Conscription Part 4/5: False Security

Most supporters of conscription would argue that conscription is vital to national security, without explaining why, thinking that the answer is glaringly obvious enough.

It is in effect, a baseless truism. We are always told that Singapore is a small defenceless nation (but see Liechenstein's counteraction to the issue of size), and that we are the 'Israel' of Asia. As such, it is crucial that we have the means to defend our nation. In other words, it is drilled into us the vulnerability of our situation. We are manipulated into feeling fear, fear for our livelihoods, our families. We are brainwashed into thinking that conscription is the solution to allay such fears. Fear is a highly motivating factor, the fuel that drives us into accepting conscription for what it is.

Offering an alternate view, I suggest that it is possible that not only is conscription not providing the National Security we so desire, but that to ensure the safety of national security of Singapore, conscription of our population may not be the appropriate or exclusive way.

Firstly, the conscripts (usually 18-20 year old boys fresh out of college or polytechnic) are hardly army material. A true soldier is one who is born a soldier, not one who has spent his lifetime indulging in the excesses of civil society. Granted, the 2 years spent 'militarising' these conscripts do make them tougher as persons, but to expect these people to go to war against professionally trained soldiers who spent their entire lives in the military...well, to be very optimistic, underdogs do sometimes win, especially in Hollywood movies.

Secondly, the reservists (usually 30+ year old potbellied men), who will be even more unlikely to be in the shape which is required in the army if we are to win wars and defend our country.

Thirdly, the regulars. Not only are their numbers insignificant, most of them (with the exception of certain Special Forces which I unreservedly admit are quality military personnel) are too civilianised. Lets face it, our military is hardly militant. Many of them still lead a life with the excesses and comforts of civil society. Most regulars you see are not at all combat fit, nor are they militarily skilled. As an organisation they are perhaps efficient at peace-time operations such as National Day Parades and paperwork but their capabilities should the uncertainty and tension that would ensue should a war arise will be in doubt.

Then there is the unfortunate forced mix of regulars and conscripts. The concept of meritocracy through the ranks is undermined because very often, there are conscripts who are more competent than their superiors, who are the ones promoted by virtue of their permanence in the army. When this happens, there is an imbalance of power which will result in incompetency and conflict.

When you have such a unfortunate mish-mash (rojak) of personnel who are clearly not of military mould, the army is nothing more than a facade of numbers, which is actually the case-plan for the army. The numbers are merely used as a deterrent rather than any cause of action. This discomfiting thought sits uneasily with the whole concept of security because this means we are basically employing a false sense of security as national security.

Perhaps, the hiring of external forces (mercenaries) should be extended, so that our army can not only bark, but also deliver a vicious bite. Many will of course question their loyalty to Singapore but conversely, I suggest that these mercenaries, if hired to defend Singapore, will actually show MORE loyalty than our local troops. This is because they are skilled and trained in the codes of warfare, which includes HONOUR. In contrast 'civilian soldiers' are more attuned to the civil society where it is basically a rat race, 'every man for himself' mentality. When such a mentality is brought into battle, it will only result in self interest trumping the duty felt towards safeguarding the country.

And this discourse assumes that the threat to our security is real and that our army is primarily purposed to counter such a threat. We have already seen how futile our attempts would be to defend our nation with such a system.

Now, would there actually be a nation that would attempt an invasion of Singapore? Our paltry defence is just a minute factor to be considered by a would-be invader. More important considerations a would be invader would take into consideration is the possibility of military, economic, social and political repercussions of their own. Only in the unlikely event of a nation amassing enough economic and military power to launch a World-war degree of war would they attempt an invasion, in which case, our defense would hardly be viable against such a force.

If so, that would make conscription for the purposes nothing but a sham, a sham that toys with our minds, by playing to our fears, by playing to our sense of duty. A false sense of security that doesn't achieve the security we were psyched to believe. One that doesn't justify the sacrificies we make to uphold. Even the bluffs about how hiring mercenaries 'will not work as we need indigenous citizens who will be loyal' can be easily unfounded. Perhaps a more truthful reason would be that 'indigenous citizens are a cheap and viable source of manpower'.

Then why does the government insist on conscription? Granted, we are a viable source of manpower, but the costs expended on our training is not minimal. There must be a specific reason for NS.

P.S There are other military and also non military alternatives (to be loosely summarised in the final part) conscription but I limit considerations to options appropriate to our situation.