No More Reductions in NS and the SAF in Afghanistan

I read with dismay DPM Teo Chee Hean's pronouncement that Mindef would not be reducing National Service below the current two years. I think it is premature in today's times to say for sure that NS will be for at least two years.

National Service as a defence policy has its pros and cons. It does serve to build some form of national identity building among Singaporean male citizens as it brings together Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian (and "Others") together living and undergoing shared trials and challenges that help create bonding. I for one understood at a deep personal level that varying socio-economic backgrounds and histories of my fellow platoon and section mates throughout Basic military training, vocational training and unit deployment. I realised that Singapore was not made up of people who studied in JC/pre-U and went to the University. I started to view Singapore not just from the lens of my socio-economic upbringing but also to view Singapore from fellow comrades-in-arms who work hard and still barely keep their head above water in Singapore Inc.

However, NS is a liability to Singaporean citizens who compete on an uneven playing field against male Permanent Residents as well as female citizens when it comes to career, personal development and risk to life and limb. The poor benefits of Safra membership, marginal $100+ increases in GST or other credits from Government and the tax reliefs of $1,500 to $5,000 or so does little if you die during NS. And male citizens do die in NS from reasons as noble as performing their duties to stupid accidents like the Motor Transport Officer who was killed by negligent act of a fellow soldier who was a driver. Reservists die during IPPT tests and training accidents claim victims of both regular servicemen as well as full-time NSFs or reservists.

Many countries that face more hostile environments are already reducing conscription below 2 years. Taiwan for instance is one. It is interesting to note that the SAF is beefing up its deployment of soldiers to Afghanistan ("Record Levels of SAF Abroad"). It should be interesting to find out what proportion of the soldiers sent for overseas missions are regulars and what proportion are full-time NSFs and reservists.

Traditionally regulars have made up the bulk of such deployments but increasingly, the recent news of SAF reservist medical officers going through deployments to Afghanistan gives us a glimpse that the trend could be changing.

I wonder if not cutting down conscription would have anything to do with the SAF's enhanced involvement in overseas missions?

I hope that Singaporean soldiers (reservist, NSFs or regulars) posted on such missions will be safe. The reality is that they are volunteering to go into areas where there is armed conflict and they are performing combat support roles. Peace keeping and manning radars to track incoming artillery and rockets for counter-battery operations as well as using unmanned drones (likely for surveillance, target spotting etc) are closer to supporting offensive rather than defensive operations. Make no mistake, even as the ISAF is helping the Afghan forces to combat the Taleban, this goes way beyond peacekeeping with the UN charter. Singapore as a country is taking an active role in supporting ISAF who brings the fight to the Taleban with its offensives.

What is Singapore's role in such operations? Where do we draw the line between peacekeeping e.g. sending medical personnel for humanitarian and relief vs sending combat support units to help international forces attack other forces? Are we putting our servicemen/women in harm's way for the good of Singapore?

There's little in the way of debate now given that there has been no casualties. I hope that all SAF servicement are safe in their overseas deployments and especially in a dangerous place such as Afghanistan but we should not wait until such tragedy happens to discuss how sending our servicemen into Afghanistan keeps Singapore safe?

Majullah Singapura.