Can NS give meaning to a S’pore vision?

The logic of National Service (NS) is clearly elucidated in policy and how we train our National Servicemen. Sheer logic alone, however, cannot persuade. Any dialogue on NS must take into account what it means to Servicemen at the individual and societal level.

The modern understanding of the “citizen soldier” is very much rooted in the ideals of 18th century revolutionary France where the Levee en masse came to represent the concept of the right and obligation of the democratic citizen to bear arms in defence of his community and nation-state.

The idea that the defence of one’s nation-state is the right and responsibility of “all” rather than a chosen few was a significant departure from the practice of Ancien Regime Europe, where arming citizens was seen as a threat to the continued existence of monarchical regimes and the ruling nobilities.

The armies of Revolutionary and later Napoleonic France, led by officers appointed and promoted through merit rather than birthright, achieved spectacular battlefield victories from 1800-12. The defeat of Prussia at the battle of Jena-Auerstedt, however, gave rise to a generation of Prussian military reformers such as Scharnhorst and Gneisenau who recognised the importance of instituting political reform alongside military reform.

Both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau argued for fundamental changes in the relationship between army and society into an “alliance between government and people”.

In post-Jena-Auerstedt Prussia and later Wilhelmine Germany (1871-1918), the initial aim of creating citizen soldiers evolved into the notion that military service was the essence of citizenship itself.

THE WANING OF CONSCRIPTION

In contrast, perceptions of rampant drug abuse and low morale amongst American conscripts during the Vietnam War undermined the confidence of the draft system. Moreover, advocates of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) questioned not only the logic and necessity of mass conscript armies, but also the ability of conscript forces to grapple with the high level of technological and doctrinal complexities associated with the RMA.

By the early 1970s, the debate on ending conscription was well underway in the West, though the political will to do so came only in the 1990s.

Nevertheless, pockets of conscription continue to exist in the West — notably in Austria where the majority of voters chose to retain conscription in a national referendum held in January this year. The Austrian example particularly stands out as a case whereby the status of conscription was decided in a national referendum involving the public, rather than by an executive decision of the government.

In Austria, where conscripts are given a choice of either military or community service, as many as 14,000 conscripts a year opted to serve in the community service role — a decisive factor in public support for national service.

Tucked within the safe borders of Central Europe, a small professional military would seem like a logical choice for Austria. When put to the test of a national referendum, however, the values of neutrality and service to society clearly mattered enough for Austrian voters to reject the more logical route of the all-professional force.

NS AS A VISION OF SOCIETY

In modern history, the meaning of NS has always evolved with the society that it serves. In a sense, NS is a reflection of the vision of society that a particular nation-state sets for itself.

For the Wilhelmine “German Nation in Arms”, the years in uniform became the defining element of a citizen’s public identity. For 21st century Austrian society, neutrality and service to society (both civil and military) remained cherished values.

What then of Singapore? What does the Singapore model of NS have to say about Singapore as a nation-state and society — as well as of its core values? For Singapore, any discussion on the commitment to NS should move in tandem with the general socio-political discourse on the nation-state and society that Singaporeans want to build.

In the debate on what constitutes the Singapore Spirit, meritocracy has often been identified as a Singaporean core value. In a recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam spoke of a “broader meritocracy recognising different strengths and different individuals”.

Indeed, perhaps the meritocracy that Singapore should envision to be is one whereby the different strengths of individuals are recognised and individuals are rewarded for pushing personal boundaries in service of society. This meritocracy should recognise that the common responsibility of NS is heavier for some than for others. For example, putting off university or job market entry for two years have different consequences for different socio-economic groups.

FOR WHOM THE BURDEN IS HEAVIER

For a full-time National Serviceman (NSF) from a disadvantaged background, this two-year hiatus could have a serious impact on the income level and well-being of his family. In this, as a society, we should recognise that NSFs from a disadvantaged background do bear a heavier burden than NSFs from more well-to-do families.

Rather than peg NS allowance to the criteria of rank and vocation, a variable component that provides NSFs from disadvantaged backgrounds with a higher monetary allowance than for servicemen from more well-to-do families should be considered.

Moreover, as and when training and operational demands allow, NSFs from disadvantaged backgrounds should be allowed opportunities for skill upgrading courses and preparation for national exams such as the O-Levels and A-Levels. In this, both the Ministry of Social and Family Development and Ministry of Education could play a role in identifying such individuals prior to enlistment and mentoring them together with SAF counsellors throughout their NSF stints.

By acknowledging the greater demands placed on disadvantaged servicemen and ameliorating those particular concerns, Singapore as a nation-state and society will be taking concrete steps towards a “broader meritocracy” that recognises all.

IT’S ABOUT PEOPLE

In another interview last month, Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin addressed the “why we serve” question at the individual level.

He said: “When you end up being less preoccupied about the advancement bit ... you end up pursuing things you feel passionately about. Push boundaries, get scolded, but it’s incredibly satisfying when you make things happen. You gain the trust of your peers and your subordinates and that makes it tremendously meaningful.

“It is meaningful, because it is really about people and relationships. People go the extra mile for you ... You tend to think that being in the military, you just give orders and people will follow. But not really, especially being a national service army, it’s very much people-centred.”

Moving beyond the logic that is often the hallmark of policy-making, there is the ethos and pathos that drives individuals and communities. NS and service to society may mean different things to different individuals, but as a citizen-centred, people-centred force, Singaporeans have in NS an opportunity to demonstrate the kind of meritocratic society that is worth building and defending.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ong Weichong is an Assistant Professor with the Military Studies Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.