A critique to the 5 Posts on Conscription
HUICHIEH and Olorin offers a very detailed and analytical critique on my 5 parter on Conscription.
Critique on Parts 1-3
Part 4
Part 5
Do read it for a more complete and rounded picture of this issue.
Also see The Singapore Commentator's comment.
What I wish to say is best quoted from The Singapore Commentator, who aptly states
Nevertheless, the value of analyses like those in the above posts is that they lay out the issues involved so that policy makers can try to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives, while individuals can be made aware of the issues, arrive at their own conclusions and preferences, and act — write, analyse, advocate, vote etc. — accordingly.
Critique on Parts 1-3
Part 4
Part 5
Do read it for a more complete and rounded picture of this issue.
Also see The Singapore Commentator's comment.
What I wish to say is best quoted from The Singapore Commentator, who aptly states
Nevertheless, the value of analyses like those in the above posts is that they lay out the issues involved so that policy makers can try to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives, while individuals can be made aware of the issues, arrive at their own conclusions and preferences, and act — write, analyse, advocate, vote etc. — accordingly.
posted by redrown at 1:23 AM
7 Comments:
There is now also a longer version of my critique of part 5 here, and a "reference page" for the main sources cited.
As your quote of Singapore Commentator rightly puts it, the point is to lay out the issues involved--and I'm happy that you (and I) are taking that stance.
All the best!
I appreciate that you have put in much effort and time into composing a critique to my posts.
I have also constructed a response for your critique to my original posts, but I have decided not to post them, as I had no plans to further dwell on the topic of NS. Perhaps in the future, if I feel its appropriate, I wil post them.
I shall just address 2 general issues:
With regards to the allegation that I have not researched as much as I should have, my reply is a half-admission of affirmation, since I have time and resource constraints, but I draw largely from my personal experiences and from sources I have read (some quite a while in the past). Interestingly (and perhaps surprisingly) to you, Huxley's Defending the Lion City, is actually one of the sources of my inspiration (although I do not have access to it currently).
With regards to the allegation of subjectivity in my posts, indeed, the last paragraphs of Part 5 are indeed coloured by subjectivity, because it is aimed at those who had been BS-ed, and I do not speak just for myself (because there are many army friends who feel similarly – there are those who do not also – its all in the individual and how he relates to experiences as a conscript), and the essence of these posts is Weighing up the Costs and Weighing down the Benefits of Conscription. For an analysis which weighs down, or in fact ignores the Costs and weighs up the Benefits of Conscription, please read any SAF flyer or mainstream media.
I understand Olorin is an officer and hence it is very hard for him to observe the SAF's from a layman (low ranking conscript's) perspective. Undoubtedly, from the top level it always seems that everything is running smoothly, because of the skill of the lower hierarchy known as 'wayang'. Down below, the soldiers may not be as competent as HUICHIEH or Olorin would wish them to be. (also see what Agagooga has just said in the above comments).
This comment is also posted at From A Singapore Angle
"Interestingly (and perhaps surprisingly) to you, Huxley's Defending the Lion City, is actually one of the sources of my inspiration (although I do not have access to it currently)."
Not entirely unsurprising to me--Huxley was critical of our conscription system as well, though not quite for the sorts of reasons you cited. The reasons why I keep bringing the book up is because (1) for the sake of third party readers of the posts, especially if they have not; and (2) whatever might be problematic about the NS system, my impression was that it was conflated with overall questions about the SAF's military effectiveness (especially vis-a-vis potential regional adversaries)--and there, a good dose of Huxley would be relevant. Have to go for now, but I'll probably post more comments later (maybe). I am not inclined to "further dwell" on the topic myself, at least for now; but one core issue that underlies your posts (and also taken up by Agagooga in the comments) does come up--exactly how vulnerable is Singapore?
Also posted on my own blog.
Exactly how vulnerable is Singapore is a question which cannot be answered or estimated regardless of how much theoretical research is done, unless its vulnerability is tested in a real situation(which is what we do not want)
It has been informative reading your critique and comments. Despite differences in our opinions it is heartening to see that our discourses are in good stead.
Take care!
"I understand Olorin is an officer and hence it is very hard for him to observe the SAF's from a layman (low ranking conscript's) perspective. Undoubtedly, from the top level it always seems that everything is running smoothly, because of the skill of the lower hierarchy known as 'wayang'."
Well, there are soldiers and there are soldiers; and there are officers, and there are officers. If you know any of the enlisted men or specs working directly for me, they will tell you I know exactly what problems it is they face, because I make it a point to make their work environment as conducive as possible for them to do what they have to do. Most of my commanders and men under me, (admittedly, having gone through a few cycles of NS, may have a slightly different take on NS from you), would take my side of the argument rather than yours. Yet, they would fit type 2, rather than type 1. And we all think type 3s are just a pain we have to live with and we do our best to accomodate them.
I'm not a white horse, and had to go thorugh the entire BMT, OCS (doing three months worth of RSM runner work in between because of chickenpox... I did my share of washing the rubbish point, picking trash out out of drains, putting up signs, the whole package of 'sai kang' also, some of the most unpleasant of these 'sai kang' things are done by RSM runners)[I am also not accusing 'white horses' of being shielded from the full treatment, only pointing out that even officers experience being lower down the rank at an earlier stage in their time in NS].
I do not want to discount whatever unpleasant experiences you may have had, because I had my fair share of them, I had such a hard time (with the BS from people, not with training) in OCS that two/three weeks before I was to be commissioned as an officer, I had lost so much confidence in myself I actually had doubts if I deserved to be an officer and had to speak to my instructors about it.
I noticed you prefaced the point I quoted at the start with 'undoubtedly'. That has exactly been my concern with your posts. You generalise your experience and assume that far more people than you think share your concern, but I am wondering if it is only because like minded people affirm one another's views.
I think it is important to distinguish the experience of national service from the government policy of conscription. A bad experience in national service is certainly undesirable, but that is not the same thing as saying that the government's policy of conscription is inherently bad, for that you have to consider the threat environment of the nation-state and the possible options the government can exercise. It is in this area where I have serious difficulties with your posts.
So I think that while we can do more to address the concern of many of our soldiers who go through the system, let's be very clear about what the issues are, and what the facts are. Both sides, anti-bad NS experience and 'pro-conscription' (for want of any recognisably viable alternative, in the meantime) should work on the areas that can be improved upon.
As an educator, my main concern from this whole exercise is the question on whether Singaporeans are ready for open, responsible civic debate. I am for open, frank discussions on issues, but I think perhaps the schools (and therefore myself as an educator) have not done enough to prepare our students to be more effective in raising their concerns.
I think it is very important in such discussions to avoid being emotional, or using emotive/accusatory language that distracts from the issues, because when people are put on the defensive, I don't know if the issues can be properly addressed. Let me admit for one, that at the first reading of your 4th post, I was livid at the poor command of facts I perceived that led to many of the assertions becoming based on false premises. Hence my, perhaps, inappropriate choice of the word 'hogwash' to describe one of your ideas. I must say your response to Huichieh's critique has been very restrained and impressive.
I'm actually in the middle of something right now, so I shall stop here. But I'd be happy to respond further if you have any questions, whenever I can find the time to do so.
Cheers.
Posted under comments on singaporeangle.blogspot.com as well.
Perhaps people make generalisations because, very often, they are true. Not always, but very often.
Is it a coincidence that almost everyone loathes slavery? The shoe seems to fit.
There is a reason for sterotypes.
Post a Comment
<< Home