If you're not one of those, there are some significant disadvantages, but still maybe enough significant advantages for it to be a nice place to live.
Independent of the service itself, there are also some restrictions around male children's travel rights (for fear of them moving abroad before serving), which can interfere with things like visiting family or taking family vacations during a son's teenage years (from age 16, as I understand it). For me the idea that I could have a son "stuck" in Singapore unable to leave for something like 4 years total, even to visit his grandparents, is uncomfortable, and something I wouldn't want to impose on a kid (given, naturally, that I have other options), even if Singapore otherwise seemed a perfect fit for me.
Israel has a 3 year (boys, 2 year for girls) mandatory army service for permanent residents and citizens; I don't know how the Singaporean regime compares, but it is generally possible for an Israeli soldier to take a "leave of absence" to visit family during said mandatory service. If their parents are not permanent residents, they actually get help with the airfare and other stuff.
From talking to Israelis and Germans (former still has mandatory service, latter used to have) - it's a part of the culture that isn't as intimidating as it sounds to outsiders. In fact, in Israel it is (or at least was) called "the fusion plant", and looked at as the great equalizer the binds rich and poor equally into society - and avoiding it for a long time had a social stigma with dire consequences. Mileage May Vary.
The most consistently negative about it, at least of the small group of people I know, are the South Koreans, who see it as a hazing ritual. The Greeks (who still have it) and Italians (who used to) that I know are also pretty negative, but more in a "wow, that was a waste of N months of my life" sense, while the South Koreans are negative to another level. (I don't know if the Singaporean conscription experience is more like the South Korean, German, Greek, or Italian one.)
We technically have mandatory military service here (Denmark), but there is a test of mental/physical/etc. fitness to qualify, and it is more or less accepted that if you want to fail it you will be allowed to fail it. The military doesn't want to bother with people who don't want to be in it, and doesn't really need many conscripts these days anyway (what they do need more of are highly trained career soldiers, which they're having trouble recruiting enough of, but conscripts don't help them with that).
This is a non trivial point, since if you reside in Singapore, you're basically betting that the only threat the place will face (if not covered by Pax Americana, which is not a given for the next 30 years, as Singaporeans know since their country was effectively founded following events started by the British retiring warships 2 years early to pay for welfare housing; and since when Japan invaded, the Brits ran and it was the locals who took up guns and tried to defend their homes) is the comparatively easy to fight one from the north and south, against which SAF is large and well trained enough to provide a great deterrent. And as Singaporeans will say, those won't attack anyway since all of their politicians have stashed their money here.
I was personally impressed by how light handed the country was with its enemies; for example, communist agitators and Chinese agents were merely exiled from the country (and in some cases later allowed back in), rather than jailed or executed as is more common in the region and in other "right wing" flavored governments.
True political discourse - and convincing arguments - sound more like this: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/antifed/main.htm
The thing is, I've read two pages of the stuff, and it's mostly name calling with a few names from history thrown in. Where is the reliable, third party evidence of so called human rights infringements? Plenty has been written on Abu Ghraib, for example, or Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's what I want to see - independent, solid evidence of human rights infringements and unfairness of courts. I've been pointed to plenty of independent blogs but never saw evidence of the widespread human rights abuses that Singapore is apparently committing. At worst, people dig up incidents from the creation of the country decades ago - where, should I remind you, LKY was actively fighting Maoist Chinese attempts at taking over the country by agents corrupting the political process!
I've lived and worked in countries where citizen truly are "labradors" with "no rights" and "at the mercy of a dictator". They looked nothing like Singapore. On the other hand, I've lived in countries where parties like the "Workers Party" have strongly influenced politics, and a few decades later, you get ghettos, no law zones, a crumbling economy, high unemployment and so on. In the case of emerging markets, they result in countries with zero or negative growth rates, GDP per capita a fiftieth of Singapore's, and widespread monopolies somehow connected to the government. I just don't see it here. More evidence?
(I'm going to be slow on this thread since it appears HN is now rate limiting me. It's a pleasure to have a conversation, nevertheless - thanks for participating.)
New accounts are rate limited because of past abuses. We marked your account legit to turn that off.
As far as I am concerned, they are internal enemies and I wish we had had a Lee Kuan Yew, or at least the willingness to accept that some ideologies are dangerous to prosperity and individual rights. The mob will, however, always vote away their freedom if led down the right salience tunnel. I recognize that I might be in the minority with these thoughts.
It only takes a quick look at the color of the skin of people doing various jobs in Singapore to see the obvious culture of racism. Anyone can do it: just go there and see who cleans, serves food, drives taxis and buses, runs the banks, police and the government.
Denying the reality may be your personal choice, but don't shoot the messenger.
I haven't talked to construction workers, but I've briefly worked in parts of India with about the same level of earnings (<$70/month). Again, 16h days in the sweltering heat of Singaporean construction sites, and a first world infrastructure, are a HUGE improvement, and so is the much better salary.
It just so happens that the available pool of talent for this legal, structured work overwhelmingly lives in certain countries. But those who do it, seem pretty keen on the work and happy with its results - even if Berkeley residents are outraged that organic cucumbers and probiotic yogurt are not available for the raita. Happy to be proven wrong, by independent third party sources.
What happens to these people if they have an accident? I'm willing to bet they don't get invited to a Singaporean hospital and kept on for two years while they recover. What happens if they want to form a labour union? I'm willing to bet their visa is not renewed. What happens if they have an argument with an employer? I'm willing to bet they're sent packing immediately with no opportunity to find alternative work or access social services. These are only basic examples of security that people deserve in equal measure. A society that relies upon the exploitation of others is not a sustainable or just society, even if everyone in town agrees not to mention or think about the reality of the situation or if there are worse places in the world.
The pre-FDR position (to which I subscribe) considers individual rights to define the right to the pursuit of happiness, which ends up really being about property rights (that is, the right to keep what I have earned by exchanging my time and effort against financial or other compensation). These "rights" aren't magically obtained, they are earned by a population that first gains independence from its masters, and then structures its government not to set up new masters. Two examples are the creation of the USA, and Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
The "rights" you are arguing for imply a redefinition of "rights" that loosely say "a claim of a base level of happiness to be defined separately" (and then called health services, insurance, food, shelter, etc.). The part of the definition left out is "paid by whom". These "rights" are an infringement of true rights since they naturally imply that these resources will be taken from those who have them in order to be redistributed to those who do not. I moved halfway across the world specifically in protest against such a system (since my voting options were limited anyway). In my experience, those who advocate for FDR Bill of Rights type "rights" are impossible to debate with, because the chasm is philosophical. So I doubt we will ever agree.
From my point of view, even though they are acting in their self interest, the Singaporeans are doing Asia a great favour by sharing their wealth with those who did not take control of their country and set up institutions that protect individual rights, by making labour opportunities available to those outside the island. It is most definitely a "just" system (since foreign workers are protected under Singaporean law against infringements of their individual rights) and seems to be sustainable enough, January riots excepted (and those happened in part because of foreign workers having exactly the same rights, such as roaming around drunk, as the rest of the island).
[Regarding healthcare, I don't know about construction workers, but maids are covered by their employer as part of the package usually. It's very cheap here, since the government hasn't meddled with the insurance and healthcare industries. My health insurance is about a tenth of the US equivalent.]
That's incidentally the crux of the issue with US immigration policy. It used to be that anybody who made it there could stay, and an enormous number of dynasties were started by fresh immigrants (or second generation). As the welfare state was introduced, the borders had to close to avoid an influx of welfare seekers. As other countries got more competitive, there was further political pressure to impede foreign talent from competing with local talent; most recently, you see it in the H1B crisis as American developers suddenly have to contend with large numbers of well educated Chinese, Indian or even European developers willing to work for a lot less. Because the southern border was so hard to make hermetic, illegal immigration for manual labour became the norm and now about 3.5% of the US population (around 11 million) are illegals (and have limited individual rights as a result).
What is so unique about the Singaporean system is that they have managed to set up a system allowing foreigners to come work in the country and retain individual rights and the rule of law whilst being paid a market wage.
Well, no, it could be just random luck.
It's fairly common to laud Singapore as a kind of libertarian paradise, for example, while gliding over the government's heavy control over land use, for example.
I've always thought "Oh, Singapore," next thought: "where they cane people."