National service conscription was introduced in 1967 to
basically produce a military defence force for the country. Later
it was expanded to include the police and civil defence force. In
the Enlistment Act, all male Singaporean citizens, upon reaching
the age of 18, are required to serve two years of full-time
national service in one of these forces. Which forces one is
conscripted to is decided solely by the government without any
recourse. Females are not required to do national service. I shall
focus maily on military conscription.
Recently, draft dodger Melvin Tan, created a furore among ex and
current national servicemen for the light punishment he received
from the authorities. Unhappiness also started to surface about
male foreigners who had obtained their PR and/or citizenship
without having to serve a day of national service. Questions were
raised about the value of citizenship, and the inconsistencies of
national service liability.
National service is suppose to bond the nation, but instead it has
inadvertently created divisions and frictions between citizens who
are liable to be conscripted, and those who are not. Such division
is compounded by the latter's lack of understanding and respect for
national servicemen. Last year, a senior bureacrat and an ASTAR's
female scholar passed unsavoury remarks on national servicemen,
which causes much outrage and condemnation from ex and current
national servicemen. This shows the underlying tension between both
groups.
One of the most serious implication of national service
conscription is that we are actually putting Singapore at risk.
With conscription, we are just producing "reluctant soldiers". Many
Singaporean male do not have the opportunity or finance to do what
Melvin Tan did. They have no choice but to serve out their
"liability", wishing for their 2 years of military service to be
over as soon as possible. Realistically, in time of war, do you
think these reluctant soldiers will actually carry their guns and
put their life at stake for the country? Or do they readily offer
to surrender to enemy forces battling in. During the US-Iraqi war,
we witnessed conscripted Iraqi soldiers readily surrendering to the
US army and chose to be POWs to preserve their lives. Will our
NSmen do that? Yes if they are reluctant soldiers being conscripted
to fight a war. Further, these reluctant soldiers could inevitably
led to this problem of desertion. Our operational readiness in
defence is dependent on the X number of soldiers that we have.
During peace time, these X numbers are reassuring to our defensive
needs. However in times of war, it could be much more lesser,
crippling our defensive capability. This is because many reluctant
NSmen and his family would have gone out of the country at the
first sign of trouble. The government can closed all immigration
point, but it wouldn't be of much use if soldiers are not willing
to fight.
National service conscription for all its' noble purposes and
objectives, is in fact counterproductive. It does not make our
nation's defence stronger as previously thought. Instead of better
bonding, it has divided our nation between those who are liable and
those who are not. Conscription has put our male citizens at a
disadvantage in the employment market as compared to the woman
folks and incoming foreigners. This led to anguish and resentment.
Conscription had also dented the creativeness of one-third of the
nation's population. It has caused talents like Melvin Tan to
migrate. NSmens' yearly duties has blunted the competitiveness of
our companies and the economy. Resources committed to training
conscripted reluctant soldiers are wasted and could be put to
better use.
Therfore after 39 years, a re-think of our national service
conscription is necessary, and not a moment too soon.
Think about it
Deen Lee
