[I thought this was a forum letter. Then I read the end about the author. I am not impressed. So I am putting it in this blog, because despite being a adjunct professor, his writing is little better than some ST Forum Page letters.
And way below Wikipedia's standard!]
Apr 26, 2014
Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times
National service for the 21st century
"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."
So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.
For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.
Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]
The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.
21st century info-states
SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.
Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same
lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can
compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?
Handwaved.
A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.
[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics
and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by
economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)?
Tell that to Kuwait,
eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy -
US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries,
eh?
Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military
aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true
deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability.
Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ]
A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.
[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!
Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]
But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.
If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.
My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.
[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.
Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.
I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ]
Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.
Malaysia: Shifting dynamics
THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.
Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).
The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?
[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target.
However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.
In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony?
Using a gun as a hammer.]
New model army
THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.
Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]
Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.
Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.
Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.
Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.
If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats
allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation!
Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and
everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot
system. Now for National Service.]
No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.
Upgrade, not upsize
BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?] Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.
With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.
NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.
Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.
[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument?
Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.
But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour."
You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ]
Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.
[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]
The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.
Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.
Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.
Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.
Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.
Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).
It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.
As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.
Building solidarity
THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.
Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.
When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?
The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment