In lieu of real content, I shall once again pimp Young Republic, where everyone likes to talk about National Slavery; in a 9 hour period we have an unprecedented 20 posts:


A:

> I can think of sinister
> rationales for NS (social control, since men between the ages of 18-25 are the
> main criminal offenders in all industrialised nations; or political control,
> since NS seems to acclimatise many men to abuse at the hands of authority and
> cause many to believe that being treated badly is a 'reality of life' that
> 'must be accepted' and dealt with rather than protested).

thank you B. and indeed i would suppose that you have made a terribly salient observation. i mean, look at the responses on this board: there are the incendiary replies, and then there are the 'let's move on' and 'let's get on with our lives' and 'if we can't change it, what's the point' and 'oh lookee i'm such a martyr! behold my splendid stoicism!' replies. one does not 'move on' from auschwitz, or from the gulags. there is nothing detrimental about complaining or whining: let us remember that amnesty international began with peter benenson's letter writing campaigns. admittedly not quite equivalent to complaining or whining, but demonstrative of speaking out.

> I'm not as convinced by the benign one. I do wonder if any defence needs we
> have might not be satisfactorily met, and a lot of bureaucratic excess removed from
> the army, by having about 6 months universal (i.e. men AND women) compulsory
> military -and- civil defence service, and then paying people at the market
> rates that would get people to volunteer if additional training or exercises
> are required. If defence is so important, why can't we pay for it rather than
> simply requisitioning lives?

no explanation exists, except that NS is merely quite rubbishy. i am all for national service: just not in the overhyped militant and militarised form it takes today. what is wrong with volunteering as a social worker, or a teacher, or a veterinary assistant, or an attache to a theatre comapny? these are all forms of national service: in the end the aim of national service, as is explicitly stated, is to serve the nation. you cannot force any random boy to become a soldier, you cannot defend a country with the unwilling. and that is why singapore would never survive a real war. (aside from the fact that jungle warfare and trench warfare went out about, say, sixty years ago. with WWII.)

what a farce!

love and kisses all round, especially to the insipid!


A:

"2. I'm suspecting that a big factor is economic control, and that NS helps serve as a massive counter-cyclical stabilizer for our economy. For one thing, it delays the entry of people into the labour market, and therefore can be used (in conjunction with retirement age laws) to adjust the size of the labour force. Seems to me that our labour market is slack enough as it is, with unemployment on the rise, and it would make good economic sense to delay the girls' entry in order to allow for a higher retirement age (a big demand of many senior citizens) as well as a tighter labour market? Please correct my economic reasoning if I'm wrong."

Let me correct your reasoning then. Using NS as a means of economic control is both immoral and inefficient. It is the equivalent of saying: 'Let us imprison this person for two years. This way, we can coincidentally satisfy the demand of many senior citizens to retire later!' Taking it to its logical extreme, you can say: 'Oh dear, the market is far too saturated! Let's kill these people off.' Forcing anyone to do something that he or she is unwilling to do for an economic end is immoral. Whatever happened to development as freedom?

Furthermore: aren't there better ways of achieving the final aim? The Theil principle: one should choose the method with the least opp cost. To delay entry into the labour market, does it not make more economic sense to make studying more attractive rather than sending males off to 'serve the nation'? Since studying harder will in the end equip us with more skills. And at any rate education is always a good thing. Ok I take that back, National Education is a farce.

"Thirdly, there's the danger that our army becomes staffed with all the undesirables who cannot make it in the civilian world, and all the negative consequences that result from that."

God, this is so ironic I don't know if I even need to justify this with a comment. Our army is already staffed with many undesirables who cannot make it in the civilian world. And as a result their promotions, etc, depend on the talents of the NSFs, who actually have a life waiting for them after they ORD.

But in a sense being staffed with many undesirables need not be a bad thing. Since these undesirables owe their living to the army and to the auspices of taxpayers, then if our horrible and truculent and fearful and disgusting unchristian and unwestern neighbours decide to attack us (oh the horrid prospect!), these undesirables have no choice but to fight, and the possibility of desertion is high. If one actually has a life beyond NS, then one will not be very sacrificial lamb on the behalf of a chimerical nation.

"And finally, the republican need for a citizen army is a feature of many political thinkers' systems of government from Plato all the way to the Enlightenment - in order to instill patriotism and mellow selfish individualism, in order to inculcate discipline"

This sounds very 17th century. But literally, since the Enlightenment was in the 17th-18th century. But that's not a compliment. Have you missed out on the developments of the 20th century? Do all of us look like republicans to you? Have not the excesses of nationalism been discredited by the World Wars? The old lie, dulce et decorum est? Why does this excerpt from your post sound almost fascist? Why is individualism automatically connected to selfishness? Why is patriotism an end in itself? Why is it even important? Have I not asked too many rhetorical questions?

"in order to avoid the "treachery" of the Army as a seperate interest group working against the interests of the wider nation (as you can see happening in some of our neighbours for eg) and so on."

Is not the army already behaving like a separate interest group within the nation? I'm sorry, but I really don't see us being attacked any time soon, in which the SAF as it is today is merely a perfect example of a lobby group which exists for a political end, which, as B pointed out, is social control. Or something. Defence! I would laugh, except that it is my life which is being poured down a proverbial drain.

"Personaly for me it's not a matter of squeamish inappropriateness, but to me I just feel that girls can do other useful things too other than run around in jungles etc."

So can guys. They could be teaching, or nursing, or getting a lobotomy. All of these things might be preferable (to some guys) to running around in jungles. Which, as I reiterate, is pointless. Do you think Malaysia is going to storm Bukit Timah nature reserve? If we strike back, will we take the plantations, or the heart of JB/KL?

> On females complaining about males complaining about NS (haha) -- why don't you try being the only female in an outing with NS guys, and tell me whether or not you feel like you just became invisible? I don't know about other females, I can't speak for them on this issue but personally for me, I only complain when guys complain about NS because they're talking about something that just excludes me from the conversation. It's a matter of courtesy, really. I don't think a guy will be too thrilled if girls kept talking incessantly about girly things he cannot appreciate in front of him too.

That's generalising. It is ironic that you have such immature views on the sexes, given that your previous post was an outburst against generalising. Why can't a guy be thrilled if girls talk incessantly about girly things? Why can't a guy like girly things? What are girly things? What is the definition of girly? Are you trapped in the 18th century? Why are you practising double standards? Why can you not transcend the discourse of the sexes?

If you're so offended, why not just go out with your girlfriends and talk about girly things. Maybe you could even have a pillowfight, and dress your barbies up, have a cookout and watch SATC and sob into boxes of tissue. Discuss the latest diets, have a wax party, talk about makeup. So fun, and girly too!

love and girly hugs!
xoxoxo


C:

I do think D's "economic arguments" and that women are physically weaker are not quite robust. If you discharge NSF who get seriously injured during service, or exempt pes C9s and Pes Es (surely they are "weaker" than most females.) you would give a boost to the economy too.

In fact, given that there are many women who are much fitter than males (I also did some quasi-militaristic CCA in JC, so I do know they exist), wouldn't there be a more efficient allocation if the combat vocations were allocated according to physical ability than sex?

In fact, I see no compelling reason for exempting women from "jungle bashing." if anyone should do it in the first place.


E:

The male gender doesn't owe anyone anything... so before girls conveniently wave away their grievances, they should ask themselves this question: "Is the male gender (and not female) somewhat obligated to defend the country (ie. NS)?". If so, isn't that unappreciative and unfair / a double standard? With this whole equality of the sexes spreading, with guys having to clean the house etc why not look at such social responsibilities too? How would you like it if when a guy is asked, "What do you think about women complaining about housework?" "What is there to complain about? There is alot of tough stuff for work too!" "Don't you think you should do some of the housework too?" "What?! (ridiculous) *vehement NO*. I mean, men have the comparative advantage in the workplace, etc... women are biologically inclined to be the caretakers of the home. C'mon, they were the berry pickers back a long time ago what..."


F:

Is conscription necessary?

This is tenacious but the old Goh Keng Swee believed firmly in this. He used to state a few reasons why.

3)a large armed forces projects power(ok this is not really Goh's idea, its relatively new)- we have shifted from the poison shrimp principle to power projection(an offensive army exudes diplomatic pressure-Lawrence freedman). Singapore is thus feared and respected in the region due to its overwhelming strength despite its underwhelming size.

Point 3 is potentially the undoing of our nation in the long run. here is why...

Power projection means that Singapore must increase spending dramatically thereby fostering a military complex that would become too political to do away with in the future. Vested interests in industries like DSTA which though acclaimed to be the best military tech research institute in SEA is really peanuts compared to the greater west and even austrailia. When the brightest minds of our time are invested the military(SAFOs and SMS, all good and jolly) and many of them ministers in the future, a strong military of this scale becomes an entrenched mindset. This is all good during economic prosperity but come the day of the crunch, we have to be ready to see that we are preserving an army that is larger than necessary, employing resources in a wasteful fashion and benefits the higher ups in society rather than the average man on the street. It is hard to see how a country that does not have a strong mulitplier spend so much on its military where its health care costs burgeon through the ceilings and the great income gulf widens by the day.


B:

>We'd rather not take up
> the SAFOS scholarship, for eg, in spite of the tremendous perks dangled
> before us. We have certain long-term goals that are fundamentally
> incompatible with a military career, that no amount of pecuniary incentive is
> going to compensate for. And as long as you have people enjoying comparable
> salaries and better working conditions in another part of the economy, the
> Army is always going to be viewed by the majority (who value both money and
> quality of life, and the former often as a means to the latter) as a career
> of desperation that one seeks to get out of if one is unfortunate to have to
> enter.

YOU see it as a career of desperation that one seeks to get out of if one is unfortunate to have to enter. This does not have to be the case for everyone. Perhaps this perception is a function of NS? Perhaps if the army had remained professional this perception would not have arisen? There are many people whose long-term goals may well include serving the nation and working in a military career, or may come to include that if it appears to be sufficiently materially secure. This includes not only the SAFOS scholars to whom you refer (a vanishingly small proportion of the population) but also to the nation more generally. Even as matters stand there are regulars. If the army was no longer seen as slave work, and if it faced decent remuneration, I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be more. This question of societal perception is as much a product of the status quo as it is a (as you claim) factor in producing it.

It is argued by some that before the introduction of NS the military was seen as a profession preferred by many Malays. (See 'Malays in Singapore', Tania Li, it is out of print but you may be able to get it in some academic libraries.) The reason why the refusal to place Malays in important positions - or, indeed, in some cases, to call them up for service at all, resulting in them liable to be called up for many years and therefore unemployable in the private market - the reason why these policies rankled so much in the 70s is at least partly because they disrupted a large part of the traditional livelihood of the Malay community. Men whose expertise and professional pride lay in the military were no longer able to succeed there. They were UNHAPPY to be excluded from the military. Is it so impossible that a reasonable group of people might come to feel the same way in a world without

I'm not sure what to make of your claim that everyone suffers equally. I wonder how many people in this list went into BMT platoons with any significant proportion of people who did not do A Levels. So many scholars go into Officer Cadet School and become trained to order the rank and file (a rank and file that almost inevitably consists of the less privileged) to their deaths.

>Under the market alternative, without either patriotism or pride, we substitute
>the weak incentive of money. I seriously doubt this is the way to build an
>effective defence force.

Under the status quo, without patriotism, pride, or money, we substitute coercion. Hooray! An effective defence force!

Smoochies for all (since we've started a trend)


A:

it seems to my mind that G, you are being terribly disingenous. i have no idea if you are truly naive, or if you are merely ignoring facts wholly inconvenient to your argument.

this took the cake: ' On the other hand, conscription of a civilian army works precisely because it's democratic.'

how is forcing a grand majority of males to give up 2-2.5 years of their lives against their will in any way democratic? is it because everyone merely goes through the same rubbish? the treatment of the jews in germany then was very democratic. the corvee then was very democratic. the levee en masse was then very democratic.

'Everyone suffers equally and you don't get let off on account of your class, education level, or wealth.'

That was also laughably bad. What about race? Everyone suffers equally? What about the many Malays who want to make it to OCS but can't, even though the army does not officially discriminate? (Or does it. Refresh my memory.) Your quaint notion of suffering equally is also easily demolished by merely taking a look at the batches which go in: from the more 'slack/relac' scholar intakes of january to the extra 'siong' mono-intakes. the differences are both stark and stunning. 'White horses' and 'specialist letters' aren't the only means of differential treatment. Once again: I have no idea if you really and truly live in an ideal world where the truth hasn't hit you hard, or if you are deliberately ignoring the facts to make good your case, or both.

'Under the market alternative, without either patriotism or pride, we substitute the weak incentive of money. I seriously doubt this is the way to build an effective defence force. And, as I've argued, if the Army is just a mercenary force working for pay, their willingness to die for their employers becomes very very suspect.'

Haha! This made me laugh! You are very funny G! I'm sorry. But yeah, the non-incentive of being enslaved two years is really very much stronger than the 'weak incentive of money'! Er, this really made no sense to my mind. Where is the 'patriotism or pride' in most males doing NS? I seriously doubt that NS is the way to build an effective defence force too, you know. The suspect 'willingness to die for their employers' as opposed to the instinct to flee at the first whiff of trouble?

And it was plain tragic when you said 'The army is the society'. What are we, the Spartans? Barbarians? The Huns?

Paying regulars more and letting those who don't want to serve go need not be bad. It need not be a full privatisation of the Army. But it need not be wholly shielded from market forces either. Basic economic theory is founded on choice. If people don't want to serve, they will come up with ten thousand different ways to escape (chaokeng, they call it). This aversion to service, especially for the many service/support side NSmen, could be lessened if they were simply paid more.

Furthermore, why is having a private army the same as hiring mercenaries? It may merely be that society values its soldiers, and therefore pays them more. I.e, society's vote-of-confidence takes the form of the dollar. Society rewarding soldiers for their 'patriotism' and their 'pride'. Society saying thank you. This is not suspect in any way. We are merely paying them for their services to society. And society doesn't want to pay its soldiers that much, it is merely their valuation of defence: perhaps they think that we're not going to get attacked any time soon (purely logical) or perhaps they think that it's not essential, that they'll just take flight as soon as any trouble appears (purely understandable).

I am too tired to carry on. My brain has just gone into overdrive screaming at the many naive (or not) refutations of reality.

Love (I am far too exhausted for hugs or kisses)


F:

3) power projection- we have 55000 professional soldiers and 189000 reserves(not NSF). the Singaporean army in total is about 300000. Yet tim Huxley points out that though we are sizeable, we have three weaknesses.

1)low morale- conscription breeds dissent

2)Suspectable quality of troops- to familiarise as you pointed out is nice and fast but being untested, the Singaporean army is only fierce on paper as we know it(perhaps thats all that is necessary anyway)

3)Officers are not familiar with the military- the problem as Huxley pointed out was not that Singapore had bad officers but officers were shifted around quickly or promoted too fast to know the bolts and nuts of the military. When a general retires at 42, how much ground experience does he really have?

The Military in Politics

i think its essential to point out as you have done that we are not indonesia or pakistan where the military sometimes dominates the political mainstream. however, the problem lies not with military participation in politics, but rather that ex-military men have a powerful voice in the civil service and the government. Military men are drilled with a different mindset, like it or not and that has its strengths and weaknesses. it is imporbable that they would suddenly turn around and chop at the hand that had fed them quite so well in the past.


Me:

> 2. Also, "for the record", most female soldiers (at
> least until they become dis-illusioned) and DXOs
> (glorified military administrators) are PES A / B. So
> women are physically weaker, but still combat-fit? So
> D's arguments that the physical fraility of
> females precludes them from serving NS is not very
> valid here.

There's a condition called "Poor Physique" that gets you downgraded - to PES B. Basically you have to be underweight/short to get this. So even the SACSALs could get by in most combat vocations (no one's asking them to be divers or commandos).


A:

I'm sure I will regret asking this, but what is a SACSAL?


C:

> Now I never said that women were physically frail. I only meant it
RELATIVELY to males. Read my reply to Wowbagger about comparative
advantage.

That's precisely my point. There may be a comparative advantage for some girls to serve NS given that some of them are as fit as guys. Is the average female weaker than a guy with back injuries, those who had their legs fractured while doing S.O.C? I find that very hard to believe.