NS down to 2 years from Dec 04
-
Har after 3 to 5 years where number go down maybe a 3 years will come by than and sure be it will than that time we will post here again kayOriginally posted by thoreldan:when i was still serving my ns, heard rumours that ns will be extended to 3 years.
now they changing to 2 years instead, really glad for my 2 younger brothers.
anyway, i believe the whole structure would be changed in the SAF now.
eg) an infantry spec take like 6-7months from a recruit to a 3SG, then join an infantry unit for the next 2year for one whole mono-intake. If now they ord 6 months eariler, the unit will need a new batch of specs. it wouldnt be easy for men and spec to gel up quickly and imagine the result of ATEC.
*Shrug* maybe i am thinking too much , hahahaha. Still Cheers for all the new soldiers!!
-
lesser months, lesser pay to NSF...
more BONUS!!!! -
hmm...maybe saving money now for the later years when they need to have 3 years!Originally posted by Joshua1975:Har after 3 to 5 years where number go down maybe a 3 years will come by than and sure be it will than that time we will post here again kay -
No they wont increase. @ least not stated yet.Originally posted by spencer99:Yes, I saw the article....It is true.
I am very surprised..... but will they increase the term of the ICTs??
This is a really a huge policy change. Looks like the SAF is really very serious about 3G. in a high-tech armed force, warm bodies not as important as equipment.
Hope the people going in will appreciate that they are serving 2 years instead of 2.5 years and work harder! -
It sure has.Originally posted by dkhoo:This is a very huge change that will be phased in gradually. All current NSFs who need to serve 2 years 6 months (including current disruptees) get an immediate two month reduction in service requirement, to an earliest ORD date of 30 June 2004. (That means that you need to serve only 4 months on your return from your studies, Leo_is_me.) Those enlisting in the July 2004 to November 2004 batches will get a 4 month reduction (i.e. 2 years 2 months). Those enlisting with the December 2004 batch or later will all serve 2 years. There is an 8-week reduction for scoring a silver or better in NAPFA to a minimum of 1 year 10 months.
I am not so sure this is a good idea. This particularly affects the training of officers. The training of specialists and certain difficult vocations (like commandoes) will also be made very hard. There will barely be enough time for these people to gel together with their unit before they ORD, since their training takes so long. This may actually undermine moves toward a 3G force.
Maybe SAF is moving toward a flatter command structure with fewer officers? Or will improved training technology step in to help? Maybe officers, specialists and the tough vocations can be trained on the job (OTJ)?
For example, officer cadets could receive a relatively short 10-15 week primer course at OCS. After this course, they are sent to their eventual unit and shadow a particular officer. This officer will be their mentor and responsible for completing their training. This will be like a correspondence course with CAI technology. These cadets should even go to ATEC as a cadet and lead men there in a section commander or platoon sergeant role. After 6 months or so, they could return to OCS for a few weeks of summary exercises and final prociency tests before receiving their commissions and returning to their unit. Cadets who drop out will still return to their unit, but as specialists. Actually, this form of training might be even better than the current 42-week OCS. At least the new 2LT will be less blur about unit life and will have met the men he is to lead and know what they expect of him. In this way, the officer will be able to gel with his unit earlier, and training in the units might also be improved.
Regardless, this is a huge change. My head is spinning thinking of the connotations. This is the first time both commanders and men have the same length of NS. Before the 2.5 years for corporals and above, it was 3 years for officers and 2 years for WOSEs. The difference in time it takes to train commanders vs men will have many manpower officers tearing their hair out. Let's see what will happen.
Imagine, having 1 yr totally devoted to training and another year to be fully ops. Not forgetting the various stuff one has to undergo @ the different units, plus the leave you have. So esp. for those having NAPFA Gold, 1yr 10 mths is pretty good deal. Downside is, what will you do once you come out? Work b4 gg into uni?
For me, affected also. Quite sian....wish to sign on for 2 more mths. -
This is in anticipation for the 2006 batch which is the Dragon baby batch aka Baby Boom. Thus, I think they may increase after this batchOriginally posted by |-|05|:hmm...maybe saving money now for the later years when they need to have 3 years!
My 2 cents worth -
dec? weird weird weird
cos CO jus now says sept hmmm...... -
wanna see the NS drop to 1 year only??
its quite simple.... and very enjoyable too....
just make your women have lots of babies... like 10 babies per women....
before you knew it... even reservist trainning would be cut back because all the camp full house... -
i tmd lugi lehz..
i ord this aug.. clearin already..
then they say wanna cut my ord date when i can be at home kiao kah... -
++ tt also means i`ll get 2 mths short of allowence lehz.. tmd unfair and my off and leave all store until last 2 mths then use..all wasted.. they tmd wanna keng my allowance away...
-
its not 3 years.. they jus start drafting gals.Originally posted by |-|05|:hmm...maybe saving money now for the later years when they need to have 3 years! -
WOW! PAP so fast? Already preparing for the 2007 election. Not like last time,last minute then give some honey for the voters.
-
Two things can be gleaned from this.
Firstly, I would think that MINDEF's budget is quite tight, especially with the allocation of funds towards the so-called 3G programmes.Cal me a cynic but I think we do not have an adequate number of really professional troops who will execute the new wave of warfare effectively yet.RMA is not a easy task for the management to implement across the board in such a short time.I think RMA has been in place since the early-mid 1990s and we are only beginning to see the fruits of it, esp in the integration of C4I and ISR technolgies and the battlefield WAN in our own armed forces.If they are going down this path, it would make sense financially to cut down on us NSFs, for it really is quite a drain on the military budget.In a microcosm, we are like a welfare state.NSFs may get low pay but their sheer numbers do impose a particular constraint to how much MINDEF can spend for its own plans.Dragon baby intake notwithstanding, if they base the liability duration purely on the grounds of numbers, it would lead to a roller-coaster ride for NSFs born in different years, thus leading to some which serve less and some which serve more. This is likely to casue friction.
Secondly, this is one of the few instances where SAF decides to present a plan of action and it is implemented almost instantly..Hardly common don't you think.Why is this so..we can only look on and wait and see. -
I agree that this is indeed one of the fastest and most widely felt HR policy to be implemented in Singapore...I thot it was a joke when I heard it on the car radio. Like some, I was hearing rumors of extended NS liability during my time before going in (1990).
But like many who have noted it, my first thoughts were on its impact on the training programs. I have not kept up with all the training changes especially for the specs level but I seriously think that unless extensive makeover is done something like what drkhoo suggested (more OJT and shorter formal course time) then it will really be a problem for units especially operational ones to remain functional (technology aside - it is the warm bodies that make the 3G work).
I remember the time we had to work together especially prepare and train for all the exercises in 3Sig made all the difference. The newbirds can not really be as effective as the old birds and the only diff between us was the one year that they had in the operational unit's environment. In fact, some of my men were relatively more effective during the first few months and esp the first Mousedeer exercise as they reached the unit before us.
This sort of reminded me of one article posted here or somewhere else about how Germany had more advanced tech but simply lost WW2 due to the sheer number of warm bodies that the Allies had. (Winters of the BOB fame gave the same reason why lousy commanders remained in the force at that time -- you need the warm bodies).
Overall - the budget issue is something that is real but given that economies go through cycles and the money apportioned to defence is relatively stable, this also doesn't really form the basis of a credible argument.
Then again, as a father I am damn glad
it has been reduced. Now I am waiting for some shocker news few years down the road that my daughter may need to be enlisted... 
just my 2 cents. -
I'm replying panzerjager's post in another topic which has been closed (it is a duplicate topic).
In no way is the average Singaporean soldier expected to be operationally proficient in 2 years of NS. SAF is really blockheaded and 'yes-manned' enough to be 'forced' into this arrangement. Operationally ready is one thing, operationally proficient is another. And that definitely takes minimum of 30 months, this includes FIBUA, FOFO, mine-setting/laying, booby-trapping, CD, laying ambush, basic jungle survival, skill-at-arms, unarmed combat etc Will the average soldier be proficient in all those above and more in 24 months??? No way!!!
The impression I get from reading his reply is ... pardon me ... it is crap.
He seems to ignore the fact that under the current system, the traditional soldier, the hokkien pengs ONLY serve 2 years. It has been like this for dunno how long. The skills he described are just the traditional soldiering skills, ie. infantry skills. So I'm not wrong in using the hokkien pengs as my counter-example.
The mono-intake is structured to cater for 2 years NS liability. IMHO, he shouldn't curse and swear at the Defense Minister if his problem is actually with the current system.
PS: Sorry, I just have to support the Defense Minister. 'Cos he is also my MP. Maybe I need him to write my deferment letter next time. -
what i don't understand is all the ranting by some other people about "how they rugi"..
if the liability was increased, they'd be the first idiots to be gloating...
oh well.. it takes all kinds..
kinda glad for a lot of people who have not worn green yet tho'
-
X4 It is just another POLITICIAN PROPAGANDA. 'He' is showing all that he is doing his work. 'He' is still showing it to all today.
Which unit is in full strenght now anyone got the answer?
Isn't is better that the 'dragon' group can top up the missing unit?
If they carried on having 1 or 2 star every years, who will this star be giving order to?
If 2 and a half years can't really train a good leader, is 2 year good enough? -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
I would also like to pardon others' pardons, however, the responsible soldier can never walk away from all of the traditional methods relating to the essence of a soldier. Fundamentally, he must go through the sufferings of the so-called non 3G soldier in order to know what soldiering is all about. This has got nothing to do with his education background at all. It is a sad fact that SAF selectively chooses to ignore this fundamental requirement and aspect of nuturing and training its fighting men.
I'm replying panzerjager's post in another topic which has been closed (it is a duplicate topic).
[b]In no way is the average Singaporean soldier expected to be operationally proficient in 2 years of NS. SAF is really blockheaded and 'yes-manned' enough to be 'forced' into this arrangement. Operationally ready is one thing, operationally proficient is another. And that definitely takes minimum of 30 months, this includes FIBUA, FOFO, mine-setting/laying, booby-trapping, CD, laying ambush, basic jungle survival, skill-at-arms, unarmed combat etc Will the average soldier be proficient in all those above and more in 24 months??? No way!!!
The impression I get from reading his reply is ... pardon me ... it is crap.
He seems to ignore the fact that under the current system, the traditional soldier, the hokkien pengs ONLY serve 2 years. It has been like this for dunno how long. The skills he described are just the traditional soldiering skills, ie. infantry skills. So I'm not wrong in using the hokkien pengs as my counter-example.
The mono-intake is structured to cater for 2 years NS liability. IMHO, he shouldn't curse and swear at the Defense Minister if his problem is actually with the current system.
PS: Sorry, I just have to support the Defense Minister. 'Cos he is also my MP. Maybe I need him to write my deferment letter next time. [/b]
To go headlong into this so-called 3G concept just because of the opportunities availed by latest technology and economies of scale of employment of tactics and doctrine is foolhardy at the very least for the commander, into believing that such an approach would present him/her a better chance of winning in combat. Do not expect technology to be an unequivocal and no-holds barred solution as force-multipliers in any battlefield - it still gets the better of the most informed user.
That is why the retention of so-called Hokkien Peng skills, no doubt true blood-and-guts soldiering skills would prepare the average local soldier at least adequately for the psychological and mental pressures of combat. And these skills definitely cannot be imparted and proficiently mastered within 2 and half years, let alone 2 years!!! The expectation should be 3 years, although no-one has to like any of this or what is being said, but these are necessary evils of our times in this part of the world -
#@%^#$@^%#!%#................
-
I think we miss the part of 3G army where most of the soldiering will be replaced with machines or robots.......Originally posted by panzerjager:I would also like to pardon others' pardons, however, the responsible soldier can never walk away from all of the traditional methods relating to the essence of a soldier. Fundamentally, he must go through the sufferings of the so-called non 3G soldier in order to know what soldiering is all about. This has got nothing to do with his education background at all. It is a sad fact that SAF selectively chooses to ignore this fundamental requirement and aspect of nuturing and training its fighting men.
To go headlong into this so-called 3G concept just because of the opportunities availed by latest technology and economies of scale of employment of tactics and doctrine is foolhardy at the very least for the commander, into believing that such an approach would present him/her a better chance of winning in combat. Do not expect technology to be an unequivocal and no-holds barred solution as force-multipliers in any battlefield - it still gets the better of the most informed user.
That is why the retention of so-called Hokkien Peng skills, no doubt true blood-and-guts soldiering skills would prepare the average local soldier at least adequately for the psychological and mental pressures of combat. And these skills definitely cannot be imparted and proficiently mastered within 2 and half years, let alone 2 years!!! The expectation should be 3 years, although no-one has to like any of this or what is being said, but these are necessary evils of our times in this part of the world
Anyway I think this may make way for a larger regular force - the ABG that some has refered to in another thread? -
WTF?!!!WTF?!!!HOW THE FARKING STUPID CAN THE SAF GET MAN!!!!Well,even if you wanna fight a 3G warfare,its highly nessceary to have your troops to be highly trained,highly effective in watever units and vocations they are posted to.So wat,liddis 3G army bring all the high-tech equipment to war,the equipment will do everything for them lah?Siah lahz...why not we increase the factor alittle,make it a 4G army?So we don't need to serve NS at all?Betta for all rite?
Please don't get me wrong.I'm strongly NS pro.And its really difficult for me to comprehend the need for reducing the service term.How can we take short-cuts in our national security?If you want to take shortcuts,take them elsewhere mate.But no way should an issue as important and as sophiscated as National Security be short-cutted.In my view,I feel deeply that the SAF as a whole is being coporatised.Cost cutting measures here and there.How can it be such that?The SAF is a war machine,that has to be well-oiled and ready to react at a moment's notice.So how can the national leaders look at it as a business approach.Fark them man...One day when diasater strikes,they will regret ever doing such things. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
Then again, the decisions by the minister and his gang eventually make up the system as it is. To put it bluntly, the problem is with the minister and gang themselves - making decisions like that.
I'm replying panzerjager's post in another topic which has been closed (it is a duplicate topic).
[b]In no way is the average Singaporean soldier expected to be operationally proficient in 2 years of NS. SAF is really blockheaded and 'yes-manned' enough to be 'forced' into this arrangement. Operationally ready is one thing, operationally proficient is another. And that definitely takes minimum of 30 months, this includes FIBUA, FOFO, mine-setting/laying, booby-trapping, CD, laying ambush, basic jungle survival, skill-at-arms, unarmed combat etc Will the average soldier be proficient in all those above and more in 24 months??? No way!!!
The impression I get from reading his reply is ... pardon me ... it is crap.
He seems to ignore the fact that under the current system, the traditional soldier, the hokkien pengs ONLY serve 2 years. It has been like this for dunno how long. The skills he described are just the traditional soldiering skills, ie. infantry skills. So I'm not wrong in using the hokkien pengs as my counter-example.
The mono-intake is structured to cater for 2 years NS liability. IMHO, he shouldn't curse and swear at the Defense Minister if his problem is actually with the current system.
PS: Sorry, I just have to support the Defense Minister. 'Cos he is also my MP. Maybe I need him to write my deferment letter next time. [/b]
They can call it 3G for all whoever cares, but a soldier should never not know how to do any of those tradtional tasks proficiently before he moves on into those so-called 3G roles. Which is why if SAF really wants to move into it, they should never shorten NS!!! Use the 2 and half minimum requirement to make an average man into a traditional soldier, then the rest is up to SAF to put into their program for so-called 3G capability. With the demands of what is generically 3G, this should make NS 6 years to make mere boys into so-called 3G men, and government must live with this economic burden, or else don't ever come up with such an idea in the first place!!! Wishful thinking!!!! -
if u coporal its only lugi 1000 ++Originally posted by the Bear:what i don't understand is all the ranting by some other people about "how they rugi"..
if the liability was increased, they'd be the first idiots to be gloating...
oh well.. it takes all kinds..
kinda glad for a lot of people who have not worn green yet tho'
if u 3sg its only 1400++
if u 2sg its only 1800++
if u LTA its only 2100++
that all all u can get for sitting at home for the LAST 2 months of ur NSF -
I guess we won't see the effect of the change until SAF engages in her first major firefight.
Will our soldiers fall like a deck of card due to the over-confidence and arrogance of the policy makers?
6 months less or not, I think the 'Serve and Fark Off' mentality will still remain .. haha -
ORD loh!!!