- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]How to rectify NSmen’s disadvantage in reservist trainings[/h]
October 6th, 2013 |
Author: Contributions
National Service
I refer to the Channel News Asia article, “No one-size-fits-all approach to
address employers’ concerns on NS: Chan Chun Sing” [Link].
Adult male Singaporeans are usually put at a disadvantage because of the
requirement to do annual NS training (reservist) and many employers would prefer
to hire either female Singaporeans or foreigners who do not have such
obligations. History has shown that even though the salary for the period where
the male Singaporeans attend annual NS (reservist) is paid for by the
government, employers nonetheless see this as a disruption to their business.
This is especially true for smaller companies. This reaction is only natural
since logical people would always take the easiest path when presented with a
choice.
The solution to counter-balance the disruption of annual NS (reservist)
duties for Singapore males is to impose a requirement that foreigners (including
Permanent Residents) working in Singapore must perform 14 full days of social
services (with selected NGOs) away from the office annually, fully paid by
employers, until they reach age 65. With this requirement for foreigners, there
is now more incentive to hire Singaporean males (even the older ones) since NS
obligations (reservist) is completed by age 40/50. The best thing is that this
requirement will cost the government nothing, make older Singaporean males more
employable and may also induce more Permanent Residents to do National Service
in order to enjoy the advantage.
In addition, our country must seriously consider implementing National
Service for Singaporean females as well so that full time NS training can be cut
down from 2 years to 1 year. This will also ensure fairer competition for entry
into university and the job market. It will make financial planning for parents
much easier since both boys and girls will enter university and the workforce at
the same time. This may even increase our marriage rate among Singaporeans and
TFR for the country.
Generally, I do not like solution that penalizes one group to make the other
group feel less disadvantage because it is a lose-lose solution (lately, there
are quite a few, e.g. fine SMRT & SBS Transit for train disruption, COE
system, etc). However, in the case of National Service which is a compulsory
requirement for only one segment of the population, such “negative” solution may
be the only viable option.
There is of course the other option to do away with National Service and have
a professional arm forces which will definitely cost Singapore more money in
defence spending. On the topic of cost for Singapore, how can our Ministers
justify their million dollar salaries when they have no solution?
Ace
National Service
I refer to the Channel News Asia article, “No one-size-fits-all approach to
address employers’ concerns on NS: Chan Chun Sing” [Link].
Adult male Singaporeans are usually put at a disadvantage because of the
requirement to do annual NS training (reservist) and many employers would prefer
to hire either female Singaporeans or foreigners who do not have such
obligations. History has shown that even though the salary for the period where
the male Singaporeans attend annual NS (reservist) is paid for by the
government, employers nonetheless see this as a disruption to their business.
This is especially true for smaller companies. This reaction is only natural
since logical people would always take the easiest path when presented with a
choice.
The solution to counter-balance the disruption of annual NS (reservist)
duties for Singapore males is to impose a requirement that foreigners (including
Permanent Residents) working in Singapore must perform 14 full days of social
services (with selected NGOs) away from the office annually, fully paid by
employers, until they reach age 65. With this requirement for foreigners, there
is now more incentive to hire Singaporean males (even the older ones) since NS
obligations (reservist) is completed by age 40/50. The best thing is that this
requirement will cost the government nothing, make older Singaporean males more
employable and may also induce more Permanent Residents to do National Service
in order to enjoy the advantage.
In addition, our country must seriously consider implementing National
Service for Singaporean females as well so that full time NS training can be cut
down from 2 years to 1 year. This will also ensure fairer competition for entry
into university and the job market. It will make financial planning for parents
much easier since both boys and girls will enter university and the workforce at
the same time. This may even increase our marriage rate among Singaporeans and
TFR for the country.
Generally, I do not like solution that penalizes one group to make the other
group feel less disadvantage because it is a lose-lose solution (lately, there
are quite a few, e.g. fine SMRT & SBS Transit for train disruption, COE
system, etc). However, in the case of National Service which is a compulsory
requirement for only one segment of the population, such “negative” solution may
be the only viable option.
There is of course the other option to do away with National Service and have
a professional arm forces which will definitely cost Singapore more money in
defence spending. On the topic of cost for Singapore, how can our Ministers
justify their million dollar salaries when they have no solution?
Ace
