A certain minister says the cost of providing free transport for NSFs would need to be cross subsidized by other commuters through higher fares, or by taxpayers. But here is the question. For a nation that generates a budget surplus each year, why can we not support our men who are contributing to the nation? That same minister, in my own words, has mentioned that national service is a civic duty and not a transactional one. So why should we expect our men to bear additional "transactional" expenses? Isn't that a rhetorical contradiction?
Civic duty refers to the legal obligations and moral responsibilities a citizen owes to their community or nation. Now I believe a nation, represented by its government, also owes fundamental duties to its people in exchange for their allegiance and compliance. So why can't I turn the argument around and say the government has a CIVIC DUTY to contribute more to our men?
And I know the government can always find ways to justify its position through the use of specific linguistic terms, but I believe as a bottom line, beyond serving our two years, our men should be compensated in a way that is due and fair regardless of monetary arguments. It is ultimately a basis of social good.
And its not about political correctness, it is about being correct. So don't get me started on issues like slippery slope or change the topic to upholding the sacred duty/intrinsic motivation of a soldier.