Embrace Foreigners, and Screw the Locals(NSmen)
All this talk about National Integration and integration of foreigners into Singapore misses the mark. We are talking about welcome others when we treat our own so poorly. What am I talking about?
I am talking about National Service. I am talking about mandatory 2 years (formerly 2.5 years) of conscription of Singaporean male citizens into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
I am talking about the 10 years of reservist obligations comprising but not limited to:
* annual in-camp training lasting 2 to 21 days (in practice but legally up to 40 days under the law)
* annual individual physical proficiency tests (IPPT) for those medically fit NSmen (those who fail to clear their tests are subject to Remedial Training of twice/thrice a week)
* notifying Mindef Notification Centre for any overseas trips exceeding 24 hours
* need to apply for exit permit for trips of 6 months or longer
* annual operations manning or mobilisation exercises than can happen 2-3 times a year
To be male and Singaporean is to serve and f*** off
These obligations are not new. They have been imposed on NSmen since the whole NS system was developed just after Singapore gained independence and as the British withdrew their military forces out of Singapore not long after.
What is new is that the pace of immigration to Singapore has increased tremendously. It has created a truly global city, Singapore Inc, with the implications of a labour market that is competitive in every sense of the word.
I saw it during my days working in the IT industry. Singaporeans have virtually no real advantages and in fact, Singaporean males who are NSmen are DISADVANTAGED because to employers, they come attached with annual ICT obligations that leave the company WITHOUT the services of their employees even if Mindef does reimburse them for the wages they continue to pay for their staff. Ceteris paribus, if I were an employer, I would choose a permanent resident or Employment Pass holder over a male citizen as I don't suffer as many disruptions to my use of this factor of production.
Competition is not wrong. I welcome it. It makes you upgrade yourself, not to take the status quo for granted and not to think you are entitled to anything unless you are smart and work hard for it. But to compete on unequal terms is simply unfair.
Discrimination in your own country
How can it be fair to Singaporean male citizens who are:
1) discriminated against female citizens who do not have NS?
2) discriminated against as compared to 1st generation Permanent Residents and newly minted citizens who do not have to serve NS (for those older)?
Let me share with you specific examples of discrimination.
During my 7th ICT, one of my unit reservists died during the 2.4km run. He died for the country. He died because of some underlying heart condition that surfaced during the run. He died because he was a citizen and was born male in Singapore Inc.
I was running a big project in my department. A few months into the project, I received the SAF 100 for a 3 week reservist doing operational duty protecting key installations in Singapore. I duly informed my bosses about it.
Guess what happened?
Yes, I was allowed to go for my reservist duty... BUT, my boss took the project away from me and gave it to my female colleague who did not have any reservist obligation.
How do you think it would affect my year end appraisal to have a significant project taken away because I wouldn't be around for 3 weeks because of service to the COUNTRY?
So if I had been killed during the operational duty (and mind you we carry live rounds and execute rules of engagement that involve the real possiblity of stopping potential terrorists or be injured or a target of attacks) my female colleague would get a shot at a better portfolio of work for her annual appraisal while I would have enjoyed a military funeral at taxpayers expense.
So now we have a new "Integration Council" helmed by not one, not two but seven ministers.
Their objective is to,
"... promote and foster social integration among Singaporeans and with new citizens and permanent residents."
May I make a small suggestion?
Can we start by treating our reservists better? This will lessen the discrimination AGAINST our own male citizens. It's bad enough that I had 2.5 years of my youth wasted in the Singapore Armed Forces.
I entered the workforce 2.5 years later and have reservist liabilities that made me less competitive vis-a-vis my competitors in the workforce who are on employment pass or permanent residence tickets into Singapore Inc. I fought hard in the workplace, I have a recognised degree from NTU, with relevant work experience and I did my duty to my country only to have it spat back into my face.
Immigration has been so pervasive that the criteria seems to be very easy. I noted that even your friendly neighbourhood hawker assistant in food courts can get permanent residency status!
That really cheapens the entire Singapore Citizenship. Don't forget, male citizenship is earned using tears, sweat and blood. Can my female citizens claim to serve their country up to the point of risking DEATH and INJURY? Who sees the pain when I was running standard obstacle course? Who empathised with me when I was insulted by regulars in the army with epithets such as "gu-niang", "cheese-bye" or having an Captain say that he will "crucify" the next recruit who said something stupid? Who shared my fear when seeing my fellow reservist COLLAPSE and DIE during his 2.4km run.
Integrating immigrants - has the Government looked at how and why it is screwing its NSmen?
The National Integration Council doesn't have to look far to uncover the seething resentment among many NSmen and NSF.
Singapore Inc runs 1st and foremost by economic considerations. I accept that. But why is the Government screwing us NSmen by imposing obligations in a way that is both disruptive and detrimental to our economic competitiveness.
They expect us NSmen to grin and bear it when we know we are competing on an unequal playing field? How can you expect us to embrace immigrants who are fighting for the very same rice-bowls and who do not need to make similar sacrifices to preserve it? I have risked my life every time I report for my annual in-camp training to protect and defend our way of life only to find that sacrifice entails having me risk my livelihood?!
This country is losing its identity and social cohesiveness even as this post is written. We are a country that now worships money. The economic imperative is the be-all and the end-all. Thus, we embrace immmigrants because they contribute to the economic fabric of the nation. They help keep the wheels of commerce and industry churning with the accessible foreign labour. Integrating them helps Singapore Inc. purr smoothly even as individual citizens get squashed in the MRT and bus during peak hours.
Embrace them even as the SAF/SPF and SCDF embraced our NSmen, sometimes to the point of losing their lives for duty, honour and country.
And that is why I am so glad that my daughter was born into Singapore Inc. She doesn't have to serve and gets to COMPETE on more equal terms to permanent residents, foreigners and the rest of her competitors in future for a piece of the pie in Singapore Inc.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27901.1
Showing posts with label national service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national service. Show all posts
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Policies for greater equity?
Policies for greater equity?
SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.
However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.
Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.
Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.
What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.
Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.
And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.
Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1
SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.
However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.
Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.
Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.
What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.
Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.
And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.
Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1
Sunday, April 12, 2009
National Service and the open door policy
National Service and the open door policy
SINGAPORE - On the way back home on the bus from work one day, I overheard a conversation between a Singaporean and his foreign counterpart (FC). It went like this:
FC: What is the purpose of Singaporeans doing National Service?
Local: Supposingly to defend Singapore against perceived threats.
FC: So you will be trained to defend Singapore against potential enemies?
Local (in a cynical, albeit jovial tone): If Singapore has a war, I will not be around to protect you. I think you better make your own life raft so that you will be able to jump the Singapore ship and go somewhere safe.
This conversation sums up the deep resentment among NS men towards the open door policy towards foreigners. A typical Singaporean with NS obligations is disadvantaged vis-a-vis his foreign counterparts because of the need to serve yearly in-camp trainings (ICT), which can be up to the maximum of one month. If ICT is not enough, those who fail to pass their physical fitness test (IPPT) have to attend Remedial Training (RT). If the RT is scheduled on a week day, the NS man has to leave his office early. And there has been feedbacks that employers do ask prospective employees their extent of NS obligations during job interviews. This has happened before in my case, and my peers had the same experience.
Thus, it is not surprising that NS obligations are seen as a form of liability in the face of competition from foreigners who do not have such obligations. I managed to do some catching up with my fellow NS peers when I went back for my annual ICT last week. The news wasn’t that rosy. A good number suffered pay cuts. One got retrenched. On top of ICT, this chap for one reason or another couldn’t pass his IPPT despite the RT training. His work place brought in cheaper foreign workers, and he was unceremoniously told to leave. Now, he is working for a fast food chain, earning $3.50 an hour.
It is not far from the truth to assert that the sight of the SAF100 (an SAF form notifying NS men of their upcoming ICT) is a morale sapper. On the ground, it is not uncommon for NS men to find ways and means to obtain excuse from their NS duties firstly (read MC), and attend to their work committments next.
Ironic, isn’t it? The point of NS is to protect the livelihood of Singaporeans. Except that now it is perceived as a form of threat to livelihood. And it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to assert that this question has gone through the heads of a number of our NS men at one point of time or another - what’s the point of doing NS when my livelihood is already threatened (by the open door policy towards foreigners)? For the cynical ones, they are already asking this question - why should I protect foreigners who threaten my livelihood?
The sad thing is that despite the fanfare of the Five Pillars of Defence, the intertwining of NS with the open door policy towards foreigners is surely not doing any favors to our Psychological Defence (one of the five pillars).
With the current fallout from the global financial crisis, the retrenchment exercise will undoubtedly go into overdrive mode. Due to the downsizing of the current work force, employees are saddled with increased workloads and responsibilities. The last thing on their mind is an SAF100 telling them to report for an ICT or a reminder to attend their RT. And for those keeping their fingers crossed in the hope of keeping their jobs, they wouldn’t want their NS liabilities to affect their evaluation.
Surely now would be the time for our Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to exercise some form of flexibility. For starters, Mindef can exercise more leeway in granting deferment, especially in the case of NS men who have to take on additional responsibilities and workload due to the down-sizing of the work force. Ditto for IPPT training where NS men can be given flexibility to select schedules that best fit the interests of their work place instead of sticking to one chosen fixed schedule under the current system. In fact, the system can be made NS men-friendly in allowing them to pick their most convenient dates.
During this period when the economy is in its downward spiral, shouldn’t MINDEF adopt a flexible approach and assist our NS men instead of hindering them during moments of such crisis? Granted that MINDEF can always come up with this arguement that operational readiness will be affected if it adopts a flexible approach, a good rhetorical question would be - would our military want to appear operationally ready on the surface, but with its soldiers already deflated psychologically? What then is the difference between an army of deflated soldiers and a non-existent army?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26727.1
SINGAPORE - On the way back home on the bus from work one day, I overheard a conversation between a Singaporean and his foreign counterpart (FC). It went like this:
FC: What is the purpose of Singaporeans doing National Service?
Local: Supposingly to defend Singapore against perceived threats.
FC: So you will be trained to defend Singapore against potential enemies?
Local (in a cynical, albeit jovial tone): If Singapore has a war, I will not be around to protect you. I think you better make your own life raft so that you will be able to jump the Singapore ship and go somewhere safe.
This conversation sums up the deep resentment among NS men towards the open door policy towards foreigners. A typical Singaporean with NS obligations is disadvantaged vis-a-vis his foreign counterparts because of the need to serve yearly in-camp trainings (ICT), which can be up to the maximum of one month. If ICT is not enough, those who fail to pass their physical fitness test (IPPT) have to attend Remedial Training (RT). If the RT is scheduled on a week day, the NS man has to leave his office early. And there has been feedbacks that employers do ask prospective employees their extent of NS obligations during job interviews. This has happened before in my case, and my peers had the same experience.
Thus, it is not surprising that NS obligations are seen as a form of liability in the face of competition from foreigners who do not have such obligations. I managed to do some catching up with my fellow NS peers when I went back for my annual ICT last week. The news wasn’t that rosy. A good number suffered pay cuts. One got retrenched. On top of ICT, this chap for one reason or another couldn’t pass his IPPT despite the RT training. His work place brought in cheaper foreign workers, and he was unceremoniously told to leave. Now, he is working for a fast food chain, earning $3.50 an hour.
It is not far from the truth to assert that the sight of the SAF100 (an SAF form notifying NS men of their upcoming ICT) is a morale sapper. On the ground, it is not uncommon for NS men to find ways and means to obtain excuse from their NS duties firstly (read MC), and attend to their work committments next.
Ironic, isn’t it? The point of NS is to protect the livelihood of Singaporeans. Except that now it is perceived as a form of threat to livelihood. And it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to assert that this question has gone through the heads of a number of our NS men at one point of time or another - what’s the point of doing NS when my livelihood is already threatened (by the open door policy towards foreigners)? For the cynical ones, they are already asking this question - why should I protect foreigners who threaten my livelihood?
The sad thing is that despite the fanfare of the Five Pillars of Defence, the intertwining of NS with the open door policy towards foreigners is surely not doing any favors to our Psychological Defence (one of the five pillars).
With the current fallout from the global financial crisis, the retrenchment exercise will undoubtedly go into overdrive mode. Due to the downsizing of the current work force, employees are saddled with increased workloads and responsibilities. The last thing on their mind is an SAF100 telling them to report for an ICT or a reminder to attend their RT. And for those keeping their fingers crossed in the hope of keeping their jobs, they wouldn’t want their NS liabilities to affect their evaluation.
Surely now would be the time for our Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to exercise some form of flexibility. For starters, Mindef can exercise more leeway in granting deferment, especially in the case of NS men who have to take on additional responsibilities and workload due to the down-sizing of the work force. Ditto for IPPT training where NS men can be given flexibility to select schedules that best fit the interests of their work place instead of sticking to one chosen fixed schedule under the current system. In fact, the system can be made NS men-friendly in allowing them to pick their most convenient dates.
During this period when the economy is in its downward spiral, shouldn’t MINDEF adopt a flexible approach and assist our NS men instead of hindering them during moments of such crisis? Granted that MINDEF can always come up with this arguement that operational readiness will be affected if it adopts a flexible approach, a good rhetorical question would be - would our military want to appear operationally ready on the surface, but with its soldiers already deflated psychologically? What then is the difference between an army of deflated soldiers and a non-existent army?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26727.1
Monday, April 6, 2009
A flexible national service policy to allow our male graduates to enter the workforce early
A flexible national service policy to allow our male graduates to enter the workforce early
Writer’s forward: National Service is an issue that is close to the heart of every male Singaporeans. Thus, any change in National Service policies will affect those whom are currently doing their National Service and those who have yet to fulfill their obligation.
SINGAPORE– One of the main grouses of National Service (NS) is that the latter takes up two years of our lives, which could be spent doing more productive things. Compared with our female peers from the same batch, we typically enter the work force two years later.
The reduction of NS term for full-time NS (NSF) men from two and a half years to two years was seen as a welcome change. However, more can be done to give NSFs the flexibility to disrupt their full-time NS in order to pursue their studies.
If the disruption policy was made more flexible, NS men can save up to one year, entering the workforce one year behind their female peers from the same batch. Consider this example of a male and female peer both graduating from their pre-university course at the end of december 2009.* The female peer will commence the first year of her university studies in August 2010. The male will typically enlist for his national service in January 2010. By July 2011, the female would have completed her first year of studies while her male peer would have completed one and a half years of his NS.
If allowed to disrupt after one and a half years of NS, the male peer will commence his university studies in August 2011, exactly one year behind his female peer. A typical undergraduate program lasts from three to four years. The male peer will use his long semester break after the second semester to serve his remaining NS term. He will typically require up to two long semester breaks, each about three months long, to complete his NS obligations. By his third year in university, he would have completed his mandatory two years term of NS.
Whilst it is understandable that some students will still want to enjoy their semester breaks without the hassle of serving the rest of their NS term, this flexibility in disruption policy is meant to cater to those who want to make the best use of their time and enter the workforce early. They stand to gain from an extra year’s salary from their profession and necessary working experience compared to their same peers who did not take the same route as them. They will also not lack that far behind their females peers.
Ultimately, NS is a form of sacrifice that Singaporean males must make. However, the lawmakers in charge of planning NS policies should provide more choices to NS men so that the latter can chart their career path to their best advantage.
*EDITS: Polytechnic students typically finish their diplomas during the month of march, and not at the end of the year as mentioned earlier. “A” levels are completed by the end of the year.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26134.1
Writer’s forward: National Service is an issue that is close to the heart of every male Singaporeans. Thus, any change in National Service policies will affect those whom are currently doing their National Service and those who have yet to fulfill their obligation.
SINGAPORE– One of the main grouses of National Service (NS) is that the latter takes up two years of our lives, which could be spent doing more productive things. Compared with our female peers from the same batch, we typically enter the work force two years later.
The reduction of NS term for full-time NS (NSF) men from two and a half years to two years was seen as a welcome change. However, more can be done to give NSFs the flexibility to disrupt their full-time NS in order to pursue their studies.
If the disruption policy was made more flexible, NS men can save up to one year, entering the workforce one year behind their female peers from the same batch. Consider this example of a male and female peer both graduating from their pre-university course at the end of december 2009.* The female peer will commence the first year of her university studies in August 2010. The male will typically enlist for his national service in January 2010. By July 2011, the female would have completed her first year of studies while her male peer would have completed one and a half years of his NS.
If allowed to disrupt after one and a half years of NS, the male peer will commence his university studies in August 2011, exactly one year behind his female peer. A typical undergraduate program lasts from three to four years. The male peer will use his long semester break after the second semester to serve his remaining NS term. He will typically require up to two long semester breaks, each about three months long, to complete his NS obligations. By his third year in university, he would have completed his mandatory two years term of NS.
Whilst it is understandable that some students will still want to enjoy their semester breaks without the hassle of serving the rest of their NS term, this flexibility in disruption policy is meant to cater to those who want to make the best use of their time and enter the workforce early. They stand to gain from an extra year’s salary from their profession and necessary working experience compared to their same peers who did not take the same route as them. They will also not lack that far behind their females peers.
Ultimately, NS is a form of sacrifice that Singaporean males must make. However, the lawmakers in charge of planning NS policies should provide more choices to NS men so that the latter can chart their career path to their best advantage.
*EDITS: Polytechnic students typically finish their diplomas during the month of march, and not at the end of the year as mentioned earlier. “A” levels are completed by the end of the year.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26134.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)