SDP’s policy paper on National Service
-
At least, the government should look to protect the interest of the boys.
Etc, they cannot be fired because of reservist, they cannot be picked over another foreign talent should they have the same qualifications and what not.
-
Originally posted by Agenda:
At least, the government should look to protect the interest of the boys.
Etc, they cannot be fired because of reservist, they cannot be picked over another foreign talent should they have the same qualifications and what not.
As a free trade and open economy country, and also in term of globalisation, hire and fire is the perogatory of the boss. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
As a free trade and open economy country, and also in term of globalisation, hire and fire is the perogatory of the boss.
Really meh? Free trade and open economy country? I want to go JB now with empty tank and fill there because cheaper. Can? -
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 :(
high level one is foreign talent, low level one is foreign worker.
-
Originally posted by RatFink:
Really meh? Free trade and open economy country? I want to go JB now with empty tank and fill there because cheaper. Can?
Did anyone checked your fuel tank at the border?If don't have, then what's stopping you?
I don't believe they want to hire people to check on every fuel tanks, and the don't have X-rays scanners for commercial vehicles, only for heavy vehicles like LORRIES.
-
I proposed government give exams to people in NS every year. If they can score 100% on the exam, they can be considered to have completed their NS and go back to their normal lives.
For people who is working in the army, they have to take the exams for promotions and more money/bonuses.
This way, we can release the "ELITE" early and shut the TRASH up.
It's necessary for the passing mark to be 100%, so that TRASH got nothing else to whine about.
-
Originally posted by parn:
Did anyone checked your fuel tank at the border?If don't have, then what's stopping you?
I don't believe they want to hire people to check on every fuel tanks, and the don't have X-rays scanners for commercial vehicles, only for heavy vehicles like LORRIES.
They don't have to check every car, they just need to pass a law that says they can, and you will be prosecuted for driving out with less than 3/4 tank of fuel.A law that is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of "free trade" and "open economy country".
They say and do whatever they want as long as it's beneficial to them. Doesn't matter if one thing contradicts another.
-
Originally posted by parn:
Did anyone checked your fuel tank at the border?If don't have, then what's stopping you?
I don't believe they want to hire people to check on every fuel tanks, and the don't have X-rays scanners for commercial vehicles, only for heavy vehicles like LORRIES.
You are encouraging pple to break the law because you don't believe they want to hire people to check on every fuel tank?
-
Originally posted by NowWhatDoIDo?:
They don't have to check every car, they just need to pass a law that says they can, and you will be prosecuted for driving out with less than 3/4 tank of fuel.A law that is 180 degrees in the opposite direction of "free trade" and "open economy country".
They say and do whatever they want as long as it's beneficial to them. Doesn't matter if one thing contradicts another.
That law is was passed in fairness to the oil companies in Singapore. They're considered foreign investors you know....so of course Government have to also take care of them.Those companies paid more taxes to the Government than you can possibly earn in your lifetime. So you get the drift?
The fact that checks wasn't enforced on all vehicles already tells the people the reason why that law was passed. Just that the people were not smart enough yet...even until now.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You are encouraging pple to break the law because you don't believe they want to hire people to check on every fuel tank?
Don't tell people so directly can or not?
Please allow them to exercise their RIGHTS to utilise their BRAINS and make their own judgement.
Sounds like you've already encouraged them to break the law with your sentence.
-
You know hor...if a bird is locked up in its cage for a long period of time. It develops a kind of fear that one day, the bird might be super lost if the bird have to leave its cage.
Singaporeans cannot think outside the box, cos they think their whole world is only revolving inside a box called Singapore.
-
parn what c*ck you talking? 7/11 no security guard that mean they asking you to steal? Shopping center never check everybody pocket when they go out that mean that asking you to take things and not pay?
-
do what you want, but don't get caught. if you get caught, the punishment will be harsh.
if you don't like the punishment, than don't risk it.
-
Originally posted by RatFink:
parn what c*ck you talking? 7/11 no security guard that mean they asking you to steal? Shopping center never check everybody pocket when they go out that mean that asking you to take things and not pay?
I'm telling you to use your BRAIN if you have one.Decide at your own discretion. Do you want me to spoon-feed you on what you should be doing and what you should not be doing?
Call me Madame and I will decide everything for you ok?
-
Originally posted by parn:
Don't tell people so directly can or not?
Please allow them to exercise their RIGHTS to utilise their BRAINS and make their own judgement.
Sounds like you've already encouraged them to break the law with your sentence.
Lady, please note your sentence. It is you who is planting the law-breaking suggestion in your earlier post.
It's of little use if you are attempting to push the blame away by twisting. I've merely stated the fact of your post to you, not encouraged anyone else.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
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.
~~
Sorry I couldn't quote the whole post as its really quite long. You really don't have to quote me in future unless I forget that I've said something. =)
Now, I don't see how what you've said has actually served as a counter argument to what I've reasoned to be AGAINST the reduction of national service terms and NS reservists liabilities. And its fine that you say that I'm not "open to ideas", because I'm really trying to look at this from a very practical and realistic angle in context of what we've seen the last couple of years.
I'll just try to go through your counter points one at a time so I don't get too confused from the myriad of quotings and rebuttals.
Before I actually move on, someone asked if the SAF's manpower indeed will reduce due to shortening of service terms in Full Time NS and of Reservist liabilities. In theory, I'm speculating, it won't if we have high birth rates. But the current situation is that we don't, and we do have a problem with ageing population.
Firstly, Yes. Bush was indeed distracted by the Iraq war. It was perhaps one of the most questionable decision to invade Iraq without first concluding Afghanistan. What it shows as well in your argument, is that when you don't focus resources into one area of operations, and instead take resources or divert them else where, your troops can't get the job done. Similarly, SAF may not be able to carry out its role in successfully defending Singapore if it doesn't have enough manpower.
Secondly, the surge of 2007 introduce and did increase the number of combat troops in Iraq. Again, insurgency levels dropped because they finally had the manpower and resources to deal with gaping holes in their plans. I think its fair to say, due to the largely urban terrain, even greater numbers need to be deployed in order to seal-off an area to prevent insurgents from escaping. Perhaps to paraphrase yourself, OUR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP will fail us if they allow a term reduction, limiting SAF's deployable manpower.
To ask why they failed their job was not the point to which I brought it up, but that a smaller insurgent force DID tie up a larger technologically superior force, EMPHASIZING that TECHNOLOGY is not that all powerful. It is a force multiplier, yes. Yet so is the manner in which the insurgents waging their war. Its hidden nature is a force multiplier working for the insurgents as well. Hence, there is still an undeniable quality to Quantity. This is the point to which you have to argue to convince me: No, Technology makes up for everything, a proposition implied by SDP's paper.
Thirdly, the principle of redundancy, in which you argue that given our limited population pool, resource, whether we can or should practice it. I don't understand how that tied in with human wave tactics by PLA. Perhaps maybe you ought to find out more about this before commenting on it.
Redudancy doesn't mean that I practice I throw away all my resources wave after wave to achieve my objective. Its keeping resources in reserve to commit when I need them too. One example of redundancy is when I talk about attrition replacements, suppose one of our SAR Battalions take 2 companies of losses in men and equipment in battle. Does that mean I have to thus disband this battalion because its no longer effective? No, I pull out reserve equipment and men, and essentially "reinforce" this battalion again.
Every military on earth knows that there will be situations in war which they will have to do this. And this is definitely NOT human wave tactics. Redundancy can be having sufficient resources in reserve, it can be having people cross trained such that he can double up as another man's job, so that when losses are taken, crucial combat components wont be lost.
Redundancy is to ensure that losing one link, doesn't destroy the whole chain.
Its like why people keep savings and not spend every single cent of their salary. Its an exercises of building up slowly, some level of financial reserves to use it when its needed.
However, I concede that the only arguabe point of "How much", is something I am not qualified to suggest.
Fourth, you are correct that Switzerland is not part of EU, my mistake. Turkey is part of NATO, not EU. My bad for not clarifying. However, my point was that a lot of the examplers brought up in the paper are have some form of collective security agreements, and not necessarily mirrorings Singapore's strategic situation. That is the point to refute.
Fifth, it does matter whether Russia's actions were a landgrab or not. What matters is that, quite suddenly, Europe's strategic situation changed again, with not much forewarning. Countries like Germany were happily selling their MBT reserves to "streamline" their military in an "era of peace" suddenly woke up to see a major security challenge right at their doorstep. So the point to refute here is: "Strategic situations can change quickly and suddenly."
Well, I admit I am harsh to say that "conscientious ojectors" ought to be shot but thats just my own opinion towards these people. Fortunately, they are just get direct mono-intake to the detention barracks. I feel that the law has been fair to them as to us who have served our NS liabilities to in whatever capacity that we have. The law would have been unjust, if they allowed conscientious objectors to avoid NS without consequences.
Again, we need the manpower, based on what I mentioned above. But its a good point that you've brought up about some people not being called up. Honestly, that is a very good point in criticising SAF's administrative inefficiencies, and thats putting it mildly.
On my point on the nature of modern day conflicts, you've missed my point completely and thought that I was refering to redundancy. My point was that modern conflicts, in conventional ones, rear-line troops are NOT as safe as the SDP think. Technology has given lethality a long reach, and rear-echelon troops are consider of high value simply because they are soft (meaning less defended) but are vital in supporting front line troops. In non-conventional warfare, we have seen Iraqi insurgents targeting soft maintenance units rather than front line combat units that are packed with firepower. It was not a point on redundancy; the point to refute is that, Today's warfare, frontline and rearline distinction has been blurred, rebutt that, and I concede my point.
On what I agreed with SDP was the level of openness and compensations review. I really don't understand your following paragraphs relations to it. What was your point? I simply said, soldiers need to know that should anything happen, SAF will compensate and take care of their families. At the same time, these soldiers have to be motivated to perform their duty. I pretty much didn't argue anything here, and I don't know what led you to make such "passionate" replies that led to Singapore's political system. What are you trying to say about openness and compensations with SAF again? Are you saying that Singapore's political system is what causes SAF's lack of accountability? Hahaha, I fully agree and thats a moot point.
Finally, this is really OUTSIDE what I've argued earlier. You can't really compare Singapore's political system to that of the US. The US has a Presidential system with a bicameral legislature seperated from the executive arm, seperated from the judiciary. Seperation of powers is a very huge characteristic that is different from ours. That is something that the US has intentionally incorporated in their system to prevent too much power being consolidated in one person.
When we examined Presidential systems like the US, we see that majority of countries that try to emulate it fail, resulting in civil war and "revolts", OR that a single President that becomes too power, essentially becoming a dictator. Their system, has a large potential to become the opposite of what its trying to avoid.
Singapore's system is more akin to UK's parliamentary system, no surprise there. If there is ever a comparison of openness, it is best to compare against UK's. However, even the UK doesn't have a good track record for that.
Funny thing though, US's "openness" has pretty much fallen on its face when all the dangers of the Subprime blowing up in their face was essentially covered up for so long. Perhaps we can really consider that "Openness" to have very little in relation to the type of system. Just something to think about.
-
Shotgun, in your opinion, how many standing troops does SAF need?
-
I'm not qualified to provide such estimates. Maybe we should email Straits Times and have them get Mindef to publish such estimates?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
Singapore ranked 62 with 60,000+ standing troops.
-
Active troops per thousand citizens ranked 12, with 16.40 troops per thousand people.
-
List of countries by number of total troops, Singapore ranked 29, with 469,300 troops.
-
list of countries by military expenditures, Singapore ranked 24, highest in southeast asia.
-
Originally posted by parn:
I'm telling you to use your BRAIN if you have one.Decide at your own discretion. Do you want me to spoon-feed you on what you should be doing and what you should not be doing?
Call me Madame and I will decide everything for you ok?
Use your brain? Don't know if want to pity you or slap you.
You use your brain first. We talking about by law and you say decide at your own discretion? What should be doing or should not be doing?
Don't have police on every corner. Go break into neighbour's house and take their tv lah? Why go buy your own? Can save money. Use your brain.
-
Originally posted by rain-coat:
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
Remember that what you cannot defend does not belong to you. While NS has been a topic of debate for many years, we still cannot forget the importance of serving our nation. WW2 had been a very painful lesson for sg and im sure none of us will ever want to live through it. You may argue that diplomacy itself has proven to be a better tool but Frederick the Great said, “Diplomacy without military equipment is like music without instruments”. There will come a time when sg has to protect itself against external threats, so will our SAF be ready then if not for the national service men?
The article seems to be just playing on anti-NS sentiments to further his political campaign.
The way the PAP uses fear, gerrymandering, threats and out right bullying to further theirs?