Singapore girls must be conscripted into NS as nurses
-
me think they should get conscripted into national service for at least a year.
might not be nurses. an even spread of clerical, nursing, etc, duties, wld be nice. -
Granted, however one still needs to consider the rather unique position of Singapore being an small island-state that left the Malaysian Federation under some rather stormy events. Any way about it, the development of the SAF has played a role in keeping some of the more radical talk about taking Singapore back by force (which is still worryingly happening admist some of their politicans) just that... talk.Originally posted by allentyb:this is not israel between
Things also become more complicated once you throw race-politics into the mix, of which both countries hold rather differing views. We must also take the stability of our neighbours into account... what if one day a radical regime takes over and decides that the Singaporean problem needs to be solved at whatever the cost?
It would be too late then to build up a credible defence. The way we are, we don't really have the space to make big mistakes... Iran could tank a lot of damage from Iraq before bringing the war on a more even footing despite their technological disadvantage... Kuwait was a different story- they relied on the goodwill of other nations and got invaded for their troubles.
So nah, we're no Isreal surrounded by countries wanting to slit our throats... but I think entirely untrue to say that our region is exactly stable to begin with. Relying on international goodwill and hoping to survive on economic power alone isn't a sound survival tatic... at the end of the day when it really gets to the worst things, power still flows from the barrel of a gun. -
Pray that we don't get attack like Pearl Harbour on our own soil because if we do, there'll be no nurses, doctors, hospital beds enough to save the tens of thousands of injured forces and civilians and those reservists who are not injured better be prepared to launch a counter-attack (and die) on foreign soil.
NS. -
Malaysia actually randomly selects people for NS. The girls do community service. Now that is an idea.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Fair enough, since in Singapore the term "nurse" has come to mean a lot more.
I think we are quite interested to hear more opinions from any other ladies on the idea of female NS. Any takers? -
don't feed anymore idea to the PAPOriginally posted by fymk:Malaysia actually randomly selects people for NS. The girls do community service. Now that is an idea. -
Of course, the pretty ones will be transferred to SIA to provide cheap slaves as LKY's "Singapore Girls".Originally posted by Ferguson:for at least 1 year.
benefits are plenty -
u know wad i totally agree with him, females in spore need suffer some hardship n thats where they can truly appreciate wad guys has done..Originally posted by LifeIsWonderful:girls are gonna hate me for saying this, but why dun girls do the army like guys, then they will learn to appreciate things better and not act like a spoilt princess.
i have friends and heard lots of stories of gals breaking up with their bf cause of NS, and complaining guys never give enough time. females gota suffer abit,,
besides females can also belong to other vocations, for e.g medics,admin,logistics or wadever etc.. -
i like the idea becos nurses to most people are some1 nice...caring...clam...sure thing we hope..all our girls will be like this
but
this will nv work out lei.. 
-
I'm not a PAP fan, but I'm in favour of a stronger military and a selective draft system for girls to serve NS.
-
It's all or none. Selective draft will only lead to accusations of special treatment for the elite. I support NS for women as well. If there is to be gender equality, it is incongruous to have only male conscripts.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'm not a PAP fan, but I'm in favour of a stronger military and a selective draft system for girls to serve NS. -
NS for females was the topic I had to discuss on my NUS law school application 9 years ago. didn't eventually go to law school, but the arguments are the same. My female perspective is as follows:
First off, I don't think it's sustainable to pull all the females out of the workforce for 2 years. Doing it to all the guys is bad enough for the economy as it is, and our country's Defense spending is already a terrible burden. We'll all have to pay more taxes, and for what? Perceived gender equality? To teach the females "discipline" and "teamwork"?
Secondly, if we all did NS, who'd care for the young/old/sick in the event of a war?
What would it all achieve, other than equality for the guys? And in return, you'd get the financial drain of the lost productivity of these females, plus alot of resentment to boot.
Nursing for all females is a ludicrous idea. The threadstarter probably had no idea what the job involves, and what kind of constitution one must have to do it.
Community service for all the girls might be a more workable idea, but again there's the lost productivity.
I admit conscription is truly the burden of citizenship for the males, and I sympathise. Fortunately for me, sharing out the burden with the females is just not an economically viable option
-
suggestion. draft females into NS. Basic weapon handling, all that stuff.
Then post them to units to do COS duty! can rotate three 8-hour shifts. Girls do clerical duties, guys don't need to worry about burnt weekends, everyone's happy! -
My two cents:
Given you actually did an project on it... do you actually have the facts, figures and numbers to indicate that it indeed will be too high a cost to pay?Originally posted by cherry_garcia:NS for females was the topic I had to discuss on my NUS law school application 9 years ago. didn't eventually go to law school, but the arguments are the same. My female perspective is as follows:
First off, I don't think it's sustainable to pull all the females out of the workforce for 2 years. Doing it to all the guys is bad enough for the economy as it is, and our country's Defense spending is already a terrible burden. We'll all have to pay more taxes, and for what? Perceived gender equality? To teach the females "discipline" and "teamwork"?
Until then, I find it difficult to believe your statement by the sheer words of them alone. It seems to me in fact that what we must account for are two years (assuming no call back) of productivity lost in the workforce. But I must question if this can really be tanked... I see no reason why not. It's not as if we're talking 10 years here.
And why do you percieve defense spending a burdern? Without a credible defence there would really be no Singapore to begin with so I think that point is moot at best, and circular at worst.Secondly, if we all did NS, who'd care for the young/old/sick in the event of a war?
You seem to think of NS soley as picking up a weapon, and going to fight the enemy. But I must submit that this NS for females would not involve military defence, but rather be in the civil sectors in crisis.
Caring for the young/old/sick during war would be their NS duty, and the thing they train for. It beats having a civillian around with absolutely no crisis-skills that can be useful in time of war, and at worst a liability. When a bomb drops we will get less confused and frightened people and more people with a purpose, a skill, and organization on how to reduce the damage.
Leave the fighting to the guys I say, but train our ladies to know how to keep the home ground in working order as well.What would it all achieve, other than equality for the guys? And in return, you'd get the financial drain of the lost productivity of these females, plus alot of resentment to boot.[quote]
This is not about equality for the guys... if that was the case we would prehaps demand that the ladies do all the same dangerous and physically demanding tasks just for the sake of being "equal".
But on the extreme side, the current inbalance is in that our ladies are mostly clueless on what to do during a crisis... which would only hurt everybody in times of crisis. Also, you are forgetting the character building and other benefits that NS will provide. That said, guys may complain a lot about NS (which is really part and parcel of life), but when it push comes to shove they know what to do in times of danger. I'm not sure what can be said for our ladies now.
As for the productivity loss and drain, you've yet to produce the figures, but I wonder if it's more imaginary then real. I seriously doubt Singapore would be lost because our ladies had to give up two or so years.
And resentment? I think it goes a long way towards reducing resentment then increasing it. The higher starting pay for males can be scrapped, guys can finally shut most of their rational compliants about the unfairness of NS finally and what have you not.
[quote]Nursing for all females is a ludicrous idea. The threadstarter probably had no idea what the job involves, and what kind of constitution one must have to do it.
Community service for all the girls might be a more workable idea, but again there's the lost productivity.
The question is then if productivity must be the bottom line for our nation. In the same vein one can argue for a lot of things in the name of productivity.
On the other hand, the other benefits of female NS can go a long way as well.I admit conscription is truly the burden of citizenship for the males, and I sympathise. Fortunately for me, sharing out the burden with the females is just not an economically viable option
I don't see conscription as a burdern on my part, having done it. It sure has no lack of bad moments but all in all I learnt a lot in there.
In many ways it was an extra two years of education, a school in which to learn many life skills that are not taught in school.
I submit that female National Service is indeed a possible idea, not for the sake of equality... but for the advantages it provides to the female character and nation building and security in whole. -
Did't it strange that this Cherry posted in the other thread claimed herself as a Doc n now she is a Lawyer here??
Is she a Dog or a Pig???
May be a MBBS cum LLB???
May be cum my C!!!!
-
This is an old argument. Why should it be economically sustainable for all the males to be out of the workforce and not a single female? Israel has female conscripts and it does not appear to damage its economy much.Originally posted by cherry_garcia:First off, I don't think it's sustainable to pull all the females out of the workforce for 2 years. Doing it to all the guys is bad enough for the economy as it is, and our country's Defense spending is already a terrible burden. We'll all have to pay more taxes, and for what? Perceived gender equality? To teach the females "discipline" and "teamwork"?
In any case, they need not all serve NS at the same time. Since the intention is to deploy them in the civil defence force and hospitals as nursing aides, they can serve their NS anytime before they are 30. The boys have to do their NS whilst they are still young enough to charge up Pengang Hill, not necessarily the girls, as long as they serve.
In the event of a war, who would assist the few female and elderly male doctors left in the hospital when all the younger male doctors are serving in the frontline? Who would repair the houses that are damaged by bombs? Who would drive the ambulances? Who would rescue the trapped civilians following an air raid? All the more reason to train the women to handle these tasks.Originally posted by cherry_garcia:Secondly, if we all did NS, who'd care for the young/old/sick in the event of a war?
Have you not considered the 'constitution' needed for guys to learn to kill enemies on the battlefield? Not every guy is born for the army. What about the 120kg guy who has to shed his extra kilos to run up a jacob's ladder? What about his constitution? Every citizen has to put up with the sacrifice and it aint a sacrifice if it does not hurt you.Originally posted by cherry_garcia:Nursing for all females is a ludicrous idea. The threadstarter probably had no idea what the job involves, and what kind of constitution one must have to do it.
Nope, it is economically viable, as it has been proven in Israel. It just requires some planning and lots of political will. Singapore women are getting far too soft, no doubt the result of too many foreign maids. A spell in national service will be good for them.Originally posted by cherry_garcia:I admit conscription is truly the burden of citizenship for the males, and I sympathise. Fortunately for me, sharing out the burden with the females is just not an economically viable option -
National Service a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see ourselves as surrounded by enemies, and that's what we are going to get. All our foreign policies and what not are geared towards treating neighbours as potential foes. Instead of preparing for peace, we prepare for war. Israel is physically surrounded by enemies. A totally different scenario. But our brilliant rulers aped Israel, thinking we are in the same situation. Many right wing Christians are regulars in the army, thinking they are serving God's purposes.
-
Really? Prehaps over 50 years of past history apparently never took place? Have you not heard of the Indonesians declaring hostilities and bombing us back then? Have you not heard a lot of talk up north about one day retaking Singapore because we were "cheated" from them by the Brits?Originally posted by chiabaliao:National Service a self-fulfilling prophecy. We see ourselves as surrounded by enemies, and that's what we are going to get. All our foreign policies and what not are geared towards treating neighbours as potential foes. Instead of preparing for peace, we prepare for war. Israel is physically surrounded by enemies. A totally different scenario. But our brilliant rulers aped Israel, thinking we are in the same situation. Many right wing Christians are regulars in the army, thinking they are serving God's purposes.
Are you so blinded by your need to remove NS that you ignore the rather flippant and difficult character of our neighbours? Do you seriously think others will play nice simply because we tally all our policies to appleasement them and go "tolong tolong, don't tekan us leh?" Do you think being treated as the "chinese problem" and "small brother" in all regional relations is the way to go?
I think it's foolhardly, given our puny size, to play a policy of appeasement. Unless you can determine the kinds of leaders that other nations elect, a big stick is always needed to make sure that there is this big check and measure to prevent brinksmanship from becoming reality.
Even those politicians opposed to NS back then never suggested a policy of appeasement, they had no illusions over if other countries were going to play punk... but their idea was to rely on the Yanks and Aussies for defence.
This is the most basic in game theory... a tatic that relies on being nice or giving all of the time will eventually fail because all it takes is the other player to ruthlessly exploit it and the nice player is finished. I think your post was bizzarely optimistic and niave about the true state of international affairs in here... prehaps ironic as well, considering that your shallow notion that playing nice would be a viable subsitute could only be made possible by you being comfortable, chiabaliao and ignorant enough in stable Singapore to be so dull on international affairs... a state that could only be made possible in the first place by NS. -
Wow, you jump into defence when I am talking about national service. And you so easily jump into conclusion about appeasement and being nice with your game theory. How naive is that? Our neighbours are difficult? Ever think why we are difficult towards them?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Really? Prehaps over 50 years of past history apparently never took place? Have you not heard of the Indonesians declaring hostilities and bombing us back then? Have you not heard a lot of talk up north about one day retaking Singapore because we were "cheated" from them by the Brits?
Are you so blinded by your need to remove NS that you ignore the rather flippant and difficult character of our neighbours? Do you seriously think others will play nice simply because we tally all our policies to appleasement them and go "tolong tolong, don't tekan us leh?" Do you think being treated as the "chinese problem" and "small brother" in all regional relations is the way to go?
I think it's foolhardly, given our puny size, to play a policy of appeasement. Unless you can determine the kinds of leaders that other nations elect, a big stick is always needed to make sure that there is this big check and measure to prevent brinksmanship from becoming reality.
Even those politicians opposed to NS back then never suggested a policy of appeasement, they had no illusions over if other countries were going to play punk... but their idea was to rely on the Yanks and Aussies for defence.
This is the most basic in game theory... a tatic that relies on being nice or giving all of the time will eventually fail because all it takes is the other player to ruthlessly exploit it and the nice player is finished. I think your post was bizzarely optimistic and niave about the true state of international affairs in here... prehaps ironic as well, considering that your shallow notion that playing nice would be a viable subsitute could only be made possible by you being comfortable, chiabaliao and ignorant enough in stable Singapore to be so dull on international affairs... a state that could only be made possible in the first place by NS. -
Just moving to shut you down in all possible bases before you can even move down any lines of argument, even if you choose to move down them or not is none of my concern.Originally posted by chiabaliao:Wow, you jump into defence when I am talking about national service. And you so easily jump into conclusion about appeasement and being nice with your game theory. How naive is that? Our neighbours are difficult? Ever think why we are difficult towards them?
I think few people have any illusions about local regional politics... it's mostly a case of saying nice things to each other and trying to cooperate as and when we can while holding a big stick and finding big rocks at the same time.
It has always been that way since the colonial powers left. Singapore could do better to be more sensitive in regional politics, but only a fool in this region does not prepare for war or have a credible last resort.
So what was your point on NS being a self-fufilling prophecy then? Do you then have any alternative for the defence of our nation? Or prehaps you are just pointing out the rather obvious that being strong in military tends to make people uncomfortable, but there's no other viable way about it- not if you are not willing to accept being bullied.
Might as well argue against the sun. It is niave to think that other nations will be easy with you just because you are easy with them.
So what has your point being? Except to argue the obvious as if it was any sort of a point for change... when it was never one to begin with?
NS is a large part of keeping the peace in our nation and in the region, if you want to argue that having a credible military only leads to conflict and not doing so is "preparing for peace"... the onus is on you to prove that. Take the mentality of our surrounding countries into account, the things they choose and ask of us, their own internal politics... and I wonder exactly how your idea of "preparing for peace" works out. -
I expect that. Very typical of hawkish mentality, jumping into conclusion. Thinking in black and white as well. It is very naive to think that just because you are tough, others will respect you. We have the evidence now, transparently clear. Even poor African nations will spend tons and tons of money on military hardware, and the rich nations are only too eager to sell them. The military economy is probably the biggest in the world.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Just moving to shut you down in all possible bases before you can even move down any lines of argument, even if you choose to move down them or not is none of my concern.
I think few people have any illusions about local regional politics... it's mostly a case of saying nice things to each other and trying to cooperate as and when we can while holding a big stick and finding big rocks at the same time.
It has always been that way since the colonial powers left. Singapore could do better to be more sensitive in regional politics, but only a fool in this region does not prepare for war or have a credible last resort.
So what was your point on NS being a self-fufilling prophecy then? Do you then have any alternative for the defence of our nation? Or prehaps you are just pointing out the rather obvious that being strong in military tends to make people uncomfortable, but there's no other viable way about it- not if you are not willing to accept being bullied.
Might as well argue against the sun. It is niave to think that other nations will be easy with you just because you are easy with them.
So what has your point being? Except to argue the obvious as if it was any sort of a point for change... when it was never one to begin with?
NS is a large part of keeping the peace in our nation and in the region, if you want to argue that having a credible military only leads to conflict and not doing so is "preparing for peace"... the onus is on you to prove that. Take the mentality of our surrounding countries into account, the things they choose and ask of us, their own internal politics... and I wonder exactly how your idea of "preparing for peace" works out. -
Ah evading my questions with jibber jabber, I expected that. Don't blame your opponent for pwning you in discussion and go crying that they are hawkish and jumping into conclusions because you started out with a position you didn't understand to begin with.Originally posted by chiabaliao:I expect that. Very typical of hawkish mentality, jumping into conclusion. Thinking in black and white as well. It is very naive to think that just because you are tough, others will respect you. We have the evidence now, transparently clear. Even poor African nations will spend tons and tons of money on military hardware, and the rich nations are only too eager to sell them. The military economy is probably the biggest in the world.
You might do well to understand some basic skills of debate before you start in here, here let me teach you a little well known lesson from Sun Tzu:
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose.
So please bother to come up with something proper and understand your own position before your next post. Not only are your posts failing to have any effect on our positions, I'm afraid it's making you look evasive and of poor standing. It's your choice, you can carry on your weak line of argument or actually go and improve yourself and do your homework.
If you so decide to say so, then you must live by your words... other then that they are just that. Words.
Besides criticisms what then, is your proposed solution to our security issues? What is your idea of utopia and how can it be achieved given our current situtation? If you have no solutions then I'm afraid your opinions are of no value.
If you really have none except to call people here and there a hawk and naive at anything you can't bear to read... I'm afaid nobody's is going to give you much consideration in here.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Ha ha, again you love to quote Sun Tze when of all persons, he is actually a pacifist. He knows the best way to avoid war, not just aiming your weaponry at your neighbours. More a case of paranoia than knowing yourself and knowing your enemies. Did I say enemies? Oh my God, we still live in that age, like we don't have permanent neighbours to live with. Did I just hint at the solution to our security? Think harder.
Ah evading my questions with jibber jabber, I expected that. Don't blame your opponent for pwning you in discussion and go crying that they are hawkish and jumping into conclusions because you started out with a position you didn't understand to begin with.
You might do well to understand some basic skills of debate before you start in here, here let me teach you a little well known lesson from Sun Tzu:
[b]So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose.
So please bother to come up with something proper and understand your own position before your next post. Not only are your posts failing to have any effect on our positions, I'm afraid it's making you look evasive and of poor standing. It's your choice, you can carry on your weak line of argument or actually go and improve yourself and do your homework.
If you so decide to say so, then you must live by your words... other then that they are just that. Words.
Besides criticisms what then, is your proposed solution to our security issues? What is your idea of utopia and how can it be achieved given our current situtation? If you have no solutions then I'm afraid your opinions are of no value.
If you really have none except to call people here and there a hawk and naive at anything you can't bear to read... I'm afaid nobody's is going to give you much consideration in here. [/b] -
...Originally posted by chiabaliao:Ha ha, again you love to quote Sun Tze when of all persons, he is actually a pacifist. He knows the best way to avoid war, not just aiming your weaponry at your neighbours. More a case of paranoia than knowing yourself and knowing your enemies. Did I say enemies? Oh my God, we still live in that age, like we don't have permanent neighbours to live with. Did I just hint at the solution to our security? Think harder.
Do you really need to prove my point on you not knowing yourself, nor your subject matter with your very post... really... are you seriously putting forward a proper position or are you a strawman sockpuppet who actually supports NS by trying to discredit position you appear to support to begin with? Because I find it hard to believe a person could make such obvious mistakes.
Sun Tzu is a pacifist? You obvious do not understand the term to begin with. Sun Tzu knew quite naturally that the most skillful way of winning was to disarm your opponent without physical battle at all.
HOWEVER, he knew enough that the realities of warfare meant that some times the stuff will hit the fan and you have to fight. Hence he knew plenty about how to get the best killing when it came to it. He was not a pacifist, he was a realist. He understood the utilities of peace but didn't slack on what to do when it came to war as well.
Under his advice in Wu, there was plenty of bloodshed in his methods... so you can go figure if this is really the work of a pacifist.
To understand what a pacifist is, please go read up on it. Sun Tzu was no pacifist. Please don't make a fool of yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifist
Do you "hint" at your "solution" because it is mostly a nebulous position that you are making up as you go along? As of yet you are saying nothing. Try harder.
Our neighbours are not our enemies, but I don't think anyone in here has any illusions about how quickly things can turn sour. And there are more then enough factors out of our control that requires vigilance and a ready military. I don't really know what you are driving at, except to make people laugh at your ignorance.
Maybe you need to take a visit to East Timor or Southern Thailand to understand what is happening on our doorsteps.
Everybody wants peace, but if you think it comes by always playing nice I think you are sadly out of touch with what's happening all around. With or without NS or SAF, these things will still happen. It is a choice of if you want to take it lying down or being able to stand your ground if it really has to come to it.
Simple as that. -
Out of how many would willingly cut their varnished nails or give up their Bugis/Orchard roaming days with their "stylish" clothing?
-
Not very likely...
Feminists in the US would frown on this... when they mean equal, they really mean equal... pushing for women to be including in each and every thing that men can do.
Here it's more of a pick and mix basis. Take this if it suits us and keep quiet if it does not.