"With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:04:39 GMT

CookiesMonster — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:04:39 GMT

nowadays it is keekeekookeekee translated "take care of oneself first"

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:18:27 GMT

daisyt — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:18:27 GMT

I don't like after school camps, when dd come home with stinky towel, cloths and socks and I grumble to hubby. Hubby said \"So you are lucky you don't have a son, their after NS stuffs, its dirtier and more stinky !\" OK ... I just have to shut up ...

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:27:31 GMT

skunk — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:27:31 GMT

Every child is precious, whether he’s from a single-child family or a very large family. But part of the illogical fears parents have nowadays, is contributed by the fact that people have so few children, the fear of losing them, or seeing them get hurt, rises to an illogical level.

I reiterate that while even a mother of 10 would still cry if she loses just one son, but the mother of only 1 son would be more likely to have over-riding fears compared to the one with 10.

I always tell my wife, we all have to die one day, it’s just sooner or later, our children will be hurt somehow in Life, just less serious or more serious. I rather they live and die meaningfully than live a long and sheltered life meaninglessly. We have to learn to let it go and get over it.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:33:50 GMT

mrswongtuition — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:33:50 GMT

Reading through this thread, my question to myself is:

Do I want to raise a selfish boy, or do I want to raise a self-less boy?

I’ve heard my hb and his male friends chat about their Army life and experiences. They are a good mix of regulars serving NS full-time and those who only went for short stints.

There are some that just do it cause it’s the law & they couldn’t afford to migrate.
There are some that just do it cause they have no choice.
There are some that serve with pride.
There are some that serve with zest.

What do I want to inculcate in my boy?
Being selfish & just finish up what’s compulsory?
Or being self-less and work hard during NS to equip himself with the right skills & attitude to defend our country?

Will he grow up learning that by learning to defend his country, he may one day be defending his family too?
Or will he grow up trying to run away from his national responsibilities?

I admit, I’m a selfish mother. I don’t wish to see my boy hurt in any way.
I read the news about boys in accidents during NS, passing away suddenly during exercise and my heart starts to take over my logical thinking.

My parents only have 1 son, my elder brother. Their attitude towards my brother enlisting for NS was what I saw and will learn from. Though worried about safety, my dad always instilled in my brother that he’s a man and that’s his responsibility - to serve NS. Do it well, be proud of his work and all hardships will be worth it. True enough, my brother endured through everything and became an officer. I’m so proud of him. You should see my dad’s & mum’s faces at the commissioning parade. Hot and humid with perspiration trickling down my mum’s nicely made up face & hair. My dad’s shirt was soaked in perspiration. Did they complain? Not at all. They beamed with pride and were elated.

I wish I’ll be one of those parents at the commissioning parade some day, beaming with pride cos my boy did us proud while serving his country.

& I realised something: Those who served with pride have a strong sense of pride in their work and are doing very well now. Though not all are well-educated with degrees, they are doing well and leading happy lives instead of always grumbling about work and have tonnes of grouses.

I’ll definitely encourage my boy serve his country, but of cos he has to learn personal safety and value family ties too. I hope he’ll remember: he’s there to protect his nation, his family.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:10:55 GMT

skunk — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:10:55 GMT

3Boys:
How many of our NSmen (reservists) can call themselves really proficient soldiers? Yet when the time comes to be called, do we bail out?

Nobody will bail out when they see their loved ones massacred and raped (not in this order lol) , their possessions destroyed, their own lives in jeopardy.

Don't say actual war, anybody dare to even touch my wife, kids and even dogs, i will personally skin them alive and wear their skin as a jacket, to warn all and sundry not to mess with me.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:08:30 GMT

skunk — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:08:30 GMT

tankee:

in ancient chinese teaching, it is the other way around. Nation first then family.

国家。。国，家，先有国，后有家

yup, that is so according to ancient chinese teachings...

but anthropological studies have shown that cavemen societies existed as individual family units first, before developing an organised clan/tribe structure, which eventually led to the formation of the first nations.

Indeed, for many countries, tribal/racial identity is stronger than national identity, that proves that the evolution might still be in progress.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:11:54 GMT

corneyAmber — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:11:54 GMT

3Boys:
ks2me:
I will send my child to where he/she can serve best for both country and family. No point sending him/her to war if he/she is not good in it, it does not benefit the country nor the family. So having the spirit alone is not enough to save the country nor the family. Just my 2 cents.

No one is naturally good at war, you have to train at it. How many of our NSmen (reservists) can call themselves really proficient soldiers? Yet when the time comes to be called, do we bail out?

I don't think training will ensure someone will be good at war. Aptitude is the key. Of course I do understand that in the war field they just want manpower in numbers. If given the choice, I prefer my child to be strategically placed to contribute and not just contribute in numbers. I mean all these discussions are hypothetical, so I am just stating my wish list la. If come to real war, I really don't think there is such a thing called choice. If don't report to camp, will still be arrested by force to go....so??? This is peacetime wishes only...

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:25:10 GMT

tankee — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:25:10 GMT

3Boys:
No one is naturally good at war, you have to train at it. How many of our NSmen (reservists) can call themselves really proficient soldiers? Yet when the time comes to be called, do we bail out?

i agree with you to certain extend. There bound to be some awol when come to mobilization for actual conflict.

on the other hand, don't underestimate our own NSMen proficiency. Many so-called professional army or career soldier are not much better, perhaps only mercenaries are really in tip-top battle-ready condition.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:18:12 GMT

tankee — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:18:12 GMT

Andaiz:
3Boys, I'd also send my DD's out to battle if need be.

:celebrate: :celebrate:

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:16:55 GMT

tankee — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:16:55 GMT

skunk:
the best interests for our families and children should ideally be the same as the interests of the nation.

The nation is made up of individual families...indeed, the Nation exists after the Family exists, so theoratically, the interests of the Family must come first....)

in ancient chinese teaching, it is the other way around. Nation first then family.

国家。。国，家，先有国，后有家

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:03:17 GMT

3Boys — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:03:17 GMT

ks2me:
I will send my child to where he/she can serve best for both country and family. No point sending him/her to war if he/she is not good in it, it does not benefit the country nor the family. So having the spirit alone is not enough to save the country nor the family. Just my 2 cents.

No one is naturally good at war, you have to train at it. How many of our NSmen (reservists) can call themselves really proficient soldiers? Yet when the time comes to be called, do we bail out?

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:08:42 GMT

corneyAmber — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:08:42 GMT

I will send my child to where he/she can serve best for both country and family. No point sending him/her to war if he/she is not good in it, it does not benefit the country nor the family. So having the spirit alone is not enough to save the country nor the family. Just my 2 cents.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:35:14 GMT

jedamum — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:35:14 GMT

3Boys:

Does that spirit exist today in modern Singapore? To what extent do we put the interests of others or our nation above those of our children and families? Is there a difference in how mothers and fathers view this?

No, i will not put the interests of the nation above my children. Instead, I will respect whichever choices my sons will make with regards to this.

3Boys:
Ladies, do the catch-phrases resonate with you? Will you send your sons out to battle?

My husband is the only son and while his parents has their fair share of worries they did not in any way told my husband how he should lead his life in his line of work; in this respect, i hold them as my role-model.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:18:13 GMT

3Boys — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:18:13 GMT

Andaiz:
3Boys, I'd also send my DD's out to battle if need be.

LOL

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:17:22 GMT

3Boys — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:17:22 GMT

skunk:
3Boys:

Truth is, they are often in conflict. Look at military service. It obviously serves a higher order purpose for the country, but of what immediate utility is it to a family? How about taxation? Again, a greater purpose, but taking money out of the immediate control of the family.

I support both of these, btw. My view is the reverse of yours, a strong nation with a strong economy and social structure sets the environment for strong families.
no military to protect the nation, means the nation might be subjugated in a war, which means families will be broken. Immediate utility? Tougher men in both mind and body? Without taxes, no gahment, no gahment, no nation, no nation, family in jeopardy lol

I confused leh, I think we talking the same thing but how come it seems like the reverse?

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:15:06 GMT

skunk — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:15:06 GMT

3Boys:

Truth is, they are often in conflict. Look at military service. It obviously serves a higher order purpose for the country, but of what immediate utility is it to a family? How about taxation? Again, a greater purpose, but taking money out of the immediate control of the family.

I support both of these, btw. My view is the reverse of yours, a strong nation with a strong economy and social structure sets the environment for strong families.

no military to protect the nation, means the nation might be subjugated in a war, which means families will be broken. Immediate utility? Tougher men in both mind and body? Without taxes, no gahment, no gahment, no nation, no nation, family in jeopardy lol

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:08:05 GMT

Andaiz — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:08:05 GMT

3Boys, I'd also send my DD's out to battle if need be.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:06:18 GMT

3Boys — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:06:18 GMT

Ladies, do the catch-phrases resonate with you? Will you send your sons out to battle?

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:20:13 GMT

Way2GO — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:20:13 GMT

3Boys:
Does that spirit exist today in modern Singapore?

IMO, by and large, no.
Such values were inculcated in the Chinese schools before they were dismantled.
Now, for the younger genz, it's more of a rat race where each's self interests is overriding.

If more understands skunk's view, that a nation and self cannot exist without the other, we will be better for it.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:10:40 GMT

3Boys — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:10:40 GMT

skunk:
the best interests for our families and children should ideally be the same as the interests of the nation.

The nation is made up of individual families...indeed, the Nation exists after the Family exists, so theoratically, the interests of the Family must come first.

But ideally, they should be the same, so there is no conflict. The problem is, how many people actually see it that way.

I find that in SG, at least, there is such a major knee-jerk reaction to those anti-PAP, that they fail to see that the interests of the Nation might be different from the interests of the Party.

my 2 cents

Truth is, they are often in conflict. Look at military service. It obviously serves a higher order purpose for the country, but of what immediate utility is it to a family? How about taxation? Again, a greater purpose, but taking money out of the immediate control of the family.

I support both of these, btw. My view is the reverse of yours, a strong nation with a strong economy and social structure sets the environment for strong families.

Reply to "With this Shield, or Upon It", 尽忠报国 on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:52:15 GMT

skunk — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:52:15 GMT

the best interests for our families and children should ideally be the same as the interests of the nation.

The nation is made up of individual families...indeed, the Nation exists after the Family exists, so theoratically, the interests of the Family must come first.

But ideally, they should be the same, so there is no conflict. The problem is, how many people actually see it that way.

I find that in SG, at least, there is such a major knee-jerk reaction to those anti-PAP, that they fail to see that the interests of the Nation might be different from the interests of the Party.

my 2 cents