Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
The coverup happened well before the more recent Lee Hong Yi debacle. Back then, the goal was coverup. With the LHY incident, they were more concerned with improving public image by making an example out of him. Of course the truth is, LHY would suffer no long term detriment from being made an example of, due to who his family is. I have no doubt that none of the decisions in the LHY debacle came from any sense of fairness or justice, and was totally motivated by a desire to improve the public perception of the govt, mindef and saf.
As for the incident which i speak of, i personally knew the victim, and I agree that those 4 innocent scapegoats were sacrificed, but not for the sake of accountability, but for the sake of protecting 2 guilty parties. I sometimes feel responsible for the sacrifice of those 4, for my direct actions had led to the need for public accountability, but I had not expected our govt to sink as low as they did in not bringing the true culprits to justice just because they're white horses. I suppose however, that in an effort to improve the image of the govt mindef and saf, the incident subsequently led to the decisions taken in the LHY debacle.
If the LHY incident had happened BEFORE the other... *ahem* incident, I'd agree its hard to believe anyone else can be spared. But the truth is that it happened about 4 years after, which is why the LHY matter was treated the way it was.
In fairness, I would like to retract my overly generic statement about all SAF colonels. I have met good men during my unfortunately brief time in service, and I do have a few COs (Lt Cols and Cols) who stand out in memory. However, I still have my doubts about our Generals.
-
!!! ... -
DUMB SLUTS,SO THAT I CAN LICK THEIR COOCHIES ALL THE WAY.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
In fairness, I would like to retract my overly generic statement about all SAF colonels. I have met good men during my unfortunately brief time in service, and I do have a few COs (Lt Cols and Cols) who stand out in memory. However, I still have my doubts about our Generals.
I thank you for your retraction, but i would also like to take the opportunity to assure you that LTA Lee HY's case was no publicity stunt.
SAF focuses more on training our young. It is an institution of learning by itself. Among many other forms of beneficial training it offers in moulding the character of our spore men, it also teaches one to hate military trainning, so that when we ORD, we will not take our democracy and freedom for granted, or live under a military regime.
As such, being a learning institution by itself, whatever mistakes one makes in there is not hushed up, but kept within the institution and not made to the press for public consumption. No one in the democratic civilian organisations or employers will have access to military records, for it is only a training institute, and any assesments it makes are for the purpose of war should it appears on our shores, and they don't interfere with our democratic civilian lives, other than the necessary 40 days per year for reservists trainning to be kept updated on the latest developements.
Thus, LTA Lee's mistake was not hushed up, but kept within the organisation itself, a learning lesson he will come to realize as he matures within SAF, an example only meant for other soldiers to avoid and learn from it. SAF had no intention of shaming our young beyond the confines of the training military institution.
However, some reporters got wind of it, and because of him being our leader's son, it got reported and thus he was shamed in public, which many of our own soldiers would never be put through. He was not a publicity stunt.
Thus SAF followed its principles, and had tried to keep a low profile over it. He is only a human, a soldier, a fellow citizen. No one would sacrifice him or any other young citizen.
Each organisation will have its bad eggs. But rest assured that ALL employees within SAF are citizens, and will strive to make it better within military rule limitations, as it evolves into the digital age. So do have a bit more confidence in SAF. It is there to help, defend and protect our nation.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
We have to work to help support the familyWe have to study to upgrade and get better pay
We have to balance our working life with family life
We have to give birth
We have to give satisfy our men
We have to cook and do housework
We have to care for in-laws
We have to care for our own parents
And now u want us to do NS services....please lah, guys, enuf of your nonsenical male egostic mindset
Besides giving birth, I don't see men doing anything less.
Stop your non sensical female egoistic mindset.
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
dun forget the 4 secs rule...
The problem is many women are not aware what we are really trained for and assume our soldiers to behave like barbarians by default.
-
hey girls,
if you want to have ur so called gender equality, equal employment opportunity, education opportunity, equal rights, jolly well accept the not-so-glorified facts of the dark side of gender equality. All those benefits mentioned above come at a price.
and to the guys, esp those military nuts here, please stop quoting dumb WWII facts. They are "so, so relevant" in this time and age. in the 21st century, you don't see thousands of tanks coupled with millions of people striking at a particular target. modern wars are fought with combat specialists, e.g. commandos, guards. etc.
and again, though for guys, NS has synonymously become the equivalent of military service. I stress again that this is a perverted definition of NS. as Yamizi mentioned, NS can be also be in the form of non-combat services with no relation at all to the military.
you can have NS women serving as administrators in the various arms of the civil services ( again, i must stress again that civil service =/= SAF). that way, we can also help cut down on the cost of the civil servant's salary. :)
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
hey girls,
if you want to have ur so called gender equality, equal employment opportunity, education opportunity, equal rights, jolly well accept the not-so-glorified facts of the dark side of gender equality. All those benefits mentioned above come at a price.
and to the guys, esp those military nuts here, please stop quoting dumb WWII facts. They are "so, so relevant" in this time and age. in the 21st century, you don't see thousands of tanks coupled with millions of people striking at a particular target. modern wars are fought with combat specialists, e.g. commandos, guards. etc.
and again, though for guys, NS has synonymously become the equivalent of military service. I stress again that this is a perverted definition of NS. as Yamizi mentioned, NS can be also be in the form of non-combat services with no relation at all to the military.
you can have NS women serving as administrators in the various arms of the civil services ( again, i must stress again that civil service =/= SAF). that way, we can also help cut down on the cost of the civil servant's salary. :)
-delete-
-
Watching this topic and refraining from replying for a while.....I keep seeing people mentioning about non-military NS lar.....5 defense.
Then how about SCDF? NPF?
These recruit NSFs as well.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
NSF SCDF. You know??
i know, but from wad i observed from the posts by the girls on this thread, i think that even SCDF is too combat for them.me think that if there's any NS for women like them, it would be those nice-nice one, 9-5 office job, where they sit around doing almost nothing.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i know, but from wad i observed from the posts by the girls on this thread, i think that even SCDF is too combat for them.me think that if there's any NS for women like them, it would be those nice-nice one, 9-5 office job, where they sit around doing almost nothing.
I think sticking to the status quo for now would be better. -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
hey girls,
if you want to have ur so called gender equality, equal employment opportunity, education opportunity, equal rights, jolly well accept the not-so-glorified facts of the dark side of gender equality. All those benefits mentioned above come at a price.
and to the guys, esp those military nuts here, please stop quoting dumb WWII facts. They are "so, so relevant" in this time and age. in the 21st century, you don't see thousands of tanks coupled with millions of people striking at a particular target. modern wars are fought with combat specialists, e.g. commandos, guards. etc.
and again, though for guys, NS has synonymously become the equivalent of military service. I stress again that this is a perverted definition of NS. as Yamizi mentioned, NS can be also be in the form of non-combat services with no relation at all to the military.
you can have NS women serving as administrators in the various arms of the civil services ( again, i must stress again that civil service =/= SAF). that way, we can also help cut down on the cost of the civil servant's salary. :)
haha oh yes finally someone speaks up. f*cking agreed dude. incidentally i really do not see the need for 2 years of national service. esp in this modern age. i am sure the 2 years can really, be reduced to a matter of months, and the effectiveness of the armed forces maintained by having a pool of regular soldiers. ok fine but i am no SAF general or anything so i will know nuts.
what i do know is that 2 years is an effing waste of time AND THE GENERALS WILL NEVER KNOW THIS COS THEY'RE ALL FUCKING SAF OVERSEAS SCHOLARS
-
Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
The subject is very wide. Military service, Police and Civil Defence are the three main forms of national service in Singapore. National Service (NS) does not equal Army, although this the colloquial understanding in Singlish.
Women could serve National Service in nursing, teaching, community service as well as in the three main forms given above. If that come to be then the men's option should also include nursing, teaching and community service. This is to be fair to both genders.
That is idea isn't it? To be fair, equal suffering to all citizens, male or female.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
I thank you for your retraction, but i would also like to take the opportunity to assure you that LTA Lee HY's case was no publicity stunt.
SAF focuses more on training our young. It is an institution of learning by itself. Among many other forms of beneficial training it offers in moulding the character of our spore men, it also teaches one to hate military trainning, so that when we ORD, we will not take our democracy and freedom for granted, or live under a military regime.
As such, being a learning institution by itself, whatever mistakes one makes in there is not hushed up, but kept within the institution and not made to the press for public consumption. No one in the democratic civilian organisations or employers will have access to military records, for it is only a training institute, and any assesments it makes are for the purpose of war should it appears on our shores, and they don't interfere with our democratic civilian lives, other than the necessary 40 days per year for reservists trainning to be kept updated on the latest developements.
Thus, LTA Lee's mistake was not hushed up, but kept within the organisation itself, a learning lesson he will come to realize as he matures within SAF, an example only meant for other soldiers to avoid and learn from it. SAF had no intention of shaming our young beyond the confines of the training military institution.
However, some reporters got wind of it, and because of him being our leader's son, it got reported and thus he was shamed in public, which many of our own soldiers would never be put through. He was not a publicity stunt.
Thus SAF followed its principles, and had tried to keep a low profile over it. He is only a human, a soldier, a fellow citizen. No one would sacrifice him or any other young citizen.
Each organisation will have its bad eggs. But rest assured that ALL employees within SAF are citizens, and will strive to make it better within military rule limitations, as it evolves into the digital age. So do have a bit more confidence in SAF. It is there to help, defend and protect our nation.
Did it damage him? Really? Were it not for the newspapers I wouldn't have been aware that a member of the Lee dynasty is capable of a sense of justice, righteousness and courage. I highly doubt the newspaper reporting damaged him in any way, and only served to increase his standing in the eyes of many.
As for your views of SAF, I still have to say it is too idealistic, and not in line with reality.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
and to the guys, esp those military nuts here, please stop quoting dumb WWII facts. They are "so, so relevant" in this time and age. in the 21st century, you don't see thousands of tanks coupled with millions of people striking at a particular target. modern wars are fought with combat specialists, e.g. commandos, guards. etc.
Well I guess then that you haven't been following the CONVENTIONAL warfare that has been raging on the past 48 hours in Eastern Europe. Yes, set piece battles, tanks, troups attacking strategic objectives. The massive EU vs Russia conventional war that has been threatening to happen throughout the 70s and 80s during the cold war has ironically happened after the end of the cold war.It's a fool who doesn't realise that WWII facts are relevant because they've contributed to the evolution of warfare theory, and more importantly, because Russia still largely employs methods of conventional warfare thats not far off from WWII tactics. And now, we have a shooting war that Russia is directly involved in. Suddenly WWII facts don't seem that irrelevant anymore ^^
-
Originally posted by mancha:
That is idea isn't it? To be fair, equal suffering to all citizens, male or female.
That incidentally, is the principle that I agree with on the basis of gender equality. I see my fellow girls demanding equality but at the same time, are not willing to contribute. It's a bit farcial to demand equality but not contribute.
-
Originally posted by eyeballl:
what i do know is that 2 years is an effing waste of time AND THE GENERALS WILL NEVER KNOW THIS COS THEY'RE ALL FUCKING SAF OVERSEAS SCHOLARS
Hehehe. This I agree. 2 years in a military like the SAF IS a fucking waste of time.
You know something? The main argument for NS in Singapore is that we need the manpower, but people don't realise that there are countries with a far more active and effective standing military that is smaller in number than Singapore's, or that there are also countries in a far more precarious situation with a smaller standing military than Singapore's.
1) UK has a military that is committed to overseas military operations. They are the SECOND biggest contributor of troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq. Their military is certainly far busier than Singapore's, and more effective. Interestingly and tellingly, the size of UK's military is actually SMALLER than Singapore's.
2) Georgia is in a geographical location that is actually far more precarious than Singapore's. And yet they are able to do without NS, with a population that is only about 0.2 million greater than Singapore's population. Also, Georgia is the THIRD biggest contributor of troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq, with an active army size of 17,500 compare to Singapore's 60,500 regulars alone, it does make you question the need for NS for Singapore.
Perhaps, if Singapore's military was staffed completely by non-conscripts, the resources freed up from training, staffing and equipping conscripts could be better put towards have a corp of extremely dedicated, hardcore, professional soldiers. It would also weed out the current undedicated SAF regulars who are in there treating a SAF job as just another civilian job. It would certainly lead to an improvement in the standards of the SAF as a credible military force.
Food for thought.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Hehehe. This I agree. 2 years in a military like the SAF IS a fucking waste of time.
You know something? The main argument for NS in Singapore is that we need the manpower, but people don't realise that there are countries with a far more active and effective standing military that is smaller in number than Singapore's, or that there are also countries in a far more precarious situation with a smaller standing military than Singapore's.
1) UK has a military that is committed to overseas military operations. They are the SECOND biggest contributor of troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq. Their military is certainly far busier than Singapore's, and more effective. Interestingly and tellingly, the size of UK's military is actually SMALLER than Singapore's.
2) Georgia is in a geographical location that is actually far more precarious than Singapore's. And yet they are able to do without NS, with a population that is only about 0.2 million greater than Singapore's population. Also, Georgia is the THIRD biggest contributor of troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq, with an active army size of 17,500 compare to Singapore's 60,500 regulars alone, it does make you question the need for NS for Singapore.
Perhaps, if Singapore's military was staffed completely by non-conscripts, the resources freed up from training, staffing and equipping conscripts could be better put towards have a corp of extremely dedicated, hardcore, professional soldiers. It would also weed out the current undedicated SAF regulars who are in there treating a SAF job as just another civilian job. It would certainly lead to an improvement in the standards of the SAF as a credible military force.
Food for thought.
wha lau!!! waste time someore us women to serve, or maybe when we serve, it may not be wasting time afterall. -
Originally posted by yamizi:
Besides giving birth, I don't see men doing anything less.
Stop your non sensical female egoistic mindset.
i had stopped long ago, but 9 month of pain and carry you from your mother belly should certainly command some egoistic mindset in her, and all this while guys just enjoy. -
Originally posted by mancha:
Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
The subject is very wide. Military service, Police and Civil Defence are the three main forms of national service in Singapore. National Service (NS) does not equal Army, although this the colloquial understanding in Singlish.
Women could serve National Service in nursing, teaching, community service as well as in the three main forms given above. If that come to be then the men's option should also include nursing, teaching and community service. This is to be fair to both genders.
That is idea isn't it? To be fair, equal suffering to all citizens, male or female.
Yeah!
Someone understand what I mean by non-uniformed Natonal Service!
Nursing, teaching and community service!
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
i had stopped long ago, but 9 month of pain and carry you from your mother belly should certainly command some egoistic mindset in her, and all this while guys just enjoy.Though biologically you are enable to give birth, if you really find it terrible, horrible or whatever other reasons that your boasted ego is making you feeling unfair, you can don't give birth too.
I know some couples who don't intend to give birth anyway.
-
Originally posted by 4Justice:
Hehehe. This I agree. 2 years in a military like the SAF IS a fucking waste of time.
You know something? The main argument for NS in Singapore is that we need the manpower, but people don't realise that there are countries with a far more active and effective standing military that is smaller in number than Singapore's, or that there are also countries in a far more precarious situation with a smaller standing military than Singapore's.
1) UK has a military that is committed to overseas military operations. They are the SECOND biggest contributor of troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq. Their military is certainly far busier than Singapore's, and more effective. Interestingly and tellingly, the size of UK's military is actually SMALLER than Singapore's.
2) Georgia is in a geographical location that is actually far more precarious than Singapore's. And yet they are able to do without NS, with a population that is only about 0.2 million greater than Singapore's population. Also, Georgia is the THIRD biggest contributor of troops to the US-led coalition in Iraq, with an active army size of 17,500 compare to Singapore's 60,500 regulars alone, it does make you question the need for NS for Singapore.
Perhaps, if Singapore's military was staffed completely by non-conscripts, the resources freed up from training, staffing and equipping conscripts could be better put towards have a corp of extremely dedicated, hardcore, professional soldiers. It would also weed out the current undedicated SAF regulars who are in there treating a SAF job as just another civilian job. It would certainly lead to an improvement in the standards of the SAF as a credible military force.
Food for thought.
If Singapore's military is going to be staffed completely by non-conscripts, I believe the Defence budget will be up up and away again...
I believe any regulars who is with SAF indeed is treating it as a job. There's nothing wrong to treat it as a job what. It IS a job. A job that has very much different jobscope as compare to the civillians as well. Besides, most of the regulars, after their years of service will have problem getting second job as the society usually label their experience as not relevant to the society.
So who wants to be in the regular service?
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
Though biologically you are enable to give birth, if you really find it terrible, horrible or whatever other reasons that your boasted ego is making you feeling unfair, you can don't give birth too.
I know some couples who don't intend to give birth anyway.
That is irresponsible, we as human are getting from bad to worst, inorder to carry on our existence, it is our responsibility to produce and nurture our youngs like me, look at those animals or even insects, they are struggling under harsh enviroment, yet they struggle to produce, if all couple do not intend to give birth, what will happen, 2 not equal to 2, 2 = 0 will be the scenarios.
Tho i may not feel it, but i think when i get married, i will at least have 2 kids or more to carry on our human existence. The problem here is, who to marry??
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
That is irresponsible, we as human are getting from bad to worst, inorder to carry on our existence, it is our responsibility to produce and nurture our youngs like me, look at those animals or even insects, they are struggling under harsh enviroment, yet they struggle to produce, if all couple do not intend to give birth, what will happen, 2 not equal to 2, 2 = 0 will be the scenarios.
Tho i may not feel it, but i think when i get married, i will at least have 2 kids or more to carry on our human existence. The problem here is, who to marry??
You're simply having children for the sake of having children. So don't use that as reason to justify your feminist ego =) -
Originally posted by yamizi:
Yeah!
Someone understand what I mean by non-uniformed Natonal Service!
Nursing, teaching and community service!
Nurse no uniform meh, me also got Brownie uniform, last time me also serve 4 years for the Brownie Association of Sg. And now Young RC member ok.No big deal of NS, 2 years only mah. Why you all guys so lame one, like this only Cowbaycowboo.