Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
So much has been said about the unfortunate death of the two servicemen recently, namely Second Lieutenant Clifford Lam and Recruit Andrew Cheah. It is hence of little wonder that certain people have questioned the lopsided media coverage given to the posthumously commissioned officer although both are accorded full military burial, entitled to serviceman who died while on duty or training.
But why? One sensible reasoning offered by the public attributes the amount of coverage to the reluctance of Recruit Andrew's family in appearing on the media. However, in most bereavement cases regarding deaths which are already well-published in the media, it is unlikely that the media would tone down in its coverage of the event as a sign of respect to the family. Would it make sense for Lieutenant Clifford's family be more receptive to the media as opposed to Recruit Andrew's? Clearly, it is likely that the degree of coverage was a choice dictated by the media.
Perhaps it might seem sinister, but a better reasoning would be that the circumstances surrouding the death of Lieutenant Clifford is more favourable to that of Recruit Andrew, at least in journalistic sense. In the latter's case, the recruit was enlisted merely five days into the army, and it is hence likely for the family to be less forgiving to the State. The sister of the late Recruit Andrew was quoted in The Straits Times for her demand of an explanation from MINDEF; the explanation might have already been offered to the family, but is hitherto not provided to the general public for certain reasons. Extensive media coverage would hence likely leave MINDEF and the State at wits' end, from already a difficult spot.
As opposed to Recruit Andrew, the military funeral of Lieutenant Clifford is definitely more suitable for reporting. Here was a soldier who had dreamt of obtaining his pilot wings at the age of fourteen, who was suspsected to have passed away because he worked a little too hard to achieve his unwavering ambition, and who was eventually glorified with what he had sought for, albeit posthumously. If I were the State, I would obviously make use of this opportune moment to repair the damage that was already dealt, and inject a bit of public education simultaneously. Of course his death was highly unfortunate, but given the glorification, is it not sweet and fitting to die for the country? My fellow Singaporeans - if Lieutenant Clifford was willing to lay down his life for the country, why should we not play our part in serving the country through National Service? In truth, dying for the State is only sacred because the State says so, for every State would require peopel to die for it for its greater survival.
Most army friends I have are surprised that given my cynical attitude towards army, I have expressed that I am willing to die for the country if the need arises. I am a soldier, I have taken the SAF pledge and it is my duty to defend the country; that much I must agree. But let me ask the Wilfred Owen's question again - is it really sweet and fitting to die for the country?

