Singaporeans now tend to be Unappreciative, Whine & Complain
-
Originally posted by Deino:
Face the fact. We are a city. We aren't really a country.
What we are protecting looks more like a corporate than a country.How can Singaporeans not complain about the standards of living here if the city itself was built from 0 onwards with our own blood and sweat while the ministers enjoy the finer life?
The truth about developed countries are the contrast between the struggles of its citizens to against the elites.
Just look at our soldiers. How much are they being given to serve this city? Imagine if the millions of dollars given to the ministers were given to our soldiers instead giving them the allowance of a full time employees outside. People will definitely look at soldiers differently.
Its really pathetic how a world class country cannot provide free transport for NSmen. Really.
I like your last sentence.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Why should a NSF 2LT earn any less than a regular 2LT? Is his service any less worthy?
Singapore does not take that view. NSFs and NSmen are the backbone of the force. We have NSmen MAJs going for command school way into their NSmen years. They should be equally compensated.
The SAF need not choose between paying men properly and good weapons.
True. They both serve in the same capacity. But the FACT remains that Regulars are basically paid more because they are paid to commit their futures to the organisation. If not than what's the whole point of Army recruitment? All the economics and you lack a simple understanding of HR?This is a CONSCRIPTED force. You're not the only one short-changed. We're all in this together. Deal with it.
-
Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:
True. They both serve in the same capacity. But the FACT remains that Regulars are basically paid more because they are paid to commit their futures to the organisation. If not than what's the whole point of Army recruitment? All the economics and you lack a simple understanding of HR?This is a CONSCRIPTED force. You're not the only one short-changed. We're all in this together. Deal with it.
You can always embraced the dark path. Sign on.
-
Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:
True. They both serve in the same capacity. But the FACT remains that Regulars are basically paid more because they are paid to commit their futures to the organisation. If not than what's the whole point of Army recruitment? All the economics and you lack a simple understanding of HR?This is a CONSCRIPTED force. You're not the only one short-changed. We're all in this together. Deal with it.
Paying NSF decently does not mean regulars are short changed. They are still volunteering from own free will to take the SAF's pay offered to them.
The minimum contract is 4 years (inclusive of 2 years NS), I don't see how they are sacrificing their future.
You are either a regular who delights in making people suffer, or a blind believer thinking that everything Singapore does is right.
-
I think to sum up the thread title, Singaporeans are a realistic bunch.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Paying NSF decently does not mean regulars are short changed. They are still volunteering from own free will to take the SAF's pay offered to them.
The minimum contract is 4 years (inclusive of 2 years NS), I don't see how they are sacrificing their future.
You are either a regular who delights in making people suffer, or a blind believer thinking that everything Singapore does is right.
Sure minimum term is 4 years but if I get the same amount in allowance as a regular gets his/her pay, then WTF would I need to sign on for? Suffer an extra 2 years on top of the NS when I could have gone for other careers or studies? Tell me where's the logic in this from a HR manager's POV?
So now you're decending into stereotyping when facts that do not support your "vision" are brought up? If the points brought up do not make sense to you or lead you to have that impression then so be it. I don't have to go around justifying what I do nor impress you.
-
Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:
Sure minimum term is 4 years but if I get the same amount in allowance as a regular gets his/her pay, then WTF would I need to sign on for? Suffer an extra 2 years on top of the NS when I could have gone for other careers or studies? Tell me where's the logic in this from a HR manager's POV?
So now you're decending into stereotyping when facts that do not support your "vision" are brought up? If the points brought up do not make sense to you or lead you to have that impression then so be it. I don't have to go around justifying what I do nor impress you.
People sign up because the pay is attractive, they don't sign up because others are getting less. They don't benefit from others getting less. Are you citing a new HR theory?
You serve more years, you get more increments year after year. A 5 year LTA gets more than a 2 year LTA.