Tuesday, August 11, 2009
NS for adult new citizens not practical
I REFER to last Friday's letter by Mr Michael Ang, 'Make English and modified NS a must'.
National service (NS) is not merely a rite of passage for young male Singaporeans. It was conceived with a specific objective to build up a citizens' army to defend Singapore militarily. This objective remains true today.
It is tempting to argue that foreigners should do NS as a price to pay for Singapore citizenship because many view NS as a liability borne by Singaporeans. However, NS functions as part of a wider framework of the war-fighting doctrine of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as Singapore's national development. Manpower requirements, including those for conscription, must be meticulously identified and implemented.
Many foreigners coming to Singapore are in their late 20s or older. They are already economically productive and can immediately contribute to Singapore's economy. It makes little sense to disrupt their activities for two years. Whatever social networks they have developed would also need to be rebuilt.
Having modified NS is feasible only if it fits in with the overall requirements of the SAF and complements its capability. It is a waste of resources if it exists only to make some people 'serve their duty'.
Furthermore, the largest army corps is the infantry and this is where the SAF needs the most people. However, studies in other countries have shown that the specific kind of fitness needed for infantry soldiers, involving a combination of agility, stamina and tolerance of sleep deprivation, starts to degrade from the late 20s onwards. This is why armies across the world have a lower maximum age to join the infantry.
Xiao Fuchun
My stomach just churned while reading this. This argument here is so riddled with meaningless arguments that I feel sick just reading it. I really wonder why did ST even publish such an article. Anyhow, let's analyse this letter.
National service (NS) is not merely a rite of passage for young male Singaporeans. It was conceived with a specific objective to build up a citizens' army to defend Singapore militarily. This objective remains true today.
Indeed, National Service was started to defend Singapore from external military threats, no doubt about that. Obviously the objective remains true today, otherwise why are we even going to spend an approximate amount of S$11.45 billion on our defence budget this fiscal year, this is a 6% increase in spending over the last year, and more importantly, this is despite the fact that we're currently in a recession and that our economy is still projected to grow at a rate of between -4% to -6% this year? Clearly, military deterrence in the form of a highly advanced, professional and well-trained army is paramount to Singapore's progress. As such, I do feel it's rather redundant for the writer to state that the objective remains true up till today. Anyway that point aside, naturally NS being the rite of passage for young male citizens is a subsequent result of the conscription, and without much doubt, it is something that many will look back upon with fond memories.
It is tempting to argue that foreigners should do NS as a price to pay for Singapore citizenship because many view NS as a liability borne by Singaporeans. However, NS functions as part of a wider framework of the war-fighting doctrine of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as Singapore's national development. Manpower requirements, including those for conscription, must be meticulously identified and implemented.
I won't dispute this paragraph because it is rather accurate. Besides, there is certainly no easy solution to include naturalised citizens for NS. The most glaring reason would be that forcing NS on new citizens of Singapore would undoubtedly chase away many potential talents that would otherwise bring in relatively large economic benefits to Singapore (besides the fact that their loyalty to Singapore isn't cemented yet, unlike people who were raised here from birth or at a young age). Being a nation where manpower is our only resource that we can effectively rely on to sustain ourselves, doing so would be tantamount to digging our own graves. Also, even if the duration of their NS is shortened, that would be a blatant and overt act of discrimination between the citizens and those that were newly naturalised.
Many foreigners coming to Singapore are in their late 20s or older. They are already economically productive and can immediately contribute to Singapore's economy. It makes little sense to disrupt their activities for two years. Whatever social networks they have developed would also need to be rebuilt.
This is the main argument of the writer and reading it makes me feel nauseous. Stating that people that are in their late 20s or older are "already economically productive and can immediately contribute to Singapore's economy" shows a blatant lack of knowledge on NS. One of the main features of NS is that our civilian armed forces has a relatively large pool of reservist personnel who have to report back to camp every year to ensure that they are still competent in their soldiering skills. Having to go back for reservists and/or in-camp trainings every year already disrupts the activities of those who are already working and therefore economically productive, so is the writer implying that reservists have little sense to exist going by the same logic? Furthermore, the loss of two (or two and a half) years of time which would otherwise could very well be devoted to the completion of education for young Singaporean men would also make little sense because going by the writer's argument, then effectively, two (or two and a half) years of economic productivity is lost for every person that is enlisted in the NS. Isn't that a great loss to our nation's prosperity?
Of course things do not work out this way. In reality, the security and stability brought onto Singapore by those who serve NS reap in many benefits, among them economical, to our nation. But if things are implied this way, then shouldn't the young Singaporean men, who are bound by duty to serve and protect their country be also duly rewarded with it, since it is certainly not fair for foreigners to just waltz into Singapore, become naturalised citizens, and reap the benefits of the Singaporeans' hard work. And this is especially relevant because one of Singapore's main objectives is to bring prosperity to our nation, i.e. HER VERY OWN PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP AND LIVED THERE FROM YOUNG!
Having modified NS is feasible only if it fits in with the overall requirements of the SAF and complements its capability. It is a waste of resources if it exists only to make some people 'serve their duty'.
I've stated my points about modified NS above, that there is no easy solution to this and hence not feasible unless an ingenious plan can be crafted to accommodate both naturalised citizens and the "born-here" citizens.
Furthermore, the largest army corps is the infantry and this is where the SAF needs the most people. However, studies in other countries have shown that the specific kind of fitness needed for infantry soldiers, involving a combination of agility, stamina and tolerance of sleep deprivation, starts to degrade from the late 20s onwards. This is why armies across the world have a lower maximum age to join the infantry.
Infantry, is but only one part of an army. With the coming of the 3G Army, though fitness is still of great importance, it can be compensated to an extent by technology. Giving the reason that "agility, stamina and tolerance of sleep deprivation, starts to degrade from the late 20s onwards" is merely an excuse to try to exclude older naturalised citizens from serving NS if there is a need for them to. Don't forget that those doing reservists are also "from the late 20s onwards". Furthermore, the SAF is always in need of more manpower to serve in the NS, we are not like the bigger nations who have the luxury of having enough people of the right age to voluntarily join the armed forces. Simply put, we are pressed for manpower and having slightly older people serve in the SAF is better than not having anyone join at all.
Furthermore, having young Singaporean men serve two (or two and a half) years of NS in the prime of their lives also creates another problem. These people could be taught in institutes of higher education, where at that point in life, they are at maximum potential to absorb and learn things. So doesn't that make NS a jarring disruption to the education of these young men and possibly also dening them of using the best time of their lives to further their capacity for higher learning? In this case, shouldn't we all the more reward those who serve NS instead of giving them a disadvantage to naturalised citizens who according to the writer's views, are not suitable for NS due to their age (and thus are free to reap all the rewards that the homegrown citizens have created for them)?
I sincerely hope the writer isn't a foreigner because as it is, the argument is already very narrow and only serves to show his ignorance. If he is a foreigner or a recently naturalised citizen, then I sure hope he gets a good public backlash for all that he has said because it's easily tantamount to putting naturalised citizens on the pedestal as if it was their given right all along (and thus implying that homegrown citizens are second-class and doomed to play second fiddle to them even though we have contributed so much more to the nation).
Alright that's it I'm out, I haven't written an argument for a long time and I think some points are rather messy over there, but whatever, I think what I've just written speaks of how flawed and narrow this writer's letter is.
I REFER to last Friday's letter by Mr Michael Ang, 'Make English and modified NS a must'.
National service (NS) is not merely a rite of passage for young male Singaporeans. It was conceived with a specific objective to build up a citizens' army to defend Singapore militarily. This objective remains true today.
It is tempting to argue that foreigners should do NS as a price to pay for Singapore citizenship because many view NS as a liability borne by Singaporeans. However, NS functions as part of a wider framework of the war-fighting doctrine of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as Singapore's national development. Manpower requirements, including those for conscription, must be meticulously identified and implemented.
Many foreigners coming to Singapore are in their late 20s or older. They are already economically productive and can immediately contribute to Singapore's economy. It makes little sense to disrupt their activities for two years. Whatever social networks they have developed would also need to be rebuilt.
Having modified NS is feasible only if it fits in with the overall requirements of the SAF and complements its capability. It is a waste of resources if it exists only to make some people 'serve their duty'.
Furthermore, the largest army corps is the infantry and this is where the SAF needs the most people. However, studies in other countries have shown that the specific kind of fitness needed for infantry soldiers, involving a combination of agility, stamina and tolerance of sleep deprivation, starts to degrade from the late 20s onwards. This is why armies across the world have a lower maximum age to join the infantry.
Xiao Fuchun
My stomach just churned while reading this. This argument here is so riddled with meaningless arguments that I feel sick just reading it. I really wonder why did ST even publish such an article. Anyhow, let's analyse this letter.
National service (NS) is not merely a rite of passage for young male Singaporeans. It was conceived with a specific objective to build up a citizens' army to defend Singapore militarily. This objective remains true today.
Indeed, National Service was started to defend Singapore from external military threats, no doubt about that. Obviously the objective remains true today, otherwise why are we even going to spend an approximate amount of S$11.45 billion on our defence budget this fiscal year, this is a 6% increase in spending over the last year, and more importantly, this is despite the fact that we're currently in a recession and that our economy is still projected to grow at a rate of between -4% to -6% this year? Clearly, military deterrence in the form of a highly advanced, professional and well-trained army is paramount to Singapore's progress. As such, I do feel it's rather redundant for the writer to state that the objective remains true up till today. Anyway that point aside, naturally NS being the rite of passage for young male citizens is a subsequent result of the conscription, and without much doubt, it is something that many will look back upon with fond memories.
It is tempting to argue that foreigners should do NS as a price to pay for Singapore citizenship because many view NS as a liability borne by Singaporeans. However, NS functions as part of a wider framework of the war-fighting doctrine of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), as well as Singapore's national development. Manpower requirements, including those for conscription, must be meticulously identified and implemented.
I won't dispute this paragraph because it is rather accurate. Besides, there is certainly no easy solution to include naturalised citizens for NS. The most glaring reason would be that forcing NS on new citizens of Singapore would undoubtedly chase away many potential talents that would otherwise bring in relatively large economic benefits to Singapore (besides the fact that their loyalty to Singapore isn't cemented yet, unlike people who were raised here from birth or at a young age). Being a nation where manpower is our only resource that we can effectively rely on to sustain ourselves, doing so would be tantamount to digging our own graves. Also, even if the duration of their NS is shortened, that would be a blatant and overt act of discrimination between the citizens and those that were newly naturalised.
Many foreigners coming to Singapore are in their late 20s or older. They are already economically productive and can immediately contribute to Singapore's economy. It makes little sense to disrupt their activities for two years. Whatever social networks they have developed would also need to be rebuilt.
This is the main argument of the writer and reading it makes me feel nauseous. Stating that people that are in their late 20s or older are "already economically productive and can immediately contribute to Singapore's economy" shows a blatant lack of knowledge on NS. One of the main features of NS is that our civilian armed forces has a relatively large pool of reservist personnel who have to report back to camp every year to ensure that they are still competent in their soldiering skills. Having to go back for reservists and/or in-camp trainings every year already disrupts the activities of those who are already working and therefore economically productive, so is the writer implying that reservists have little sense to exist going by the same logic? Furthermore, the loss of two (or two and a half) years of time which would otherwise could very well be devoted to the completion of education for young Singaporean men would also make little sense because going by the writer's argument, then effectively, two (or two and a half) years of economic productivity is lost for every person that is enlisted in the NS. Isn't that a great loss to our nation's prosperity?
Of course things do not work out this way. In reality, the security and stability brought onto Singapore by those who serve NS reap in many benefits, among them economical, to our nation. But if things are implied this way, then shouldn't the young Singaporean men, who are bound by duty to serve and protect their country be also duly rewarded with it, since it is certainly not fair for foreigners to just waltz into Singapore, become naturalised citizens, and reap the benefits of the Singaporeans' hard work. And this is especially relevant because one of Singapore's main objectives is to bring prosperity to our nation, i.e. HER VERY OWN PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP AND LIVED THERE FROM YOUNG!
Having modified NS is feasible only if it fits in with the overall requirements of the SAF and complements its capability. It is a waste of resources if it exists only to make some people 'serve their duty'.
I've stated my points about modified NS above, that there is no easy solution to this and hence not feasible unless an ingenious plan can be crafted to accommodate both naturalised citizens and the "born-here" citizens.
Furthermore, the largest army corps is the infantry and this is where the SAF needs the most people. However, studies in other countries have shown that the specific kind of fitness needed for infantry soldiers, involving a combination of agility, stamina and tolerance of sleep deprivation, starts to degrade from the late 20s onwards. This is why armies across the world have a lower maximum age to join the infantry.
Infantry, is but only one part of an army. With the coming of the 3G Army, though fitness is still of great importance, it can be compensated to an extent by technology. Giving the reason that "agility, stamina and tolerance of sleep deprivation, starts to degrade from the late 20s onwards" is merely an excuse to try to exclude older naturalised citizens from serving NS if there is a need for them to. Don't forget that those doing reservists are also "from the late 20s onwards". Furthermore, the SAF is always in need of more manpower to serve in the NS, we are not like the bigger nations who have the luxury of having enough people of the right age to voluntarily join the armed forces. Simply put, we are pressed for manpower and having slightly older people serve in the SAF is better than not having anyone join at all.
Furthermore, having young Singaporean men serve two (or two and a half) years of NS in the prime of their lives also creates another problem. These people could be taught in institutes of higher education, where at that point in life, they are at maximum potential to absorb and learn things. So doesn't that make NS a jarring disruption to the education of these young men and possibly also dening them of using the best time of their lives to further their capacity for higher learning? In this case, shouldn't we all the more reward those who serve NS instead of giving them a disadvantage to naturalised citizens who according to the writer's views, are not suitable for NS due to their age (and thus are free to reap all the rewards that the homegrown citizens have created for them)?
I sincerely hope the writer isn't a foreigner because as it is, the argument is already very narrow and only serves to show his ignorance. If he is a foreigner or a recently naturalised citizen, then I sure hope he gets a good public backlash for all that he has said because it's easily tantamount to putting naturalised citizens on the pedestal as if it was their given right all along (and thus implying that homegrown citizens are second-class and doomed to play second fiddle to them even though we have contributed so much more to the nation).
Alright that's it I'm out, I haven't written an argument for a long time and I think some points are rather messy over there, but whatever, I think what I've just written speaks of how flawed and narrow this writer's letter is.
Labels: Singapore
|| posted by Kuan Hui[top]