NSF: Monthly Allowance = Wages ?
-
if the govt follow your suggestion you better be prepared to pay more tax, coe, gst blah blah blah.
why do you think the money will be coming from?
-
but i dun need that kinda training in NS to toughened me up.....if they wanna toughned themselves up then i suggest they have scaled down version of SOC and rifle PT when boys are still in primary 1 when their body tends to be more able to endure torture and hardship!
something like that SOLDIER movie and martial arts in china where they need to start at kiddie age..even arnold schwarzeneggar needed to train his body up as a little boy.
but then the salary thing.....just peg it same price as gurkhas when they pass out.
-
why gurkha salary???because if they look tough with that salary then spore soldiers will look tough too wiv dat kinda dough!
-
but i think regular soldier pay is not par with us army or 1st world salary soldiers pay.....
-
Originally posted by Wmyongj:
I dont follow the pay of the national service boy anymore. During my time, we were paid an 'allowance' of abt 180SGD per month to serve the nation. The average salary for a factory workers than was abt 700-1000SGD. Is the government still paying an 'alllowance' for compulsary national servce? if so why?
My view is that since Sg govern is preaching mkt driven rate for everythings in our country, including Ministers salary, why are we not paying a market rate salary to our national servicemen? We may not have the money in the past the the early day but now, I dont beleive we cannot affort to pay the annual intake of say 10-20K new servicemen the right salary.
if singapore army gives competitive pays like the us, then it will increase our defence expenditure by 3-8 times, this means we have to pay more taxes.
-
Originally posted by Audiophile:
Training can be done. But there are other things that take place after that. We still need assesment provided by ATEC, more practice to make them truly competent.
So in that way, if you take a serviecman who has the NAPFA requirements, then he'll be only serving 1yr 10 months.
3 months BMT, 6-9 months command school and/or vocation training. Thats already a year. So lets say he's more or less a qualified soldier. But he has no real field experience. That is why we have overseas exercise, exercise with other services within SAF, ATEC and such. All this require preparation and such.
The way the SAF is managed is that some factions are almore entirely managed, run and composed of the NSFs/Nsman with the exception of only the leadership thats really at the top.
For there to be proper confidence and proper capability they have to be extensively trained and assessed. Throwing a soldier trained or otherwise into the battlefield without making sure that he CAN do the job and making sure that he has enough experince is as good as sending him to his death.
AND the requirements of Singapore is a little different that other countries primarily because we lack strategice depth. Should war come, ideally, we need to project our defensive line well into the enemy space so that our civillians are safe, our infrastructure is still there so that we can recover from war. Because of this we need to train in places other than our own.
If we want to bother we National Service at all, might as well make sure that it is done properly.
Anyway, we are getting away from the topic. I believe it is whether we should increase the allowance of the NSFs to be comparable to the Regulars. I maintain my answer to be No. The allowance is sufficient. The SAF (not counting the police force and SCDF who have additional allowance to make provisions for such cases) provides pretty much a complete range of basic necessities from food, shelter clothing (with the exception of underwear, but i'm sure we can manage - these things are what the allowance is for btw, miscellaneous things) and such.
Also, its true that we serve to protect the country. But still it is not extirely ridiculous of us to expect some recognition and compensation. We give up the prime of our lives training for the war we hope will never come. Atleast there could be some gratitude.
Some subsidy in the form of local tertiary education is not entirely ridiculous. We did loose all that time. If we didn't go through NS and got into UNI, we would be working 2 more years earninig 2k+++. Which the girls and those who don't serve already benefit from.
Germany, one of the top ten armed forces in the world, conscripts their males for only 9 months. South Korea, technically still at war with the North, conscripts for 21 months, with a gradual reduction to 18 months in the next few years. Taiwan, facing a massive giant of an often times unfriendly neighbour on her west, used to conscript males for a 24 months service has now reduced that by half, with constant initiatives to bring that number down further.
If we need 3 months to train recruits and a further 6-9 months to train command officers and then a further few more months for vocation training, then the question begs: Are the likes of Germany, South Korea and Taiwan preparing soldiers who are not combat ready?
And what has the concept of forward defence got to do with the length of service? -
Tax payer money is better used for long term investment purposes lah.
Really.
-
Considering the billions we have lost overseas and still no talk of raising the GST, it's already a miracle. Market pay will surely put upward pressure on our taxes.
-
The foriegn levy should be used to compensate the NSF.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Germany, one of the top ten armed forces in the world, conscripts their males for only 9 months. South Korea, technically still at war with the North, conscripts for 21 months, with a gradual reduction to 18 months in the next few years. Taiwan, facing a massive giant of an often times unfriendly neighbour on her west, used to conscript males for a 24 months service has now reduced that by half, with constant initiatives to bring that number down further.
If we need 3 months to train recruits and a further 6-9 months to train command officers and then a further few more months for vocation training, then the question begs: Are the likes of Germany, South Korea and Taiwan preparing soldiers who are not combat ready?
And what has the concept of forward defence got to do with the length of service?
Ok, firstly, the move to shorten the conscription of the military was primarily a political move. Military personnel and senior officers maintain that 9 months is too short to train a competent soldier.South Korea's 21 months is more or less comparable to our 22months (Passed Napfa) or 24 months (Failed Napfa).
Taiwan however is trying to move from a conscription military to a volunteer military so the chages that they are making cannot really be compared to us.
And when i said forward defence, i meant that aside from receiving basic traininng in Singapore, we train in other countries so that the soldiers learn to adapt to fighting in different environmental conditions (as opposed to learning to fight specifically in the environment of the foreign countries that we train at). Other countries have the luxury of maintaining a defensive line within their borders. Where in Singapore do we draw a defensive line? Would you like fighting to be taking place in the basket ball court of your estate? No!
Lets break it down again, if you want to argue, try to propose something shorter so that we can achive the same training in a lesser time.
3 months - BMT
6-9 months - Command School/ Vocation Training
1 Year - Ops Preperation and Ops Evaluation. Standby duties.
Notice that the Command School and Vocation Training only minimally trains our soldiers for war. How to Operate a weopen, how to react and such. We don't do anything large scale to simulate a battle involving complex elements. SO at the end of the first year, what you have is basically trained soldiers with no real experience.
Its like giving an individual education up till the level of Masters or a Doctorate and Finance and making him a Head of a Bank or at the Minimum a Senior Executive/Vice President in a Bank. It just doesnt make sense.
The Second year is when most of the important action takes place. This is where we make sure that these are truly soldiers, not just men trained to use guns. Once all this is done, they are on Standby Duty. This is REAL Active Duty where they are on standby should any conflict arise. They will be the first to be activitated while the Reseve Corps is getting Ready to back them up. And please note that the active duty is only like 3-5 months. All the Training for 3-5 months and your reservist duties.
And its not like the Liability period is not being revised, it has already dropped from 2.5 years to 2 years. Further reductions can be made if we can be assured that similar results can be obtained by a shorter training period.
There are people in MINDEF looking into this constantly, alot of manpower is allocated to shaping the training process, things are always changing.
At the end of 2 Years, Singapore does produce soldiers. Competent Soldiers. Foriegn militaries are amazed at how fast we train soldiers. They praise the level of proffesionalism of our conscripts, the depth of their knowledge.
We have NS, so that we are more or less assured Safety. If you dont want to do a proper job at it, then don't bother doing it. Just maintain the minimal regular force to match our population and geographical size.
AS it is, looking at how Singapore is defended, i can say that event he US (the so called best military in the world) would be hard pressed to take Singapore. (and this is not a discussion this is a FACT)
I'm not contesting that the other conscript armies are poorly defended.
But note that South Korea does not need to have simulated ops because they are actually engaged for duty. Though the conflict has subdued somewhat, the military still maintain a presence on the border on actual duty.
-
Originally posted by Wmyongj:
The foriegn levy should be used to compensate the NSF.
Don't be an idiot. You're oversimplifying the budget. There are other things the nation needs to spend on. The Budget does not rotate on the allowance of NSFs and NSMen. -
Firstly, what has the concept of forward defence has to do with the length of service? Pls note that I am not asking you what forward defence means.
Secondly, even though S. Korea's 21 months is close to our 21-22 months but they have plans to reduce it even though they are technically at war with the North.
Taiwan is reducing its conscription tenure despite warm cold relations with China. Well of course for Sg to reduce to 3-4 months is ludicrous, perhaps like what I mentioned, 18 months initially for the SAF would be a good thing to look at and eventually reducing. Considering the great influx of foreigners these days, no one is guaranteed a job right after 2 years national service. Reducing it to 1 to 1 1/2 years would go a long way towards boosting the GDP and productivity of the nation.
Seems that you have no idea why Germany with a conscription tenure of 9 months, is able to maintain a world class military. You sound like someone from inside SAF. Well, to be honest I have no idea about Germany's way of training but it only takes some common sense to wonder why Singapore can't do the same. Given that to reduce our conscription from 24 months to 12 months is a tad drastic, surely 18 months is something the SAF can look at. After all, we still have yearly reservist committments.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
i think u have no idea what u r talking about.
i mean if NS is to reduce to 1 year, i think there is not enuf time to serve, serving National service actually start on the 2nd year, 1st years is all basic and course training, my ex bf in Officer cadet course already took a year to train, if u said let them go after 1 year, then train for what, no service rendered. Then it should not be call as national service but rather training course. Basically those peoples who compare us again to Taiwan, German or even israel, you hv to look at it clearly, the environment, demographic, populations, etc etc must be factor in to determine the situation, just like my hometown in taiwan, at any one time, we got 500,000 young soldiers ready to fight a war, no need to recall or mobilise anything, with so much young men, our young men dun hv to serve so long, but their reservists is longer than singaporeans, and in country like Israel and Germany, their soldier bring their weapon home, at any one time, they are ready to go for war with full order, unlike ours, have to take taxis lah, feeder service bus lah, MRT lah...by the time old uncle army arrive, i think i already get raped by the enemy liao. -
Haha.
BTW, I'm not from within the SAF, Mindef or the Singapore Government. Atleast not currently. I was previously an Officer and i have ORDed early last year.
I validate the National Service Liability Service because i did scrutinise it when i was in the service.
My point is that it is not valid to compare us to other countries because our needs are different. Maybe Germany feels that their Conscription libility service is sufficient, but note that their own military personnel disagree, they say that the amount of training is so little that they shouldnt even bother. This may be a political move.
Singapore has certain contingency plans and needs for the SAF. This requires this specific training package.
If the government impose a curfew and made it so that you only get minimum food. You would be upset. And if i use your argument that other people in other countries are doing it. Like those poorer countries and such. What is your response? That is other nations. NOT how we do things in Singapore.
If we want to take this discussion further. Can you recommend where can we trim the National Service. IF it can be done, then tell the Government how. Don't just say lessen the time, and increase the allowance and what not when you dont know how to do things yourself. It is in Singapore's best interest to decrease the liability, to put these people back into the economy, to decrease defence expenditure. But we cant do it. Not now anyway. Maybe if things change in the future.
I'm not a firm supporter of the Government, I disagree with them on many points. But this, national service is important.
And if you have gone through it, you will know that it is not in terms of defence that we benefit. People grow in a way in NS in a way that you can't anywhere else.
-
Why not ask those ''foreign talents'' to serve NS without pokcet money after all they have taken from us.
-
I say NSF should at least have a allowance of minimum $800 for a private rank
-
Originally posted by Daveteo:
I say NSF should at least have a allowance of minimum $800 for a private rank
Thats almost as much as what mcdonalds pays
-
Originally posted by Daveteo:
I say NSF should at least have a allowance of minimum $800 for a private rank
You say, you say, you say.
Talk is cheap, sunshine - are you going to make that happen? Who's going to pay for that, you? When you stop bitching about privates' pay, what are you going to bitch about next, taxes?
Wake up, smell the coffee and join the real world.
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
You say, you say, you say.
Talk is cheap, sunshine - are you going to make that happen? Who's going to pay for that, you? When you stop bitching about privates' pay, what are you going to bitch about next, taxes?
Wake up, smell the coffee and join the real world.
Pot calling kettle black.
Time for you to wake up and stop asking stupid questions
-
Only millionsters deserved the market rate salary.
For common folks, it is your duty to protect and serve the country.
If you want more money, please join the men as regulars.
Please do not apply high standards for millionster across the board.
Cos they still got a pay raise for not performing but tagging to GDP.
That is another joke.
-
i agree NSF should have a pay increase..but not too much.
because they work equally hard...hrs spent.. slpless night ..sometimes no weekend...
-
Originally posted by Daveteo:
I say NSF should at least have a allowance of minimum $800 for a private rank
ok..this is abit too much.
-
Originally posted by Wmyongj:
I dont follow the pay of the national service boy anymore. During my time, we were paid an 'allowance' of abt 180SGD per month to serve the nation. The average salary for a factory workers than was abt 700-1000SGD. Is the government still paying an 'alllowance' for compulsary national servce? if so why?
My view is that since Sg govern is preaching mkt driven rate for everythings in our country, including Ministers salary, why are we not paying a market rate salary to our national servicemen? We may not have the money in the past the the early day but now, I dont beleive we cannot affort to pay the annual intake of say 10-20K new servicemen the right salary.
Just look at the pay and the bonus... that's why...
-
What is the market rate for NS men?
Where is the market?
Beach Road, Afganistan, Iraq, Columbia?
-
NS should be listed as one of the jobs Singaporeans don't like to do, and open the way for foreigners to join on minimal renumeration.
The Singapore Foreign Legion.
Whack them into shape with inhuman training regime, send them first into conflicts, grant citizenship only on completion of service in good physical and mental condition..