Re-think Our National Service Conscription

last SG · 2006-01-01T18:29:09+00:00

This is exactly what they did to anyone step forward as political Opponents. A loud reminder to Singaporeans again, the Law is to deal with criminals, unlawf...

Deen Lee SG

After 4 decades of national service conscription, many male Singaporeans have accepted it as part of their lives. The idea of changes to this conscription law is expected to draw mix reactions from the public. However this conscription policy is not cast in stone. We should not allow any policies to be untouched if we see flaws in it. Singapore's security cannot be taken lightly. I have highlighted how our conscription policy can be detrimental to our nation's security and social order instead. Not only does it lessen our defense capabilities, it has also weaken our social cohesiveness and economic competitiveness.

There are many opinions from forummers about my views of our national service conscription, and my suggestions of changes to be made.

One of the main concern is that abolishing conscription will deplete and weaken our defence force. I cannot disagree more. Using the "option" approach will enlarge and strengthen our defence force instead. Firstly, in my proposition, adult females citizens and permanent residents will have to do national service. Therefore it will provide an opportunity for them to enrol themselves with any of the defence forces, including the military. If our women folks are real tough talking patriots, then this will be an good opportunity for them to walk the talk and join the army. For permanent residents and foreigners-turn-citizens, it is a chance to prove their faith and loyalty to this country, and show that they are equally prepared to defend it with their lives, just like Singapore-born Singaporeans. Secondly, if all that I have been reading from forums and the press about how supportive and proud our male Singaporeans are about SAF, then I would expect the rate of "opting out" from the military force to be minimal. The combine result will be an enlarged defence force. In addition, it will be a defence force that is made up of highly motivated and committed personnel, as oppose to "reluctant soldiers" being conscripted into the military as what it is now. Anchored by professional personnel, our defence force must be more stronger than before.

There are people who opposes abolishing conscription because they feel that it is unfair to them having completed their 2/2.5 years of NS and/or 13 years of reservist liability. However, not all will agree. We will probably get different opinions from those who are currently doing NS currently, and those who have yet to do so. However it is unacceptable not to change a policy if it is proven to be flawed. We should not allow it to continue and do irreversible damages to our next and future generations.

fudgester SG

You're being overidealistic here, and as a result, I find your arguments flawed.

1. First of all, you say that conscription should be abolished, but in the next breath, you say that females and PRs should do NS (highlighted in blue). Aren't you being self-contradictory here? Isn't making females and PRs do NS forced conscription? By the way, second-generation PRs have to do NS, in case if you didn't know.

2. How on earth do you know that most Singaporeans would not choose to opt out of NS if they were given that option? The only supporting evidence that you present for this is the impression you get from reading the forums and the press. That's not hard evidence, boy.

Call me pessimistic, but trust me, most of us DON'T want to do NS if we were given that option. We would rather go on to university right after JC and leave the problem of NS to someone else. If our boys currently doing NS were given the option, the huge majority would choose to leave immediately and enter the workforce or go into further studies.

3. In light of my point (2), how on earth are you going to get 'an enlarged defence force' made up of 'highly motivated and committed personnel'? With so many people taking up the option of not doing NS, you'll just have a depleted personnel strength.

In addition, you still haven't answered one of my questions in an earlier post: how are you going to account for the economy? If you say that we would have 'an enlarged defence force' using your suggestions, Singapore's economy will take a huge beting in the process. Currently, the full strength of the SAF is around 350,000, a figure where NSmen make up the vast majority (about 250,000). If the defence force is enlarged to, say, 400,000 regulars (as per your suggestion of an 'enlarged defence force'), we would have a severe dent in available manpower. So who's going to teach the kids, treat the sick, run the industries and construct the buildings?

Besides, as rich as Singapore is, we simply don't have the resources to maintain and upkeep such a large professional army. We already spend about 5% of our GDP on a largely conscript defence force, which is proportionately more than what the US spends (around 3.5%). And we're not fighting any wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. So how much more do you think we're willing to spend?

folliclely challenged SG

If you ask me... my answer will me

Q. Is Singapore worth defending??
A. If I were to fight, the motivation is to defend my life, my family, my love ones. Frankly, I don't give shit about our "leaders" or even this "island"

Q. Would I go to war??
A. Depending whether is it a worthy cause. If our gahmen suddenly kee siao want to send our troops to Iraq..... u can forget it. still cannot believe our gahmen supported the US coalition of the willing. I wonder will any opposition party take this up to suan PAP in the next election

But if it's a matter of saving our skins and our way of life... boh pian, take rifle and shoot, take grenade and throw lor

Q. Should we abolish conscription
A. only miserable 4million population and not enough babies in the pipeline.... of course must carry on lah. Whether will stay and fight or not is a seperate issue. At least must first teach our boys to aim and shoot

Q. Should ladies be enlisted as well
A. Honestly I think so. If we really have a manpower issue.... they should be included. I don't think military training will make our women barren right??

Q. Any good example of countries who practices enlistment and successfully defended themselves against aggression
A. It's obvious the best example will be Israel. Both men and women are enlisted and they really whoop their neighbours arse. I wonder how many % of their budget was spent on defence

Q. Can Singapore be like Israel
A. Dunno, Singapore has never really been put into test, but I seriously doubt our local boys will be a patriotic bunch. Not when I've been hearing all the complaints. I sense that Israeli folks have a MUCH stronger sense of nationalism. It could be the results of bonding through Religion or some national identity. I feel our gahmen have to work on this area......... how to really make patriots out of the common men and women

Q. Will NS for ladies make our women ugly??
A. No lah... every year internation pagent, Miss Israels always look tonns better our Miss Singapores

Q. What is Singapore best defence policy
A. Peace and Goodwill with our neighbours. Suck up USA and China

ndsef SG

I think most guys here will agree with me on this. As NS Men, I will fight a war if it comes to our shores and not fight a war on other people's soil (eg Iraq War).

I don't care who the leaders are whether they are PAP or not, whether there is NKF Scandal a not, when some idiot points his weapon at anybody on this island, I will fight back. To protect our sovereignty and to protect the lives of my loved ones.

Deen Lee SG

I had a number of replies from people who disagree that replacing conscription with my proposed "option" scheme may lead a larger and better defence force. Their opinions are that given a choice, no Singaporeans or PRs (both male & female) will choose to enrol themselves in the military force, thus putting our military defence at risk. I do not agree that no Singaporean will want to be in any of our defence force. However given the benefit of doubt, even if it should happen in the worst case scenario, our military defence will still not be compromised.

Firstly, we still have our own professional personnel in place. Secondly, any deficiencies can be supplemented by "foreign talents". In sport, we import foreigners and give them citizenship to represent Singapore. This "foreign talent" scheme is also equally pervasive in private and government sector. So why not for the military? For instance the army can import Gurkhas and give them citizenship to supplement its manpower. This is better than having conscripted "reluctant soldiers" who are unmotivated and non-committal towards defending our country. If Gurkhas can be entrusted to guard our government leaders' residences, surely they can be entrusted to defend their adopted country if turned citizens. Expenditure may rise, but isn't worthwhile to do so in order to have a formidable military force for our country? Furthermore, Singaporeans who opted out from the military force will have to opt for other service like healthcare or social work to fulfill their national service obligation. This will bring expenditure down for these sectors, thus reducing cost to users of these services.

fudgester SG

For goodness' sake.... please read my arguments and address them. Don't just shrug them off. It weakens your own credibility.

Now you say that the deficiency can be made up by importing 'foreign talents', or in other words, mercenaries. As I've already pointed out to you already, the total fighting strength of the SAF is around 350,000, including about 250,000 NSmen and 50,000 NSFs. That leaves us with about 50,000 regulars.

Now, as I've said, if you were to make NS optional, a large proportion of the conscripts will willingly opt out of it. Let's say 50% of them does so. That's a total shortfall of 150,000 NSFs/NSmen. My question to you: do you think we have the resources to bring over 150,000 Gurkhas, clothe them, train them, etc? I would hardly think so. As I've already pointed out to you, we are already spending 5% of our GDP on a largely conscript defence force. That's already proportionately more than what the US spends on its professional military (3.5% of GDP). Sure, in terms of absolute figures, the US spends more, but they have a much greater overall net GDP. We are also not fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

My bottom line is very simple: as much as we don't want to have NS, we need it. It's nice to have a fully professional army instead, but we can't afford it in any sense of the word. National Service is a necessary evil for an imperfect world.

Now, please address my arguments.

LazerLordz SG

I do not agree with the idea of Gurkhas being in charge of our national security.If they are used against the people for some reason by a future rogue government, there will be hell to pay.

Do you see the Americans hiring PMCs to do crowd control in Fallujah, Mosul or even in hometown New York during the post-London transit bombings?Do you see the Israelis outsourcing their defence to foreign mercs?I shudder everytime I see these Gurkhas being paid to be VIP and HRT teams, guarding our leaders.It shows a lack of trust in the ability of our home-grown Special Forces or diplomatic security teams, despite whatever is said about them being fearsome warriors.

Point to be noted, they are not citizens.The Gurkhas in the SAS are British nationals, therefore the debate is non-existent.

I'd agree that our NS system could do with fine-tuning, perhaps in duration or psychological profiling for better manpower deployment.However, the current global situation is quite unstable and volatile.And currently, we cannot afford to even reduce our manpower by any percentage, because realistically speaking, how much of the SAF is combat ready, in terms of individual motivation and warfighting ethos?I don't think we are up there with the battle-hardened armies of the world as of yet.

We are moving closer to a force that is known for rapid deployment across Joint branches, especially in relief and peacekeeping support operations.This new shift in force posture, requires the same amount of manpower coupled with better attitudes and multipliers to acheive a much more effective soldiering ability from our troops.

I do not agree that reluctant soldiers make lousy soldiers.Take a look at the National Guard in Iraq.These are ready reserve troops who train on the weekends or monthly, and they are men and women with careers and are not dedicated warriors who train to kill all the time, much less have thoughts of destruction on their minds.Reluctant soldiers are as effective as regular troops, because they are reluctant not due to fear, but due to a lack of willingness to be separated from their civilian roles as parents and working professionals.

When the push comes to shove, I'd place my money on a born and bred reluctant soldier to defend this land rather than foreign mercenaries.We may gripe, curse, swear and keng, but this is our land.Those of us who have found it worthwhile to stay on, will be naturally motivated to kill and maim those who threaten to take what is dear from us by force.That is realpolitik psychology, and that wins the patently flawed logic of institutionalised usage of foreigners to fight wars for us.

Try naming a nation that has defended itself successfully without her own army, you won't find any.

depressed SG

I am sure it will be interesting to have an unbiased poll and see how many guys are willing to serve NS/ defend Singapore in times of a war.

Deen Lee SG

This is my reply to questions posted at another forum which I think will also answer the questions here:-

(1) I have been getting lots of replies telling me how they are prepared to fight and die for the nation. Can we believe them? I rather find that out during peace time, not during time of war when it will be too late. For our women folks, it is time to end this hypocrisy and make equal responsibiities be synonymous with equal opportunities. They need not have to opt for military service, but they cannot escape from doing national service.

(2) Are we really over or under-spending on our security, I would leave it to the expert to determine how much needed to maximise our defence capabilities of our little island. How much soldiers do we need? Someone claim that the SAF have 350k soldiers which comprises of about 50k regulars, 250k NSmen, and about 50k NSF. He felt that my proposition will put the nation at risk if these 300K NSmen and NSF may opt out from military service. However my point is whether the SAF needs 350k soldiers in the first place? Is the SAF over-staff because of conscription? Again these are questions that is best determined by the experts.

(3) Our nation's security should not be compromised by our concern on budget. If we need to spend more, then we should do so. Otherwise it is no use having a large amateur force that is unable to defend our coutry effective, I prefer a smaller professional force that can do the job.

LazerLordz SG

We have more than 350k.

And there are highly trained regular units out there.

Most of the reserves will form the National Guard.I'd prefer to see us as a National Guard.

Atobe SG

How do you propose to find out one's commitment to "die for the nation" during peace time ?

Was it not the intention of the Government a.k.a the Ruling Party to have Women perform National Service by increasing the Birth Rate and in Child Rearing ?

Surely it will be a welcome relief to any NS Male to help the Women Folk in their assigned Women's National Service Duty ?

(2) Are we really over or under-spending on our security, I would leave it to the expert to determine how much needed to maximise our defence capabilities of our little island. How much soldiers do we need? Someone claim that the SAF have 350k soldiers which comprises of about 50k regulars, 250k NSmen, and about 50k NSF. He felt that my proposition will put the nation at risk if these 300K NSmen and NSF may opt out from military service. However my point is whether the SAF needs 350k soldiers in the first place? Is the SAF over-staff because of conscription? Again these are questions that is best determined by the experts.

Can you imagine the firepower from the guns handled by 350K NSF soldiers whom you claim to be "amateurs" ?

Can the firepower from 50K regulars match the firepower of 350K amateurs ?

While the SAF can recall a total strength of 350K, the FULL TIME force is no more then 150K - (with the 50K being regulars, and the remaining 100K being enlistees serving their time in BMT, or upgrading to higher levels of vocation specialization during their NS Full Time Service Period.

The strength of the SAF lies in the 200K of NSF that is cycled through the ten year of their NS Period, being recalled for continuous exercises and being kept updated to new doctrines, training, and weapons.

With well rehearsed training, coupled with technology and mechanisation, the SAF is becoming a well honed fighting machine that is able to conduct itself in any format of combined arms activities.

(3) Our nation's security should not be compromised by our concern on budget. If we need to spend more, then we should do so. Otherwise it is no use having a large amateur force that is unable to defend our coutry effective, I prefer a smaller professional force that can do the job.

Watching the SAF since its early days - the NS "boys" and their equipment of the 1960s, and comparing to the same NS "BOYS" and their equipment at this time, we have moved a very long way.

The money that is spent in building up the SAF into a well balanced fighting machine allows for the leveraging on technology and mechanisation so as to make it into a 'Force Multiplier' that increases the power of the average Singaporean into a better fighting machine.

With the concept of transforming the SAF into a 3G fighting machine, and with a DSTA that is well balanced in reality of thinking, we have acquired technology and machines to match the kind of scenarios that the SAF will be honed to fight.

There is no expenditure on glamour products, and each piece of equipment seems to be well thought out in terms of its application, its usability over time, and its cost effectiveness to the SAF.

Our surprising industrial strength - and good relations with major arms manufacturing countries - have enabled us to develop new weapon platforms - either independently or jointly - for the SAF, which makes us less dependent on any countries for our equipment needs.

So I wonder if your concern is misplaced.

With regards to MORALE of the NSF Force - this depend very much on the ability of the NSF Leadership in instilling the X-FACTOR through Camaradie, Pride in Self and Unit, and the commitment to the belief in the Purpose of Mission for FAMILY and COUNTRY.

vito_corleone SG

firepower and manpower are not the main issues…if they were the viet cong, poorly equipped by the standards of their time would not have beaten the us military, supposedly the most advanced and powerful military in the world. and if a lesser number of regular troops could not beat amateurs that outnumber them then countries all over the world would not be trimming down their forces and adopting smaller, better trained and equipped armies.

sgdiehard SG

Originally posted by Deen Lee:
This is my reply to questions posted at another forum which I think will also answer the questions here:-

(1) I have been getting lots of replies telling me how they are prepared to fight and die for the nation. [b]Can we believe them? I rather find that out during peace time, not during time of war when it will be too late. For our women folks, it is time to end this hypocrisy and make equal responsibiities be synonymous with equal opportunities. They need not have to opt for military service, but they cannot escape from doing national service.

(2) Are we really over or under-spending on our security, I would leave it to the expert to determine how much needed to maximise our defence capabilities of our little island. How much soldiers do we need? Someone claim that the SAF have 350k soldiers which comprises of about 50k regulars, 250k NSmen, and about 50k NSF. He felt that my proposition will put the nation at risk if these 300K NSmen and NSF may opt out from military service. However my point is whether the SAF needs 350k soldiers in the first place? Is the SAF over-staff because of conscription? Again these are questions that is best determined by the experts.
(3) Our nation's security should not be compromised by our concern on budget. If we need to spend more, then we should do so. Otherwise it is no use having a large amateur force that is unable to defend our coutry effective, I prefer a smaller professional force that can do the job.[/b]

If you have doubt about our amatuer soldiers, then pls suggest what we should do with our soldiers to clear your doubt, not to replace them.

Our military experts have determined that with our population, our current strength is what we need to defend our country. You obviously have no idea, from your argument, about what we have and what we need. so who are the experts you think can give us THE solution to our national defence?? FT again?

Our experts have also decided that we will leave our women folks alone on issue of defence. As it is, young husbands and wives are already not having enough time for each other and their children, no need to have wives involved in any form of NS, just make babies and take care of them. There is no hypocrisy, they are not escaping.

Singapore is spending a high % of our GDP for defence, one of the highest in Asia, we will spend more if we need, but certainly not to employ FT for defence!!

Go to Military Nuts and explain how your preferred "smaller professional force" can do a better job than our conscripted, amateurist soldiers.

Have you served NS?

Atobe SG

Firepower and manpower should be the main issues in the development of a credible defense for a tiny country that is developing a "Poison Prawn" defense strategy.

Currently the best equipped force in the world is bogged down in Iraq by an irregular army of "amateurs", who are able to kill at least ONE US soldier a day since the End of the War was declared about a year ago.

The Viet Cong did not win any military victory over the most advanced and powerful military in the world, but it was the North Vietnamese Government using a two prong strategy of full scale military war during the final years of the war in the mid-1970s, and through its political guile in capricious negotiating strategy from 1967 to 1972, simply to WEAR DOWN the resolve of the US Government and the US Citizens - so as to force the world's most powerful and advance country to CAPITULATE in a most face saving way of a negotiated settlement.

The same can happen again in Iraq, if the rag-tag Iraqi "amateurs" have some semblance of a Political Organisation that is able to control the vast numbers of different interest groups fighting the US Occupation Force in Iraq.

macjoe SG

We sure need to rethink NS, the use of humans and its size.

Suppose terrorists or our aggressors provoke us. Surely our NS defence forces will be recalled and deployed to the frontline in mass numbers.
Wouldn't it be easy for our aggressors to wipe out our NS defence force by exploding weapons of mass destruction on them there and then?

So tell me, can our 350,000 NS Defence force really defend against such weapons of mass destruction?

Idea

fudgester SG

Ok then, since you say that a force of 350,000 can't defend against WMDs, what do you propose instead?

macjoe SG

Have more WMD. Remember Japan and their large armies when two American aircrafts dropped two bombs on Japan and they surrendered?

Juz one demo bomb dropped in the heart of Singapore and a call for Singapore to surrender in 1 hr failing which real bombs will be dropped is enough to force Singapore to surrender and yes, even our NS forces will have to surrender.

No?

SilverPal SG

Resources and manpower is not everything in war. It very difficult to determine how many soldiers is enough, how much hardware is sufficient and what manner of force multiplier is appropriate... without knowing first the strategies to be used.

Throughout history, generals have used various methods to achieve victory, via numbers, technology, terrain, population sympathies, etc...

If I were to bring up an example of a country that won a war with lesser troops, someone else can bring up another example where a country won a war with sheer numbers.

shade343 SG

Yeah right. Laughing

SilverPal SG

Would a WMD dropped in singapore affect malaysia too?

« Previous Page Next Page »