The best strategy to defending Singapore Island

[CheeZe]

I think this is the best thread to put this in since the topic isn't related to any single one of the SAF.

Some friends and I were debating the SAF and its future. MinDef keeps harping on about manpower reductions in the future due to a declining birthrate, etc. The idea came up that Israel implements universal conscription of men and women. If having enough personnel is an issue, why doesn't Singapore move to make universal conscription an issue.

My take is that the threat of a future conflict isn't perceived as high enough to warrant the PAP and MinDef changing that law. Such a dramatic change is going to affect Singaporean society and culture in unforeseeable ways. Singapore isn't Israel which in continually under threat and frequently under attack. Singapore only fulfils the former criteria. Nonetheless, I do believe that male-only National Service is a relic and that some sort of change should be made. What it should be changed to is possibly a separate topic so I won't go into my views on that front.

The guys and 1 lady in the group said that the idea of male-only conscription conformed to outdated gender role ideas. That only men are capable of defending the nation, that men are expendable while women must be protected. The other ladies in the group posited the idea that women who want to be involved in national or civil defence can already volunteer to do so. Then the conversation shifted into the questions of why women get a choice while men don't and voting rights vis-a-vis National Service.

So, I thought I would put the topic here for those who are more tuned into such matters. If filling personnel needs is foreseen as a challenge for the SAF, why isn't National Service expanded, fully or partially, to the female half of the population?

 

[Lone Ranger]

Some friends and I were debating the SAF and its future. MinDef keeps harping on about manpower reductions in the future due to a declining birthrate, etc. The idea came up that Israel implements universal conscription of men and women. If having enough personnel is an issue, why doesn't Singapore move to make universal conscription an issue.

Thanks for bringing up this discussion of "universal conscription". Personally, I think that national security and resilient is more than defense. To be honest, whether there is a decline of manpower in the coming years or not, I am having the view that Mindef will still go with the high tech/ low manpower path as this is the opportunity that brought about by the IR4 and changes of our population made up - more educated, more tech savvy and less labour oriented. Low birth rate just provides one of the best back drop to push for the initiative. Hence, to be honest, I do not think Mindef/ SAF is really crunch for manpower, it is more like a "mechanism" (just like the annual fiscal budget) that pushed the institution to be efficient.

For a gender free universal conscription, I am totally in for this but I would like it to go beyond security, ie education and health care. I agrees that female is less suitable for the roles in the traditional security institutions (SAF, SPF, SCDF) but they can play a meaningful role in our health care and education system. Aren't we faced manpower shortage in healthcare industry? Why can't we mobilize part of our population, just like how we manage our defense, for the healthcare industry? Same can also be done for the education sector, no?

My 2 cents on the topic.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for bringing up this discussion of "universal conscription". Personally, I think that national security and resilient is more than defense. To be honest, whether there is a decline of manpower in the coming years or not, I am having the view that Mindef will still go with the high tech/ low manpower path as this is the opportunity that brought about by the IR4 and changes of our population made up - more educated, more tech savvy and less labour oriented. Low birth rate just provides one of the best back drop to push for the initiative. Hence, to be honest, I do not think Mindef/ SAF is really crunch for manpower, it is more like a "mechanism" (just like the annual fiscal budget) that pushed the institution to be efficient.

For a gender free universal conscription, I am totally in for this but I would like it to go beyond security, ie education and health care. I agrees that female is less suitable for the roles in the traditional security institutions (SAF, SPF, SCDF) but they can play a meaningful role in our health care and education system. Aren't we faced manpower shortage in healthcare industry? Why can't we mobilize part of our population, just like how we manage our defense, for the healthcare industry? Same can also be done for the education sector, no?

My 2 cents on the topic.

I served in the NZDF and for the last 30 years we have women who have served in all capacities within NZDF including combat trades. They are just as good as men and I have never had any problems with women in combat or seagoing roles (I served in the RNZAF and RNZN) and always have had the attitude that regardless of who they are I didn't care as long as they could do the job and protected my back as I protected theirs. Sex, colour, creed, sexuality, religion etc., never came into it. It is just the protection thing.

Why are women less capable than men in military combat roles? I don't see any evidence to suggest that except rubbish from males who like to control and belitte women. Such rubbish and bullshit is prevalent amongst groups of US military personnel who, if they got any further backward, would be living in caves and waving clubs around in the air. There are numerous accounts in recorded history of women in combat and they were just as good as, in some cases better than, men and if caught alive were in some cases treated atrociously by the enemy. That says more about the enemy than the women.

Why should some mens insecurity about their own maleness and manliness dictate what women can and cannot do within their Armed Forces? In 1923 at Cambridge when they were debating whether or not to admit women to the University, Lord Rutherford of Nelson* asked "why should we exclude half the population just because they happen to be female?" Eventually Cambridge voted to allow female students.

It's important that we treat our women equally and grant them the equality that they deserve. They are quite capable of performing any tasks asked of them, as long as they have been given exactly the same training as their male colleagues to enable them to perform the required task. Women think differently to men on some subjects, and that is an asset not a hindrance.

*For those who are unfamiliar with Lord Rutherford of Nelson, he was born Ernst Rutherford outside of Nelson, NZ. He did his Degree in Physics at Canterbury College in Christchurch NZ, before going to McGill University in Canada. After some time he left McGill for the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge in the UK. Whilst there he was the first to split the atom and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for that feat.

 

[CheeZe]

I agrees that female is less suitable for the roles in the traditional security institutions (SAF, SPF, SCDF) but they can play a meaningful role in our health care and education system.

I disagree with this point of view. If we examine historical examples and modern training regimes, I see no reason why women cannot physically perform to the level of men. And in some branches, physical ability is meaningless. Doesn't take much physical ability to drive a Leo2 or a lorry. If you're a SIGINT analyst, how many field exercises are you going to be deployed on? Ergo, I don't see physical ability as a barrier or hurdle.

Going off that, I see no evidence to suggest women are unsuitable for "traditional security institutions" in a cognitive sense either. In truth, I find that it is helpful to have women present when solving complex or team problems as they tend to have different approaches to male thinkers. It seems to be folly to deny the SAF the inherent cognitive capability of the female population, if we were to take your view that women are less suitable.

Aren't we faced manpower shortage in healthcare industry? Why can't we mobilize part of our population, just like how we manage our defense, for the healthcare industry? Same can also be done for the education sector, no?

From my understanding, the shortage was manageable until the pandemic hit. Then it became overwhelming during the early months. Now, it seems to have stabilized back to its pre-Covid shortage. However, healthcare is a specialization that requires quite a lot of work to qualify for. It's not something which can be easily "mobilized" en masse. The same applies to education.

To be an educator or education worker, there must be a desire from the person. You can create an unwilling teacher, but that's just going to harm the students and their learning. I can talk at length about the stresses and requirements of being a teacher or an educator as well as the specific problems I see in the Singaporean education system but they're unrelated to this discussion.

So, yes, I do see your point about education and healthcare being areas of national security. However, I'm not sure Singapore or any other nation has a meaningful way of "mobilizing" for it.

Going back to the topic - MinDef has always had the idea of using force multipliers. The maths show we will always be outnumbered by either Indonesia or Malaysia. However, the argument makes no sense. "We will have fewer personnel in the future so we must invest in new technology." The obvious answer, to me, is broaden National Service to fill that requirement. The whole point of NS at its conception was to have a relatively large and well-trained force with modern equipment. The SAF seems to be moving towards "well-trained" and "modern equipment" and sacrificing the "relatively large." Is Singapore safer with more or fewer of these well-trained, well-equipped citizen-soldiers? I would argue that national security is improved if women were used to fill out the ranks of the SAF.

It would also go a long way to changing the resentment from many men stemming from mandatory NS while women get to move onto whatever professional or academic pursuits.

 

[Lone Ranger]

Why are women less capable than men in military combat roles? I don't see any evidence to suggest that except rubbish from males who like to control and belitte women. Such rubbish and bullshit is prevalent amongst groups of US military personnel who, if they got any further backward, would be living in caves and waving clubs around in the air. There are numerous accounts in recorded history of women in combat and they were just as good as, in some cases better than, men and if caught alive were in some cases treated atrociously by the enemy. That says more about the enemy than the women.

My comment isn't meant to discriminate female in any way and I am not against female joining the service voluntary. I have seem many servicewomen in the SAF doing well. However from my experience, I have to acknowledge there is a different between a 100% voluntary army and a conscript army. In a universal conscript army, like Singapore, legally the institutions have to absorpt all male population of that particular age group irregardless of "quality" and their level of motivation. They (SAF) do not have the ability to choose. This create some sort of liability for the institution. I have seem how unit commanders have to spend additional time and resources to deal with those unmotivated personnel. This is counter productive. Moreover, as said earlier, current SAF orbat is healthy, in fact much better than 20 years ago where many units were under manned, from what I am aware of. In fact, SAF orbat is expanding (sound strange?) in recent time despite our declining birth rate post 2000.

The question is, do we have the need to expand the conscription population and accept the trade off. My take is no.

I see no reason why women cannot physically perform to the level of men. And in some branches, physical ability is meaningless. Doesn't take much physical ability to drive a Leo2 or a lorry. If you're a SIGINT analyst, how many field exercises are you going to be deployed on? Ergo, I don't see physical ability as a barrier or hurdle.

I have no issue on having female volunteers in the army and I see many motivated service women in the forces. Let me clarify, I was referring to conscript female for the army. Conscripting a whole gender group into the army will be a whole different story. Everything comes with a cost and in this case I see that the cost out weight the benefit.

From my understanding, the shortage was manageable until the pandemic hit. Then it became overwhelming during the early months. Now, it seems to have stabilized back to its pre-Covid shortage.

The shortage is a structural issue and it has been exist for many years. The current solution is to employ from oversea, especially nurses from Philippines and some doctors from India, in addition to gov's initiative of mid career switch for the local population. Our shortage is so serious that nurses from the restructure (public/gov) hospital are now paid better than executives and those in the private hospital, in order to attract people to join the industry. This is totally different situation compared to 20yrs ago.

So, yes, I do see your point about education and healthcare being areas of national security. However, I'm not sure Singapore or any other nation has a meaningful way of "mobilizing" for it.

The reasons I suggested these two industries,
1) There is a real need for manpower. They are expanding their operation.
2) The industry/sector is big enough to absorpt an annual population of 20k.
3) Ministry of Health and Education has the resources (budget) to manage it, 3rd and 2nd place respectively, just behind the defense budget.

It would also go a long way to changing the resentment from many men stemming from mandatory NS while women get to move onto whatever professional or academic pursuits.

This is part of the reason I supported NS for girl, another is for national education. Nothing is better than committing 2 yrs for public service.

Beside, in time of war, there will be an increasing need for health care specialists and this pool of people will be very valuable.

Edit to add: There is an important perspective not discuss - economy, which is dear to the government. Every resource taken out of the economic activities, will have one way or another impact/ slow the economy, especially when Singapore's is at the mature state. 40k (20k x 2yrs) drawn from active labors at any one time is a significant impact to Singapore's economy. This can be one of the reasons for Singapore's gov not to have the female serving NS, even when our law allows.

 

[0bserver]

One of the old reasons of why women are frowned upon in front line roles is that in a genocidal or racial war, one common goal of the enemy is to corrupt the 'purity' of the target's gene pool, which was a very likely scenario in the older days if our neighbours made Singapore a race issue. In short, one of the goals would be mass rapes and bastardizing the population. Women on the frontline would be the equivalent of putting your HVT with your escorts, it would make your enemy's job a lot easier. If you want women on the front line, you got to be prepared for gang rape cases. It's bound to happen sooner or later.

 

[ngatimozart]

One of the old reasons of why women are frowned upon in front line roles is that in a genocidal or racial war, one common goal of the enemy is to corrupt the 'purity' of the target's gene pool, which was a very likely scenario in the older days if our neighbours made Singapore a race issue. In short, one of the goals would be mass rapes and bastardizing the population. Women on the frontline would be the equivalent of putting your HVT with your escorts, it would make your enemy's job a lot easier. If you want women on the front line, you got to be prepared for gang rape cases. It's bound to happen sooner or later.

Is the purity of the race still a requirement today? I have a very strong dislike for racial purity arguments because they are implicit of racial superiority theory. Whilst comrade Xi Jinping, currently resident in Beijing, may believe in the racial superiority of Han Chinese, it makes him no better than Adolf Hitler or members of the Klu Klux Klan who asserted their racial superiority and thought that their shit didn't stink either. But it did stink and racial superiority in any form is a hateful philosophy that breeds nothing but hate and death.

 

[0bserver]

Is the purity of the race still a requirement today? I have a very strong dislike for racial purity arguments because they are implicit of racial superiority theory. Whilst comrade Xi Jinping, currently resident in Beijing, may believe in the racial superiority of Han Chinese, it makes him no better than Adolf Hitler or members of the Klu Klux Klan who asserted their racial superiority and thought that their shit didn't stink either. But it did stink and racial superiority in any form is a hateful philosophy that breeds nothing but hate and death.

You got it the other way round. It's not if you want to keep your race pure but what the enemy thinks of your race and what steps they will take to ensure that it no longer exists.
Not to mention values were more conservative in the past when people believed that women that were raped were 'tainted' and had trouble getting married, especially if they had kids from the incident.
Of course that was 50 years ago and values have changed since then but as an example of what the situation was like then, you can look up the 1998 Indonesia race riots and the rapes that happened during the time when the military was involved in the incidents as well. And they did this to their own people, not their 'enemies' where anything goes. It'll be worse in a free for all war.

 

[ngatimozart]

You got it the other way round. It's not if you want to keep your race pure but what the enemy thinks of your race and what steps they will take to ensure that it no longer exists.
Not to mention values were more conservative in the past when people believed that women that were raped were 'tainted' and had trouble getting married, especially if they had kids from the incident.
Of course that was 50 years ago and values have changed since then but as an example of what the situation was like then, you can look up the 1998 Indonesia race riots and the rapes that happened during the time when the military was involved in the incidents as well. And they did this to their own people, not their 'enemies' where anything goes. It'll be worse in a free for all war.

No I haven't got it the wrong way around at all.

You have to look at the racial purity argument from the context of its meaning and who is pushing the message. Someone who advocates wiping out an enemy because of their race is not a racial purist. They are a race xxxx hater - a racist per se who sees the other as something to be destroyed. A racial purist is someone who says that thou shalt only procreate with pure bloods of thy own race. To procreate with someone of another race is an abomination.

To me its the people ruling and in charge who can make the big difference in shaping the conduct of the military and para military forces in wartime. Nazi Germany is a classic case and the difference in treatment between the occupied Western European nations and those to the the east of Germany. Same with Western Allied POWs and Russian POWs. There was a big difference in how the Germans treated Russian POWs in WW1 and WW2. After what the Nazis did in the Soviet Union to the civilian population, I understand the resultant Soviet illegal activities in Eastern Germany as they drove the Wehrmacht back. I don't condone it, but being Māori I certainly understand it.

 

[0bserver]

No I haven't got it the wrong way around at all.

You have to look at the racial purity argument from the context of its meaning and who is pushing the message. Someone who advocates wiping out an enemy because of their race is not a racial purist. They are a race xxxx hater - a racist per se who sees the other as something to be destroyed. A racial purist is someone who says that thou shalt only procreate with pure bloods of thy own race. To procreate with someone of another race is an abomination.

Note carefully that I did not say that the enemies were racial purist, I said that the 'racial purity' of the opponent's race is a target that they would go after. Big difference, especially when I never used the term racial purist. Your description of a race hater would be accurate and one of the weapons they use to achieve their goals is mass rape. That is an unfortunate historical fact that genocidal wars tend towards these type of tactics.

Go look up my posts and see if I ever called our possible opponents 'racial purists'.

 

[CheeZe]

These ideas of "racial purity" and women as HVTs are nonsense in the context of modern Singapore's national security. There is definitely relevance with regards to racism from social perspective but it's not a defence issue. Nor, do I believe, has it ever been one in terms of Singapore's history from pre-colonial to present. We don't perceive women as inherently more valuable than men. If anything, the continued inherent patriarchal nature of the various ethnic groups continues to show quite plainly.

EDIT: I wish to make it plain that I don't believe there is anything such as "racial purity" and that it is pseudoscience concocted to justify European racism.

 

[ngatimozart]

Enough said about racial purity and racism. It's derailing the thread.

 

[CheeZe]

So, back to "Why not women in NS?"

I still haven't really seen a reason why we shouldn't have women perform NS.

 

[OPSSG]

So, back to "Why not women in NS?"

I still haven't really seen a reason why we shouldn't have women perform NS.

It’s a choice that the PAP don’t want to make and what they decide will be policy. Because it is a vote loser and I strongly suspect that it will guarantee the loss of another 2 to 3 more GRCs to the opposition.

There are many things the SAF can do to improve capability and readiness without SPENDING money ineffectively by catching a larger poorly trained pool of people (that we don’t dare to use for war, on day 1 to day 21). Because, at present the SAF don’t make use of our NSFs effectively nor are they as well trained when compared to the Israelis who go into battle regularly — eg 1. our NSF shoot budget for live fire (bullets and ammo) is too low — eg. 2 our OCS and SCS training period compresses and puts very young people to lead in a manner that reduces unit effectiveness (these people should not be serving 22 months, instead they should revert to 30 months minimum).

If Singapore wants to offer NS to women, make them volunteer to serve 30 to 36 months (depending on vocation) and have it as competitive selection, where 50% are rejected (IPPT gold preferred, min standards for IQ tests, additional leadership tests at selection and other factors that make an effective solider) and another 20% who don’t perform well at BMT (in their Sit test and ACTP), end there. The remaining 30% invest real money to make them operational (with ADF’s shoot budget or other advanced vocation or rank training) and really be willing to deploy them. There are many highly technical vocations that needs longer service periods for these women can serve in, that the SAF needs, given proper training and time to mature in their role. We need more effective use of these selected people (and also offer this scheme to top performing NSFs boys), instead of more unmotivated people.

 

[ngatimozart]

It’s a choice that the PAP don’t want to make and what they decide will be policy. Because it is a vote loser and guarantees the loss of another 2 to 3 more GRCs to the opposition.

There are many things the SAF can do to improve capability and readiness without SPENDING money ineffectively by catching a larger poorly trained pool of people (that we don’t dare to use for war, on day 1 to day 21). Because, at present the SAF don’t make use of our NSFs effectively nor are they as well trained when compared to the Israelis who go into battle regularly — eg 1. our NSF shoot budget for live fire (bullets and ammo) is too low — eg. 2 our OCS and SCS training period compresses and puts very young people to lead in a manner that reduces unit effectiveness (these people should not be serving 22 months, instead they should revert to 30 months minimum).

If Singapore wants to offer NS to women, make them volunteer to serve 30 to 36 months (depending on vocation) and have it as competitive selection, where 50% are rejected (IPPT gold preferred, min standards for IQ tests, additional leadership tests at selection and other factors that make an effective solider) and another 20% who don’t perform well at BMT (in their Sit test and ACTP), end there. The remaining 30% invest real money to make them operational (with ADF’s shoot budget or other advanced vocation or rank training) and really be willing to deploy them. There are many highly technical vocations that needs longer service periods for these women can serve in, that the SAF needs, given proper training and time to mature in their role. We need more effective use of these selected people (and also offer this scheme to top performing NSFs boys), instead of more unmotivated people.

Regardless of how advanced it thinks its attitudes are, I do wonder what the response in NZ would be like if NS was ever reinstated here and women were included? The amount of whinging that would come from young people and their parents would be significant enough as it was, but having daughters doing the same, I don't know.

 

[OPSSG]

Regardless of how advanced it thinks its attitudes are, I do wonder what the response in NZ would be like if NS was ever reinstated here and women were included? The amount of whinging that would come from young people and their parents would be significant enough as it was, but having daughters doing the same, I don't know.

Whinging is universal in any NS system but there are parental concerns, on sufficient safe-guards, that are very real.

The IDF processes about 5 rape cases a year (based on reported data from 2007 to 2009) before considering other sexual offences. As a parent with daughters and a son who completed 22 months of NS, I do not support NS for women in Singapore.

It just takes 2 to 3 reported rape cases for AWARE to take up a strong and effective campaign to disband any women for NS idea in Singapore. IMHO, the current political risk to reward ratio does not favour NS for women in Singapore. Imposing conscription on women is a good reason for most women to oppose NS; which is detrimental to the commitment to defend.

The SAF does a good job in trying to protect women who serve as regulars but it will be next to impossible to protect all, if an universal NSF scheme for women is implemented. If training is realistic, there will be deaths and injuries too. It is a cost Singaporean parents have to bear to support NS — it is already very difficult to notify NSF parents of deaths (about 4.5 per year) or serious injury — I cannot imagine having to do such notification to NSF parents for a serious sexual offence (physical harassment or rape), committed against someone’s daughter due to conscription legislation.

During my NS days the young officers of a company, teamed up and uncovered evidence that their CSM was mis-using his power to coerce 2 NSF men to commit sexual acts. This CSM was sent to jail after the proper judicial process. It was horrifying to discover that such misuse of power occurred to create victims and it took courage for the team of 2LTs to decide to protect men under their command to stop it before a 3rd victim (via their efforts to gather evidence).

Speaking from slightly dated real world data, between the years of 2007 and 2009, the IDF Women’s Affairs Office reported four categories of complaints that were received in that office. The office reported that: “56% were physical harassment; 28% were verbal harassment; 13% were peeping; and 3% or 15 were rape.” Lisa M. Schenck, an Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Professorial Lecturer in Law, and Senior Adviser to the National Security Law, collected data about reports of, “verbal abuse, peeping, and physical harassment, investigations of physical harassment (but not non-touching harassment), and indictments.”

Sex offense reports in the IDF have been gradually increasing. While reports are generally increasing, the percentage of reports being investigated has stayed relatively stable; and the percentage of investigations resulting in indictments has steadily decreased.

It is hard to say definitively whether the rise in sexual offense reports is due to an actual increase in assaults or whether, “it merely reflected rising awareness of the subject, resulting from a comprehensive IDF campaign to root out sexual harassment in its ranks.” With sexual harassment legislation being passed and high profile military court cases regarding sex offenses being publicized, the reason for an increasing number of complaints within the IDF could be a result of growing awareness to the issue.

 

[0bserver]

Besides the points that OPSSG brought up, which are very good and pertinent points, there is also the problem of if both parents are called up, who is going to take care of the kids back at home? Or worse, if both are killed in action, what's going to happen to the kids? At least if one parent is left behind, there is still a caregiver to take care of them, albeit with greater difficulty.

There is also the problem of motivation. If a father is on the front lines thinking he is doing it to protect his family back at home, even if it is just his wife and daughter, he might be willing to fight, but if he knows that his whole family, wife, daughter and sons, are ALL going to be thrown into the meat grinder, there is going to be a drive to simply dump it all and evacuate with his family since there is going to be no safety for any of them.

As for peeping.. *cough* let us just say that Nee Soon camp had a female platoon for females that sign on. Expect distracted guys wherever they are. lol. I remember their building had a steel gate on the staircases going up that was locked every night pass 2000hrs to prevent intruders. Females in training camps are more like inmates in a prison than trainees, unfortunately for their own protection.

 

[John Fedup]

Besides the points that OPSSG brought up, which are very good and pertinent points, there is also the problem of if both parents are called up, who is going to take care of the kids back at home? Or worse, if both are killed in action, what's going to happen to the kids? At least if one parent is left behind, there is still a caregiver to take care of them, albeit with greater difficulty.

There is also the problem of motivation. If a father is on the front lines thinking he is doing it to protect his family back at home, even if it is just his wife and daughter, he might be willing to fight, but if he knows that his whole family, wife, daughter and sons, are ALL going to be thrown into the meat grinder, there is going to be a drive to simply dump it all and evacuate with his family since there is going to be no safety for any of them.

As for peeping.. *cough* let us just say that Nee Soon camp had a female platoon for females that sign on. Expect distracted guys wherever they are. lol. I remember their building had a steel gate on the staircases going up that was locked every night pass 2000hrs to prevent intruders. Females in training camps are more like inmates in a prison than trainees, unfortunately for their own protection.

There would likely be restrictions on how many immediate family members could be on active assignments should any male and female national service be required.

 

[ngatimozart]

Besides the points that OPSSG brought up, which are very good and pertinent points, there is also the problem of if both parents are called up, who is going to take care of the kids back at home? Or worse, if both are killed in action, what's going to happen to the kids? At least if one parent is left behind, there is still a caregiver to take care of them, albeit with greater difficulty.

There is also the problem of motivation. If a father is on the front lines thinking he is doing it to protect his family back at home, even if it is just his wife and daughter, he might be willing to fight, but if he knows that his whole family, wife, daughter and sons, are ALL going to be thrown into the meat grinder, there is going to be a drive to simply dump it all and evacuate with his family since there is going to be no safety for any of them.

As for peeping.. *cough* let us just say that Nee Soon camp had a female platoon for females that sign on. Expect distracted guys wherever they are. lol. I remember their building had a steel gate on the staircases going up that was locked every night pass 2000hrs to prevent intruders. Females in training camps are more like inmates in a prison than trainees, unfortunately for their own protection.

Well that must be a cultural thing then. In my own experience the female barracks in the RNZAF and RNZN were just another building(s) on the base like any other buildings. They were allowed male visitors until 10 pm but only to a common lounge room. In reality where there was a will between consenting individuals there was a way. I remember encountering more than the occasional servicewomen in male barracks, so it went both ways. However if we did have someone who harmed one of the females, generally barracks justice would be dealt out to the offender.

I went to sea with a woman who wasn't allowed to transfer to a seagoing branch because it wasn't allowed at the time. Being a Reserve unit we bent the rules and she was a better seaman than many in the branch. She was supposed to bunk down in a separate cabin with a female officer, but it worked out that the officer bunked down in the four bunk wardroom and she bunked down in the eight bunk junior rates mess. A basic common sense system was worked out for when privacy was needed for changing, showering etc., and it was never violated. If COMAUCK had found out about it, there would've been hell to pay, but it worked for us.

So it comes down to culture and respect. Don't get me wrong. There are still cultural and respect issues within NZDF regarding treatment of women, but they are nowhere as bad as they were.

 

[CheeZe]

So, my understanding of the points raised by those who disagree with my position is that women should not serve NS because:
(a) there is no military necessity to do so since we cannot even use our current manpower efficiently and Singapore is not facing imminent danger from its neighbors
(b) it is political suicide for the PAP and heaven forbid they lose another GRC
(c) mistreatment of NSwomen will cause increased friction in society

I find the idea that NSmen don't have enough bullets to shoot due to budgetary reasons while the SAF can afford a quartet of F-35s to be sad yet hilarious.