Where to dispose of army barang after ROD

[vince123123]

Well few points:

1. The No.4 that I bought from Beach Road does not have any SAF indications on it.

2. For reservists, the credits they give is far too little to buy anything, especially on the first ICT.

3. I'm not saying there's any intention to impersonate - I deduced from your post that you said that it is illegal to wear army uniforms when you are not on military purpose - and you quoted the relevant provision which applies to misuse of SAF equipment - the bringing up of beach road non-SAF uniforms is to say that the provision will not apply to non-SAF uniforms. Could there be some other provision then?

btw, since you mentioned Beach Road, I do know that some shops are illegally selling authentic, real SAF equipment like PT kits and uniforms. buying from such shops is discouraged. that's why SAF set up eMart to save you from a troublesome trip to your unit RQMS.

btw, are you saying that you want to walk around town in full no.4 impersonating as a member of the SAF? why would you want to do that? you should only wear your full uniform when on duty

we had digressed too much. we are talking about how to properly dispose off used SAF equipment/uniform.

 

[Koelsch]

wow. i just pop-ed today! hahahaha. i wouldn't mind your gortex boots if you're giving them away =). keep me informed.

 

[k3nn3th03]

:bsmilie: Got discount la I heard from many people but you have to complete at lest seven high key. My friend MR with his unit at 29 he only did seven high key then no liao. So good luck to you.

yea.. i hear of also... but, at 28.. i jus been to my 1st ICT..

so,.... wait loh...

:bsmilie:

 

[Divine_Monk]

Yucks - In the first place, SAF is not IDF. Why would anybody want to "impersonate" an SAF personnel?

Please go serangoon & golden mile and put all those ppl wearing No 4 into prision. Or deport them for wearing No 4.

In any case, the sections and act that you have listened are fine. But do you expect you MP to stand by the place when you burn it, or does ST have a special equipment that track the multilation of SAF equipment that the public doesn't know of.

In the worse case that you do get caught, which get caught, at most you get fine. But so far in the last 40 years of the independence of the republic of Singapore, nobody has every got caught for burning their uniform though its as common as SIA girls saying they lost their uniform when the ORD.

Its the same as if you frame up your No 4 because you have fond memories, and it gets dusty, covered in oil n stain. Worse, you went for peace mission somemore, got Singapore Tag, and the tag is covered in black stain. Your Minister comes visiting the neighbourhood. Reporters come into your house, see your stained uniform. You also contravene the law and disrespected your state.

For me, to avoid the above, I burnt them.

I smash the helmet into pieces with an axe I bought at DIY store and sent it in a box back to Mindef. They just took it back & said "thanks for bringing back".

Two weeks later, some friends from a neighbour country brought some firecracker in. I lighted one and threw into the boot. It was fun seeing the darn boot go up in smoke. The next day I brought it back to mindef again in a box, they took it and said the same thing to me.

I felt good.

 

[mervlam]

i think he wants to know if he wan wear his no.4 to do nature shooting, or similar stuff?

that's too drastic. i watch birds, but i dont wear my no.4 to watch birds. unless, of course, if you feel you got a high from acting like an army sniper when shooting birds (with your camera), then i got nothing to say. (pun intended, no offense pls)

Well few points:

1. The No.4 that I bought from Beach Road does not have any SAF indications on it.

2. For reservists, the credits they give is far too little to buy anything, especially on the first ICT. I don't find it a problem when I had my 1st ICT.

3. I'm not saying there's any intention to impersonate - I deduced from your post that you said that it is illegal to wear army uniforms when you are not on military purpose - and you quoted the relevant provision which applies to misuse of SAF equipment - the bringing up of beach road non-SAF uniforms is to say that the provision will not apply to non-SAF uniforms. Could there be some other provision then?

1. Fine

2. If that is far too little, you will have to top-up yourself using cash. The system only provides enough for wear and tear replacement.

3. You deduced wrongly. I DID NOT SAY it's illegal to wear army uniforms when not on duty. I only say it's discouraged. It's a world of difference. In my opinion, if you have no good reason to be wearing it, then you shouldn't.

Those Beach Road "non-SAF" uniforms LOOK LIKE SAF issued clothing. So what is the intention of buying a clothing that LOOKS LIKE SAF uniforms? If you would like to find out more, I'm afraid you have to contact SAF Public Relations.

You ask, I try to answer.

 

[mervlam]

Yucks - In the first place, SAF is not IDF. Why would anybody want to "impersonate" an SAF personnel?

Please go serangoon & golden mile and put all those ppl wearing No 4 into prision. Or deport them for wearing No 4.

In any case, the sections and act that you have listened are fine. But do you expect you MP to stand by the place when you burn it, or does ST have a special equipment that track the multilation of SAF equipment that the public doesn't know of.

In the worse case that you do get caught, which get caught, at most you get fine. But so far in the last 40 years of the independence of the republic of Singapore, nobody has every got caught for burning their uniform though its as common as SIA girls saying they lost their uniform when the ORD.

Its the same as if you frame up your No 4 because you have fond memories, and it gets dusty, covered in oil n stain. Worse, you went for peace mission somemore, got Singapore Tag, and the tag is covered in black stain. Your Minister comes visiting the neighbourhood. Reporters come into your house, see your stained uniform. You also contravene the law and disrespected your state.

For me, to avoid the above, I burnt them.

I smash the helmet into pieces with an axe I bought at DIY store and sent it in a box back to Mindef. They just took it back & said "thanks for bringing back".

Two weeks later, some friends from a neighbour country brought some firecracker in. I lighted one and threw into the boot. It was fun seeing the darn boot go up in smoke. The next day I brought it back to mindef again in a box, they took it and said the same thing to me.

I felt good.

SAF may not be IDF, but HIS is always around, interested to learn more of SAF's strengths, weakness and another issues that are seemingly trivial to you but juicy information to them. Btw HIS stand for Hostile Intelligence Service. Why do you think impersonation of SAF personnel is illegal? For fun?

Deport them? If you read the acts/ provisions I listed, they only apply to persons subjected to those acts/ provisions. Why do you think they can get thier hands on such clothing? Mostly because people failed to dispose them properly or they frequently those shops at Beach Road. Please dont get personal here. Vince asked, I tried to answer.

As for the rest, do you mean that after all those years you spend in the SAF, you don't know there is such a phrase like, "Do whatever you want, but just don't get caught!"? Personally I think it is not neccessary to perform such perverse acts. But since you take pleasure in gutting them, it's not my business to care.

 

[centuryegg]

Actually our uniforms being wore out for "fun" created a big diplomatic mess a few years ago.

Some fellows wore SAF boots and brought combat rations for a hiking trip at Taman Negara national park. They left behind their combat ration wrappers and it was found by a ranger.

All hell broke loose when Malaysian govt accused Singapore of sending in SAF recon teams on spying missions citing the wrappers and Saf boot imprints in the soil as evidence. Took a while for the issue to die down.

 

[catchlights]

Actually our uniforms being wore out for "fun" created a big diplomatic mess a few years ago.

Some fellows wore SAF boots and brought combat rations for a hiking trip at Taman Negara national park. They left behind their combat ration wrappers and it was found by a ranger.

All hell broke loose when Malaysian govt accused Singapore of sending in SAF recon teams on spying missions citing the wrappers and Saf boot imprints in the soil as evidence. Took a while for the issue to die down.

Yes, I remember that, what a joke!

 

[Hobbesyeo]

Yucks - In the first place, SAF is not IDF. Why would anybody want to "impersonate" an SAF personnel?

Please go serangoon & golden mile and put all those ppl wearing No 4 into prision. Or deport them for wearing No 4.

In any case, the sections and act that you have listened are fine. But do you expect you MP to stand by the place when you burn it, or does ST have a special equipment that track the multilation of SAF equipment that the public doesn't know of.

In the worse case that you do get caught, which get caught, at most you get fine. But so far in the last 40 years of the independence of the republic of Singapore, nobody has every got caught for burning their uniform though its as common as SIA girls saying they lost their uniform when the ORD.

Its the same as if you frame up your No 4 because you have fond memories, and it gets dusty, covered in oil n stain. Worse, you went for peace mission somemore, got Singapore Tag, and the tag is covered in black stain. Your Minister comes visiting the neighbourhood. Reporters come into your house, see your stained uniform. You also contravene the law and disrespected your state.

For me, to avoid the above, I burnt them.

I smash the helmet into pieces with an axe I bought at DIY store and sent it in a box back to Mindef. They just took it back & said "thanks for bringing back".

Two weeks later, some friends from a neighbour country brought some firecracker in. I lighted one and threw into the boot. It was fun seeing the darn boot go up in smoke. The next day I brought it back to mindef again in a box, they took it and said the same thing to me.

I felt good.

Dude... seriously.. you are sad case.

Who wants to impersonate SAF personnel? Very obviously S'pore's enemies lor...who else?

Btw, I really doubt what you said (the helmet & boot thing) actually happened.

 

[Sjourn]

One of the funniest sight I saw was at Lorong HAlus dumping ground, most of the workers there in no.4 uni and wearing MP helmet:bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

Hi Mervlam,

Wearing of Uniforms when not on Military Duty

Someone asked if the SAF uniform can be worn in non-military purposes. You then quoted a mindef website and said that certain items are okay, but "No.4 shirt + trousers is a no no.". I then asked if your answer applies to non-SAF issued equipment, such as those bought in Beach Road (as your previous post and mindef website quote relates only to SAF issued equipment) and you then clarified to say that it is not illegal, but just "discouraged". Incidentally, I don't see any use of the word discouraged in #56. The tone used was said in a clearcut manner, ie, can, or "no - no". I read this to mean that it is prohibited or illegal - perhaps I interpreted wrongly.

As for the insufficent credits issue - yes when it is from year to year wear and tear, it is sufficient. But if you have attended your first ICT after 10+ years of non-use, you will find that the old uniforms that you have no longer fit. The amount issued is insufficient to get sufficient sets of replacement uniforms.

As for your comment of "what is the intention of buying a clothing that LOOKS LIKE SAF uniforms" - simple, to use during ICT.

In any case, I would then sum up to say that just like the rest of us, you are also not sure about whether non-SAF issued equipment or uniforms may be worn when not on military duty.

Section 42

As for reachme2003's question, the relevant provision may be found in S3:

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;
(b) operationally ready national servicemen from the time that they are ordered to report for enlistment or service, whether they have complied with such order or not, and while in uniform or performing service in the Singapore Armed Forces or the People’s Defence Force pursuant to section 14 of the Enlistment Act (Cap. 93), and while called out for mobilised service pursuant to sections 16 and 17 of that Act or when called out to duty in aid of the civil power;
(c) all civilians who are in the service of the Singapore Armed Forces when engaged on active service;
(d) all civilians, not otherwise subject to military law, who are followers of, or accompany, the Singapore Armed Forces when engaged on active service;
(e) officers and soldiers belonging to a Commonwealth or foreign force when attached to or seconded for service with or otherwise acting as part of or with any portion of the Singapore Armed Forces; and
(f) volunteers during the period that they are ordered to report for service, whether they have complied with such order or not.

Doesn't look like it'll apply in reachme2003's case - but this is up for further discussion.

As for the rest of S42, the subject in question is "Singapore Armed Forces property, or any property belonging to a person subject to military law" - is anyone able to check whether the SAF indications stated on the equipment states "Property of SAF"?.

that's too drastic. i watch birds, but i dont wear my no.4 to watch birds. unless, of course, if you feel you got a high from acting like an army sniper when shooting birds (with your camera), then i got nothing to say. (pun intended, no offense pls)

1. Fine

2. If that is far too little, you will have to top-up yourself using cash. The system only provides enough for wear and tear replacement.

3. You deduced wrongly. I DID NOT SAY it's illegal to wear army uniforms when not on duty. I only say it's discouraged. It's a world of difference. In my opinion, if you have no good reason to be wearing it, then you shouldn't.

Those Beach Road "non-SAF" uniforms LOOK LIKE SAF issued clothing. So what is the intention of buying a clothing that LOOKS LIKE SAF uniforms? If you would like to find out more, I'm afraid you have to contact SAF Public Relations.

You ask, I try to answer.

 

[reachme2003]

what is there to be caught 'red-handed' if the person concerned is not subject to military law in the first place. puzzling!

then go ahead, but dont get caught red-handed lor.

 

[mervlam]

Hi Mervlam,

Wearing of Uniforms when not on Military Duty

Someone asked if the SAF uniform can be worn in non-military purposes. You then quoted a mindef website and said that certain items are okay, but "No.4 shirt + trousers is a no no.". I then asked if your answer applies to non-SAF issued equipment, such as those bought in Beach Road (as your previous post and mindef website quote relates only to SAF issued equipment) and you then clarified to say that it is not illegal, but just "discouraged". Incidentally, I don't see any use of the word discouraged in #56. The tone used was said in a clearcut manner, ie, can, or "no - no". I read this to mean that it is prohibited or illegal - perhaps I interpreted wrongly.

As for the insufficent credits issue - yes when it is from year to year wear and tear, it is sufficient. But if you have attended your first ICT after 10+ years of non-use, you will find that the old uniforms that you have no longer fit. The amount issued is insufficient to get sufficient sets of replacement uniforms.

As for your comment of "what is the intention of buying a clothing that LOOKS LIKE SAF uniforms" - simple, to use during ICT.

In any case, I would then sum up to say that just like the rest of us, you are also not sure about whether non-SAF issued equipment or uniforms may be worn when not on military duty.

Section 42

As for reachme2003's question, the relevant provision may be found in S3:


Doesn't look like it'll apply in reachme2003's case - but this is up for further discussion.

As for the rest of S42, the subject in question is "Singapore Armed Forces property, or any property belonging to a person subject to military law" - is anyone able to check whether the SAF indications stated on the equipment states "Property of SAF"?.

what is there to be caught 'red-handed' if the person concerned is not subject to military law in the first place. puzzling!

WHATEVER, you people make me sick... End of discussion for me. I tried to answer your questions and here you all are, shooting me down as if I'm a "police wannabe", as if I am going to "bao toh" you people for non-complience of guidelines and rules, and looking for loopholes in the system. FINE, do whatever you want, but just don't get caught.

GOODBYE!

 

[+evenstar]

WHATEVER, you people make me sick... End of discussion for me. I tried to answer your questions and here you all are, shooting me down as if I'm a "police wannabe", as if I am going to "bao toh" you people for non-complience of guidelines and rules, and looking for loopholes in the system. FINE, do whatever you want, but just don't get caught.

GOODBYE!

who doesn't look for loopholes in a system? most lawyers do that to help their clients IMO..

 

[vince123123]

Hmm, I'm not sure why there is a tone of aggresion used here, we were just asking for clarification on the points that you brought up. I am just trying to find out more about where you got your sources from thats all.

This is especially so since since you mentioned you were the loggie well versed in these kind of stuff. No one said you were a police wannabe also.

Anyway, you are right, at the end of the day, it is the person who is committing the act who will take responsibility for his actions. No one will rely on an internet discussion as authority for clearing the legality of his acts - but there's no harm to discussing what one thinks the position is, and be ready to defend his position should questions be raised.

WHATEVER, you people make me sick... End of discussion for me. I tried to answer your questions and here you all are, shooting me down as if I'm a "police wannabe", as if I am going to "bao toh" you people for non-complience of guidelines and rules, and looking for loopholes in the system. FINE, do whatever you want, but just don't get caught.

GOODBYE!

 

[mervlam]

Hmm, I'm not sure why there is a tone of aggresion used here, we were just asking for clarification on the points that you brought up. I am just trying to find out more about where you got your sources from thats all.

Of course you can say that. You are not feeling the heat here. Things like "Please go serangoon & golden mile and put all those ppl wearing No 4 into prision. Or deport them for wearing No 4. " and the trivialites of whether you are subjected to the mentioned provision if you are wearing a non-SAF issued look-like SAF uniform bought from Beach Road is enough to piss me off. In any case, just to tell you, the items are need can be purchased from eMart at a cheaper pricing than those at Beach Road using cash on delivery.

It was a good discussion until someone decides to put pressure on me when I am only stating pure facts and personal opinions. I had a bad day at work today, and if you are going to judge me of being sensitive and impatient, go ahead. I refuse to put myself at such an undeserving position.

REAL END OF DISCUSSION, GOODBYE

 

[Koelsch]

can i just have the gortex boots?! thanks

 

[vince123123]

Well, I didn't say those words, so perhaps you could have directed your anger towards the people who said it rather than in reply to my post. If my posts put any pressure on you, then please accept my apologies.

I'm also not sure what "heat" I've put on you too.

Of course you can say that. You are not feeling the heat here. Things like "Please go serangoon & golden mile and put all those ppl wearing No 4 into prision. Or deport them for wearing No 4. " is enough to piss me off. It was a good discussion until someone decides to put pressure on me when I am only stating pure facts and personal opinions.

END OF DISCUSSION

 

[+evenstar]

can i just have the gortex boots?! thanks

please read the thread la...:bsmilie:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=2459054&postcount=31

 

[Koelsch]

please read the thread la...:bsmilie:

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=2459054&postcount=31

i didn't read so much bout you all talking bout those militart stuffs. gees. thanks anyway