SDP’s policy paper on National Service
-
2 years is a must as we are short of men,
Need how many men? How come short of men?
-
Our local workforce is decreasing in nos,
That is why I say reduce NSF term.
-
People, Singapore is a first world nation for goodness sake...
THose 20 nations from the list VS 2 nations that has conscription longer than singapore, whats the ratio?
If other nations can do it, why not singapore. ANd bear in mind the 2 nations not listed are Israel and S.Korea who have REAL enemies who are nt afraid to make known their hostile intentions.(THe article should have mention all nations so ppl wun use this to attack the article)Ok you might say 2 years to train an officer is just enough.. Ok fine. 2 years, but how about the reservist cycle that is eating into our private lives?
Pls.. Singaporeans want a shorter reservist cycle. THat doesnt mean when the nation is in need we will tuck our tails btw our feet and hide. -
(THe article should have mention all nations so ppl wun use this to attack the article)
The article mentioned:
From the above data, it can be seen that for all intents and purposes a conscript army training programme need not be as long as the one we have in Singapore. The more advance countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and Switzerland all have full-time services limited to one year and less.
Even Taiwan, which has an identifiable enemy in the form of China, limits its active service to 12 months. Only countries like South Korea and Israel have conscription periods that are longer than Singapore’s. These countries are, however, in a state of war.
Ok you might say 2 years to train an officer is just enough.
Not enough lah.
That is why officer regular better.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
The article mentioned:
From the above data, it can be seen that for all intents and purposes a conscript army training programme need not be as long as the one we have in Singapore. The more advance countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and Switzerland all have full-time services limited to one year and less.
Even Taiwan, which has an identifiable enemy in the form of China, limits its active service to 12 months. Only countries like South Korea and Israel have conscription periods that are longer than Singapore’s. These countries are, however, in a state of war.
My Bad... Eye tak stamp when reading article...
-
I know that the word, “SDP”, will immediately raise the blood pressure and anger of some individuals. But for once, I cannot help but acknowledge that this piece of writing has some truth in it. Only when one takes off his or her myopic “anti-SDP” or “anti-oppo” glasses, and read it with a neutral mindset, then can we really realize some of the “gems” in the article.
For those who have spend time doing NS before, you will notice that training can be shortened without compromising combat capabilities. A lot of precious training time available in NS is wasted on doing things that do not contribute to direct combat capabilities (wayang stuff). Example would be like rehearsing for change of command for higher echelon ppl and national day. During my NS days, there was supposed to be a COC for a colonel in our brigade, in which the organizers literally turned that simple ceremony into a mini NDP. The reservist were called back to take part, and a motorized contingent was assembled for this parade!! Yes, I am talking abt 120mm mortar, Jeeps, unimogs, rovers, tonners. They even have soldiers rappelling down from the building with colored smoke being released. Yes, this parade may seem grand, pompous and magnificent, but too much time is spent on preparing for this showmanship. We spent about 3 weeks practicing for it and also to put up the decors. I mean, hack, this guy is only a colonel, and it is not as if he is retiring. He is just posted somewhere else and since most of the regulars are in for only the money, it is not as if he is gonna shed a load of tear just bcos he is leaving. Besides, there were no foreign guest nor are there any civilians attending it, thus why waste so much money and effort to do such things?
The next is NDP. Most ppl will know that it takes abt 6months to do this show, regardless whether you are marching or supporting. Most big countries hold grand parades to show case their weapons so as to flex their muscles psychologically at others. While if you notice our parade, it consist of very little military component except the marching contingent and they seems to have stop parading those armors and weapons. If that’s the case, why involve the SAF? These jobs could easily be out-sourced to PA isn’t it? The only reason SAF is doing it, is bcos it is FOC as conscripts are involved. This reminds me of personal encounter during NDP prep. There was this SIR Bn involved in the task of erecting a stage around the stadium for the dancers to perform on. I personally witnessed a soldier that almost fell off the scaffold while erecting the stage. Thankfully his mates caught him in time, upon recovering from his shock, only to be scolded by his superior for slackening. From the height, should he fall, he is going to be paralyzed for life. So the question is, why dun the organizing committees hire professional contractors to do the job? I see the rest of the guys have a hard time erecting the stage as they are not trained adequately? What’s worst is that the committee did not provide adequate protection for the soldiers when they are constructing the stage.
NE packages. During my NS, we are frequently shown documentaries on the history of SG and how we became wad we are as of today. The strange thing is, those show, seem to narrate nothing but how great LKY is. Even the founding father of SAF, Goh Keng Swee is not even mentioned in those shows. I was wondering shouldn’t the army be neutral? Why politicize SAF by showing those so called NE films that is aimed at only showing one side of the argument?
-
I was wondering shouldn’t the army be neutral? Why politicize SAF by showing those so called NE films that is aimed at only showing one side of the argument?
Have to brainwash a bit lah, otherwise some joker lanuch a military coup against PAP regime and Lee Kuan Yew how?
-
I don't know if money spent on education was wasted on certain people. Certain parts of NE isn't propaganda. The fact is that Singapore lacks strategic depth to mount any sort of defence. The British got poked in the ass when they were the colonial masters of this island, and now people are talking about potential changes in NS policy that will jeopardise the credibility of our defence.
Their argument, that
1. Technology makes up for Quantity.
Sure enough, technology is a force multiplier. But at the same time, there is a limit to how much effectiveness technology can make up for. Look at the US's frantic search in Afghanistan for OBL from 2001 until 2008. They've got the best military technology and firepower out there, but how effective were they in finding Osama?
Look at US Operations in Iraq. A small rag tag force of insurgents that strike out of the shadow is able to tie down a LARGER AND TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR FORCE. Defence gaps are so huge that MORE troops are required to go into Iraq. I wouldn't say SDP is short sighted. They are BLIND.
And if that doesn't make sense, the principle of "redundancy" should. The turns in war is seldom predictable, and we can't always say that being "sufficient" is enough. We need to take into account for attrition losses that cannot be avoided, to cover up for any defense gaps that maybe caused. Strategic situations change faster than we can predict and react, hence a system that can be dynamically altered to adapt to changes need to be in place. Reducing our manpower does NOT help us to adapt to change.
Finally, any conflict in Singapore, is unlikely to be just a regional tussle. In the last few examples in history, Singapore was dragged into a larger world conflict, WW1 and WW2. Chances are, if fighting ever hits our region, we will need every man available, and all the training he has learnt to defend this country.
The kind of "evidence" they've brought up is more than laughable.
1.Austria (6 months)
4.Denmark (4-12 months)
5.Estonia (8-11 months)
6.Finland (6-12 months)
7.Germany (9 months)
8.Greece (12 months)
15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks)
18.Turkey (12 months)Are part of the European Union and have some form security arrangement as part of the European Union Battlegroup. If not, there is always NATO.
After Russia's little adventure into Georgia, every one those countries have woken up to smell the coffee. Don't be surprised if the EU suddenly militarized and service lengths increased.
Personally, conscientious objectors who are medically and physically fit OUGHT TO BE SHOT. Thats what people do in war to deserters. Allowing "some" people to simply skip national service would be the epitome of unequal application of the law.
Reservist training needs to be revised. Yes, but not drastically reduced as proposed. Reservist above the age of 30 need to be well taken care of such that their training does not harm their physical health and well being. However, reducing service age to 30 is a step too far. WE NEED the manpower.
And again, some genius at their party spouts off as though they know exactly what "frontlines" are. Look again at today's conflicts. Weapons capability and technology (which they claim to be the ultimate force mutliplier) can bring high-explosive suffering and death to greater distances and effectivness. Fighting on the "frontlines" might be safer than you think if they enemy is careful to avoid blasting his own people back to Kingdom come. BY THE WAY, they do know that most military strategem involve INTENTIONAL targeting of "rear-line" support elements... right?
However, I do agree that more openness and compensations require review. Soldiers need to feel motivated to do their duty. They also need to have the assurance that their family members and themselves will be taken care of should any mishaps occur in the line of duty. The only thing I see eye to eye in their latest round of BS.
Strategic Myopia.
-
Shotgun, how many standing troops does SAF need?
-
Poh Ah Pak, how much money do you need?
This is not meant to be a retort, but something to consider.
-
Poh Ah Pak, how much money do you need?
Why, you want to give me money?
-
-.-
My point was, if we are addressing "needs", the amount needed changes from time to time. No one likes to be caught in a situation where an emergency arises but there isn't sufficient financial ability to manage.
Look, if you want an arguement, refute my points.
-
my training took more than a year to complete and it was a rushed effort.. there were some periods where we trained from 7 to 7 everyday in order to meet the deadline and to allow the next team to start their training.... lunch was out at the training grounds and dinner was at around 8... and the training was already at the bare minimum i feel... some of us almost couldn't pass the basic training course...
Pray tell me how do you propose to further lower the time spent on NS w/o compromising on quality of the training?
-
it make sense to reduce the training period to the minimum, and still remain effective. hence, the sispec, ocs training is all like optimal le, very hard to cut down without compromising the effectiveness.
if reduce the ns period further, all the ocs trainee will pass out, and spend very little time in command, and won't have the experience needed.
-
I think maybe can reduce the number of years they go back for reservist..very disruptive to my bf's work and life and he has to plan very carefully and complete them conscientiously so that he don't have to go back and take his ippt when he is 40 years old.. and risk collapsing from heart failure etc ? cannot concentrate on making $$$ to make ends meet when price increase becomes a quarterly fare..
dunno what they do when they go for reservist but apparently he tells me he can spend time waiting for things to happen .. 6 hrs? and report super early to go there and wait..have to take cab at 5am and spend $30 over .. is it good use of time and resources?
correct me if i am wrong...
-
i think that are so many dummies out here who either failed their math or simply has poor logical reasoning skills.
Cutting NS to 1 yr does not decrease manpower. SAF is big becos of its reserves forces. even if you cut NS to 1 yr, these discharged nsf would still be liable for reservice duty, and they still compromise the bulk of the saf manpower.
and active reservice duty can also be cut to 30. cutting the duration of reservice also does not mean that it will compromise actuall manpower available in emergencies. right now, if there's a ourbreak of war in spore, and that we really face a shortage of manpower, those who are no longer ns-liable, over the age of 40 or 50 will still be called up. no, there is no argument against the cutting down of NS duration.
in addition, our nsf, ahd been for 41 yrs exploited as cheap labor. When the saf was found, it is understood that the country has financial constraints which prevents nsf from receiving normal salary , so people are contend to receive monetary compensation in the form of meagre allowance.
but now, singapore has entered the first world, and is the 2nd richest country in East Asia. but why are our nsf still receiving a lower wage than the avgeraghe bangla workers out on the streets? $350 a month, for a 24/7 job. i'm not sure if ang foreign labourer would even want that kind of job lah. somemore the "contract" period is 2 yrs, and no moonlighting is allowed. if you don't report to "work", you will get jailed for much longer than 2 yrs.
and why is it that 1 month isn't enough to train junior officers? (2nd LTA)
those officers are not very professional either, assuming what lee hongyi exposed during his NS stint is reflective of NS as a whole.
so why not delegate the regulars as the bulk of the pool of officers? if anyone want a career with the army, or to be an officer, then they should jolly well sign on and be a regular. after 2 months of BMT (those fit for OCS serve only, 9wks.) theres still 10 months left for training and ocs.
if you are really so concerned about having adequate time for ocs training, you can always extend NS for officers, to as long as it needs, while the others get to complete their NS in 1 yr.
there is no point in making our army boys to act as clowns to entertain the VIPs and the political bigwigs. it defeats the purpose of the army.
the army is there to defend the country, not to entertain the public, nor to be expoited as cheap labor to serve as "stage constructors" and "road marshals".
-
Two sentences :-
"Let those who knows, do the job"
"those who dont know, learn"
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i think that are so many dummies out here who either failed their math or simply has poor logical reasoning skills.
Cutting NS to 1 yr does not decrease manpower. SAF is big becos of its reserves forces. even if you cut NS to 1 yr, these discharged nsf would still be liable for reservice duty, and they still compromise the bulk of the saf manpower.
and active reservice duty can also be cut to 30. cutting the duration of reservice also does not mean that it will compromise actuall manpower available in emergencies. right now, if there's a ourbreak of war in spore, and that we really face a shortage of manpower, those who are no longer ns-liable, over the age of 40 or 50 will still be called up. no, there is no argument against the cutting down of NS duration.
in addition, our nsf, ahd been for 41 yrs exploited as cheap labor. When the saf was found, it is understood that the country has financial constraints which prevents nsf from receiving normal salary , so people are contend to receive monetary compensation in the form of meagre allowance.
but now, singapore has entered the first world, and is the 2nd richest country in East Asia. but why are our nsf still receiving a lower wage than the avgeraghe bangla workers out on the streets? $350 a month, for a 24/7 job. i'm not sure if ang foreign labourer would even want that kind of job lah. somemore the "contract" period is 2 yrs, and no moonlighting is allowed. if you don't report to "work", you will get jailed for much longer than 2 yrs.
and why is it that 1 month isn't enough to train junior officers? (2nd LTA)
those officers are not very professional either, assuming what lee hongyi exposed during his NS stint is reflective of NS as a whole.
so why not delegate the regulars as the bulk of the pool of officers? if anyone want a career with the army, or to be an officer, then they should jolly well sign on and be a regular. after 2 months of BMT (those fit for OCS serve only, 9wks.) theres still 10 months left for training and ocs.
if you are really so concerned about having adequate time for ocs training, you can always extend NS for officers, to as long as it needs, while the others get to complete their NS in 1 yr.
there is no point in making our army boys to act as clowns to entertain the VIPs and the political bigwigs. it defeats the purpose of the army.
the army is there to defend the country, not to entertain the public, nor to be expoited as cheap labor to serve as "stage constructors" and "road marshals".
when i see 2 LTA, intead of 2LT....
you try cut down sispec 6 month course first. after that is done, than you can think about cutting down officer course.
cut down reservisit age to 30 is nice, but than the people who go oversea study or ORD at age 23 or later will serve a few years less reservisit. doesn't seem fair.
if officer have to serve 2 years, other people serve 1 year, of course won't be able to get best people for the job, which will be very moronic.
you don't see the importance of the sergeants and warrant officer right... without them and their experience, the army won't be able to function. without the leadership of officers, the arrmy won't have a direction.
is our boys receiving less than the bangla? the bangla working in singapore maybe, but the ones in bangla? the people in my era receive peanuts compared to now, i served half a year longer than all of the new batch, still complain. just do the duty for your country, and i see it as good training for all the complaining kids out there to grow up.
I see idiots thinking other people is dummies.
-
If they have shorter NS duration it will decrease our reliance on foreign labours, but then again, the use of foreign labour is not to make up for the shortall in labour, the main reason for using cheap foreign labour is to depress the wage level of low wage earners Singaporeans.
Singapore is trying to emulate and compete with China in the low wage production industry, akin to banging one's head against the wall.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If they have shorter NS duration it will decrease our reliance on foreign labours, but then again, the use of foreign labour is not to make up for the shortall in labour, the main reason for using cheap foreign labour is to depress the wage level of low wage earners Singaporeans.
Singapore is trying to emulate and compete with China in the low wage production industry, akin to banging one's head against the wall.
if we send the FW home, will you be willing to become the road sweepers?
Everyone knows that the wage of singapore is high. who the hell will think that singapore can compete with China? sounds very very far stretched.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I don't know if money spent on education was wasted on certain people. Certain parts of NE isn't propaganda. The fact is that Singapore lacks strategic depth to mount any sort of defence. The British got poked in the ass when they were the colonial masters of this island, and now people are talking about potential changes in NS policy that will jeopardise the credibility of our defence.
Their argument, that
1. Technology makes up for Quantity.
Sure enough, technology is a force multiplier. But at the same time, there is a limit to how much effectiveness technology can make up for. Look at the US's frantic search in Afghanistan for OBL from 2001 until 2008. They've got the best military technology and firepower out there, but how effective were they in finding Osama?
Look at US Operations in Iraq. A small rag tag force of insurgents that strike out of the shadow is able to tie down a LARGER AND TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR FORCE. Defence gaps are so huge that MORE troops are required to go into Iraq. I wouldn't say SDP is short sighted. They are BLIND.
And if that doesn't make sense, the principle of "redundancy" should. The turns in war is seldom predictable, and we can't always say that being "sufficient" is enough. We need to take into account for attrition losses that cannot be avoided, to cover up for any defense gaps that maybe caused. Strategic situations change faster than we can predict and react, hence a system that can be dynamically altered to adapt to changes need to be in place. Reducing our manpower does NOT help us to adapt to change.
Finally, any conflict in Singapore, is unlikely to be just a regional tussle. In the last few examples in history, Singapore was dragged into a larger world conflict, WW1 and WW2. Chances are, if fighting ever hits our region, we will need every man available, and all the training he has learnt to defend this country.
The kind of "evidence" they've brought up is more than laughable.
1.Austria (6 months)
4.Denmark (4-12 months)
5.Estonia (8-11 months)
6.Finland (6-12 months)
7.Germany (9 months)
8.Greece (12 months)
15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks)
18.Turkey (12 months)Are part of the European Union and have some form security arrangement as part of the European Union Battlegroup. If not, there is always NATO.
After Russia's little adventure into Georgia, every one those countries have woken up to smell the coffee. Don't be surprised if the EU suddenly militarized and service lengths increased.
Personally, conscientious objectors who are medically and physically fit OUGHT TO BE SHOT. Thats what people do in war to deserters. Allowing "some" people to simply skip national service would be the epitome of unequal application of the law.
Reservist training needs to be revised. Yes, but not drastically reduced as proposed. Reservist above the age of 30 need to be well taken care of such that their training does not harm their physical health and well being. However, reducing service age to 30 is a step too far. WE NEED the manpower.
And again, some genius at their party spouts off as though they know exactly what "frontlines" are. Look again at today's conflicts. Weapons capability and technology (which they claim to be the ultimate force mutliplier) can bring high-explosive suffering and death to greater distances and effectivness. Fighting on the "frontlines" might be safer than you think if they enemy is careful to avoid blasting his own people back to Kingdom come. BY THE WAY, they do know that most military strategem involve INTENTIONAL targeting of "rear-line" support elements... right?
However, I do agree that more openness and compensations require review. Soldiers need to feel motivated to do their duty. They also need to have the assurance that their family members and themselves will be taken care of should any mishaps occur in the line of duty. The only thing I see eye to eye in their latest round of BS.
Strategic Myopia.
When you made your first reply to this thread on 29 September, I decline to reply to your personal views that displayed little depth of thinking, except the typical knee-jerk reaction towards SDP and CSJ.
However, with this reply, I feel your views are with more thought although somewhat too sweeping in the conclusions made that bear little relations to reality.
"Look at the US's frantic search in Afghanistan for OBL from 2001 until 2008. They've got the best military technology and firepower out there, but how effective were they in finding Osama? "
Seriously, now that so many years have passed, surely you must have heard the retribution that George W. Bush must have endured - that he was distracted from his hunt of OBL, by moving the bulk of the US Military efforts to finished off Sadam Hussein on behalf of his father George H.W. Bush ?
OBL was already cornered in the Tora Bora Caves in South-eastern Afghanistan, and with an under manned US Military in Afghanistan - that was less then the two divisions sent into Iraq - OBL managed to escape through the porous mountainous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. (See reference below)
"Look at US Operations in Iraq. A small rag tag force of insurgents that strike out of the shadow is able to tie down a LARGER AND TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR FORCE. Defence gaps are so huge that MORE troops are required to go into Iraq. I wouldn't say SDP is short sighted. They are BLIND."
The US Military maybe larger and technologically superior - but surely you must be more honest with your reading of the facts that US Defense Secretary D. Rumsfield resisted all the attempts of his Generals to increase the invading and occupation force that was a mere TWO DIVISIONS in Iraq ?
Did you forget that they had to increase the military personnel repeatedly with a final surge in mid-2007 that eventually managed to stem the insurgency, and then only with the recognition of their failed policy of dismantling the Iraqi Military completely and allowing these Iraqis to join the insurgents from the different religious sects - to kill each other, the foreign contract workers, and the US Troops ?
It was only by recruiting these dismissed military personnel into newly formed "Sons of Iraq" contingents, and restoring their national pride that helped the US Military to regain lost territorities to foreign insurgents and Al Qaeda fighting in Iraq.
It was not Technology nor the Well-Trained Superior US Military Force that failed in Iraq, but the US CIVILIAN POLITICAL LEADERSHIP that failed in Iraq by invading Iraq without any Post-Invasion Plans as to how to govern Iraq and then extricate itself.
It was the US Civilian Political Leadership that needlessly caused the wasted lives of so many young Americans in Iraq.
"And if that doesn't make sense, the principle of "redundancy" should. The turns in war is seldom predictable, and we can't always say that being "sufficient" is enough. We need to take into account for attrition losses that cannot be avoided, to cover up for any defense gaps that maybe caused. Strategic situations change faster than we can predict and react, hence a system that can be dynamically altered to adapt to changes need to be in place. Reducing our manpower does NOT help us to adapt to change."
Any country that is rich enough can surely practise the 'Principle of "Redundancy" ' - more so with equipment, but can any country afford to follow such a policy in terms of manpower ?
After the "shock and awe" of Desert Storm 1, even China decided that its reliance on the People's Liberation Army to win war on its long held "Human Wave" Strategies had to be revised in this day and age. It began to pare down its million man military, and upgraded its techonology, modernised its equipments, and revised its military organisation, tactics and manoevre plans.
With smaller nations such as Israel, Switzerland and Singapore, can we afford to have a big pool of military to practise the kind of 'Principle of "Redundancy" ' that you have in mind ?
Recent history has shown that Israel could not hold out even a protracted occupation of Palestinian land and subdue the civil disobedience 'Intifadah" campaigns that bled Israeli manpower and resources.
Israel was at her best with quick, sharp, and forceful attacks to defang her opponents, and make them militarily impotent to negotiate on "equal terms" - a larger population with a reduced size stick vs a smaller population with a bigger stick.
Singapore's "poison shrimp" defense posture is no different from the Israelis - towards any aggressor that dare to threaten us - mark the word "threaten" that will activate the entire process of defense, which does not necessarily mean 'static defense' in wait for actual attack - as you have yourself recognised the lack of defense depth.
Can Singapore ever contribute any combat troops to be part of any larger multi-national task force to participate in any regional defense outside of the FPDA arrangement ?
At best, we can only send an LST and an aerial refuelling tanker to support the US military in Iraq and without any SAF troops to be in any direct combat.
However, we may have sent our top secret Special Forces unit into combat without any glory or publicity, even as their existence is immersed into the Commando Orbat.
"1.Austria (6 months)
4.Denmark (4-12 months)
5.Estonia (8-11 months)
6.Finland (6-12 months)
7.Germany (9 months)
8.Greece (12 months)
15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks)
18.Turkey (12 months)Are part of the European Union and have some form security arrangement as part of the European Union Battlegroup. If not, there is always NATO.
After Russia's little adventure into Georgia, every one those countries have woken up to smell the coffee. Don't be surprised if the EU suddenly militarized and service lengths increased."
To the best of my knowledge, from the list above, Switzerland is not even part of the European Union, nor is it a member of NATO - and Turkey maybe in NATO but its application to join the EU is placed on hold - unless your source is the latest.
NATO itself is the European Union Battlegroup - although there is a separate attempt in creating a Rapid Reaction Force to tackle international or external contribution outside of NATO ambit, but as an European national political policy.
As long as Russia remains out of its Communists domination behavior of the past, the EU will work with and compete with Russia - as much as it is dependent on Russia for natural gas and oil, as Russia is dependent on European funds and trade.
Russia's "little adventure" into Georgia was not exactly a land grab, but more about the festering sore that erupted when Georgia rubbed her nose at the Russia by turning themselves over to the West. The "little adventure" was a "tit-for-tat" gesture towards the EU for ignoring the Russian position with regards to an Albanian enclave breaking away from Yugoslavia.
"Personally, conscientious objectors who are medically and physically fit OUGHT TO BE SHOT. Thats what people do in war to deserters. Allowing "some" people to simply skip national service would be the epitome of unequal application of the law. "
Conscientious objectors are not 'deserters' - as they are not prepared to be in the military to do harm to anyone. However, stupid as it is - they are prepared to serve the same NS period in jail and suffer the same regime as in the NS. It is no holiday boot camp for them in jail either.
The law is applied to them in another form, with them having to bear the stain of a conviction in their civilian record.
"Reservist training needs to be revised. Yes, but not drastically reduced as proposed. Reservist above the age of 30 need to be well taken care of such that their training does not harm their physical health and well being. However, reducing service age to 30 is a step too far. WE NEED the manpower. "
Seriously, I am not sure which echelon of the SAF you are serving to make such a strong and emphatic statement that "WE NEED the manpower."
Or is this only a 'shock and awe' effort ?
If the manpower is so sorely needed, I am surprised to have experienced only two cycles of 5 In-camp training with a lull period in between, and have been in Cold Storage since then.
During the interim, I see others who have been discharged from full time NS, and have not been recalled for the last six years - except for the regular IPPT.
"And again, some genius at their party spouts off as though they know exactly what "frontlines" are. Look again at today's conflicts. Weapons capability and technology (which they claim to be the ultimate force mutliplier) can bring high-explosive suffering and death to greater distances and effectivness. Fighting on the "frontlines" might be safer than you think if they enemy is careful to avoid blasting his own people back to Kingdom come. BY THE WAY, they do know that most military strategem involve INTENTIONAL targeting of "rear-line" support elements... right?"
Conventional Warfare has not changed much if it is conducted in the "traditional military ways" as seen in the US invasion of Iraq, and Russia's "little adventure" into Georgia.
However, it is the unconventional warfare experienced by the US Military in Iraq and the Israelis in the Occupied Territories and their last invasion into Lebanon that have challenged military thinkers to think of new tactics to fight an unconventional war that can create "front line situation" anywhere and so suddenly.
Can 100 per cent Troop Redundancy meet such a challenge, or will it take intelligent use of manpower, training, equipment, tactics and strategies to overcome such challenges ?
"However, I do agree that more openness and compensations require review. Soldiers need to feel motivated to do their duty. They also need to have the assurance that their family members and themselves will be taken care of should any mishaps occur in the line of duty. The only thing I see eye to eye in their latest round of BS. "
The motivation of soldiers has always been a challenge to any Military Commander, and more so for the Civilian Political Leadership to convince a population to take up arms for their own defense and even to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Can monetary compensation alone motivate the civilian population to be committed to National Service ?
Or should there be a higher goal that is worthy for one to make the ultimate sacrifice ?
Why are the American more "red neck" in volunteering to join the military in defense of their POLITICS and THEIR WAY OF LIFE ?
Is it not obvious considering the stark difference in the open politics practised in the USA, and compared to the closed selfish and monopolistic politics of the PAP Singapore ?
Are Singaporean voices ever heard, when our Citizens' Rights - guaranteed in the clearly made statements in the Singapore Constitution - are all but neutered by the selfish politics of self-preservation by LKY and his PAP, in the manner of repeated legislative changes that have bastardised the Singapore Constitution into a worthless piece of Colonial irrelevance ?
Sadly, after more then 51 years under the leadership of LKY - since Self-Rule in 1957, the deeper essense of a Singapore spirit does not exist in the Younger Generatino today; while the pride of being a Singaporean is nothing more then the superficial hurrah pride that is skin deep, displayed at best during the National Day parade; and will evaporate when shove comes to push in facing any life-and-death situation.
National Education has failed, as the emphasis has been twisted to glorify the LKY personality and that of the PAP, instead of a more general and realistic contribution of several generations of migrants turned Singaporean during the 1950s through the 1960s.
Many have been turned off by the NE efforts as much as the attempts have been made to promote a single line of thinking instead of documenting events as had historically occurred.
Motivation towards a country is a result of values that comes from a way of life - has the Singapore way of life instill such motivation, considering that life itself covers the entire spectrum of Politics, Culture, Economics, Commerce, and Industry ?
"Strategic Myopia."
Sadly, it is not "Strategic Myopia" - but simply unwillingness on your part to be open minded to consider alternative views.
Hamstrung muscles in the eyeballs are also causes for "myopia" - as much as it causes knee jerk reactions to the legs.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
if we send the FW home, will you be willing to become the road sweepers?
Everyone knows that the wage of singapore is high. who the hell will think that singapore can compete with China? sounds very very far stretched.
I think these people are not talking about road sweepers
Everytime talk about FWs, the defending side will say about road sweepers, rubbish collectors, bangla workers, etc...
But that's not what most pple are thinking; they are seeing things in their own office. Engineering, salesgirls, etc.... There are a lot of locals and PRs (I consider most PRs as part of us actually) who want to do these jobs, but reluctant because the rates are way too low due to undercutting... Best example is IT jobs.
Of course, we can also say that these people are reluctant to change, move out of their comfort zones and take advantage of the current situation to their own benefit.... So it is also partially their own 'fault'
Then again, it is in the nature of most Singaporeans to just complain, and then do nothing about it :(
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
if we send the FW home, will you be willing to become the road sweepers?
Everyone knows that the wage of singapore is high. who the hell will think that singapore can compete with China? sounds very very far stretched.
There will be lots of unqualified Singaporean folks to do these jobs, not 100% of our population are university graduates.Me? If they willing to pay me $5,000 qualification, I don't mind doing it, less stressful than the job I am trained for.
I am not kidding, else just get those Primary school graduates to do, it's a whole lot cheaper.Singapore is trying to emulate and compete with China in the low wage production industry, akin to banging one's head against the wall.
Price stickiness of wages.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I think these people are not talking about road sweepers
Everytime talk about FWs, the defending side will say about road sweepers, rubbish collectors, bangla workers, etc...
But that's not what most pple are thinking; they are seeing things in their own office. Engineering, salesgirls, etc.... There are a lot of locals and PRs (I consider most PRs as part of us actually) who want to do these jobs, but reluctant because the rates are way too low due to undercutting... Best example is IT jobs.
Of course, we can also say that these people are reluctant to change, move out of their comfort zones and take advantage of the current situation to their own benefit.... So it is also partially their own 'fault'
Then again, it is in the nature of most Singaporeans to just complain, and then do nothing about it :(
These days, foreign labour is not restricted to construction and low skilled jobs, they can be found in lots of management positions. Obviously, when they want to compete against China for low cost, they need to import cheaper workers in strata of the workforce from 3rd world countries. But these folks are not long term residents, they do so because monetarily it's worth their while. These are the fine weather workers, times are good, money worth their while, they will stay. If prospects not so good, they will leave, no committment to Singapore.
-
All kena are brainwash already. Really all forget NS yah? How much training to be soldier and how much time wasted doing road marshal, act like train monkey for National Day parade. If real army training 18 month not enough meh? Add time for government to use like free labour than yah lah! Sure need longer time.