no need to rush ahead of time to post it on Wikipedia before such discussion has occurred. The world will not end tomorrow. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanking of article due to minor copyright issue
I notice that you have flagged the article for copyvio issues. It has been close to 7 days but no action has been done to solve the copyright issues. Perhaps you can highlight the part that needs to be rewritten so that others like myself can action on it instead of leaving this article in risk of deletion. Jane Dawson (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

what!?
why there is no mention of "female" in this article, despite there is an ongoing consideration into female national service? 2404:8000:1027:D5FD:F516:34C2:47EF:1688 (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)