Realistically speaking,I think 2.5 years was a good balance,and
the minimum time in which we can train competent troops.However,due
to manpower demands all around,the SAF has probably had to
compromise this approach with regards to training time.
Different and flexible approaches can be taken to still keep the NS
time at 2.5 years,its just that we need some lateral thinking and
the determination to carry it through.lI already suggested one
approach such as earlier deferments with tax breaks for their
families while NSFs defering their service undergo university
studies.Other approaches can be devised that may be unconventional
nature but still help to keep the training time there.
I was the first batch to undergo the 9 week BMT,and I can say with
confidence that it was rushed,everything was rushed.While
everything can be compressed into 9 weeks,such as field camp,live
range,sit test,BAC and the various other training components,the
pace may not be enough to properly train soldiers up.
I think we should really be concerned about this NS affecting our
overall manpower quality.I feel this is a major concern and that is
why I am highlighting it.
While there may be no clear and present danger at this point in
time,we know how mercurial ties can be with certain neighbours over the long
term.Governments change.For these neighbours,there is less of a
continuity in politics,especially with regards to certain foreign
policy matters,unlike us where we have a certain continuity and
long term outlook in our policies.
It is for this reason that I feel the 2 years NS isn't suitable as
it affects our strength at its core,the manpower.It is the people
which make or break a military,and all the fancy technology we are
getting is just that,technology which acts as a force
multiplier that evens the odds at a strategic and tactical
level,It basically evens the odds and enhances and expands our
capabilities.However,with all this you need proficient training
with skills and knowledge as well as the inculcated discipline as
well as physical and mental endurance.And to impart all these
qualities through training,you need time.
With the 2 years,when you have invested the resources in training
your people,they will have less time of active service,so it will
be less cost effective overall,plus with people ORDing earlier,unit
strength will not be kept at certain levels.Perhaps ways can be
looked at extending the service of men(enlisted pers.) to 2 years 2
months and commanders extended back to 2 years 6 months.Perhaps for
those who wish to serve NS even longer,there can be an option to
extend your service length to another half a year or a year and a
promotion to go with it ,though not necessarily a realistic
option.
This all therefore affects our strength.This policy orchestrated by
PM Lee really needs relooking.This is a policy that I feel will
compromise our overall security integrity.
