If National Service is optional, will you.....
-
If National Service is optional and not legally binding (meaning that citizens have the option of refusing to be drafted without legal repercussions), will YOU (regardless of gender) still agree to be drafted into 2 years of NSF service, followed by 10 years in the reserves?
Or would you say no-way-man!?!? -
I will say No.
-
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
If National Service is optional and not legally binding (meaning that citizens have the option of refusing to be drafted without legal repercussions), will [b]YOU (regardless of gender) still agree to be drafted into 2 years of NSF service, followed by 10 years in the reserves?
Or would you say no-way-man!?!? [/b]
see e pay like US reserves anot ist 
dis kind of shit pay,fget it lah more like for bangla -
NEVER
-
ts is asking the obvious
-
now that depends.. in the 1st place, government will only make it optional if they have ALOT of full time soldiers.. which is kinda impossible.. if they make it optional, but they announce that SAF is facing shortage of manpower, i will volunteer.. WE dun defend OUR country, WHO will?
-
no. i want to quickly study and find a job.
-
I will.
-
unless they raise the allowance or else who would want to volunteer when the monthly allowance is so liitle? but then again if the allowance is raised, it might attract the wrong crowd, namely those good-for-nothing-bums who don't wanna find a job and would rather live off SAF for its money, free food and lodging.
-
ok i still will...
-
No way...
-
I would probably be more willing to serve if it were made optional.
Half of the time I currently spend as a commander in NS is to solve morale & discipline issues and convince my men literally on why they should fight.
If it were made voluntary, all these problems would not exist. Everyone in NS would automatically already want to serve. There would be much less keng-ing. Report sick rates would be so low that we would even require fewer service medics. Internal politics such as "White Horses" would be a thing of the past. The quality of soldiers and commanders would sky-rocket. -
NO NO and NO!!!
-
but then u have to start worrying about the amount people is willing to serve... (quantity).Originally posted by Quirinus:I would probably be more willing to serve if it were made optional.
Half of the time I currently spend as a commander in NS is to solve morale & discipline issues and convince my men literally on why they should fight.
If it were made voluntary, all these problems would not exist. Everyone in NS would automatically already want to serve. There would be much less keng-ing. Report sick rates would be so low that we would even require fewer service medics. Internal politics such as "White Horses" would be a thing of the past. The quality of soldiers and commanders would sky-rocket. -
have we seen any country implement "optional" NS?
-
my pay is worse than banglah pay... u think leh?
more like national slavery to mi -
Ya me too. I want to park my money in the refrigerator.Originally posted by Ito_^:no. i want to quickly study and find a job. -
It's a capital NO.
-
Only multiple conscription streams, meaning the draft is there but there is a choice between military or non-military service.Originally posted by wuming78:have we seen any country implement "optional" NS? -
We might be able to keep the same number of soldiers in the force if a new hypothetical Reserve Command can offer free university education for volunteers and part time weekend training a la the Territorial Army system in UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Put this with the GI Bill that the US Army offers to ROTC and Reserve Troops for study+training, it might work.
Can the economy sustain this, we need more in-depth study. However, I don't believe the powers that be will give two hoots about the benefits of such a radical change. Namely that the current military scholarship system co-opts leaders and provides for unspoken political-economical continuity of leadership for the PAP government. It acts as a way to "re-shape" the youth, through the traditional tools of calibrated coercion, and the leverage on national defense as a cohesion building tool.
The SAF has become an institution for communal bonding and leadership training, rather than an Army first and foremost.
These words might sound radical, but look deeper, and it is very true indeed. -
OVER MY DEAD BODYA!
-
Definitely go for "NO"
-
saf is for communal bondingOriginally posted by LazerLordz:We might be able to keep the same number of soldiers in the force if a new hypothetical Reserve Command can offer free university education for volunteers and part time weekend training a la the Territorial Army system in UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Put this with the GI Bill that the US Army offers to ROTC and Reserve Troops for study+training, it might work.
Can the economy sustain this, we need more in-depth study. However, I don't believe the powers that be will give two hoots about the benefits of such a radical change. Namely that the current military scholarship system co-opts leaders and provides for unspoken political-economical continuity of leadership for the PAP government. It acts as a way to "re-shape" the youth, through the traditional tools of calibrated coercion, and the leverage on national defense as a cohesion building tool.
The SAF has become an institution for communal bonding and leadership training, rather than an Army first and foremost.
These words might sound radical, but look deeper, and it is very true indeed. dont make me laff,malay ist go to CD den no space throw to police den e remainder is for RP in army -
Eh eh, read carefully. I'm talking of presumed role. Not actual ground reality.Originally posted by Chelzea:saf is for communal bonding dont make me laff,malay ist go to CD den no space throw to police den e remainder is for RP in army -
will i have alot of benefits ?
more pay ?