1.) If you agree that national security is a necessity which our lives would be nothing without, and the only feasible solution is national service, then we agree that national service must exist.
Since a significant amount of resources must be dedicated towards the maintenance and sustenance of our defence (without which we are unable to maintain military superiority), national service is a good solution- it would be harder to argue against diverting resources away from our defence when we rely on national service instead of a regular army, as our resources invested in the army would still be directly utilised by the many Singaporean citizens going through NS every year; in a sense, our taxpayers’ money is still goes back to us. If a regular army were to be used, then the defence budget would seem to be a leakage where our taxpayers’ money is lost to an external organisation and for a cause which the average civilian is unable to identify with.
To put it simply, compare:
“The tax I am paying goes towards building better facilities for the Singaporean boys (the sons of everybody I know) who are doing their NS (something which I too have went through before)”
“The tax I am paying goes towards the army (comprising of people whom I do not personally know)”
etc. But that’s actually a minor point.
2.) Imagine if a neighbouring country were to invade Singapore in 7 days (where there is insufficient time for one to bring his family and belongings over to a safer place overseas), nearly every person in Singapore would be willing to take up arms to defend our country. It is only then when we will be thankful that we have been taught and trained to fight a war during our stint in NS. It is just like how many South Koreans rushed to join the elite Marines right after the shelling incident: we realise how fragile (and important) peace is only when it is threatened.
3.) We often put NS into a very personal context when evaluating it; when thinking about it, we often slot it in between our JC life and university life, and being juxtaposed against the bright future which awaits a student, it will seem to be a waste of time. But if we put NS in another context, where it forms one of the the foundations which allow an ordered society such as Singapore to exist, another picture will emerge. We must understand that national security is one of the criteria which must be met such that a bright future can even await us. Yes, it can be said that we should not be ‘selfish’ when looking at NS, where a sacrifice (can it even count as a sacrifice when it is able to bring us national security, something which many countries yearn for?) is made for the greater good, but to be honest we do it for ourselves too – we serve with everyone else and reap the benefits together.
4.) The inequality which exists with social order is often better than the equality which exists with chaos. Some may say that our systematic subjugation in NS is parallel to how the Singapore population is kept in control by the political and economic elite (they call them the Lee Family), but the same happens in every other country. (In fact, the presence of social order may already justify the control, especially when compared to war-torn countries) The situation is worse in those rife with corruption. Despite the fact the large disparity between various income groups, the existence of good mobility between social classes (defined by income levels anyway) and the principle of meritocracy in Singapore contributes a lot towards equity already.
Even so, the question arises: you say that you defend the Singapore, and too its economic system (one filled with inequality)- if the enemy of Singapore were to say, let me take over and I will redistribute wealth equally, would you still defend Singapore?
Yes, one should, because one defends his right (as well as the right of his children) to climb the income ladder. Just because the income ladder exists and there are people are not all on the same rug of the ladder does not imply that the society is better off without the ladder. It is only with such a ladder do people aspire to excel in their work. The desire for power over others is a motivation for people to work hard, and any dream for a society with perfect equality making progress with all its citizens hand-in-hand is just naive. If you defend Singapore you defend your chance to satisfy your primal desire to be superior to others, in this case, financially. I believe that within a functioning capitalist society it is usually a zero sum game where some get richer and others poorer, and relative poverty cannot be removed.
5.) If you were to ask, “Why should I take two years of my time to serve the nation when I can use the time for studies/advancing my career?”, you should ask yourself why do you assume that you are entitled to the life which you want to lead? Although the most layman conclusion is that we shouldn’t take things for granted, it is more useful for one to redefine what one is entitled to; hence if you wanted to live the Singaporean life of security (both financially and otherwise), then you will have to pay the 2 year price of NS to keep Singapore safe. Some people in other countries are more than happy to pay that price, because of low levels of security and economic development in their countries – in the end it is a matter of perspective: whether you feel that you are entitled to the Singaporean way of life just by virtue of being born here.
6.) National Service infuses national security with the Singaporean identity; the national identity of most other countries do not have that, with the exception of Taiwan / South Korea etc, who both, coincidentally, have their own conscription systems equivalent to NS, as well as a persistent threat to their national security- China / North Korea respectively. Other nations with conscription, such as Israel, also face persistent threats to their national security, from Palestine as well as other aggressors (remember the 6-day war- Israel needs its defence).
By comparison with the abovementioned countries, some may say that national service in Singapore isn’t necessary because SE Asia isn’t some tumultuous region rife with street violence and terrorist groups. There isn’t any real arms race around (if there even was one, it would have been started by us), neither are there open aggression or rogue states. My only response is that we will never know when things will change, when major world-changing events will occur. Our diplomatic ties may be strong right now, but they are still at the mercy of whoever will become the leaders of our neighbours tomorrow. What if anti-Singaporean politicians take power over the next decade? Our diplomacy also holds no real power without formidable military forces to back it up. We cannot forsee the future, nor build an army within a few years when we think we need it; an army is an organisation which has to be built as early as possible and conscientiously maintained and improved upon.
Some people have compared Singapore with Israel, being the only non-Muslim countries surrounded by Muslim neighbours – it is plain stupid to immediately say we are in danger of being surrounded and attacked, but it is true that there already exists a dotted line and all that is left well, is for one to tear along the dotted line.
7.) reminder to self: army too integrated into singaporean society.
