Awol For 30 Years And Only Got $5000 Fine?

[weg]

agree it's very very unfair... i pity those currently serving in DB for AWOL now... some have been in there for many many yrs for repeated AWOL offences, and now we have this guy who probably only paid $5k.

There are pple who get into financial difficulty bec their NS pay is not enough to feed their family, but they cant run away from NS. Some AWOL to try to earn more money to feed their family, but all end up in DB and start the vicious cycle. Isnt AWOLing to feed one's family more reasonable than deserting to learn piano?

This just reminds me of the Dinesh Bhatia case... what pple with lots of money can do...

 

[ortega]

hmmmm... i wonder if there is an option to just pay $5000 upfront and
skip NS and reservist altogether?

 

[soma]

hmmmm... i wonder if there is an option to just pay $5000 upfront and
skip NS and reservist altogether?

Yes, stay oversea for 30 years..:bsmilie:

 

[jsbn]

hmmmm... i wonder if there is an option to just pay $5000 upfront and
skip NS and reservist altogether?

3 words... Dang Gu Gu.... :bsmilie:

U wish, I wish, everyone wish oso. :bsmilie:

 

[evq]

agree it's very very unfair... i pity those currently serving in DB for AWOL now... some have been in there for many many yrs for repeated AWOL offences, and now we have this guy who probably only paid $5k.

There are pple who get into financial difficulty bec their NS pay is not enough to feed their family, but they cant run away from NS. Some AWOL to try to earn more money to feed their family, but all end up in DB and start the vicious cycle. Isnt AWOLing to feed one's family more reasonable than deserting to learn piano?

This just reminds me of the Dinesh Bhatia case... what pple with lots of money can do...

Agreed with u.
He still have the cheek to appear & smile in the papers.:thumbsd:

 

[reachme2003]

the case before us is that the panist concerned had the financial means to go overseas to study music then. if his parents did not have the means, then it is likely that he will forgo the opportunity and complete his ns obligations here. putting aside financial considerations, he has the talent to be accepted into a prestigious institution. to avoid misunderstanding, i am not advocating 'talent' as a acceptable grounds for AWOL. anyway, he is fortunate to have the talent and financial means.

for the thousands and thousands of us who has been or are going through ns, yes, $5,000 fine was only a light rap on his (precious) knuckles. let's see if MOD will respond in the press.

agree it's very very unfair... i pity those currently serving in DB for AWOL now... some have been in there for many many yrs for repeated AWOL offences, and now we have this guy who probably only paid $5k.

There are pple who get into financial difficulty bec their NS pay is not enough to feed their family, but they cant run away from NS. Some AWOL to try to earn more money to feed their family, but all end up in DB and start the vicious cycle. Isnt AWOLing to feed one's family more reasonable than deserting to learn piano?

This just reminds me of the Dinesh Bhatia case... what pple with lots of money can do...

 

[evq]

There's already two articles in ST forum today, showing their dismay.
More will come I believe.

 

[reachme2003]

i am quite sure that there were more. due to space constraints, only two made it to forum page.

There's already two articles in ST forum today, showing their dismay.
More will come I believe.

 

[zaren]

this kind of thing is bad for the morale of the troops.

that is why those who go AWOL during peacetime are jailed, and those who desert during wartime are shot.

 

[vince123123]

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 hehe The men have no authority to shoot me anyway.

this kind of thing is bad for the morale of the troops.

that is why those who go AWOL during peacetime are jailed, and those who desert during wartime are shot.

 

[sORe-EyEz]

this kind of thing is bad for the morale of the troops.

that is why those who go AWOL during peacetime are jailed, and those who desert during wartime are shot.

d enemy wil b v happy! :devil:

 

[evq]

I'll shoot them the officer first hehe The men have no authority to shoot me anyway.

By shooting the officer 1st, the men can shoot u.
Anyway, If i'm ur officer, I will not shoot u if u decided to flee. Probably u can't survive long being alone during war. U can't defend & protect ur family by urself with limited resources. Teamwork get u further.
And where can u run? Singapore is so small that if it rains, most parts of Singpapore will get wet.

 

[zaren]

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 hehe The men have no authority to shoot me anyway.

is it really that extreme?

imagine ur unit following orders desperately holding a strategically important position against merciless enemy firepower, and troops start to desert. the officers have no extra manpower to arrest the deserters and an imminent collapse in troop morale which will surrender the position to the enemy. they would have no choice but to shoot the deserters to keep the discipline and hold the position as best they can.

if u shoot ur own officers, the highest ranking nco will assume command, and he would order the men to shoot u for betrayal of ur country.

 

[espn]

5K is only 0.00833 Peanut -> http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showpost.php?p=16480346&postcount=49

 

[espn]

"Mindef is sending an very strong message to all to-be-enlisted youngsters

Siam this country and NS, and develop your talents elsewhere

or stay and waste your life away to end up as a poor law-abiding citizien" -> http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showpost.php?p=16480641&postcount=58

 

[espn]

"sometimes i think why we pledge the day when we enter NS

"justice and equality"....

gives these 2 words a whole new meaning" -> http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showpost.php?p=16480957&postcount=82

 

[reachme2003]

following the earlier posts, would there be any difference to a officer's authority to shoot if one AWOL 1. prior to deployment but after called up, 2. during action and 3. not turning up despite called-up.

 

[espn]

is it really that extreme?

imagine ur unit following orders desperately holding a strategically important position against merciless enemy firepower, and troops start to desert. the officers have no extra manpower to arrest the deserters and an imminent collapse in troop morale which will surrender the position to the enemy. they would have no choice but to shoot the deserters to keep the discipline and hold the position as best they can.

if u shoot ur own officers, the highest ranking nco will assume command, and he would order the men to shoot u for betrayal of ur country.

FYI, I would shoot my superior(s) (read: Occifers) even before the war starts, I won't wait till the enemies are hot on my trail

 

[vince123123]

Well don't you think that the extreme reaction results from the initial practice of officers to shoot deserters?

If there are a bunch of deserters for example, say 5 in a group of 30. If the 30 wants to shoot the 5, the 5 will shoot back, resulting in internal wars and in the end, maybe 15 left standing. Isn't it better to just let the 5 desert and the 30 continue.

As another person has said, the deserters themselves will get into trouble as they may not be able to survive on their own.

I'm not advocating to desert or not, just that to shoot at your own forces is never a good idea. Yes, its a deterrent, but I don't think its a very effective one when it results in your own soldiers fighting among themselves.

If as you say, the next NCO takes command, then if I'm the deserter, I'll just shoot everyone necessary before I desert. After all, the desert always has the advantage of surprise. Again, a negative result from what is an oppressive rule/practice.

is it really that extreme?

imagine ur unit following orders desperately holding a strategically important position against merciless enemy firepower, and troops start to desert. the officers have no extra manpower to arrest the deserters and an imminent collapse in troop morale which will surrender the position to the enemy. they would have no choice but to shoot the deserters to keep the discipline and hold the position as best they can.

if u shoot ur own officers, the highest ranking nco will assume command, and he would order the men to shoot u for betrayal of ur country.

 

[vince123123]

I understand that the implied authority to shoot only exists during war time and in combat situations. ANy other situations won't even warrant such extreme measures, and even in wartime/combat, I doubt such measures are even appropriate (which is the subject of hte present discussion)

following the earlier posts, would there be any difference to a officer's authority to shoot if one AWOL 1. prior to deployment but after called up, 2. during action and 3. not turning up despite called-up.