SDP’s policy paper on National Service
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
imagine sentosa is the modern day nomandy, and we are the defenders
I will just go to the top of the Merlion and stick my MG out...
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Thanks for a very detailed reply made in a moderate tone, compared to your earlier knee jerk reaction towards SDP - and CSJ in particular.Responding to the summarised points of your reply - firstly, concerning your view in comparing Bush's moving of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and undermining the hunt for Osama, it is quite far fetch in linking this analogy to the SAF not having enough troops to defend Singapore - in the manner that you have described.
The point mentioned in reducing the length of NS training is not about reducing troop strength for the SAF, which is already facing a shortage due to the shrinking pool of MANpower in Singapore.
You have mentioned the shortage of human resource is due to the declining birth rates, and this has also placed a challenge to the Economy, that will eventually have an impact on the politics of Singapore.
As matters stand, the Singapore Political Leadership is facing resentment from Singaporeans to the open door policies to Foreign Talents, even as there is a need to increase the population size to allow for population growth and to provide the replacement in human resources for both the economy and the SAF.
Given a shortage of manpower, and continuing the length of National Service inflexibly will ultimately affect the other dimensions of the FIVE Prong Defense Policy promoted by MINDEF - of which a strong economy is one.
You must remember that when NS was first introduced in 1967, it had two objectives - firstly to quickly create a large pool of Singaporeans able to defend Singapore against military aggression; and secondly - to absorb the annual release of a large pool of tens of thousands of young Singaporeans from secondary schools, colleges and university. This was at a time when the government was sweating to find a solution to create jobs as the British Military Pull-out from Singapore was throwing thousands of adults out of job.
In the beginning, National Service was 3 Full Years - and the time was a buffer for the government to solve the problems of the economy and jobs.
At this stage, Singapore is not facing the same crisis, but a totally different one now that require a revision of the NSF period which has seen a reduction to two-and-a-half year, and now to about twenty-five months.
Many Singaporeans have the misplaced notion that two-and-a-half years of Full Time National Service will make one a Professional Soldier. This is a false gung-ho self-deluding, morale boosting image fed to the young minds of the 18 and 19 year olds.
The two-and-a-half years of Full Time National Service - even when cut down by a full year - is to be backed up by the very intensive Reserve Training that are now taking place overseas, and with higher training objectives to be achieved as each year progresses for the unit.
As the years pass in the Reserve, the young 18 year old NSF will mature in mind, physique and intellegence - {i.e. cunning, survival instinct, daring, and ruthlessness}.
The individual skills training is reinforced with higher echelon and combined arms training, and is reflected in the Singapore Military Budget that has exploded over the years as these overseas training are conducted at a very high tempo.
With a limited pool of human resource, what is the troop strength needed to defend Singapore ?
My previous example given with the Israeli experience - in facing the Palestinian Intifadah, and the Israeli horror experience with their last invasion of Lebanon - had shown that no matter how much resources - {manpower or equipment} - the Israelis can throw into the fight, it still need a superior strategy to make use of their limited resources within a time frame to defang the oppoinent.
It is simply useless for Israel to conduct a war of attrition - and the same will apply for Singapore irregardless of the size of the SAF, which stand at 300,000+ mobilised. [See below: Tim Huxley]
This bring us to your second point concerning the plugging of the gaps with increase in resources by the US in Iraq.
It was not that a small pool of insurgents had tied down a large force of US military in Iraq. The opposite is true, when the dismantled Iraq Military of 300,000+ men had turned insurgents, it simply overwhelmed the two US Divisions that Rumsfeld sent to invade Iraq, and caused more casualties to the US Military during the Occupation then during the invasion.
The fact that the two US Divisiion suffered the limited - although mounting - number of casualties during the occupation, should be considered remarkable, and largely due to their superior training, equipment and strategy of combined arms support.
The surge in 2007 was not merely to plug the gaps at their rear, as the two Divisions that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had insisted on limiting - was simply causing the military to be stretched to the point that US troops were being kidnapped.
In any case, the surge was not enough to plug the gaps in the manner that you had envisioned - as the surge was not the addition of another few more divisions to swamp the whole of Iraq with US troops; but only adding two or three Brigades in rotation in order not to exceed Rumsfeld limits to the troops deployed.
This allowed a reinforced 2 Div+ of combat troops to conduct a wider and simultaneous operations across several hot areas, when previously the insurgents were able to filter from the combat zone into another region. None of the US Troops in the surge were used to protect the rear supply lines, or replace the fallen in the manner you suggested previously.
The US was simply under manned to occupy Iraq. in the failed Rumsfeld policy for Iraq.
Here again, the US also had their limits in suffering casualties in a "War of Attrition" with the local insurgents, and had recognised in time that the short-sightedness of their political and military strategy in dismantiling the Iraqi military - instead of retaining their service in the manner that the returning UK forces had used Japanese Troops in maintaining law and order in the liberated British Colonies during WW2.
Thirdly, with regards to the "Principle of Redundancy" - my description of the pre-Desert Storm PLA 'human wave' strategy was to show you that the Chinese appreciated that their 'Human Wave' strategy is no longer feasibile nor valid when they reviewed US Military Strategies in Desert Storm and the Afghan war against the Talibans. [see references below]
The Chinese PLA "Human Wave" approach was simply to swamp their enemy's position by literally a "tidal wave" of men that flowed wave after wave, based on the redundancy principle that you have in mind - and not in your present form of 'cross-training' of personnel.
Have you forgotten that it was during the Korean War, when the UN forces under US Military Leadership were swept into full retreat - from the Yalu River to the southern most corner of the Korean Peninsular - by the Chinese PLA Human Wave assaults ? [see references below].
Fourth and Fifth, in the SDP list of EU countries - they had all come to realise that they are facing declining birth rates - as is happening for Singapore - and their combined military strength in NATO allow each participating countries to maintain a force level that is sufficient for their NATO effort to face their perceived global threats.
As matters stand, Russia today is not perceived as a threat to EU since the dismantling of the Communist System of Government.
Russians who are down and out of luck in facing the competition of an open market economy, may have the inkling to return to the good old days of Socialism, but those Russians who have tasted and grown accustomed to the open market economy will hardly want to return to the Communist ways.
The European Think Tanks are keeping watch on the pulse of their neighbors and the global affairs, and will be in a far better position then ourselves to comment on their region, or the sutiability of their decision concerning their defense.
Suffice to say that their combined economic strength is much bigger then Singapore, and yet - if they will collectively feel that they cannot afford to have a bigger military force without destroying themselves economically - should we not be asking if we are about to destroy ourselves in the manner that we are spending on our military budget, and at the same time our reserves are being knocked around in failed overseas financial adventures by GIC and Temasek - while Singaporeans are continuously milked dry to seemingly replenish the Treasury ?
Considering that Singapore's manpower is dwindling due to low birth rates, and that the demands of the economy for manpower has also to be considered, it is not wrong for the SDP to put up a paper for discussion - with the list of EU countries as references to be looked at.
With regards to comparing the political system of Singapore and the US - or to that of UK - it is not merely about the executive role or power of the Singapore President compared to the US President, or the forms of government.
My comparison is about the openess of the Political Life in the USA - or even UK - where the Citizens' Rights are respected, and given the space for each Citizen's to voice their concern through their Political Representative in Congress - who in turn are not dictated by Party Politics to vote along Party lines and instructions.
Our Members of Parliament - the majority of whom are from walk-over constituencies - are locked into PAP policies rulings even as their conscience tell them that their own constituents are against those policies.
It is the quality of Life that provides the motivational factor for the Citizens to bear arms and defend what they value, it is not merely material or financial rewards or compensation that motivate Citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones.
Seriously, the Sub-Prime problem has nothing to do with any cover up from the open US Political System. The Sub-Prime problem has as much to do with failed Executive Policies, as it has to do with "Pork Barrel" politics. The sub-prime issues will soon generate alot of 20-20 hindsight reports, which will soon reveal the failures of the Bush Administration in coming out with early guidelines to have prevented this disaster, when some Congressmen had warned of this event at least 1 to 2 years earlier.
In Singapore, we have sacrificed the best part of our youthful life to delay our tertiary education, and serve Singapore - and we deserve better treatment then what this government has dished out to us.
Compensation for NSF ?
The amount payable - for those Singaporean men and women who were injured or dead - is less then satisfactory, considering that some are not even NSF but contracted service.
Under such circumstances - where there is no political motivation or cause for NSF to be committed - the motivation of NS soldiers requires imagination, courage and leadership - as much as it requires empathy, fairness and intuition.
In the paper submitted, CSJ and SDP have made valid points for consideration, and it is worrisome that a person of your stature will take a jaundiced stance in so sweepingly dismiss CSJ and the SDP to be rabid, and went out of points in several instances to link their studies with the situation that the US Military encountered in Iraq.
With the passing of JBJ, Singapore need as many dedicated and committed voices willing to be in the Alternative Parties, and it is simply disheartening that no one attempt to reach out to CSJ to inform him of his wrong directions but will cruxify him based on some distorted emotional hang-ups based on a scarred memory.
People change - so do you and I.
I believe CSJ has changed since his first baptism under fire - when first entering politics on the side of the Alternative Parties, and having to make the ultimate sacrifice repeatedly. His skillful confrontation with MM LKY and PM LHL in their recent confrontation in the High Court showed his maturity compared to his first confrontation with then PM GCT - which was capitalised by the PAP to deface CSJ as a political gangster.
If ever there is a political gangster that exist in Singapore, it is the one person who has publicly boasted that he is a hatchet man, and will not hesistate to use a knuckle-duster to meet his opponent in a cul-de-sac. It is all bluster, as he will not dirty his own hands with the use of the knuckle-duster, but will instruct his hatchet men to do so.
"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997
‘Tim Huxley – Defending the Lion City ’
‘US Military Manpower in Iraq ’
‘China’s views of Future Warfare’
‘Desert Storm changed China’s Human Wave Strategy’
*** By the way, the SAF was not being inefficient in not recalling some people for Reservist Training, the budget maybe large, but the places are limited as only so many thousands can be sent overseas in a year; then the important units will need to be kept sharp annually.
At this point, I can only say we can only agree to disagree.
Both of us has seen the same piece of information from a different perspective.
What I saw to manpower limitations towards operations in Iraq, you saw it as poor strategy from Rumsfeld instead. Its fair that Rumsfeld was to blame for not providing more than 2 divisions, however, the way I see it is that, it was only natural for circumstance that followed because 2 Divisions just weren't simply enough. Rumsfeld did not provide sufficient manpower to manage contingencies.
I am viewing "fault" from a technical operational perspective that there wasn't sufficient manpower, while you view it from a blame-perspective that it was Rumsfeld that was to blame for sending insufficient troops.
Israel's experience was definitely a surprise for the world. However, there is little that I really know about the actual circumstances. I have not seen books that were published about it, nor any formal discussion by the IDF. What I saw in it was that, guided anti-armor missiles were deadly in the hands of people who knew how to use them.
Technology in this case played both teams, emphasizing that SDP's point that technology alone as a force multiplyer supports reducing NSF liabilities to be flawed. Hence I cannot agree with them.
None of the US Troops in the surge were used to protect the rear supply lines, or replace the fallen in the manner you suggested previously.
I think I was misunderstood at this point. The surge involved additional troops to conduct more comprehensive operations as a part of a major offensive to stem insurgency. I do not thing I mentioned them to be attrition-replacements.
Attrition replacements are more commonly seen in lengthy conflicts where weary frontline units require rotation or reinforcements. As I mentioned in my first post, conflicts that involved Singapore, were both major wars. In the first WW, the Emden sailed around Singapore instead of takine a direct route through possibly due to Singapore's rather formidable coastal defense in that period. The 2nd WW was a different story as we all know.
Hence, Singapore has to be prepared to get sucked into a major global conflict, whether we like it or not. And we will need manpower when we get involved for indefinite periods of time.
As for the principle of redundancy, I can only again say that, its objective is to keep the army fight-capable by ensuring losses taken can be replaced, and losses taken will not cripple its operational capability. There is really little more that I can say or argue. It is a universally accepted principle. The only question is "how much redundancy?"
The US Subprime situation, and the recent collapse of several major financial institutions, saw both Bush and McCain give the same message that was pretty questionable, "The fundementals of our economy is strong..." Somebody didn't tell people that the subprime mortgages were gonna blow up in their faces. If the government didn't know, somebody else did.
I guess what I am saying in conclusion is that, we should not commit Singapore to a course of action that might reduce the manpower available to the SAF. Manpower is perhaps the hardest component to replace in conflict, and being able to have a good number in reserve is a necessity.
-
Originally posted by NowWhatDoIDo?:
You think NS is the issue? You're been living a really sheltered life.Let me copy something from another forum here.
___________________
The problem with the PAP is they are just way too greedy. They want to make every cent they can from everything they can.
They take on 2 hats as a business and a government and utilize these two hats to ensure they squeeze every last penny from us.
If, like a business, they are going to charge us top dollar for everything including basic needs like housing, utilities, food, transportation, etc. If they are going to bring in foreigners to compete with us in what they claim is "an open market" (why the 3/4 rule at the causeway if we're an open market?); Then we're not citizens, we're customers. Remove National Service, all taxes and compulsory CPF.
If, like a government, they are going to tax us, make us serve the nation and put a portion of our salary with them every month; Then take care of us like citizens and give us some welfare. Look after us in our old age, give us affordable housing (real affordability, not your bull shit "market rate" crap that's design to steal from us), keep your thumb on utilites and transport operators, put proper guidelines in place to ensure we have priority in our own job market.
So PAP. Which are we? Citizens who voted you in to take care of us, or customers you conned to squeeze dry?
What are you? A government put in place to look after your citizens, or a business out to make every last red cent you can?
Is Singapore a country with living, breathing people, or a company with faceless, nameless digits?
we are talking about NS policy here, not about PAP. pathetic.... -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Our ministers rule because of money?
yes. what else you think? -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i sort of agree with angel here, that it is quite pointless for SAF to defend singapore.
On morale: how do you expect soldiers on a $400/mnth pay to risk their lives for the ministers earning $4million dollar pay( $333, 333/ month, 833 times of a nsf's pay)risking their life for people who will sit in comfort in some underground bunker while the war rage on around them.
Warfare: though the SAF emphasize on forward defence strategy, which involves attacking Malaysia (it's the only country saf is capable to launch troops into anyway), making jungle warfare relevant.
but shouldn't be urban warfare the focus of our NS training? street fighting in HDBs, multi-storey carparks, office towers. that's what war would be like if we r fighting in singapore, or at least in JB. all the so called strategic locations are already by now fully exploited for civilian usage, incorporated into the urban landscape. Cities and towns are built on these locations, and these places are unlikely to be the jungles which we expected.
look at singapore, would any enemy go hid themselves in jungles and woods which are of no strategic importance here in singapore, when there's plenty of concrete jungles around them? it is much safer to hid behind the concrete walls of 12 stories HDB buildings, which offers real protection from bullets, than behind 1 story-tall trees in hot, mosquito-infested jungle.
if there's any strategic locations to seize in singapore, it would be the prime urban and financial centers of the country, not the relatively worthless plots of ulu forests.
and u think during wartime, who is so dumb as to stay in singapore. most singaporeans, rich or poor, are at the very least able to afford a plane ticket to Australia, Thailand. (on the assumption that these people value their lives over money). none of the womenfolks will stay behind, nor would their men allow them to stay behind to risk death. Tell me, wouldn't you send off your wives, daughters, and mothers off to a safer country before you set off for army, during a war? (under the Geneva convention, it is illegal to attack civilian aircrafts, so it is safe for them to exit the country)
hahahahaha..... -
I DO not think Singapore Can be defend. Face the fact.
-
i do not think Singapore can't be defended. i have facts.
-
Originally posted by Itedino:
I DO not think Singapore Can be defend. Face the fact.
That was never the aim of the armed forces initially...
the aim as most of us know is to be a deterrent and to make it as painful as possible for the invaders and to hold out as long as possible for the world's opinion/UN to come to save us ....
Even if Sinagpore can't be defended, it doesn't mean you don't do anything about it... If we have no armed forces, what's there to stop anyone from rolling their tanks in Singapore?
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
Now i know why the voting age is 21 in singapore, a smart move by the govt to stop people from voting the SDP when they are 18. But seriously, i don't think NS induces patriotism, why would anyone love a place where they are getting bullied everyday for 2 yrs? As for the deserter issue, modern Singapore has not been in a real war yet, so how to compare? As for the people who do not support SDP policy, how many are actually serving NS? Not doing anything can open mouth lah
I think this really hits the nail on the head.
The way I see it, NSmen wouldn't mind being NSmen so much if their hard work and effort is rewarded with appreciation. You know, you can always tell in schools that the second best teachers are the ones that yell the most but the best ones are those who don't have to yell. Ever wondered why that teacher doesn't have to yell once in the whole year but his/her class is the top class? It's only really because they make the students feel appreciated and the students, in return, feel obligated to do their work well.
This is the bottom line: if the NS experience was something that was actually meaningful then maybe it wouldn't be such a turn-off. Yes, protecting the motherland is a justified cause, but doing menial work that doesn't involve protecting the country and being yelled at for nothing is completely pointless. The way to settle this issue is not to cut down on the NS time because sooner or later we'll realise that it's still a year of crap. The way to settle the issue is to refocus the goals of NS and make it more pleasant. For you critics who swear on tears and blood being the best teachers, I'd say that motivation out of a willingness to do something rather than to avoid something else is still the most powerful tool.
In the end the man who loves his country will fight for it but the man who fears his country will flee. No one loves a country that bullies him for two years, and then some. Low pay could potentially be a problem: I'd suggest all NSmen be paid as much as professional soldiers in other countries, albeit perhaps appropriately upscaled or downscaled based on our financial capability. Essentially, NS pay needs to be scaled appropriately against the rest of our market. It should be a real job. It should provide the benefits that a real, corporate company might offer to woo potential workers. Even if it means we're forced into it, they should make us feel like we're not utter slaves but people working real jobs.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
I think this really hits the nail on the head.
The way I see it, NSmen wouldn't mind being NSmen so much if their hard work and effort is rewarded with appreciation. You know, you can always tell in schools that the second best teachers are the ones that yell the most but the best ones are those who don't have to yell. Ever wondered why that teacher doesn't have to yell once in the whole year but his/her class is the top class? It's only really because they make the students feel appreciated and the students, in return, feel obligated to do their work well.
This is the bottom line: if the NS experience was something that was actually meaningful then maybe it wouldn't be such a turn-off. Yes, protecting the motherland is a justified cause, but doing menial work that doesn't involve protecting the country and being yelled at for nothing is completely pointless. The way to settle this issue is not to cut down on the NS time because sooner or later we'll realise that it's still a year of crap. The way to settle the issue is to refocus the goals of NS and make it more pleasant. For you critics who swear on tears and blood being the best teachers, I'd say that motivation out of a willingness to do something rather than to avoid something else is still the most powerful tool.
finally something that makes sense
my NS was also full of shit.. once into my unit, I was involved in SAF day parade prep... lots of other crap once we entered the training phase...
but i feel the most important thing is the attitude you bring into NS... if all you think of NS is a waste of time, then you won't appreciate and gain anything from NS....
but if you enter with a positive attitude and accept that shit happens, there is actually a lot that I gained from NS ...
-
It all boils down to your own personal outlook towards things. You can't change the machine, no choice but to change your own mindset. Go with the flow, like aikido....harmonize with the universe. lol.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
At this point, I can only say we can only agree to disagree.
Both of us has seen the same piece of information from a different perspective.
What I saw to manpower limitations towards operations in Iraq, you saw it as poor strategy from Rumsfeld instead. Its fair that Rumsfeld was to blame for not providing more than 2 divisions, however, the way I see it is that, it was only natural for circumstance that followed because 2 Divisions just weren't simply enough. Rumsfeld did not provide sufficient manpower to manage contingencies.
I am viewing "fault" from a technical operational perspective that there wasn't sufficient manpower, while you view it from a blame-perspective that it was Rumsfeld that was to blame for sending insufficient troops.
Israel's experience was definitely a surprise for the world. However, there is little that I really know about the actual circumstances. I have not seen books that were published about it, nor any formal discussion by the IDF. What I saw in it was that, guided anti-armor missiles were deadly in the hands of people who knew how to use them.
Technology in this case played both teams, emphasizing that SDP's point that technology alone as a force multiplyer supports reducing NSF liabilities to be flawed. Hence I cannot agree with them.
I think I was misunderstood at this point. The surge involved additional troops to conduct more comprehensive operations as a part of a major offensive to stem insurgency. I do not thing I mentioned them to be attrition-replacements.
Attrition replacements are more commonly seen in lengthy conflicts where weary frontline units require rotation or reinforcements. As I mentioned in my first post, conflicts that involved Singapore, were both major wars. In the first WW, the Emden sailed around Singapore instead of takine a direct route through possibly due to Singapore's rather formidable coastal defense in that period. The 2nd WW was a different story as we all know.
Hence, Singapore has to be prepared to get sucked into a major global conflict, whether we like it or not. And we will need manpower when we get involved for indefinite periods of time.
As for the principle of redundancy, I can only again say that, its objective is to keep the army fight-capable by ensuring losses taken can be replaced, and losses taken will not cripple its operational capability. There is really little more that I can say or argue. It is a universally accepted principle. The only question is "how much redundancy?"
The US Subprime situation, and the recent collapse of several major financial institutions, saw both Bush and McCain give the same message that was pretty questionable, "The fundementals of our economy is strong..." Somebody didn't tell people that the subprime mortgages were gonna blow up in their faces. If the government didn't know, somebody else did.
I guess what I am saying in conclusion is that, we should not commit Singapore to a course of action that might reduce the manpower available to the SAF. Manpower is perhaps the hardest component to replace in conflict, and being able to have a good number in reserve is a necessity.
Your reply is gratefully acknowledged, and there is little that we differ that require us to "agree to disagree" as I see that we have convergence of views on most issues - except perhaps we may have interpreted the printed words differently given our different experiences and knowledge to the events mentioned.
For instance, you and I agree to the "manpower limitation" as a fact based on the limits imposed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on the Two U.S. Division allowed to invade and occupy Iraq. Whether Rumsfeld is to be blamed or not, this "manpower limitation" exist according to both of our views.
Where we differed is the interpretation to the events in Iraq - which you saw as a "smaller group of insurgents tying down a larger and more superior US forces", when I saw the situation as the insurgents outnumbering the US Occupying Force of Two Divisions. The supposedly "small group of insurgents" consisted of the Arab Jihadist infiltrating into Iraq and from the dismantled Iraqi Military Force of over 300,000 men.
This combined force - of 300,000+ insurgents and Jihadist - harassed the Two Division of U.S. troops that numbered no more then 50,000 men with support personnels, and were given the impossible task to pacify a war torn Iraq.
The "fault" lies with the wrong strategies of the U.S. High Command given the artificially imposed "manpower limitation" - which the Commanders on the ground must be complemented for their creativity in constantly adapting their tactics and strategies given their handicap. This resulted in the remarkably low casualties encountered compared to their experience suffered in Vietnam during the 1960s.
In the example of Israel's experience, I agree with your stand that it is a nightmare when non-conventional warfare can create frontline situation almost anywhere, and very suddenly at any time.
During the 2006 Lebanon War, the only sophisticated weapon that the Hezbollah guerillas used was the guided missile that severely damaged an Israeli warship and sank a freighter. The Hezbollah guerillas generally relied on roadside IEDs, and crude unguided rockets to bombard Israeli townships in their determined stand-off against the Israelis.
There was little that Israeli standard doctrine and trainiing could do against these determined non-conventional fighters.
The follow-up analysis of Israeli invasion of Lebanon concluded that poor intelligence, lack of preparation, and the late use of definitive force had resulted in the invasion not accomplishing the objective of neutralsing the Hezbollah. [See references below]
In this instance, the size of the Manpower available is not the answer - even as the Israelis are not lacking in the sophistication of their technology available.
This brings us to the discussion on "the Principle of Redundancy" - which I am also in agreement with you on the need of any Military Force to maintain its fighting capability so as to be able to accomplish its goals.
As was stated in both of my previous posts, there are limitations to any military on this matter, as the number of lives lost in any conflict is always a sensitive issue - even for nations with large populations at the personal and political levels; and even more so for small nations like Switzerland, Israel and Singapore.
Should we ask ourselves the question - "How much is the redundancy ?" - or should we not be asking - "How long can a conflict be sustained by our Military ?"
In any conflict, manpower alone is not the determining factor in sustaining the Military efforts, as the manpower is also needed to keep the economy running in order to sustain the "military stamina".
Based on the FPDA arrangement, I do not foresee Singapore being sucked into any regional or global conflicts where the SAF will commit our main body of NSF to any UN sanctioned front-line missions.
At best, we may send a token force of some Medical Teams, or a few Naval or Air assets - without depleting our own Defense needs, and with volunteers from the NSF and Regular Service Personnels.
This token force will be done with the objective to give limited exposure to the "real world" scenario within a "safe zone" - as in our deployment of "combat personnel" to support the UN mission in Timor Leste.
While I am in agreement with your concluding concern - that "we should not commit Singapore to a course of action that might reduce the manpower available to the SAF" - this will need to be considered in the present predicament that Singapore is faced with the present manpower limitations and the demands placed on it.
There will need to be a balance between the demands placed by the economy for manpower, as much as there is a need to have a sufficient trained force of manpower for our defense.
This approach has also been recognised in a Rand Publication on the US Military - and in particular for the US Navy's recruitment problems that necessitated them to modify their approach. [See reference below, in particular Page 35 of 54]
As was stated in my last post, whether it is 3-Years, 2-and-a-Half Years, or 25 months of Full Time National Service, it does not make anyone of us a Professional Soldier - that make an NSF comparable to the personnels from the Best Units of Regulars in the "Professional Armies" of other nations such as the USA, UK, Germany, France, India, Korea, Thailand and others.
While our NSF Battalions, Brigades and Divisions are not lacking in sophistication in training, equipment, and organisational skills, tactics and strategies - the "Proficiency Levels" of our NSF Personnel can only be sharpened and developed further during the course of annual Reservist Training.
It is my belief that high levels of proficiency - in maintaning the high military standards in the various trained skills, motivation, pride, commitment to learn and ability to adapt experiences to new situations - will finally determine if the person or the unit has attained "Professional Status".
This can be achieved when the NSF Personnels are motivated with the right dose of inspiration from the NSF leadership developing a trained and keenly mature sense of human management intuition, empathy, fairness and clear decisiveness in execution and planning.
Such a trained manpower base in Singapore is also needed for the Economy.
There is little disagreement between our positons that every man able to bear arms will be required to have military training for the defense of Singapore, and that we cannot depend entirely on a Military based on Regular Career Soldiers given our limited population size.
Unfortunately - as recognised by you and I - there is the present situation of declining birth rates that is made worst by an increasing ageing population. This will place a further pressure in the conflicting demands imposed on the limited Manpower for the needs of the SAF and the Economy.
Surely, the Government is aware and is in an unstated predicament, and has already begun the process of reducing the length of the NS Full Time service to 25 months.
The NS Full Time period maybe further shortened if their other plan to boost the population with new immigrants create political resentment from those who have made the NS sacrifices end up facing higher competition after their NS period.
The present situation faced by Singapore is also felt globally, as shown in the list of countries cited as examples by SDP / CSJ, and their Report has appropriately brought up this subject to the attention of Singaporeans even as the Government aka the PAP has been reluctant to address this matter publicly.
‘The Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah War in July 2006’
‘How Israel bungled the Second Lebanon War - 2006’
‘Hizbullah: Has Israel Met Its Match ?’
‘Defense Economics: Core Issues and Concerns’
‘Military Manpower : 1990-1994’
-
Originally posted by pigsticker:
finally something that makes sense
my NS was also full of shit.. once into my unit, I was involved in SAF day parade prep... lots of other crap once we entered the training phase...
but i feel the most important thing is the attitude you bring into NS... if all you think of NS is a waste of time, then you won't appreciate and gain anything from NS....
but if you enter with a positive attitude and accept that shit happens, there is actually a lot that I gained from NS ...
During my NS stint, the amount of free time was used to
1) teach tuition
2) read many books and magazines on health and fitness
3) get a driving licence
4) retook my GP to get my A2 :DStill got more, but cannot remember liao... This excludes the friendships I made, and in which I benefitted a lot from during uni :D
-
singapore might not be defendable for long but it is worth defending, because for many of us, this is where u had fun with your families, your first date, first kiss, first child and many other memorable precious moments
the problem with ns is this, we are people who are doing something homourable that is defending our country, we should be treaed with respect but this is not the case, we are treated with the mentality that, this bunch of people dont have to be treated well, because they dont have a choice, we dont have to persuade them to stay
-
Who will trust officers produced through the academy?
As long as our defence force is not an egalitarian one, I don't want to get involved.
-
Originally posted by codexboy:
the problem with ns is this, we are people who are doing something homourable that is defending our country, we should be treaed with respect but this is not the case, we are treated with the mentality that, this bunch of people dont have to be treated well, because they dont have a choice, we dont have to persuade them to stay
This reminds me of something... When i was in BMT, the first week i book out.. a grandma and her grandson saw me in no.4, then the grandma tell the grandson to wave to me,"gor gor 当兵回家了“。。。That was the time where i feel proud in green.
These grandmas not alot nowsadays. For the rest of the time, ppl dun shun u already very good. now we have people who take us for granted, esp some girls, they should try to appreciate what their partner goes through. -
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
It all boils down to your own personal outlook towards things. You can't change the machine, no choice but to change your own mindset. Go with the flow, like aikido....harmonize with the universe. lol.
But NS is no universe!
Anyway by adapting ourselves to situations doesn't mean that we should stop trying to improve or change things.
-
Originally posted by pearlie27:
But NS is no universe!
Anyway by adapting ourselves to situations doesn't mean that we should stop trying to improve or change things.
well can't disagree with you on that....=)
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
it is illegal for nsmen to leave the country without informing their supervisor. of course they won't let you leave. if war comes to singapore, you think the rest of the countries will be peaceful? more likely than not, a world war would be in place, than run where?
why are we training jungle warfare instead of focusing on FIBUA? that is classified, but you are welcome to guess why.
you will know if your country is going to get involve in a war. the chain of events leading to a war are always the same in most countries. e.g. sanctions, embargoes, UN meetings, more enemy recon activities.
by then, there will be sufficient indicators for you to flee the country before being mobilise.
and my point about the low pay is that you have 2/3 of the entire standing army receiving lousy compensation in a high risk occupation. that sure help morale alot.
also, it doesn't help that the ministers are the one who will be dictating any policy (i.e. surrender, armistice), when they will surely not be fighting on the frontline risking their butts. they are the ones who earn millions and yet not have to risk their lives, unlike us common folks who are bottom on the evolutionary level, with our lives cheap as "peanut powder(cannot even qualify as peanuts )"
and do you think your rich folks, the millionaires and millionaires are really going to fight? you think they will be willing to send their sons and son-in-laws off to fight?
so, if singapore is involved in any major armed conflict, it would be a war fought by the commoners, and run by the elites.
and regarding Hellraiza's point about Murai Urban Training Facility as the solution to urban warfare, i think it is not good enough.
if i remember correctly, most of the buildings in the facility are low level shophouses, etc. the highest building is still very short as compared to the rest of the HDB lanscape of singapore. most of the strategic locations in singapore are no longer covered by these shop houses, but covered by 12 storey HDB flats, shopping complex and office towers. so, to be realistic, there should be more model HDB flats to be incorporated into the facility. fighting in high level HDB flats is way different from the low level shophouses.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
and regarding Hellraiza's point about Murai Urban Training Facility as the solution to urban warfare, i think it is not good enough.
if i remember correctly, most of the buildings in the facility are low level shophouses, etc. the highest building is still very short as compared to the rest of the HDB lanscape of singapore. most of the strategic locations in singapore are no longer covered by these shop houses, but covered by 12 storey HDB flats, shopping complex and office towers. so, to be realistic, there should be more model HDB flats to be incorporated into the facility. fighting in high level HDB flats is way different from the low level shophouses.
That's based on the assumption that we use to train for actual ops in SINGAPORE.
You say jungle warfare redundant, i tell you we have murai to train for urban ops. Now you say facility not realistic. alamak....
-
Solution: Lower voting age to 19.5 and let 1st-year NSFs decide which master to serve.
-
Originally posted by Hellraiza:
That's based on the assumption that we use to train for actual ops in SINGAPORE.
You say jungle warfare redundant, i tell you we have murai to train for urban ops. Now you say facility not realistic. alamak....
do you see more 12 storey HDBs or do u see more 2 storey shophouses around.if you are going to encamp in a concealed location, where would you choose, a HDB estates with rows and rows of corridors everywhere in all direction, or would you confine urself to low level buildings? obviously, if you value ur life, u would choose a site which offers the most cover and choices.
if you are an enemy artillery man, mortar, or tank, these tall HDBs are also going to the obstacle to block your view, affecting ur precision. you are also probably not likely to walk straight up to a possible enemy encampment, with each flat similar to a fort, with enemy troops behind walls, firing from an advantageous height.
also, ask urself, if u r an enemy soldier, would you dare to march down a road lined with HDBs, with every HDB having the probability of harboring enemy troops who may be already setting their sights on you as you march on.
nor is it possible to just send in bombers to bomb every flat in singapore. same logic apply to bombers. each of the HDB flats may be armed with handheld anti-aircraft missile, which is more than enough to take an unsuspecting plane out of the sky.
with so many flats in singapore, it would make it a hell of a job for any invader to flush out well defended troops encamping in HDBs.
modern day urban combat is much more challenging than the past, with buildings getting taller, bigger and stronger.
murai is more suited for singapore of the 1980s.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
you will know if your country is going to get involve in a war. the chain of events leading to a war are always the same in most countries. e.g. sanctions, embargoes, UN meetings, more enemy recon activities.
by then, there will be sufficient indicators for you to flee the country before being mobilise.
and my point about the low pay is that you have 2/3 of the entire standing army receiving lousy compensation in a high risk occupation. that sure help morale alot.
also, it doesn't help that the ministers are the one who will be dictating any policy (i.e. surrender, armistice), when they will surely not be fighting on the frontline risking their butts. they are the ones who earn millions and yet not have to risk their lives, unlike us common folks who are bottom on the evolutionary level, with our lives cheap as "peanut powder(cannot even qualify as peanuts )"
and do you think your rich folks, the millionaires and millionaires are really going to fight? you think they will be willing to send their sons and son-in-laws off to fight?
so, if singapore is involved in any major armed conflict, it would be a war fought by the commoners, and run by the elites.
and regarding Hellraiza's point about Murai Urban Training Facility as the solution to urban warfare, i think it is not good enough.
if i remember correctly, most of the buildings in the facility are low level shophouses, etc. the highest building is still very short as compared to the rest of the HDB lanscape of singapore. most of the strategic locations in singapore are no longer covered by these shop houses, but covered by 12 storey HDB flats, shopping complex and office towers. so, to be realistic, there should be more model HDB flats to be incorporated into the facility. fighting in high level HDB flats is way different from the low level shophouses.
if war is coming, guess who is the first people to know, the citizens or the government?
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
do you see more 12 storey HDBs or do u see more 2 storey shophouses around.if you are going to encamp in a concealed location, where would you choose, a HDB estates with rows and rows of corridors everywhere in all direction, or would you confine urself to low level buildings? obviously, if you value ur life, u would choose a site which offers the most cover and choices.
if you are an enemy artillery man, mortar, or tank, these tall HDBs are also going to the obstacle to block your view, affecting ur precision. you are also probably not likely to walk straight up to a possible enemy encampment, with each flat similar to a fort, with enemy troops behind walls, firing from an advantageous height.
also, ask urself, if u r an enemy soldier, would you dare to march down a road lined with HDBs, with every HDB having the probability of harboring enemy troops who may be already setting their sights on you as you march on.
nor is it possible to just send in bombers to bomb every flat in singapore. same logic apply to bombers. each of the HDB flats may be armed with handheld anti-aircraft missile, which is more than enough to take an unsuspecting plane out of the sky.
with so many flats in singapore, it would make it a hell of a job for any invader to flush out well defended troops encamping in HDBs.
modern day urban combat is much more challenging than the past, with buildings getting taller, bigger and stronger.
murai is more suited for singapore of the 1980s.
Again, that is based on your assumption that the facility is a mock up of a typical urban setting in SINGAPORE........
If i knew enemy troops were dug into a HDB flat, why would i still send my infantry in. Suicide right. Just get mortar/arty to level the damn building. Again, i'm a rifleman, my knowledge of this kind of stuff is definitely very little, compared to the many armchair generals we have on this forum.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
if war is coming, guess who is the first people to know, the citizens or the government?
the government only declare war. look, in the Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon war, most of the civilian know that they will soon be engaged in some sort of war, before the war actually begins. people do notice things that happens around them.Originally posted by Hellraiza:Again, that is based on your assumption that the facility is a mock up of a typical urban setting in SINGAPORE........
If i knew enemy troops were dug into a HDB flat, why would i still send my infantry in. Suicide right. Just get mortar/arty to level the damn building. Again, i'm a rifleman, my knowledge of this kind of stuff is definitely very little, compared to the many armchair generals we have on this forum.
i get what u mean in ur first point. but it doesn't hurt to actually learn about how to do urban warfare in the singapore landscape. singapore is not inpregnable. in the long run, in a war of attrition, we would eventually be push back into singapore, due to resource/manpower shortages etc. we should be brushing up on urban defence back at home instead of urban warfare abroad.
and how do you intend to use ur mortar/ tank/ wadever? almost every inch of singapore is covered with these HDB flat, where soldiers lurks. and, how many flats can u level? there are so many out there. even piles of rubble may prove hazardous to you, where they will still serve as effective hiding places.
actually, it is kind of logical. in many of the modern urban wars, it is quite hard to take down a city full of hostile forces, not least one as urbanized as singapore.