Signup
LoginForeign Construction worker wearing SAF Camo No 4!
32 posts
-
-
Originally posted by Airforceone:Why are there so many foreign construction workers wearing the SAF Camouflage No 4 ? Is it legal for them to wear for work?
They make the uniform look cheap and low grade.
As if the uniform is very high class in the 1st place.
Anyway beach road got sell, anyone can wear. As long no rank or anything official can already.
-
-
-
Why are there so many foreign construction workers wearing the SAF Camouflage No 4 ?
May not be ours. The SAF copied its design from the US ERDL camo of Vietnam War vintage (which itself was based on a 1948 version, according to the Net.) The camo pattern can also be very subtle, for trademark purposes.
One can confirm by checking for the "Property of the SAF" label, as suggested. Those sold at Beach Road or Sungei Road may not come with this ID. But the real authentication, I learnt from military collectors, is the NSN (National Stock Number) number stamped on each piece of equipment. (Hence the SAF can theoretically trace back to whom it was originally issued, if records were maintained.)
I have not seen MINDEF make a very clear stand on this issue.
They clamped down once, as I recall, but it was a very long time ago -- early '90s? But the then-mindset was also that everyone thought all the issued stuff must be returned after reservist (or else must sign 1206).
These days -- esp. after the introduction of eMarts -- we now know which stuff are disposable, expendable, or both. The SAF also sounded quite reluctant when responding to Cut Waste Panel questions about what to do with old equipment & the recycling topic in general.
But the legal ramifications are there under the SAF Act, but I'm not sure how enforceable it is with something like a No.4 camo. They've already changed the design many times over the years; I was told my December 1985 batch was the 3rd or 4th one to wear it, so we're now talking about 22 years & almost 90 intakes, which each enlistee drawing 4-5 pairs & a fraction of them never needing them cuz they wore No.3's instead. It'll be quite anal to track those uniforms which have been in circulation all these years.Edited by blitzonic 26 Jul `07, 4:07PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:If you don't wear it as a full uniform, it should be fine.
Pants do not make up the No.4 Dress Uniform.
It's like saying when I put on USMC's MARPAT pants, I turn into a Marine.
Eh Lazer-you wear No. 4 SAF pants and normal shirt, it's half-dress what. I thought even wuming87 has agreed with me on this point.
If it's foreign army uniform that's something else.
-
-
-
Originally posted by chanjyj:Eh Lazer-you wear No. 4 SAF pants and normal shirt, it's half-dress what. I thought even wuming87 has agreed with me on this point.
If it's foreign army uniform that's something else.Half-dress is No.4 SAF pants with regulation SAF top, be it the Army tee, Garrison Polo or the PTI Polo.
Isn't that what's called Vest-Slacks.
-
-
-
Originally posted by LazerLordz:Half-dress is No.4 SAF pants with regulation SAF top, be it the Army tee, Garrison Polo or the PTI Polo.
Isn't that what's called Vest-Slacks.My mistake then, apologies.
However, in all honesty, whatever the term is, I am quite sure that it is illegal. (For SAF No.4 pants and some other shirt, be it army issued or not)
-
-
-
I think that there it’s quite clearly labelled on every single uniform (pants and top) that the uniform is the property of the Government of Singapore. Thus, i won’t think that MINDEF or SAF allows any give away of the uniforms,private disposal or any alteration of the uniform. In theory, Mindef can recall every single uniform they ever issue and anybody that committ the actions mentioned can be charged with destruction of properties of the Government of Singapore.
-
-
-
In theory, Mindef can recall every single uniform they ever issue
No, lah. No need to exaggerate that far. Ever since the SAF eMarts were introduced, I think it's more or less accepted that whatever sold inside them are considered expendable items. Those stores are supposed to serve as the modernized kit-exchange system (but without any sneering Nazi storemen ~lol~).
Previously, the expendables used to consist of stuff like foot powder, shoe polish, insect repellent, etc. (& their issuage could be quite tightly controlled by "ngeow" CQs). With them, the perennial instruction was also that, while the items wouldn't need to be strictly accountable for, they shouldn't be discarded away indiscriminately either (ala issuable disposables like toilet paper & -- if you can get them -- chinagraphs, notebooks, etc.)
I suppose camo No.4s, along with the other eMart equipment in general, are now treated the same way. You can dispose them of them on your own, but the official line is that they shouldn't end up in an unauthorized usage.
----------
If you browse through the relevant feedback at the Cut Waste Panel portal (see below links), you can also sense from the corresponding SAF replies that the official policy is always to equip with the latest equipment. In response to suggestions about recycling unwanted items (from reservists & the ilk), the most they're conceding is that the Army Logistics Base will accept donated stuff, & then "ALB would then decide whether to recycle or dispose the items depending on the nature and condition of the returned items."
Note the inclusive phrase "nature", cuz the present mindset is apparently also not to reuse discontinued models as much as possible (even if the items are brand-new). Presumably for a number of reasons, the most important is that we're rich enough now to afford to do this.
Then again, my reservist RQ himself used to reject discontinued models -- eg. camo No.4s (telltale color shade, as I recall), boots, jockey caps -- issued down to him for our long field exercises too, & I'm talking about the early '90s. The old items didn't look exactly hygenic, I must add. A lot of us were disgusted at the state of the Temasek Green uniforms in ROC, in particular. Used to joke was that they'd belonged to either the 1970s SAF generation or, worse yet, the 1949 Guomintang!
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=4162
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=909
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=2752
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=33815
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=28815
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=1113
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=30315
http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=6971Edited by blitzonic 27 Jul `07, 7:08PM
-
-
-
Originally posted by blitzonic:One can confirm by checking for the "Property of the SAF" label, as suggested. Those sold at Beach Road or Sungei Road may not come with this ID. But the real authentication, I learnt from military collectors, is the NSN (National Stock Number) number stamped on each piece of equipment. (Hence the SAF can theoretically trace back to whom it was originally issued, if records were maintained.)
.NSN is the stock number for that particular item.
It is not a serial number where every Number 4 has a unique number.
-
