Reflection on NS
-
My current view on NS is that the period of time that we serve needs to be lengthened.I'm currently an NSF training to be a combat engineer.My unit is 39 SCE.
As an enlisted personnel,I will have to serve in the SAF for 2 years,a time frame which was the normal service time for men in the SAF in previous batches.However,the reduction of half a year and a uniform service time of 2 years for ever NSF,including specs and officers means that the strength of the army will be affected,especially the command cadre.
As I understand it,the SAF already puts much resources into training these commanders during NS,but the shortening of service time reduces their length of active service.With less time for their training,I personally doubt that commanders will be of the same calibre as before.What assurance can be given that our national security,armed forces morale and operational effectivness won't be affected?Furthermore,is it cost effective to have to put the resources into training these commanders only to have them serve 2 years?
I feel that we should return to the old system of 2.5 years for commanders and 2 years for men,but with provisions for commanders,in that benefits can be provided for those who wish to pursue further education before returning to complete their full service term,perhaps like lessened tax rates for their parents while doing university degrees.I feel that this is something which warrants further attention and would be of benefit to our army as a whole. -
This reduction in NS time is hugely popular move,but to tell you the truth, 2.5 years is bearly enough to train a soldier to be a professional,let alone a commander. But to be realistic, we are currently not facing any clear and present danger and the extra half a year will mean that we will have people who will be going into the workforce half a year later. I personally think we should have at least 2.5 years of NS but thats not realistic though.
-
Realistically speaking,I think 2.5 years was a good balance,and the minimum time in which we can train competent troops.However,due to manpower demands all around,the SAF has probably had to compromise this approach with regards to training time.
Different and flexible approaches can be taken to still keep the NS time at 2.5 years,its just that we need some lateral thinking and the determination to carry it through.lI already suggested one approach such as earlier deferments with tax breaks for their families while NSFs defering their service undergo university studies.Other approaches can be devised that may be unconventional nature but still help to keep the training time there.
I was the first batch to undergo the 9 week BMT,and I can say with confidence that it was rushed,everything was rushed.While everything can be compressed into 9 weeks,such as field camp,live range,sit test,BAC and the various other training components,the pace may not be enough to properly train soldiers up.
I think we should really be concerned about this NS affecting our overall manpower quality.I feel this is a major concern and that is why I am highlighting it.
While there may be no clear and present danger at this point in time,we know how mercurial ties can be with certain neighbours over the long term.Governments change.For these neighbours,there is less of a continuity in politics,especially with regards to certain foreign policy matters,unlike us where we have a certain continuity and long term outlook in our policies.
It is for this reason that I feel the 2 years NS isn't suitable as it affects our strength at its core,the manpower.It is the people which make or break a military,and all the fancy technology we are getting is just that,technology which acts as a force multiplier that evens the odds at a strategic and tactical level,It basically evens the odds and enhances and expands our capabilities.However,with all this you need proficient training with skills and knowledge as well as the inculcated discipline as well as physical and mental endurance.And to impart all these qualities through training,you need time.
With the 2 years,when you have invested the resources in training your people,they will have less time of active service,so it will be less cost effective overall,plus with people ORDing earlier,unit strength will not be kept at certain levels.Perhaps ways can be looked at extending the service of men(enlisted pers.) to 2 years 2 months and commanders extended back to 2 years 6 months.Perhaps for those who wish to serve NS even longer,there can be an option to extend your service length to another half a year or a year and a promotion to go with it ,though not necessarily a realistic option.
This all therefore affects our strength.This policy orchestrated by PM Lee really needs relooking.This is a policy that I feel will compromise our overall security integrity. -
um. no.
-
um. no.
-
The only comparable citizen soldier armies that serve as long or longer than Singapore are those that have been in a constant state of war or war-footing for 40 years or longer; viz. Korea, Israel, Taiwan.
The Swiss, as an alternate example, serve only 6 months upfront and the same sort of number of weeks/year as reservists, and their defenses were sufficient such that they held off the Germans in WWII from invading. The Germans, who during the cold war were front-line against Warsaw Pact countries, only serve 9 months active duty.
2.0 years (let alone 2.5 yrs) is an extreme length given there is no clear and present danger and no state of war has existed in Singapore since the end of WWII -- accepting that Konfrontasi was really a skirmish between a still colonial Malaysia and a recently independent Indonesia. That long a service detracts heavily from fundamental developmental years in a young man's life and career, and is an unnecessary burden IMO under the current geopolitical environment Singapore finds itself. -
if not so much time is wasted. 1.5 years enough already.
-
Take it positively! the word 'wasted' shall not be used. U gone through NS?Originally posted by crazy monkey:if not so much time is wasted. 1.5 years enough already. -
Originally posted by zenden9:
long time ago. reservist liao.
Take it positively! the word [b]'wasted' shall not be used. U gone through NS?[/b] -
I don't think it's the length of the time that really matters, but what you do with it.
Look at the excessive amounts of time we waste doing nothing (rush to wait, wait to rush), or stupid things in that 2 or so years, that in itself if far more a bane then reducing the length of NS. Seriously how much time have you spent improving/training yourself in NS compared to the amount of time spent doing things that don't really matter because nobody wants to get into any trouble? -
Originally posted by Unsung_Hero:
when the danger is clear, it might be already too late?
The only comparable citizen soldier armies that serve as long or longer than Singapore are those that have been in a constant state of war or war-footing for 40 years or longer; viz. Korea, Israel, Taiwan.
The Swiss, as an alternate example, serve only 6 months upfront and the same sort of number of weeks/year as reservists, and their defenses were sufficient such that they held off the Germans in WWII from invading. The Germans, who during the cold war were front-line against Warsaw Pact countries, only serve 9 months active duty.
2.0 years (let alone 2.5 yrs) is an extreme length given there is no clear and present danger and no state of war has existed in Singapore since the end of WWII -- accepting that Konfrontasi was really a skirmish between a still colonial Malaysia and a recently independent Indonesia. That long a service detracts heavily from fundamental developmental years in a young man's life and career, and is an unnecessary burden IMO under the current geopolitical environment Singapore finds itself. -
Found a link relating to national service.South Korea currently has a conscription term of 2 years as well and they are one of the most competent and well trained armed forces around,but preferably we should look at something approximating an Israeli Active NS cycle of 36 months at maximum and 24 months at minimum.This would help by allowing for additional training and retention of manpower.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Conscription#Singapore
There may be no clear and present threat to us at this point in time,but in the waters we currently face,there are murky threats lurking that could swallow us whole,with a recent and increasingly assertive Indonesia as a possible indicator and a possible play between the major powers with the continuing rise of China and India which affect us as well.
Currently there are no less than 3 countries involved in counter-insurgency operations around us,in Aceh,Pattani and in Mindanao,and there are tensions between Malaysia and Indonesia due to overlapping terrotorial claims.
I think this is enough to warrant increasing our military strength in quality and numbers. -
We cannot afford this.Period.It's the economy.We are not a military state.Originally posted by Sardaukar:Found a link relating to national service.South Korea currently has a conscription term of 2 years as well and they are one of the most competent and well trained armed forces around,but preferably we should look at something approximating an Israeli Active NS cycle of 36 months at maximum and 24 months at minimum.This would help by allowing for additional training and retention of manpower.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Conscription#Singapore
There may be no clear and present threat to us at this point in time,but in the waters we currently face,there are murky threats lurking that could swallow us whole,with a recent and increasingly assertive Indonesia as a possible indicator and a possible play between the major powers with the continuing rise of China and India which affect us as well.
Currently there are no less than 3 countries involved in counter-insurgency operations around us,in Aceh,Pattani and in Mindanao,and there are tensions between Malaysia and Indonesia due to overlapping terrotorial claims.
I think this is enough to warrant increasing our military strength in quality and numbers. -
hire more regulars.Originally posted by Sardaukar:I think this is enough to warrant increasing our military strength in quality and numbers.