Should NS be Reduced or Scrapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SERVICE
Introduction
National Service, or army conscription in Singapore, was first introduced in 1967 due to pressing issues such as national security after Singapore's "forced" independence in 1965. In 1971, the British completely pulled out of Singapore. It has been 41 years since the introduction of NS.
Since then the world and Asia has changed significantly in terms of security and economic arrangements. But has Singapore's conscription policy kept up with these changes to reflect and cope with the new geopolitical landscape?
First let us review the service that all able-bodied 18-year-old male Singaporeans have to undergo. Basic Military Training, or BMT, is the "boot camp" for all new recruits. This lasts for three months whereupon the soldier then gets posted out to other units for further specialised training.
The conscripts then serve the remainder of their two-year stint polishing up their combat skills. Following the two years of full-time service, NSmen are required (for up to 40 days a year) to serve in a part-tme capacity until they are 50 years old for commissioned officers and 40 for others.
Reduce the two-year full-time service
In an age where warfare has turned to "smart" technology, is it still logical and necessary for Singapore to insist that its National Servicemen undergo 24 months months of active, full-time service? Such a policy is rare among countries that maintain a conscription policy. Below is a list of countries with periods of full-time conscript service:
1.Austria (6 months)
2.Bolivia (12 months)
3.Brazil (9-12 months)
4.Denmark (4-12 months)
5.Estonia (8-11 months)
6.Finland (6-12 months)
7.Germany (9 months)
8.Greece (12 months)
9.Guatemala (12-24 months)
10.Moldavia (12 months)
11.Mongolia (12 months)
12.Paraguay (12-24 months)
13.Poland (9-12 months)
14.Serbia (6 months)
15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks)
16.Taiwan (12 months)
17.Tunisia (12 months)
18.Turkey (12 months)
19.Ukraine (12 months_
20.Uzbekistan (12 months)
From the above data, it can be seen that for all intents and purposes a conscript army training programme need not be as long as the one we have in Singapore. The more advance countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and Switzerland all have full-time services limited to one year and less.
Even Taiwan, which has an identifiable enemy in the form of China, limits its active service to 12 months. Only countries like South Korea and Israel have conscription periods that are longer than Singapore's. These countries are, however, in a state of war.
Given the situation in Singapore there is no reason why we cannot employ more efficient training methods and reduce full-time NS from the present two-years to twelve months or less.
Reservist IS a liability.
No matter how the govt emphasizes that it recognizes the NSMan, and how companies participate willingly in the programme, it will always remain a problem for foreign organizations who pay lip service to this participation.
A management personnel in the US firm that I served previously once questioned the need of having to lose personnel to reservist. Especially in an era where redundancy amongst workers' roles are falling (due to cost cutting measures), at a certain level, personnel no longer have backup when they go on their reservist training. As such, the tendency to want to hire foreigners (or 1st generation PRs) become stronger for organizations with minimal redundancy amongst workers.
This is especially so for high-value positions, where organizations can ill afford to hire multiple highly-paid personnel with coverage of each other's roles.
I ever was involved in a political tussle between the Europe office and SG office of an organization, where there were disagreements on which location to hire certain positions. So much so that reservist becomes a liability in such arguments.
Issue over reservist ought to be handled with flexibility.
Afterall during peacetime, the reservist work n drive e economy - tat's where SAF gets it's funding from
too much restriction isn't good either
My view is that both NS and reservist should be reduced. It is far too long.
It is time for an honest debate about this in public.
The PAP govt NEVER debates about political issues but simply gives dictates.
Quite sick of this type of fucking attitude.
It is due to Lee Kuan Yew.
Originally posted by angel3070:My view is that both NS and reservist should be reduced. It is far too long.
It is time for an honest debate about this in public.
The PAP govt NEVER debates about political issues but simply gives dictates.
Quite sick of this type of fucking attitude.
It is due to Lee Kuan Yew.
NS is never a political issue, it's over our defence and survival
Let it be clear, if there's no defence, if anything were to occur we're doomed. Not only investors would move out their investments, even things like oil prices is going to skyrocket (Singapore being the world's 3rd largest oil refinery centre).
There's alrdy too many assets to defend for
Originally posted by sbst275:
NS is never a political issue, it's over our defence and survival
Whether we need defence against threats we don't need to debate too much.
But HOW to defence against threats, how much resource we should allocate for that purpose.
That clearly needs a debate.
Originally posted by angel3070:Whether we need defence against threats we don't need to debate too much.
But HOW to defence against threats, how much resource we should allocate for that purpose.
That clearly needs a debate.
do you know how much each country is spending on defence? as in per GDP % and/ or per citizen?
if there's more assets to defend for, the defence spending increase is inter-related. If the country is poor and there's no industries, build up a big armed forces for?
Originally posted by sbst275:
do you know how much each country is spending on defence? as in per GDP % and/ or per citizen?
That requires a debate. I think Singapore is one of the highest in defence spending per citizen in the world.
I wonder whether so much spending on defence is really wise.
Originally posted by angel3070:That requires a debate. I think Singapore is one of the highest in defence spending per citizen in the world.
I wonder whether so much spending on defence is really wise.
It's the 2nd biggest after Israel
We have too many assets to defend for honestly. Another issue is although NS is meant to be in a sense, to help country to spend less, in reality it does not. Dun forget each NS intake, money gotta be spend on new sets of equipment for new enlistee
Originally posted by sbst275:
It's the 2nd biggest after Israel
Insane. We need to change that.
Originally posted by angel3070:Insane. We need to change that.
then we scrap NS, keep a small army then
But can we or even yourself feel to afford that?
Originally posted by sbst275:
then we scrap NS, keep a small army then
I don't support that.
+1
Originally posted by Berries tan:Should NS be Reduced or Scrapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the human body goes into a physical decline after the age of 30. To keep our military personnel in top condition, it makes little sense in keeping men over the age of 30 in the frontline if military conflict does indeed breakout.
To compensate for the decrease in the number of active and reservist NSmen, the Singapore Armed Forces should expand volunteer army recruitment to complement the reduction in the number of conscripts.
Surely men over the age of 30 still can fight at the front-line (30 is not that old can? In a few years I will be 30 :/ ). And volunteer recruitment is bound to fail.
All in all I think this article is badly reasoned and justified, but I'm neutral to adjustment of the NS period. To me, the only negative point of NS is the huge economic cost; but the article didn't really elaborate on it and I am not prepared to comment further. My NS experience was fruitful and pleasant; in hindsight I am glad I experienced it.
NS okay... cancel reservice... cos it's no sense asking one who conformed to the society to go back...
I am an NSman now. I'm not exactly an advocate for NS, but for Singapore, we really got no choice.
Defence is always very important. I'm very sure every knows the boardgame "Risk"; No matter how friendly you are with other nations, if there is a moment of weakness, other nations will just eat you up.
Big fish eats small fish. Its a cruel fact.
I'm not saying that our neighbouring countries will invade us now, but being a Chili Padi, it makes them think twice before they do anything.
You might ask, what's the reason for any country to attack us? What I say, if there's any single benefit, I will attack, but depends on how costly.
SAF invest so much, yet many people complaint if the forces are effective at all.
Yet we never thought of that one thing, "Its the man, not the machine."
"Machine" provided by the SAF gave us confidence that at least we got something decent to fight with against out enemy (although I am not supportive of all weaponries in the SAF).
"Man" on the other hand, requires training. Yes, our training may be long. But when you are fighting against really professional armies, which trained 5-10 full years dedicating to military; you better think twice of what we are really against.
With 2 years NSF, and 10 years part-time (amounting less than a year of training!) NSmen training, its nothing at all. And remember, sometimes you slack most of the NS times.
Most countries have conscription, although not always active. Any nation can just drown us with their quantities of men in their armies. But training of men and technology makes a difference.
We are in a strategic point between India and China, when trade passes.
From history during Temasek, we know that, even if they can't have us, they would simply destroy us.
That's how "vunerable" we are.
my views stand.
NS must.
reservice scrap off
Originally posted by youyayu:my views stand.
NS must.
reservice scrap off
My suggestion is to build a good regular army where soldiers get paid in full and to shorten the NS and reservist training period for the rest.The SAF could easily think up a good recruitment program that should include educational packages and other benefits to enlistees while expanding a professional army.
Originally posted by angel3070:That requires a debate. I think Singapore is one of the highest in defence spending per citizen in the world.
I wonder whether so much spending on defence is really wise.
Which reminded me of something like the Cold War.When the American just kept spending big throwing all those good $$$ on arms until the Russians could not keep up and just gave up.
Originally posted by caleb_chiang:NS okay... cancel reservice... cos it's no sense asking one who conformed to the society to go back...
Reservist training is important to make sure you still maintain some reasonable skills you had learned when you were active.I have seen soldiers not knowing how to strip weapons or forgotten how to use them.Cant really blame someone who has been away for several years cuz these things do happen.
i think we should have both NS and reservist..
retain the 2 years of FT NS, and maybe shorten the reservist for ALL, to maybe around 3 years?
heh.
I think should make those cannot study one, go FT NS for 5 years, teach them discipline and make them be more useful for the society. I will respect them MORE for they are protecting my property and family. MUST up their vocation pay to be 1K so that they would not lose out much.
Those who can study one, let them go on to the uni and forgo the FT NS. Waste our time only. We can contribute to the society more if we grad two years earlier.
Image SAF to be a professional career, recruiting technical expertise, to fill up the need for technical specialist. <- actually SAF is already doing now but need to do more. SAF have been giving a image that sign on is for those who cannot make it.
Forgo reservist, it is not useful anyway. we will be more economically useful at work.
Of course, you also volunteer to go army if you have the urge to serve the country for both male and female.
like the Thai Government system.
Flame me blah.
NS basically serves as a deterrence, something crucial esp in a small country like SG. However, the duration of NS can definitely be reduced.
In modern warfare, everything is abt efficiency and power. With the amt of money dumped into the drain, to provide for the free healthcare in SAF, i'm sure that it can be put into better use.
Srsly, the number of people/parents asking for specialist reviews/referrrals in SAF, is completely ridiculous. The reason? FREE healthcare system. Not to mention the fact that the money used is from the taxpayers. You, me and even the old uncles and aunties are paying for such referrals.
Ask yourself, what's the point of NS? deterrence? Then, why do you need it to be 2yrs? Ultimate waste of resource.
I do think NS is neccessary but like many said, the duration is too long.
And i do believe that females should be required to serve NS as well, at least to build up their mental and physical strength. If a war ever occurs, they can't entirely depend on the men to defend them and it'll definitely help if they are self-sufficient.
Well, if we all wanted shorter National Service in both NSF and NSmen serving time, for the betterment of our kids, please give birth to more... kids.