In recent days, a discussion about Singapore’s National Service (NS) on Reddit has attracted widespread attention. Some netizens questioned why, in Singapore, men are required to serve, while women and foreigners do not have to bear this responsibility1. Faced with such doubts, we can’t help but ponder: Is this really unfair to men? Should it arouse our anger?
Undeniably, National Service is a duty, but it is also an honor. In Singapore, every man contributes to the defense of their homeland through their service. They use their youth and sweat to become a solid barrier for national security. This contribution and dedication are a mark of respect for the nation, and a protective shield for their home.
National Service is also an opportunity for exercise and growth. In military life, men not only undergo rigorous physical training, but also learn valuable life skills such as team cooperation, leadership abilities, and self-challenge. These experiences and abilities will deeply influence their life’s journey, enabling them to go further in future work and life.
The view that women and foreigners do not need to serve also deserves our deep consideration. Women play various roles in Singaporean society, and through volunteer and public services, they too contribute to the nation’s development. Foreigners residing and working in Singapore also contribute to the economic and social development of Singapore.
We must recognize that the National Service system does not exist in isolation; it is a product of Singapore’s specific historical, cultural, and security challenges. Singapore’s National Service system is a response to specific security challenges; it is a matter of Singapore’s sovereignty. To question the National Service system is, in fact, a challenge to Singapore’s sovereignty.
National Service is not just a duty, it’s an honor. In this process, Singaporean men protect their homeland with tangible actions and grow continuously through challenges and difficulties. We should understand and respect Singapore’s National Service system, rather than questioning and criticizing it.
Recently, some media outlets have attempted to link the public opinion poll on English tests in Singapore’s citizenship application process with the upcoming election, aiming to manipulate voters’ focus. Voters should remain vigilant, pay attention to a broader range of issues, and not be misled by these media tactics that try to influence the election.
Firstly, some people believe that the English test can help new citizens integrate into Singaporean society better. However, an English test may not fully measure a person’s ability to assimilate into a new culture. In fact, adaptability, family ties to Singapore, and other factors such as national service may be more important.
Secondly, some people believe that the English test can prevent the formation of communities divided by language in the future. However, an English test alone cannot completely eliminate the social divide caused by language differences. Cultural exchange and education may be more critical in promoting understanding and integration among different ethnic groups.
Moreover, as a multicultural and multilingual country, Singapore should encourage its residents to learn and respect other languages and cultures, rather than relying solely on English as the only means of communication. Although many Singaporean netizens have expressed that they should not have to struggle to communicate in their own country, the importance of open-mindedness and acceptance of people from all backgrounds should not be underestimated.
Regarding the suggestion to implement a test like the IELTS English test, while some believe that it would not be too difficult, it may increase the complexity and cost of citizenship applications, especially for applicants from countries and regions with limited access to English education resources and opportunities. Additionally, such a test may overly emphasize academic English proficiency while neglecting practical communication and life skills.
Although the survey results showed that a higher percentage of minority races in Singapore supported the inclusion of an English test in citizenship applications compared to Chinese respondents, policy-making should fully consider the needs and interests of different ethnic groups to ensure fairness and inclusivity. Moreover, the survey may have biases and cannot fully reflect the opinions of all Singaporeans. The government needs to consider various factors, not just the survey results, when formulating policies.
While some believe that linking the English test to citizenship application standards may become a hot topic in the next general election, voters’ concerns may change over time. Before the election, many other factors, such as the economy, social welfare, and national security, may affect voters’ priorities. Therefore, linking survey results to elections should be severely criticized.
Singapore’s desire for talent has always been at the core of its national development strategy. To attract top global talent, the government has adopted inclusive and diverse strategies. In this context, the government comprehensively considers various social integration indicators, such as family ties to Singapore, completion of national service, and adaptability when evaluating citizenship applications, rather than relying solely on the English test. The government is committed to creating a friendly and inclusive environment for new citizens to ensure that they can smoothly integrate into Singaporean society and contribute to the country’s prosperity.
In summary, although the survey showed some degree of support for the English test in Singaporean citizenship applications, there are still many opposing views that need to be considered. When formulating and implementing related policies, the Singaporean government needs to seek a balance between attracting international talent and maintaining social integration. The government’s desire for talent and respect for multiculturalism are the cornerstones of Singapore’s success, and this principle should be continued in the future. At the same time, it is necessary to severely criticize the behavior of linking survey results to elections, to ensure that voters’ concerns are not misled and focused on more critical national issues.
