TR EMERITUS

Introduction National Service, or army conscription in Singapore, was first introduced in 1967 due to pressing issues such as national security after Singapore's "forced" independence in 1965. In 1971, the British completely pulled out of Singapore. It has been 41 years since the introduction of NS. Since then the world and Asia has changed significantly in terms of security and economic arrangements. But has Singapore's conscription policy kept up with these changes to reflect and cope with the new geopolitical landscape? First let us review the service that all able-bodied 18-year-old male Singaporeans have to undergo. Basic Military Training, or BMT, is the "boot camp" for all new recruits. This lasts for three months whereupon the soldier then gets posted out to other units for further specialised training. The conscripts then serve the remainder of their two-year stint polishing up their combat skills. Following the two years of full-time service, NSmen are required (for up to 40 days a year) to serve in a part-tme capacity until they are 50 years old for commissioned officers and 40 for others. Reduce the two-year full-time service In an age where warfare has turned to "smart" technology, is it still logical and necessary for Singapore to insist that its National Servicemen undergo 24 months months of active, full-time service? Such a policy is rare among countries that maintain a conscription policy. Below is a list of countries with periods of full-time conscript service: 1.Austria (6 months) 2.Bolivia (12 months) 3.Brazil (9-12 months) 4.Denmark (4-12 months) 5.Estonia (8-11 months) 6.Finland (6-12 months) 7.Germany (9 months) 8.Greece (12 months) 9.Guatemala (12-24 months) 10.Moldavia (12 months) 11.Mongolia (12 months) 12.Paraguay (12-24 months) 13.Poland (9-12 months) 14.Serbia (6 months) 15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks) 16.Taiwan (12 months) 17.Tunisia (12 months) 18.Turkey (12 months) 19.Ukraine (12 months_ 20.Uzbekistan (12 months) From the above data, it can be seen that for all intents and purposes a conscript army training programme need not be as long as the one we have in Singapore. The more advance countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, and Switzerland all have full-time services limited to one year and less. Even Taiwan, which has an identifiable enemy in the form of China, limits its active service to 12 months. Only countries like South Korea and Israel have conscription periods that are longer than Singapore's. These countries are, however, in a state of war. Given the situation in Singapore there is no reason why we cannot employ more efficient training methods and reduce full-time NS from the present two-years to twelve months or less. Reservist training The current period of reserve training for NS men of up to 40 years old is also a burden on the servicemen and, by extension, the economy. Not only does the serviceman have to contend with the influx of foreigners, they are disadvantaged in terms of employment, remuneration and promotion when employers compare local men who have to be away for weeks in anyone year with foreign workers who have no such obligation. The span of a serviceman's reservist training should not go beyond 30 years of age. Men tend to settle down and start families around this age and job stability and carreer prospects are essential during this period. Unfair competition from foreign nationals would handicap local males and add to their already stressful lifestyles. In addition, the human body goes into a physical decline after the age of 30. To keep our military personnel in top condition, it makes little sense in keeping men over the age of 30 in the frontline if military conflict does indeed breakout. Increase volunteer, professional army To compensate for the decrease in the number of active and reservist NSmen, the Singapore Armed Forces should expand volunteer army recruitment to complement the reduction in the number of conscripts. In fact, the number of countries that have scrapped conscription are on the rise: Argentina (1994), Belgium (1994), Czech Republic (2004), France (1996), Hungary (2004), Italy (2004), Netherlands (1996), New Zealand (1972), Portugal (2004), and Spain (2001). While Singapore may not be ready to follow suit, it would be prudent for us to reduce NSmen in favour of a professional military outfit At the moment, NSmen are exploited for their services to glorify the PAP during National Day parades. The energy and time of these men can be put to more productive use than as entertainment for the PAP regime. Conscientious objectors What about people who do not believe that it is right for them to do military service due to moral, religious or ethical grounds? At the moment such conscientious objectors are charged and imprisoned for the length of their service. In some of the countries that have compulsory military service, there is also a provision for conscientious objectors to serve in non-combat roles. There is an argument that this would open the flood gates for men to opt for non-combat positions. Such a loophole can be plugged by increasing the length of active service by, say, six months. The experiences of other countries like Germany and Sweden have not been negative in this aspect where males try to avoid combat service by claiming to be conscientious objectors. Tranparency and openness Obligation in Singapore seems to be a one-way street. While the Government holds the people accountable for their NS liabilities, the Ministry of Defence remains non-transparent and non-accountable in their dealings with the public. The recent deaths of National Servicemen have opened a can of worms on training safety. In addition, the number of training fatalities and injuries are not made known to the public as a matter-of-course. The Government which compels the people to give their lives for the country are obliged to be absolutely transparent with information pertaining to safety issues. Compensation for deaths and injuries must also be reviewed and revised upwards. The Government must also not exploit NSmen as cheap labour during major events such as the WB-IMF meeting or, possibly, the upcoming Youth Olympics. In must be remembered that the Enlistment Act was enacted for a specific purpose and any detraction from that purpose must be shunned. Conclusion When citizens are forced to serve in the military with the possibility of being killed if called to war, it is imperative that the government is a democratic one where citizens can hold the government accountable for its decisions and actions. Otherwise we may end up in a situation where wars are waged for the ruling elite rather than for the security and sovereignty of the nation. Source:  http://forum.yoursdp.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3  Read More →

From our Correspondent In a letter to ST Forum published on 17 August 2009, David Lam wrote about his disgust at the behavior of some Singaporeans during a National Dinner celebration at Kovan Hub. (Read letter here) He noticed that when the National Anthem was played over loudspeakers, some people are still "walking and doing their own thing with no regard for the standing Members of Parliament and diners. The National Day Dinners are a part of Singapore's yearly celebration of its National Day. They are held in every constituency, usually one or two weeks before or after the actual day itself. The dinner cost between $20 to $25 per head. Grassroots leaders and RC volunteers are tasked with selling the tickets to the residents. They are often given one stack of tickets to sell, failing which they may have to fork out their own money to pay for it. The diners are mostly middle-aged and elderly. Young working adults are hardly seen. The increasing apathy of the citizenry had led to a segregation between the majority of the population and the ruling party. Other than the grassroots "volunteers" who commonly join the RCs for their own vested interests, most Singaporeans do not care much about National Day. Many had driven across the causeway during the long weekend holidays. Few bothered to tune in to the National Day parade. National flags hung from the households of public estates are a rare sight. Despite repeated attempts to instill a sense of patriotism and belonging to the people, most Singaporeans remain nonchalant and apathetic about their nation. Singapore has one of the highest migration rate amongst developed countries in the world. Almost two-thirds of young Singaporeans interviewed by the Straits Times had expressed their desire to emigrate. One key reason for this indifference is the continued over-dominance of the ruling party which does not tolerate any form of dissent or criticism from the people. Though the ruling party claimed to have won elections after elections with overwhelming majorities, this is due more likely to the opposition's weakness and its gerry-mandering tactics than to its popularity.  Read More →

From our Correspondent With the exception of the government-controlled media, few in Singapore and the world are applauding the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' ambivalent, if not sycopantic press release on the verdict of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's trial. The statement began decently enough: "We are disappointed to learn that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was found guilty and sentenced to three years hard labour. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi did not plan to violate the terms of her house arrest, and the intrusion into her house was by a person who appears to be of unsound mind." [Source: MFA 11 August 2009] The above paragraph alone should suffice, but MFA found it necessary to appease the military junta probably out of fear that it may be offended by its "disappointment" with the verdict: "We are however happy that the Myanmar Government has exercised its sovereign prerogative to grant amnesty for half her sentence and that she will be placed under house arrest rather than imprisoned." It doesn't take an expert in international relations to know that the "amnesty" is a mere charade put up by Than Shwe and his minions to deflect mounting western pressure on it to release Aung San Suu Kyi and to demonstrate that it does "respond" to views of the global community. MFA's statement is making a mockery out of Singapore which has always pride itself as a nation governed strictly by the rule of law. The verdict should have brought upon a torrent of harsh criticism from MFA to say the least instead of letting the junta off with another slap on its wrist. Why can't MFA show more spine to the obnoxious military junta? We all know Singapore has invested billions of dollars in Burma, but precisely because it is economically dependent on us that we will have more leverage over the generals. Years after years of engagement and rapprochement have brought us no closer to breaking Burma's political impasse other than continuing to fatten the wallets of the generals and their cronies. The Philipines and Indonesia have issued a condemnation of the verdict. Thailand is quietly working behind the scene within ASEAN to call for a pardon for Suu Kyi. Singapore should not continue to shield the junta and impede international efforts to secure her release. While it is understandable that being a small state, we are in no position to take the lead in international affairs and offend countries bigger than ours, Singapore should not incur the wrath of Burmese opposition groups with its continued support of the military junta. Though it may appear impossible now, the military dictatorship may be overthrown one day, giving way to a civilian government. After all, Than Shwee is already 75 years old and with no clear succession plan in sight, the regime may simply implode on its  own when he passes on. It may be more prudent to stay neutral in the conflict and establish informal contacts with the Burmese opposition to keep a conduit of communication open even as a form of preparation for an improbably eventuality. As Singapore discovered lately much to its chagrin and embarrassment, its near blind support for the Thaksin administration in Thailand did not go down to well to the Thais and now with the Democrats in charge, we have to "sing" to a different tune again. Recent insensitive and uncalled for comments by Singapore's Senior Minister and Foreign Minister about Burma have sparked outrage amongst the Burmese opposition and exile groups. Will the Singapore government do another about-turn and "kowtow" to Aung San Suu Kyi if she were to become the Prime Minister of Burma one day? In short, MFA's press release is a disappointment and disgrace to all Singaporeans. Being one of the world's highest paid foreign minister, George Yeo should be able to do much better than this.  Read More →