Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 491213141516 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 374

Thread: Is 'National Service' necessary?

  1. #261

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yappy View Post
    Sorry to hear your bad experience. However many people have forgotten that we are now enjoying what had done since 1971.

    If it is not because of the unpopular decision made in 1971, we would not be what we are today. It is thru the shear hardwork of everyboby that we can call ourselves Developed Country with our neighbouring countries still struggling to achieve.

    Again as we move on, our needs change. We ask and demand for more. Where are we now in term of Maslow's need? I don't know. What i know is we(the majority)do not worry about our basis need. But at the end of the day if we not have a strong and committed Army and people, we will fall back!

    Our survival and future depend on us!
    so we're just living to what we need? then what about all the world class standards our friendly higher ups are promoting?

    developed or not has nothing to do with our army. i dont see news anywhere stating about how great our army is when it comes to contributing to our economy (directly; e.g: sale of high tech weaponry, providing of security services etc.).

    true, an army would give investors a safe environment to work in, but look, it's really about the amount of red tape and how attractive it is to do business here.

    look at the middle east. it's as messy as hell. but because of oil (it's attraction), enterprises are still there doing good money.

    we can be the safest heaven on earth. but if we're not attractive to businesses (else why cut corp taxes?), no economy will thrive.

    honestly, i would have to give 2 years to NS. i dont have a choice. if males of south korea could serve compulsory conscription and get over with it TOTALLY after their service, i dont see why singapore cant do the same.

    after all, if our strike force in WW2 could be trained within months and still give a good fight against the japs, why not? (singaporeans lost back then because the japanese were in large numbers. we're similarly outnumbered now as well if we fight a war)

  2. #262

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratix View Post
    so we're just living to what we need? then what about all the world class standards our friendly higher ups are promoting?

    developed or not has nothing to do with our army. i dont see news anywhere stating about how great our army is when it comes to contributing to our economy (directly; e.g: sale of high tech weaponry, providing of security services etc.).

    true, an army would give investors a safe environment to work in, but look, it's really about the amount of red tape and how attractive it is to do business here.

    look at the middle east. it's as messy as hell. but because of oil (it's attraction), enterprises are still there doing good money.

    we can be the safest heaven on earth. but if we're not attractive to businesses (else why cut corp taxes?), no economy will thrive.

    honestly, i would have to give 2 years to NS. i dont have a choice. if males of south korea could serve compulsory conscription and get over with it TOTALLY after their service, i dont see why singapore cant do the same.

    after all, if our strike force in WW2 could be trained within months and still give a good fight against the japs, why not? (singaporeans lost back then because the japanese were in large numbers. we're similarly outnumbered now as well if we fight a war)
    1. As we become affluence(A developed country) our needs change. I repeat, we ask and demand for more.
    2. Strong army and commited ppl = stable political enviroment = conducive for business
    3. If I remember correctly Singapore ranked 2nd or 3rd in the world for a good place to do/start business
    4. We have only ppl. U and I are the country most vaulable asset and we have to live with what we have!
    5. NS is to secure our future and to tell others that we have the muscle although we are onli a small red dot!
    6. We must have different type of groups for different purposes. We need all, businessman, army, police etc. All contribute to the economy of the country.
    Last edited by Yappy; 25th October 2007 at 12:46 PM.

  3. #263

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalas View Post
    i happen to know,
    do u?

    also, all those monies spend on hi-tech machinaries,
    telling us how much of leverage they gave,
    r they smoking us??

    if numbers counts for winning a war,
    then we might as well surrender now.
    we can never match ANY of our neighbouring countries.

    also, if 30k regulars is not enough,
    how is the 20k of active non regulars n a 6 figures of cbl help?
    r we going to fight it the old chinese way with human waves???

    i believe in quality, not numbers.

    jude
    Then maybe you can share the source of your 'higher authority'. Curious to know how 'high' it gets. If quality is the key, and not numbers, show us which defence force in the world that fits your ideal description.

  4. #264

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yappy View Post
    1. As we become affluence(A developed country) our needs change. I repeat, we ask and demand for more.
    2. Strong army and commited ppl = stable political enviroment = conducive for business
    3. If I remember correctly Singapore ranked 2nd or 3rd in the world for a good place to do/start business
    4. We have only ppl. U and I are the country most vaulable asset and we have to live with what we have!
    5. NS is to secure our future and to tell others that we have the muscle although we are onli a small red dot!
    6. We must have different type of groups for different purposes. We need all, businessman, army, police etc. All contribute to the economy of the country.

  5. #265
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Not really. Even if there is waiting time, the ratio of wait vs non-wait is certainly way below the army standards.

    I guess you are speaking from experience that your line of work does fall commensurate with the experiences in the army - that is fortunate indeed

    Quote Originally Posted by Yappy View Post
    That will be an idea situation.

    Just want to know, during your dealing with your customers, do you ever encounter 'Waiting Time' ?

  6. #266
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Even if he is boasting (which I will leave for him to rebutt), how do you draw a conclusion that a boaster is automatically someone not in the know?
    I would put it to you that the information, if it exists, is classified. If the poster knows, he is in a position of higher authority, and would know well enough not to post.
    Last edited by dkw; 26th October 2007 at 12:56 AM.

  7. #267

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Not really. Even if there is waiting time, the ratio of wait vs non-wait is certainly way below the army standards.

    I guess you are speaking from experience that your line of work does fall commensurate with the experiences in the army - that is fortunate indeed
    Thanks for the note.

    1. What is the army standard?

    2. What is the ratio and how do you derive them?

    Regards
    Last edited by Yappy; 26th October 2007 at 06:51 AM.

  8. #268

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by snowspeeder View Post
    Thanks for the support...

  9. #269
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    I note that the poster only said he knew, he did not give precise figures or actual information and therefore your conditional logic is not satisfied.

    You stated that the fact that he stated he knew means that he is boasting and that automatically means that he doesn't know.

    He could very well know, and he could very say that he knows but did not say the actual information he knows. He could be boasting, or he could actually know, but did not say or divulge such allegedly classified information. Hence once again, there is no automatic assumption that he is boasting or that he knows or does not know.

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw View Post
    I would put it to you that the information, if it exists, is classified. If the poster knows, he is in a position of higher authority, and would know well enough not to post.

  10. #270
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratix View Post
    so we're just living to what we need? then what about all the world class standards our friendly higher ups are promoting?

    developed or not has nothing to do with our army. i dont see news anywhere stating about how great our army is when it comes to contributing to our economy (directly; e.g: sale of high tech weaponry, providing of security services etc.).

    true, an army would give investors a safe environment to work in, but look, it's really about the amount of red tape and how attractive it is to do business here.

    look at the middle east. it's as messy as hell. but because of oil (it's attraction), enterprises are still there doing good money.

    we can be the safest heaven on earth. but if we're not attractive to businesses (else why cut corp taxes?), no economy will thrive.

    honestly, i would have to give 2 years to NS. i dont have a choice. if males of south korea could serve compulsory conscription and get over with it TOTALLY after their service, i dont see why singapore cant do the same.

    after all, if our strike force in WW2 could be trained within months and still give a good fight against the japs, why not? (singaporeans lost back then because the japanese were in large numbers. we're similarly outnumbered now as well if we fight a war)
    You are twisting history to fit your world view. The British outnumbered the Japanese at the time of surrender. What you forget is that the fact that you even some plum opportunities now is because of the sacrifices that many folk have made before you to lay the groundwork for the new generation. I'm not just talking about NS but in all other aspects, such as low pay, lack of social support services etc, which allowed Singapore to be stable and competitive and hence develop economically. That plum career you are harking to, how likely it would have presented itself to you if you lived in Myanmar?

    How about doing your bit for YOUR future generations?

  11. #271
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    1. I guess I should have use the word "experience" instead of standard to convey the point more clearly.

    2. The relative comparison in ratios can easily be derived from personal experiences in the army. However, it would appear that your experiences may show otherwise, which is why you appear to be having difficulty appreciating the comparision.


    Quote Originally Posted by Yappy View Post
    Thanks for the note.

    1. What is the army standard?

    2. What is the ratio and how do you derive them?

    Regards

  12. #272
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    I note that the poster only said he knew, he did not give precise figures or actual information and therefore your conditional logic is not satisfied.

    You stated that the fact that he stated he knew means that he is boasting and that automatically means that he doesn't know.

    He could very well know, and he could very say that he knows but did not say the actual information he knows. He could be boasting, or he could actually know, but did not say or divulge such allegedly classified information. Hence once again, there is no automatic assumption that he is boasting or that he knows or does not know.
    Quite argumentative, don't you think? How about applying some common sense rather than 'legal sense' in this context? Please re-read his posting and see if I am unreasonable in saying the poster is speaking in ignorance. This is Yappy's thread, I'm not going to swamp it it sideline sniping.

  13. #273
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    2. The relative comparison in ratios can easily be derived from personal experiences in the army. However, it would appear that your experiences may show otherwise, which is why you appear to be having difficulty appreciating the comparision.
    I hope you are not recommending that we develop personnel and staffing policies based upon 'personal experiences' in the army. What is the typical 'personal experience'? I suspect it is so wildly variable based on roles as to be fairly meaningless. In all my 9 ICTs so far it is 8 to 5 continuous work x 14-21 days.

  14. #274
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Already re-read - I don't think you are unreasoanble in giving your opinion that the poster is speaking in ignorance, I am just pointing out that you are not sure, and cannot be sure - the language of your comment speaks otherwise.

    There is no engaging in legal sense or common sense here - do reexamine the tone of your postings if you are trying to avoid sideline sniping as you have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw View Post
    Quite argumentative, don't you think? How about applying some common sense rather than 'legal sense' in this context? Please re-read his posting and see if I am unreasonable in saying the poster is speaking in ignorance. This is Yappy's thread, I'm not going to swamp it it sideline sniping.

  15. #275
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Nope I am not - I do not recall proposing development of any personnel or staffing policies at all.

    As noted above, experiences may differ, but the fact of different experiences already shows a divergence in practices.

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw View Post
    I hope you are not recommending that we develop personnel and staffing policies based upon 'personal experiences' in the army. What is the typical 'personal experience'? I suspect it is so wildly variable based on roles as to be fairly meaningless. In all my 9 ICTs so far it is 8 to 5 continuous work x 14-21 days.

  16. #276

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Not really. Even if there is waiting time, the ratio of wait vs non-wait is certainly way below the army standards.

    I guess you are speaking from experience that your line of work does fall commensurate with the experiences in the army - that is fortunate indeed
    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    1. I guess I should have use the word "experience" instead of standard to convey the point more clearly.

    2. The relative comparison in ratios can easily be derived from personal experiences in the army. However, it would appear that your experiences may show otherwise, which is why you appear to be having difficulty appreciating the comparision.
    Thank you for the note again. Just response to the repeated call:

    1. What is the army standard? The key word is 'Army Standard'

    2. What is the ratio and how do you derive them from? they key words are 'Ratio' and 'Derive from'

    Regards

  17. #277
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    1. I already said that there is no army standard, standard in the sense of an official document denoting what waiting vs working times there are in MINDEF. I had said that the word experience was better suited to describe my original intention.

    2. I already said that it was derived from my personal experiences, as well as the anectodal accounts I have heard. It is also congruent with other posters here on the amount of time wasting they themselves experience. There is no precise ratio or formula that you are referring to. I was merely making a comparison between the ratio of work vs waiting in the army, as compared to work vs waiting in commercial companies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yappy View Post
    Thank you for the note again. Just response to the repeated call:

    1. What is the army standard? The key word is 'Army Standard'

    2. What is the ratio and how do you derive them from? they key words are 'Ratio' and 'Derive from'

    Regards

  18. #278

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    1. I already said that there is no army standard, standard in the sense of an official document denoting what waiting vs working times there are in MINDEF. I had said that the word experience was better suited to describe my original intention.

    2. I already said that it was derived from my personal experiences, as well as the anectodal accounts I have heard. It is also congruent with other posters here on the amount of time wasting they themselves experience. There is no precise ratio or formula that you are referring to. I was merely making a comparison between the ratio of work vs waiting in the army, as compared to work vs waiting in commercial companies.
    Thank you for your clarification.

    Can I say that you are saying(Correct me if I am wrong) that the time wasting is based on:

    1. Some individual experiences vs a whole army+NSF+Reservists?
    2. There is no 'Army Standard in MINDEF'. How do you know?
    3. To compare, there must be some references, so what is the ratio in a 'commercial companies'?

    Regards

  19. #279

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratix View Post
    so we're just living to what we need? then what about all the world class standards our friendly higher ups are promoting?

    developed or not has nothing to do with our army. i dont see news anywhere stating about how great our army is when it comes to contributing to our economy (directly; e.g: sale of high tech weaponry, providing of security services etc.).

    true, an army would give investors a safe environment to work in, but look, it's really about the amount of red tape and how attractive it is to do business here.

    look at the middle east. it's as messy as hell. but because of oil (it's attraction), enterprises are still there doing good money.

    we can be the safest heaven on earth. but if we're not attractive to businesses (else why cut corp taxes?), no economy will thrive.

    honestly, i would have to give 2 years to NS. i dont have a choice. if males of south korea could serve compulsory conscription and get over with it TOTALLY after their service, i dont see why singapore cant do the same.

    after all, if our strike force in WW2 could be trained within months and still give a good fight against the japs, why not? (singaporeans lost back then because the japanese were in large numbers. we're similarly outnumbered now as well if we fight a war)
    1. Singapore did her best and the 'first class' was awarded because we attain the world standard not set by Singapore.
    2. Developed meant that we had achieved a world standard again not set by Singapore.
    3. I have to repeat this. We are 2nd best place in the world to do/start business. We just overtook US. The assessment is not done by Singapore.
    4. Middle East has black gold... we have 'Human Gold' and that is our GOLD
    5. To stay competitive we have to adjust to the need of the business world. Cutting corporate tax is only ONE area to attract investors
    6. You can have your choice. Denounce citizenship and go elsewhere when thousand tried unsuccessfully to attain Singapore Citizenship. I use to tell my classmate, if you find that this school is not suitable for you, find another school. it is as simple as that. The choice is yours.
    7. We are outnumbered, but I am sure whoever tried us would have to pay a heavy price.

    Regards

  20. #280

    Default Re: Is 'National Service' necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yappy View Post
    6. You can have your choice. Denounce citizenship and go elsewhere when thousand tried unsuccessfully to attain Singapore Citizenship. I use to tell my classmate, if you find that this school is not suitable for you, find another school. it is as simple as that. The choice is yours.
    This reminds of the time when I attended the 3-month JC programme while awaiting for my O level results -- seemed just like yesterday but sure was a long long time ago.

    Anyway, a school mate once commented (as she probably has already decided on applying to study elsewhere): "I don't like this school". Then I replied: "Well, what makes you think the school likes you?"

Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 491213141516 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •