Non Serviam.
I've just read an essay in the newspapers written by a Hwa Chong Institution student, that won a gold award at the 2011 Commonwealth Essay competition. The essay is titled "Green Men" and is about conscription It's in the Straits Times, published October 22nd. I would like to present a more fair and balanced viewpoint on conscription.
They say National Service is a "rite of passage". That NS will "make you a man". And how "defending your country is something noble and honourable". Well I personally don't believe in the concept of "becoming a man" in the context of a society that claims freedom and equal rights for all. I feel this hypocritical traditional gender role in a supposed modern society just shows how there is no real concept of true equality.
Another thing is how outmoded the concept of a country is. The concept of the world organised along arbitrary political boundaries is barely a hundred years old. Yet it already has been rendered obsolete by globalisation. To put it simply there isn't much of a national identity in a nation crawling with immigrants and run like a company.
Which brings me again to the idea of "defending your country". Truthfully, I don't identify much with a national identity, nor even to a racial identity. Not even an alien one. I guess I seldom engage in popular culture and hence have less in common with the majority, alienating myself from any manufactured identity. Of course, I may identify myself with aspects of cultures. But I don't think I could feel at home pigeonholed within any one specific culture.
I don't deny that after 12 years (for the author, I went for 13 years) of education, the idea of adapting to something "totally different" was quite intimidating. Personally my biggest fear was having to follow orders constantly. I generally have problems following instructions strictly, especially if I am able to see a better solution to the problem at hand or if I do not understand the underlying rationale.
The author apparently thinks "perhaps the only thing tougher (than conscription) is fatherhood". Not being a father I obviously do not really understand the trials and tribulations associated with fatherhood. But then again neither is the author, I believe. But I am very sure there are things harder than fatherhood or conscription. Being a refugee, for one. Or having to wake up each day wondering if you can feed yourself that day. Or not knowing if you will wake when you go to sleep.
Yes, the author is right when he says it's the strict commanders, the smell of mud and the camaraderie which resonate in your mind in later years. But I don't feel it the same way he does. All these do are stir up the acrid bile within me. It would be uncommon to find a former conscript who would not declare some form of hate for a "strict commander". Officers not withstanding, of course. The smell of mud (and unfortunately sometimes the taste of combat rations) never fails to bring out a pavlovian response of despair among former conscripts. I have to admit, the camaraderie is interesting. In a way. In the way that people seek to discuss survival techniques among a pack of wolves.
Yes, this euphemistically named "National Service" must exist for a reason. Perhaps to ingrain a sense of national pride? Must have failed on me then. A quick aside, most of those who I have seen push the idea of conscripts being "defenders of the nation" and conscription being a chance to "exercise your national pride" are women who are not conscripted. As the author points out, Singapore does not have many people nor talents. So the biggest question must be why pull people out of that limited pool for 2 years of their prime economic capabilities? To defend a nation of outsiders?
I remember frequently being asked when I was a conscript if I would take up arms to defend my family. I probably will. But that does not mean I will serve in the army during a war. Firstly, it depends very much on the nature of the war. What if I do not agree with the rationale behind the war? I would not serve. If it were an aggressive war I would also most likely not serve. I guess the easiest answer would be that I would take up arms to defend my friends and family. But not a random stranger who happens to be in the same island as me just because we were born in the same country.
In the previous generations parents worried as there were rumours about conscripts being abused and of poor safety. Now the only difference is that the rumours are not disseminated. Not that it does not happen though. Often conditions are less than ideal. They are not "bad", per se. There are many rules designed to enforce safety. It just happens that they are usually not enforced. This is especially so as conscripts have little or no knowledge of the legal framework. Hence the onus is on commanders to enforce rules that, if enforced, would inconvenience their own jobs.
And yes, the food is horrid. The author tries to temper this with the delusion that the food is nutritious. I would agree that the food is edible. But nutritious? No way. For starters the food is disproportionately high in carbohydrates. As well as being low in calcium and protein. As well as being made from stale ingredients. I could go on about this ad nauseum.
I still don't understand the emphasis the author puts on missing home cooked food. Don't hope to. Food cooked in my home is nothing to shout about.
The author also chose to look at the uniform crew cuts as a "test of bravery" in "ditching vanity". I still view it as depersonification and if done to anyone else but a conscript would be a human rights violation. I went through it but that does not make it any more right. Given a choice I wold still have done it as it was only practical and I recognise that. However as a systematic enforced practice it was extremely dehumanizing and, I feel, traumatic.
Besides, I don't understand how having no hair makes people any braver. Chuck Norris has hair.
I remember receiving letters in field camp. I know it was nice. But I still feel the way they did that was extremely manipulative. Apparently it is systematic practice for officers to give their platoon a "speech" on how "National Service" helps defend your family. Most people felt sad when they got their letters. All I felt was rage. Rage at being kept away from my family and from my own life.
For me it's all over. But I still feel that it conflicts with my morals. I feel that though it may be an organised systematic practice conscription is tantamount to a form of slavery. I only hope one day my children will not have to go through such experiences.
They say National Service is a "rite of passage". That NS will "make you a man". And how "defending your country is something noble and honourable". Well I personally don't believe in the concept of "becoming a man" in the context of a society that claims freedom and equal rights for all. I feel this hypocritical traditional gender role in a supposed modern society just shows how there is no real concept of true equality.
Another thing is how outmoded the concept of a country is. The concept of the world organised along arbitrary political boundaries is barely a hundred years old. Yet it already has been rendered obsolete by globalisation. To put it simply there isn't much of a national identity in a nation crawling with immigrants and run like a company.
Which brings me again to the idea of "defending your country". Truthfully, I don't identify much with a national identity, nor even to a racial identity. Not even an alien one. I guess I seldom engage in popular culture and hence have less in common with the majority, alienating myself from any manufactured identity. Of course, I may identify myself with aspects of cultures. But I don't think I could feel at home pigeonholed within any one specific culture.
I don't deny that after 12 years (for the author, I went for 13 years) of education, the idea of adapting to something "totally different" was quite intimidating. Personally my biggest fear was having to follow orders constantly. I generally have problems following instructions strictly, especially if I am able to see a better solution to the problem at hand or if I do not understand the underlying rationale.
The author apparently thinks "perhaps the only thing tougher (than conscription) is fatherhood". Not being a father I obviously do not really understand the trials and tribulations associated with fatherhood. But then again neither is the author, I believe. But I am very sure there are things harder than fatherhood or conscription. Being a refugee, for one. Or having to wake up each day wondering if you can feed yourself that day. Or not knowing if you will wake when you go to sleep.
Yes, the author is right when he says it's the strict commanders, the smell of mud and the camaraderie which resonate in your mind in later years. But I don't feel it the same way he does. All these do are stir up the acrid bile within me. It would be uncommon to find a former conscript who would not declare some form of hate for a "strict commander". Officers not withstanding, of course. The smell of mud (and unfortunately sometimes the taste of combat rations) never fails to bring out a pavlovian response of despair among former conscripts. I have to admit, the camaraderie is interesting. In a way. In the way that people seek to discuss survival techniques among a pack of wolves.
Yes, this euphemistically named "National Service" must exist for a reason. Perhaps to ingrain a sense of national pride? Must have failed on me then. A quick aside, most of those who I have seen push the idea of conscripts being "defenders of the nation" and conscription being a chance to "exercise your national pride" are women who are not conscripted. As the author points out, Singapore does not have many people nor talents. So the biggest question must be why pull people out of that limited pool for 2 years of their prime economic capabilities? To defend a nation of outsiders?
I remember frequently being asked when I was a conscript if I would take up arms to defend my family. I probably will. But that does not mean I will serve in the army during a war. Firstly, it depends very much on the nature of the war. What if I do not agree with the rationale behind the war? I would not serve. If it were an aggressive war I would also most likely not serve. I guess the easiest answer would be that I would take up arms to defend my friends and family. But not a random stranger who happens to be in the same island as me just because we were born in the same country.
In the previous generations parents worried as there were rumours about conscripts being abused and of poor safety. Now the only difference is that the rumours are not disseminated. Not that it does not happen though. Often conditions are less than ideal. They are not "bad", per se. There are many rules designed to enforce safety. It just happens that they are usually not enforced. This is especially so as conscripts have little or no knowledge of the legal framework. Hence the onus is on commanders to enforce rules that, if enforced, would inconvenience their own jobs.
And yes, the food is horrid. The author tries to temper this with the delusion that the food is nutritious. I would agree that the food is edible. But nutritious? No way. For starters the food is disproportionately high in carbohydrates. As well as being low in calcium and protein. As well as being made from stale ingredients. I could go on about this ad nauseum.
I still don't understand the emphasis the author puts on missing home cooked food. Don't hope to. Food cooked in my home is nothing to shout about.
The author also chose to look at the uniform crew cuts as a "test of bravery" in "ditching vanity". I still view it as depersonification and if done to anyone else but a conscript would be a human rights violation. I went through it but that does not make it any more right. Given a choice I wold still have done it as it was only practical and I recognise that. However as a systematic enforced practice it was extremely dehumanizing and, I feel, traumatic.
Besides, I don't understand how having no hair makes people any braver. Chuck Norris has hair.
I remember receiving letters in field camp. I know it was nice. But I still feel the way they did that was extremely manipulative. Apparently it is systematic practice for officers to give their platoon a "speech" on how "National Service" helps defend your family. Most people felt sad when they got their letters. All I felt was rage. Rage at being kept away from my family and from my own life.
For me it's all over. But I still feel that it conflicts with my morals. I feel that though it may be an organised systematic practice conscription is tantamount to a form of slavery. I only hope one day my children will not have to go through such experiences.
Onward To Victory- Icepick
Nothing but power and fury within me
When I unleash there is no pity
When the pitbull strikes
There's no mercy for the enemy
Strike you down
ONWARD TO VICTORY
posted by D. Munky at
15:54
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home