Re-think Our National Service Conscription
-
That's why national service should be made compulsory for ladies as well. I believe that it will help knock some sense of belonging and patriotism into them.Originally posted by Cindyfeh:Most religion encourages peace.
If you are very religious, and believe that there is heaven after death, there is no need to fight.
Just surrender, and if you are killed when u surrender, so be it. You know you will get to heaven and enjoy a better life there.
Why waste your energy defending properties that you don't own (aka HDB flats)?
Even if you friends are being killed, just tell yourself that they are going to better places. -
the funny thing is.. sweden and switzerland both practice conscription but unlike in s'pore most actually like the idea of fighting for their country.
-
They were invaded in WW2.We were invaded in WW2.The majority do not feel that this place is worth fighting for because the common man has no real say in the country.Originally posted by vito_corleone:the funny thing is.. sweden and switzerland both practice conscription but unlike in s'pore most actually like the idea of fighting for their country.
Don't you see the difference.Professional soldiers would die for a state that they can participate fully in. -
Given the options of the existing parents, if they can gave birth in a foreign country, they would have their children overseas.
There are already a lot of cases happening.
They would want their kid to make it back to Singapore as a Permanent Resident.
They can enjoy similar benefit if they are Singapore resident.
At the same time, they have the best of both world.
If you are a reluctant soldier, you will not want your son to undergo the cycle again that you have gone through.
2.5 years of NS, 20 years of Reservist Training, 20 years of IPPT inclusive of possible fitness package for Planet RT.
You will work hard to provide your son a foreign citizenship. -
defeatist...fatalist...Originally posted by Cindyfeh:Most religion encourages peace.
If you are very religious, and believe that there is heaven after death, there is no need to fight.
Just surrender, and if you are killed when u surrender, so be it. You know you will get to heaven and enjoy a better life there.
Why waste your energy defending properties that you don't own (aka HDB flats)?
Even if you friends are being killed, just tell yourself that they are going to better places. -
damn true.Originally posted by Medicated Oil:Given the options of the existing parents, if they can gave birth in a foreign country, they would have their children overseas.
There are already a lot of cases happening.
They would want their kid to make it back to Singapore as a Permanent Resident.
They can enjoy similar benefit if they are Singapore resident.
At the same time, they have the best of both world.
If you are a reluctant soldier, you will not want your son to undergo the cycle again that you have gone through.
2.5 years of NS, 20 years of Reservist Training, 20 years of IPPT inclusive of possible fitness package for Planet RT.
You will work hard to provide your son a foreign citizenship.
for me, I'm giving my son the right to make his own choice. -
hm in a few months time i will be forced into conscription
not looking foward to it
but bo bianz
sianz
-
Uh.......no,both Sweden and Switzerland werent invaded during WW2,Switzerland remained neutral at the time(though relationship was tense with Nazi Germany) while Sweden is said to be in good relationship with Nazi Germany and granted them military transit~Originally posted by LazerLordz:They were invaded in WW2.We were invaded in WW2.The majority do not feel that this place is worth fighting for because the common man has no real say in the country.
Don't you see the difference.Professional soldiers would die for a state that they can participate fully in. -
My bad.It was Iceland and Norway then.Originally posted by liuzg150181:Uh.......no,both Sweden and Switzerland werent invaded during WW2,Switzerland remained neutral at the time(though relationship was tense with Nazi Germany) while Sweden is said to be in good relationship with Nazi Germany and granted them military transit~ -
Norway yes,but Iceland was under Allies occupation for the rest of the war.Originally posted by LazerLordz:My bad.It was Iceland and Norway then. -
Since the first day when National Service was iintroduced in Singapore, nearly every Singapore male have expressed disgruntlement of being conscripted and for the wasted time in the SAF.
Surprisingly, after experiencing the grind of National Service, nearly everyone survived and looked back at National Service with some warm memories, and satisfaction of having discovered an unknown but huge personal capacity to endure the exaggerated military demands that were imposed.
The first two or three batches of National Service were supposed to be those born in 1949, and yet those in the first batch that were conscripted came from those born as early as 1943.
These were the first batches that formed the beginning of our SAF and would have been more justified to be disgruntled as they were not even in the legislated age group. Most of them were either graduates, or Civil Servants (including teachers or government servants in any Ministry), and all those in the combat vocations were trained by the Israelis.
Yet, this earliest of all the ongoing disgruntled lot had served with reluctant enthusiasm and distinction under the grinding instruction of the Israelis; and they went on to form the Officer Corp that provided the early leadership, organisation, development and growth of the SAF with every successive batches of trained NS Men in the SAF.
After nearly FORTY YEARS of National Service, it is surprising to learn that disgruntlement still persist, and it has largely to do with the POLITICS that is practised by the Political Leaders from the Ruling Party that form the Government.
What was the purpose of having a "White Horse" category, except for the purpose of coddling the idea of ELITISM - that is so enthusiastically espoused by the "SENIOR ONE" - (remember his concept of Graduates giving birth to more intelligent beings " ) ?
If your parents have S$250,000 to be put up as security, you will probably have your NS deferred until you finished your Overseas Eduction.
Throughout the Forty Years, tinkering to the National Service Act was made to accomodate the "politics of the day" . It resulted in deferment being allowed to those who decide to pursue a tertiary education in Medicine, or some other special tertiary training that is seen to be important to the Economy.
The by-product of this elitist policy saw two Brigadier Generals coming from one elite family - a rarity for a population of Four Million that is suppose to be limited in talent - especially from a family without any Military Background.
It is this 'Elitist Policy' that has given rise to the problems faced by Melvin Tan.
Perhaps this time around, a more ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT system can be implemented in administering the National Service Policy, and hopefully no "can of worms" will be surprisingly uncovered that will take on the proportion of the NKF Scandal. -
It resulted in deferment being allowed to those who decide to pursue a tertiary education in Medicine, or some other special tertiary training that is seen to be important to the Economy.
Broadly agree with you except the above statement.
Deferment for medical students is now restricted to those who are medically fit and performed well enough during BMT to enter OCS. That has resulted in a shortage of MOs but that is another story. The reason why they allow medical students to disrupt is mainly because they want to save money on medical care. If they all serve NS as rifleman before going to medical school, the army will have to pay GPs and regular MOs to provide medical care to soldiers. Not only will it be very expensive but the army cannot control the GPS who could be rather liberal with their MCs. -
I think largely forgotten and ignored in this discussion is the very fact that stability in economy, trade and many other important money generating avenues in a country depends heavily on defence.
Who would want to invest in a country that is always at war?
Who would want to visit a country always at war?
Without a good defence force, we are nothing. All that has been achieved in the past 40 years would not have been possible.
Even if most NS men will run away in times of war, that is some thing that no one can assume. So the "numbers" shown in the reserve force continues to act as a deterent to offensive enemies. -
Where they go run? Swim to Batam or Johor?
-
I thought they were avoided, not invaded. Sweden had no strategic value and their neutrality was respected. Of course they contiued to supply arms to both sides. Remember the Bofors AA gun?Originally posted by LazerLordz:They were invaded in WW2.We were invaded in WW2.The majority do not feel that this place is worth fighting for because the common man has no real say in the country.
Don't you see the difference.Professional soldiers would die for a state that they can participate fully in.
Switzerland's natural defences were not worth the loss in lives and equipment, hence their position was kept intact, plus the bonus of their money and looting laundering swiss bank accounts. -
After 4 decades of national service conscription, many male Singaporeans have accepted it as part of their lives. The idea of changes to this conscription law is expected to draw mix reactions from the public. However this conscription policy is not cast in stone. We should not allow any policies to be untouched if we see flaws in it. Singapore's security cannot be taken lightly. I have highlighted how our conscription policy can be detrimental to our nation's security and social order instead. Not only does it lessen our defense capabilities, it has also weaken our social cohesiveness and economic competitiveness.
There are many opinions from forummers about my views of our national service conscription, and my suggestions of changes to be made.
One of the main concern is that abolishing conscription will deplete and weaken our defence force. I cannot disagree more. Using the "option" approach will enlarge and strengthen our defence force instead. Firstly, in my proposition, adult females citizens and permanent residents will have to do national service. Therefore it will provide an opportunity for them to enrol themselves with any of the defence forces, including the military. If our women folks are real tough talking patriots, then this will be an good opportunity for them to walk the talk and join the army. For permanent residents and foreigners-turn-citizens, it is a chance to prove their faith and loyalty to this country, and show that they are equally prepared to defend it with their lives, just like Singapore-born Singaporeans. Secondly, if all that I have been reading from forums and the press about how supportive and proud our male Singaporeans are about SAF, then I would expect the rate of "opting out" from the military force to be minimal. The combine result will be an enlarged defence force. In addition, it will be a defence force that is made up of highly motivated and committed personnel, as oppose to "reluctant soldiers" being conscripted into the military as what it is now. Anchored by professional personnel, our defence force must be more stronger than before.
There are people who opposes abolishing conscription because they feel that it is unfair to them having completed their 2/2.5 years of NS and/or 13 years of reservist liability. However, not all will agree. We will probably get different opinions from those who are currently doing NS currently, and those who have yet to do so. However it is unacceptable not to change a policy if it is proven to be flawed. We should not allow it to continue and do irreversible damages to our next and future generations. -
You're being overidealistic here, and as a result, I find your arguments flawed.Originally posted by Deen Lee:After 4 decades of national service conscription, many male Singaporeans have accepted it as part of their lives. The idea of changes to this conscription law is expected to draw mix reactions from the public. However this conscription policy is not cast in stone. We should not allow any policies to be untouched if we see flaws in it. Singapore's security cannot be taken lightly. I have highlighted how our conscription policy can be detrimental to our nation's security and social order instead. Not only does it lessen our defense capabilities, it has also weaken our social cohesiveness and economic competitiveness.
There are many opinions from forummers about my views of our national service conscription, and my suggestions of changes to be made.
One of the main concern is that abolishing conscription will deplete and weaken our defence force. I cannot disagree more. Using the "option" approach will enlarge and strengthen our defence force instead. Firstly, in my proposition, adult females citizens and permanent residents will have to do national service. Therefore it will provide an opportunity for them to enrol themselves with any of the defence forces, including the military. If our women folks are real tough talking patriots, then this will be an good opportunity for them to walk the talk and join the army. For permanent residents and foreigners-turn-citizens, it is a chance to prove their faith and loyalty to this country, and show that they are equally prepared to defend it with their lives, just like Singapore-born Singaporeans. Secondly, if all that I have been reading from forums and the press about how supportive and proud our male Singaporeans are about SAF, then I would expect the rate of "opting out" from the military force to be minimal. The combine result will be an enlarged defence force. In addition, it will be a defence force that is made up of highly motivated and committed personnel, as oppose to "reluctant soldiers" being conscripted into the military as what it is now. Anchored by professional personnel, our defence force must be more stronger than before.
There are people who opposes abolishing conscription because they feel that it is unfair to them having completed their 2/2.5 years of NS and/or 13 years of reservist liability. However, not all will agree. We will probably get different opinions from those who are currently doing NS currently, and those who have yet to do so. However it is unacceptable not to change a policy if it is proven to be flawed. We should not allow it to continue and do irreversible damages to our next and future generations.
1. First of all, you say that conscription should be abolished, but in the next breath, you say that females and PRs should do NS (highlighted in blue). Aren't you being self-contradictory here? Isn't making females and PRs do NS forced conscription? By the way, second-generation PRs have to do NS, in case if you didn't know.
2. How on earth do you know that most Singaporeans would not choose to opt out of NS if they were given that option? The only supporting evidence that you present for this is the impression you get from reading the forums and the press. That's not hard evidence, boy.
Call me pessimistic, but trust me, most of us DON'T want to do NS if we were given that option. We would rather go on to university right after JC and leave the problem of NS to someone else. If our boys currently doing NS were given the option, the huge majority would choose to leave immediately and enter the workforce or go into further studies.
3. In light of my point (2), how on earth are you going to get 'an enlarged defence force' made up of 'highly motivated and committed personnel'? With so many people taking up the option of not doing NS, you'll just have a depleted personnel strength.
In addition, you still haven't answered one of my questions in an earlier post: how are you going to account for the economy? If you say that we would have 'an enlarged defence force' using your suggestions, Singapore's economy will take a huge beting in the process. Currently, the full strength of the SAF is around 350,000, a figure where NSmen make up the vast majority (about 250,000). If the defence force is enlarged to, say, 400,000 regulars (as per your suggestion of an 'enlarged defence force'), we would have a severe dent in available manpower. So who's going to teach the kids, treat the sick, run the industries and construct the buildings?
Besides, as rich as Singapore is, we simply don't have the resources to maintain and upkeep such a large professional army. We already spend about 5% of our GDP on a largely conscript defence force, which is proportionately more than what the US spends (around 3.5%). And we're not fighting any wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. So how much more do you think we're willing to spend? -
If you ask me... my answer will me
Q. Is Singapore worth defending??
A. If I were to fight, the motivation is to defend my life, my family, my love ones. Frankly, I don't give shit about our "leaders" or even this "island"
Q. Would I go to war??
A. Depending whether is it a worthy cause. If our gahmen suddenly kee siao want to send our troops to Iraq..... u can forget it. still cannot believe our gahmen supported the US coalition of the willing. I wonder will any opposition party take this up to suan PAP in the next election
But if it's a matter of saving our skins and our way of life... boh pian, take rifle and shoot, take grenade and throw lor
Q. Should we abolish conscription
A. only miserable 4million population and not enough babies in the pipeline.... of course must carry on lah. Whether will stay and fight or not is a seperate issue. At least must first teach our boys to aim and shoot
Q. Should ladies be enlisted as well
A. Honestly I think so. If we really have a manpower issue.... they should be included. I don't think military training will make our women barren right??
Q. Any good example of countries who practices enlistment and successfully defended themselves against aggression
A. It's obvious the best example will be Israel. Both men and women are enlisted and they really whoop their neighbours arse. I wonder how many % of their budget was spent on defence
Q. Can Singapore be like Israel
A. Dunno, Singapore has never really been put into test, but I seriously doubt our local boys will be a patriotic bunch. Not when I've been hearing all the complaints. I sense that Israeli folks have a MUCH stronger sense of nationalism. It could be the results of bonding through Religion or some national identity. I feel our gahmen have to work on this area......... how to really make patriots out of the common men and women
Q. Will NS for ladies make our women ugly??
A. No lah... every year internation pagent, Miss Israels always look tonns better our Miss Singapores
Q. What is Singapore best defence policy
A. Peace and Goodwill with our neighbours. Suck up USA and China -
I think most guys here will agree with me on this. As NS Men, I will fight a war if it comes to our shores and not fight a war on other people's soil (eg Iraq War).
I don't care who the leaders are whether they are PAP or not, whether there is NKF Scandal a not, when some idiot points his weapon at anybody on this island, I will fight back. To protect our sovereignty and to protect the lives of my loved ones. -
I had a number of replies from people who disagree that replacing conscription with my proposed "option" scheme may lead a larger and better defence force. Their opinions are that given a choice, no Singaporeans or PRs (both male & female) will choose to enrol themselves in the military force, thus putting our military defence at risk. I do not agree that no Singaporean will want to be in any of our defence force. However given the benefit of doubt, even if it should happen in the worst case scenario, our military defence will still not be compromised.
Firstly, we still have our own professional personnel in place. Secondly, any deficiencies can be supplemented by "foreign talents". In sport, we import foreigners and give them citizenship to represent Singapore. This "foreign talent" scheme is also equally pervasive in private and government sector. So why not for the military? For instance the army can import Gurkhas and give them citizenship to supplement its manpower. This is better than having conscripted "reluctant soldiers" who are unmotivated and non-committal towards defending our country. If Gurkhas can be entrusted to guard our government leaders' residences, surely they can be entrusted to defend their adopted country if turned citizens. Expenditure may rise, but isn't worthwhile to do so in order to have a formidable military force for our country? Furthermore, Singaporeans who opted out from the military force will have to opt for other service like healthcare or social work to fulfill their national service obligation. This will bring expenditure down for these sectors, thus reducing cost to users of these services. -
For goodness' sake.... please read my arguments and address them. Don't just shrug them off. It weakens your own credibility.Originally posted by Deen Lee:had a number of replies from people who disagree that replacing conscription with my proposed "option" scheme may lead a larger and better defence force. Their opinions are that given a choice, no Singaporeans or PRs (both male & female) will choose to enrol themselves in the military force, thus putting our military defence at risk. I do not agree that no Singaporean will want to be in any of our defence force. However given the benefit of doubt, even if it should happen in the worst case scenario, our military defence will still not be compromised.
Firstly, we still have our own professional personnel in place. Secondly, any deficiencies can be supplemented by "foreign talents". In sport, we import foreigners and give them citizenship to represent Singapore. This "foreign talent" scheme is also equally pervasive in private and government sector. So why not for the military? For instance the army can import Gurkhas and give them citizenship to supplement its manpower. This is better than having conscripted "reluctant soldiers" who are unmotivated and non-committal towards defending our country. If Gurkhas are even entrusted to guard our government leaders' residence, surely they can be entrusted to defend their adopted country if turn citizens. Expenditure may rise, but isn't worthwhile to do so in order to have a formidable military force for our country? Furthermore, Singaporeans who opted out from the military force will have to opt for other service like healthcare or social work to fulfill their national service obligation. This will bring expenditure down for these sectors, thus reducing cost to users of these services.
Now you say that the deficiency can be made up by importing 'foreign talents', or in other words, mercenaries. As I've already pointed out to you already, the total fighting strength of the SAF is around 350,000, including about 250,000 NSmen and 50,000 NSFs. That leaves us with about 50,000 regulars.
Now, as I've said, if you were to make NS optional, a large proportion of the conscripts will willingly opt out of it. Let's say 50% of them does so. That's a total shortfall of 150,000 NSFs/NSmen. My question to you: do you think we have the resources to bring over 150,000 Gurkhas, clothe them, train them, etc? I would hardly think so. As I've already pointed out to you, we are already spending 5% of our GDP on a largely conscript defence force. That's already proportionately more than what the US spends on its professional military (3.5% of GDP). Sure, in terms of absolute figures, the US spends more, but they have a much greater overall net GDP. We are also not fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My bottom line is very simple: as much as we don't want to have NS, we need it. It's nice to have a fully professional army instead, but we can't afford it in any sense of the word. National Service is a necessary evil for an imperfect world.
Now, please address my arguments. -
I do not agree with the idea of Gurkhas being in charge of our national security.If they are used against the people for some reason by a future rogue government, there will be hell to pay.Originally posted by Deen Lee:had a number of replies from people who disagree that replacing conscription with my proposed "option" scheme may lead a larger and better defence force. Their opinions are that given a choice, no Singaporeans or PRs (both male & female) will choose to enrol themselves in the military force, thus putting our military defence at risk. I do not agree that no Singaporean will want to be in any of our defence force. However given the benefit of doubt, even if it should happen in the worst case scenario, our military defence will still not be compromised.
Firstly, we still have our own professional personnel in place. Secondly, any deficiencies can be supplemented by "foreign talents". In sport, we import foreigners and give them citizenship to represent Singapore. This "foreign talent" scheme is also equally pervasive in private and government sector. So why not for the military? For instance the army can import Gurkhas and give them citizenship to supplement its manpower. This is better than having conscripted "reluctant soldiers" who are unmotivated and non-committal towards defending our country. If Gurkhas are even entrusted to guard our government leaders' residence, surely they can be entrusted to defend their adopted country if turn citizens. Expenditure may rise, but isn't worthwhile to do so in order to have a formidable military force for our country? Furthermore, Singaporeans who opted out from the military force will have to opt for other service like healthcare or social work to fulfill their national service obligation. This will bring expenditure down for these sectors, thus reducing cost to users of these services.
Do you see the Americans hiring PMCs to do crowd control in Fallujah, Mosul or even in hometown New York during the post-London transit bombings?Do you see the Israelis outsourcing their defence to foreign mercs?I shudder everytime I see these Gurkhas being paid to be VIP and HRT teams, guarding our leaders.It shows a lack of trust in the ability of our home-grown Special Forces or diplomatic security teams, despite whatever is said about them being fearsome warriors.
Point to be noted, they are not citizens.The Gurkhas in the SAS are British nationals, therefore the debate is non-existent.
I'd agree that our NS system could do with fine-tuning, perhaps in duration or psychological profiling for better manpower deployment.However, the current global situation is quite unstable and volatile.And currently, we cannot afford to even reduce our manpower by any percentage, because realistically speaking, how much of the SAF is combat ready, in terms of individual motivation and warfighting ethos?I don't think we are up there with the battle-hardened armies of the world as of yet.
We are moving closer to a force that is known for rapid deployment across Joint branches, especially in relief and peacekeeping support operations.This new shift in force posture, requires the same amount of manpower coupled with better attitudes and multipliers to acheive a much more effective soldiering ability from our troops.
I do not agree that reluctant soldiers make lousy soldiers.Take a look at the National Guard in Iraq.These are ready reserve troops who train on the weekends or monthly, and they are men and women with careers and are not dedicated warriors who train to kill all the time, much less have thoughts of destruction on their minds.Reluctant soldiers are as effective as regular troops, because they are reluctant not due to fear, but due to a lack of willingness to be separated from their civilian roles as parents and working professionals.
When the push comes to shove, I'd place my money on a born and bred reluctant soldier to defend this land rather than foreign mercenaries.We may gripe, curse, swear and keng, but this is our land.Those of us who have found it worthwhile to stay on, will be naturally motivated to kill and maim those who threaten to take what is dear from us by force.That is realpolitik psychology, and that wins the patently flawed logic of institutionalised usage of foreigners to fight wars for us.
Try naming a nation that has defended itself successfully without her own army, you won't find any. -
I am sure it will be interesting to have an unbiased poll and see how many guys are willing to serve NS/ defend Singapore in times of a war.
-
This is my reply to questions posted at another forum which I think will also answer the questions here:-
(1) I have been getting lots of replies telling me how they are prepared to fight and die for the nation. Can we believe them? I rather find that out during peace time, not during time of war when it will be too late. For our women folks, it is time to end this hypocrisy and make equal responsibiities be synonymous with equal opportunities. They need not have to opt for military service, but they cannot escape from doing national service.
(2) Are we really over or under-spending on our security, I would leave it to the expert to determine how much needed to maximise our defence capabilities of our little island. How much soldiers do we need? Someone claim that the SAF have 350k soldiers which comprises of about 50k regulars, 250k NSmen, and about 50k NSF. He felt that my proposition will put the nation at risk if these 300K NSmen and NSF may opt out from military service. However my point is whether the SAF needs 350k soldiers in the first place? Is the SAF over-staff because of conscription? Again these are questions that is best determined by the experts.
(3) Our nation's security should not be compromised by our concern on budget. If we need to spend more, then we should do so. Otherwise it is no use having a large amateur force that is unable to defend our coutry effective, I prefer a smaller professional force that can do the job. -
We have more than 350k.
And there are highly trained regular units out there.
Most of the reserves will form the National Guard.I'd prefer to see us as a National Guard.