Jump to content
Scb11980

National Service in Singapore

Recommended Posts

Personally, the mindset of the national is

if it is FREE we will keep it

 

hence, i dont envisage a possible reduction in our NS duration

 

what i am very worried about is

the world is moving so very fast

we already had been disadvantaged by NS, resulting in being 2 or 2 1/2 years behind our girls and our foreign classmates

in the future it will be worse for our children

even 6 months can mean a break or score

the economic cycle also is shorter

 

hence, i am just worried about our children

 

am i worrying too much for our kids

or should i just relax

 

 

TAIPEI

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did u make a study of how big Taiwan's regular force is? If they are so confident to reduce the training to 4 months or do away with NS eventually, it goes to show they have a big enough and yet effective defence to deal with threats.

 

Back home, taking away NS means there is a need to upsize the regular force. $$$ should be the factor. Defence budget will then have to be increased quite substantially. Someone probably is now studying Taiwan's model in reducing the training duration.

Edited by Kilomatrix
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, the mindset of the national is

if it is FREE we will keep it

 

hence, i dont envisage a possible reduction in our NS duration

 

what i am very worried about is

the world is moving so very fast

we already had been disadvantaged by NS, resulting in being 2 or 2 1/2 years behind our girls and our foreign classmates

in the future it will be worse for our children

even 6 months can mean a break or score

the economic cycle also is shorter

 

hence, i am just worried about our children

 

am i worrying too much for our kids

or should i just relax

 

 

TAIPEI

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, the mindset of the national is

if it is FREE we will keep it

 

hence, i dont envisage a possible reduction in our NS duration

 

what i am very worried about is

the world is moving so very fast

we already had been disadvantaged by NS, resulting in being 2 or 2 1/2 years behind our girls and our foreign classmates

in the future it will be worse for our children

even 6 months can mean a break or score

the economic cycle also is shorter

 

hence, i am just worried about our children

 

am i worrying too much for our kids

or should i just relax

 

 

TAIPEI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did u make a study of how big Taiwan's regular force is? If they are so confident to reduce the training to 4 months or do away with NS eventually, it goes to show they have a big enough and yet effective defence to deal with threats.

 

Back home, taking away NS means there is a need to upsize the regular force. $$ should be the factor. Defence budget will then have to be increased quite substantially. Someone probably is now studying Taiwan's model in reducing the training duration.

 

No matter how big Taiwan's regular force is, their threat is China. I'm not even sure if USA dare say they have sufficient resources to hold China in a land war without nukes.

 

Compare that with Singapore. When fully mobilised, Singapore has a bigger standing army than the whole of ASEAN ex Vietnam combined. You can see Singapore's NS is disproportionate and destabilising.

 

Even Switzerland's full time military service is 4 months. (I thought someone said something about Swiss standard of living? Obviously a broken promise.)

 

Also, there is a very good reason why NS is kept long in Singapore. Who is paying for NS? If NSFs are paid as little as half pay of regulars (while doing the same job), MINDEF will take the lead to cut NS.

 

The fact that NSFs cost so little is why MINDEF wouldn't want to lose their toy soldiers, since they will always need cheap labour to do stuff like packing goody packs for NDP or arranging plants during IMF meetings.

 

Also, this is a peasant army. Sons of elites will get around the system with scholarships and disruptions. We all know about the 12 year disruptions followed by dubious deployments. So the elites don't feel the costs either.

 

We only need two things for NSF duration to shorten:

 

1) More realistic pay for NSF

2) No more bullsh!t disruption for scholarship holders. Everybody do the full NS before studying.

 

Without the loopholes, the elites will lobby for change.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is time they move to a professional army, and at the same time have a 4 - 6 months conscript stint for the rest, gradually phasing it out in a decade.

Annual refresher ICT on the use of arms and such can be a week long.

Small fighting groups can be more effective than a large battalion moving around.

 

Pit our trained soldiers against the poorly trained unconvntional army/force we may not even be able to beat them.

The US even with their superior equipments had such a difficult time fighting the Talibans and rebels in Iraq. Vietnam is another one.

I believe any emergency need not be a war outbreak.

I believe only a handful of our consripts can perform on par with professional soldiers like the Gurkhas (one officer even confessed himself an incompetent officer/soldier). Example: the US military lost Vietnam War. Iran, I am not sure if can be call a victory. Most of our younger generations are brought up in well-illuminated highrise flats served by lifts. How can we expect them to perform well in emergency, with mostly night-blindness, weakened physique? The influx of FT/FW does not help, since it is their children brought up in similar disadvantaged environment who will serve NS. An army of disadvantaged soldiers may be more stampede during emergency, especially when the officers panicked first. Example: we may be aware that some/many of the boys going to that famous school in Bishan walk already with a slight limp at that age. What kind of officers will they be? One school coach confessed to me: how to coach them to be sportsmen when they come to me in primary school, like early stage physically handicapped?

To out-source the national defence is like what the Romans had done to themselves to bring forward the fall of the Roman Empire. History repeats itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite how unwilling we are and the potential "fall" behind against competition...I still see minimum of 2years as a right time frame for NS...what can one learn in a short time frame of 1 years or so? By the time a soldier really can be independent fighter..it doesn take time for them to build the comradeship with their member of their fighting unit...so for me, I support the 2 years for a boy transformation to a really man....won't want my son to be a half pass six, half grown man....

Edited by LoverofCar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how big Taiwan's regular force is, their threat is China. I'm not even sure if USA dare say they have sufficient resources to hold China in a land war without nukes.

 

Compare that with Singapore. When fully mobilised, Singapore has a bigger standing army than the whole of ASEAN ex Vietnam combined. You can see Singapore's NS is disproportionate and destabilising.

 

Even Switzerland's full time military service is 4 months. (I thought someone said something about Swiss standard of living? Obviously a broken promise.)

 

Also, there is a very good reason why NS is kept long in Singapore. Who is paying for NS? If NSFs are paid as little as half pay of regulars (while doing the same job), MINDEF will take the lead to cut NS.

 

The fact that NSFs cost so little is why MINDEF wouldn't want to lose their toy soldiers, since they will always need cheap labour to do stuff like packing goody packs for NDP or arranging plants during IMF meetings.

 

Also, this is a peasant army. Sons of elites will get around the system with scholarships and disruptions. We all know about the 12 year disruptions followed by dubious deployments. So the elites don't feel the costs either.

 

We only need two things for NSF duration to shorten:

 

1) More realistic pay for NSF

2) No more bullsh!t disruption for scholarship holders. Everybody do the full NS before studying.

 

Without the loopholes, the elites will lobby for change.

Problem-absconding-people will be the officers who panicked/fled first, with/without NS. Thats what the 60%+ wanted it to be. Others like us are the victims who will be the victims. Our only hope it their breaking up be speed up.

Edited by Good-Carbuyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite how unwilling we are and the potential "fall" behind against competition...I still see minimum of 2years as a right time frame for NS...what can one learn in a short time frame of 1 years or so? By the time a soldier really can be independent fighter..it doesn take time for them to build the comradeship with their member of their fighting unit...so for me, I support the 2 years for a boy transformation to a really man....won't want my son to be a half pass six, half grown man....

 

I'm guessing you are a woman or foreigner. Either way, if 2 years NS is so good, we should make it compulsory for women and new citizens of any age, unless you are suggesting that Singaporean men are somehow inferior and needs NS to do the "transformation".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem-absconding-people will be the officers who panicked/fled first, with/without NS. Thats what the 60%+ wanted it to be. Others like us are the victims who will be the victims. Our only hope it their breaking up be speed up.

 

Indeed. I will further point out that if Singapore is serious about defence, why are our generals so young, and before they even warm their seat, they are rushed out to be the CEO of some GLC or stat board? Can we count on our young generals, who thanks to their scholar track, never spent more than 2 years doing any role, to stay calm in times of emergency?

 

There are plenty of able leaders in SAF, people I will charge to death on their orders but they are seldom the scholars, and therefore, seldom rise to top leadership. OTOH, there are plenty of scholars who can't count on their own men to not shoot them the moment the opportunity arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you are a woman or foreigner. Either way, if 2 years NS is so good, we should make it compulsory for women and new citizens of any age, unless you are suggesting that Singaporean men are somehow inferior and needs NS to do the "transformation".

I learned that some inferior ones are sent for training to be officers instead. Both during NS and therafter, I used to encounter such calibre. One was sub-ordinate to his NCO when they both reported for reservist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you are a woman or foreigner. Either way, if 2 years NS is so good, we should make it compulsory for women and new citizens of any age, unless you are suggesting that Singaporean men are somehow inferior and needs NS to do the "transformation".I

I can't imaging if our home w/o army so I strongly agree on the 2yrs army life..

I think those of u that disagree on 2yrs army are young man haven't serve army yet..

I have a boy n will let him do NS..

Btw I finish my 2yrs NS too..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite how unwilling we are and the potential "fall" behind against competition...I still see minimum of 2years as a right time frame for NS...what can one learn in a short time frame of 1 years or so? By the time a soldier really can be independent fighter..it doesn take time for them to build the comradeship with their member of their fighting unit...so for me, I support the 2 years for a boy transformation to a really man....won't want my son to be a half pass six, half grown man....

 

Do you think 2 years is even sufficient at all?

Even our NSFs can't even fight off robbers in JB, how are they even going to fight a real enemy? Think of it, majority of our men have served NS and still get attacked/rebbed in JB, without even displaying an act of self defence. For someone to invade us, their military will definitely be stronger than us, with bullets and explosions around, you see how many are shivering, freezing on their tracks and wetting their pants. On the other hand, if a US Marine or military personnel is here and you try to rob them, see what sort of response you'll receive from them.

The simulated attacks during exercises are nowhere real compared to the actual battlefield. In exercises, you know you are pretty safe in all your movements. Try that in war. All will either be hiding in trenches or behind the walls.

I still believe at this time, gradually moving towards a paid "volunteer" self-defence force with a 6 months of initial training followed by a 1 week annual ICT would be sufficient. Survival in a battlefield is based on instinct.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you are a woman or foreigner. Either way, if 2 years NS is so good, we should make it compulsory for women and new citizens of any age, unless you are suggesting that Singaporean men are somehow inferior and needs NS to do the "transformation".

 

Because he/she supports NS?

 

I support 2yrs NS too... No I am not guniang...

 

NS has already been shortened from 2.5yrs to 2yrs... At the same time pay has increased...

 

Swiss does not face as large a threat as what we face....

 

Why some people compare for the sake of comparing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got difference being rob and war leh

 

Rob but money can earn back

 

War is home destroyed...... Hugh world of difference

 

NSF kena robbed.. So no use...so can you name me 1 country that the country army personnel never kena rob before....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe any emergency need not be a war outbreak.

I believe only a handful of our consripts can perform on par with professional soldiers like the Gurkhas (one officer even confessed himself an incompetent officer/soldier). Example: the US military lost Vietnam War. Iran, I am not sure if can be call a victory. Most of our younger generations are brought up in well-illuminated highrise flats served by lifts. How can we expect them to perform well in emergency, with mostly night-blindness, weakened physique? The influx of FT/FW does not help, since it is their children brought up in similar disadvantaged environment who will serve NS. An army of disadvantaged soldiers may be more stampede during emergency, especially when the officers panicked first. Example: we may be aware that some/many of the boys going to that famous school in Bishan walk already with a slight limp at that age. What kind of officers will they be? One school coach confessed to me: how to coach them to be sportsmen when they come to me in primary school, like early stage physically handicapped?

To out-source the national defence is like what the Romans had done to themselves to bring forward the fall of the Roman Empire. History repeats itself.

 

You're right, not forgetting to mention, maid carrying the full pack for our NSF.

As the nation is getting more highly educated, the mindset of those policy makers on the defence of our country must change to keep up with times.

Back in the old days, Malays are known to have good soldiering skills, and now I believe these have also eroded over times due to better education and lifestyle.

Having a professional army (and well paid) will let those with passion to do the job without losing out.

On the contary, the more educated the nation is, none of them are willing to fight. How many educated people are willing to do dirty jobs? All these are already sub out to bangalas to do.

And our paper generals, how many of us trust them to lead in a fight? All is good at talking when playing red force blue force in war games. A CSM/RSM has more ground experience can definitely fight much better than these generals.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got difference being rob and war leh

 

Rob but money can earn back

 

War is home destroyed...... Hugh world of difference

 

NSF kena robbed.. So no use...so can you name me 1 country that the country army personnel never kena rob before....

 

The thing is you can't even put your military skills into good use.

I still remember the "garang" look we have to dish out during baynott fighting in BMT.

If one is able to fight back the robbers, especially in our highly conscripted army, it does send a message down to would be aggressors that we do have an aggressive fighting force.

 

Right here, we are so close to our northern neighbour. Artillery fire can alone destroy our homes without the enemy even requiring to set foot on our soil.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALL OF YOU ARE WRONG!!!

 

NS should be about making enough babies to get rid to FTs ^_^

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×