TOC introduces The Polemic, a new feature by our new columnist KJ. It will feature fortnightly on Thursdays.
KJ
Total Defence gets personal
Morning assembly. You find yourself back in Primary school, sitting in the large quadrangle. All two thousand of you, from Primary One through Six, silently reading the Little Red Dot[i]magazine. The magazine introduces you to the breezy Dot Values family members, who tell you stories, and make you laugh. And you learn about your country Singapore, about the world, and about Singapore’s place on this planet called Big Big World. You learn that Singapore is small – a little red dot.
Afterwards, in Social Studies class, you learn about Total Defence. You don’t really understand what it means, but it feels like something important. You remember that the Dot Values family had mentioned it. And you like the thought of Singapore already, because you are just like Singapore: small. A pristine little dot in this Big Big World.
Later, when you go on to Secondary school, the Little Red Dot is replaced by the IN magazine. From IN, you continue learning about Singapore. You have grown much bigger. But somehow, Singapore still seems so small. And so vulnerable. A new word.[ii] You are reminded about Total Defence. You talk about it in History class, in Social Studies, in Civics and Moral Education class. You read about it in your English Language and Mother Tongue comprehension passages.
When you outgrow the IN magazine and start reading the newspapers, you continue to encounter these words: Singapore was vulnerable then; it is still vulnerable now; and it will always be vulnerable. And as time passes, they become part of your daily vocabulary.
You learn to repeat these maxims without giving them another thought, without missing another beat: Vulnerable Singapore, always a Little Red Dot. Always vulnerable, always Little and Red.
* * *
This narrative of vulnerability justifies many things, amongst which are authoritarian government and Total Defence. One reinforces the other, and this suits the ruling regime just fine. This narrative consequently renders the doctrine of Total Defence compelling, logical, and systematic.
And circular too: Singapore is vulnerable; hence a strong military force must be built. But in order to build it, a strong economy must sustained. And in turn, a strong economy requires protection from a strong military. However, as Singapore is ‘small’ and ‘vulnerable’, Total Defence is necessary to build up that strong military – and that economy – and that neverending vulnerability – and Total Defence – Etc. – Repeat – and etc. – Repeat.
These words link together, forming a chain and a logical fallacy – no matter what Singapore does, it is always ‘vulnerable’, always ‘fragile’, always needing protection.
But is it simply because Singapore is ‘small’? Or it is because when it suits us, we think ourselves small; and when it doesn’t, we think not?
Size can be a matter of perspective. Can it also be an excuse too? [iii]
This is not a call to cancel National Service, military build-up, and Total Defence. They are necessary, perhaps. But it is important that we unpack the terms and assumptions coded within these narratives – codes that we have come to internalize. This is because the discourse of ‘vulnerability’ can perpetuate a fiction of it. And as this fiction encircles Singapore, it can potentially become an enclosure for Singaporeans.
Singapore may indeed be vulnerable – as is every other sovereign state, strong and weak, big and small. But perhaps consider a few parallel possibilities and realities: Consider the possibility that our sense of vulnerability is an overestimation that eventuates the self-fulfilling prophecies of realpolitik and belligerent diplomacy – and that our security dilemmas have become intractable insecurity dilemmas fanning regional arms races.
Consider also the possibility that in addition to its objective of ‘defending’ Singapore, MINDEF might have become a vast military-industrial complex facilitating vested interests in arms manufacturing and defence science research (some of which might not be adhering to international conventions), fueling the economy and feeding on itself[iv] – and that there are other ways of instituting NS and organizing the country’s defence capabilities.
Most importantly, consider the possibility that the argument for a strong military based on the tenuous description of vulnerability has abetted the ruling regime’s authoritarian impulse for total control – and that Total Defence is the fulcrum for this function.
* * *
On one level, Total Defence is deployed as a comprehensive framework for national defence. On another level, the inscription of Total Defence is both a representation, and a production of it, including a production of a knowledge about it.[v] At the same time, Total Defence operates as an empty signifier – part ambiguous and part invisible. We know what Total Defence refers to, but we do not know what it means. Thus anything can be used to invoke Total Defence – from vulnerability to sedition to terrorism to nationalism. It is kept inchoate so that this hallowed space – the script of Total Defence – can be scripted according to the desires of Power, emanating from the State.
Thus, given the nature of Total Defence (‘Total’), and its proclaimed objective (‘Defence’), whoever inscribes Total Defence holds the power to conscript its subject – the nation – totally.
This inscription of ‘Total Defence’ is essentially a totalitarian one. It is conferred by decree in the name of national defence and elaborated across the spectrum of Singaporean society. As a result, it brooks no objection, it obliterates defiance, and it commands complete obedience. Interestingly, Total Defence achieves its supreme function of control during peacetime.
Consequently, quite apart from enhancing military capability, Total Defence also ensures that propaganda is seamlessly and synergistically spread through the apparently neutral channels of society.
For example, through Total Defence, the Shared Values ideology is propagated, National Education and curricula are crafted, joining uniformed groups in schools are encouraged, mass media programmes are scripted, the National Day Parades[vi] are staged. Invariably, these culminate in the programming of our minds with the permanent avatar of the PAP.
Through Total Defence, the rhetoric of racial and religious ‘harmony’ is perpetuated, and through which social control is exerted. Consider how our curious phenomena of racial and religious ‘harmony’ are little more than hollow performances,[vii] and genuine attempts to foster ‘harmony’ are countenanced by the State’s apparatus of control. Are we necessarily harmonious simply because we do not (because we’re not allowed to) talk about it?
Through Total Defence, a reliant, compliant, and disciplined population is continually moulded under the dominance, and for the dominance, of the State. Simultaneously, the fate of the Party becomes entwined with that of the nation,[viii] such that we equate the elimination of the Party with the death of the nation. Such it might live on, shaping lives and controlling minds.
The siege mentality that Total Defence conditions in Singaporeans predisposes them – from soldier, to Leader – towards an increased readiness to enter a war. That is, a war that can potentially be avoided. This conditioning militarizes the nation by glorifying, and then naturalizing, the particular language and semiotics of war into civic life, making palatable, even desirable, Singapore’s brutalist form of compulsory conscription that stretches beyond the two years and into a lifetime.
Accordingly, full-time NS has been consecrated as a ‘ritual’, and romanticized as a ‘rite of passage’, and where boys shall be transformed, not into ordinary men, but valorized guardians of the land.
But if Singapore must be defended and loved, then it must be defended and loved critically and self-consciously, not blindly and automatically. Not least when it is under a dominant one-party state and adopting the disturbing strategy of pre-emptive first strike. This strategy is underpinned by offensive operations and weaponry, along with a doctrine of pre-emption [ix] that, when put into effect, they contravene international law. This strategy is also in itself an admission that Singapore is ultimately indefensible.
Nation before community and Society above self? Perhaps this is so that the ‘self’ can be mechanized – the men bear arms, the women bear children, and for the sake of survival, we all bear with it.
Comprehensive conscription of the nation, under the fluttering flag of Total Defence, in the service of the State.
* * *
‘What will you defend?’ is this year’s slogan for Total Defence. There is a semantic slippage and sleight-of-word here, and perhaps they will go unnoticed. First, the question naturalizes Total Defence, and assumes the omnipresence of conflict. It demands your uncontested loyalty. It precludes the possibility of refusal, of resistance. Isn’t the question “What will you defend?” a legitimate one too? Can one say “No”? Second, if you must go to war, you defend your loved ones. You defend people. You defend yourself. You defend the ‘who’. ‘What’ is a pronoun that intuitively leads one to articulate an inanimate object. A ‘thing’.
When you are asked, ‘What will you defend?’, the desired answer might be, I (the ‘who’) will defend (my ‘home’) Singapore (the ‘what’). Even if ‘Singapore’ is not articulated, this unnoticeable linguistic dissonance ensures that ‘Singapore’ looms at the back of the respondent’s subconscious. This is a psychological subterfuge that one needs to interrogate. This is a question that privileges objects and mechanizes people.
Singapore is a construct, a concept, an abstract. And if you must defend as abstract a concept as a constructed country, then it seems moral to defend a democratic one – one where you have a stake, rather than one whose stake has been thrust upon you – an inanimate and powerless ‘you’.
In Singapore, where Party – Government – State – Nation have been conflated into one entity – PAP – is this unity? Or is this totalitarianism?
Are you defending the nation, or are you being used by the nation to defend it?
To answer this question, that is also to reflect upon what it means to be a citizen, the architecture of Total Defence has to be deconstructed. Total Defence weaves, through an order of things and archaeology of knowledge, a particular (His)tory of Singapore. This artifice in turn embeds in the nation, comprehensive structures that shape, discipline, and punish. It enhances and is enhanced by the State. It then evacuates the altruistic substance of ‘Total Defence’, and replaces it with its own ideological agendas of de-politicization and de-humanization, further consolidating and entrenching total control.
In Singapore, when you think a thought and express an opinion, how free is it from year after year of overt and subliminal State conditioning?
This process of conditioning stretches back decades. Back to when you were a child sitting in the school quadrangle reading a colourful little magazine, unaware of the surreptitious manoeuvres that were leading you to One prayer of Progress.
Unaware that your life was being slowly but surely shaped in One vision of Modernity.
And unaware that the allure of Total Defence is also, through the rouged lips of One Nation, a captivating camouflage for Total Indoctrination.
[i] The Little Red Dot and IN magazines are published by Singapore Press Holdings, and targeted at Primary and Secondary school students respectively.
[ii] Singapore’s ‘vulnerability’ is most comprehensively analyzed in Michael Leifer, Singapore’s Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability, NY, Routledge, 2000. But this realist reading is increasingly being critiqued by ‘constructivist’ ones: ideas, diplomacy, and norms in the evolving regional and international system enable Singapore to not only survive but also thrive. See Joseph Liow and Ralf Emmers, eds., Order and Security in Southeast Asia: Essays in Memory of Michael Leifer, NY, Routledge, 2006.
[iii] Small states, especially in the case of today’s Singapore, do not automatically mean ‘weak’. Their size provides surprising latitude and ability to ‘survive’ in the international system. See Christine Ingebritsen and Iver Neumann, eds., Small States in International Relations, Washington, University of Washington Press, 2006
[iv] See also Tan See Seng and Alvin Chew, “Governing Singapore’s Security Sector: Problems, Prospects and Paradox”,Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 20, No. 2, August 2008, pp. 241-63.
[v] As have been theorized by Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1981, and further operationalized by Edward Said, Orientalism, NY, Penguin, 1980.
[vi] For a comparison of Singapore’s NDP with the military parades of Nazi Germany, see Leni Riefenstahl’s brilliant 1935 film, The Triumph of the Will, available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcFuHGHfYwE
[vii] Following Judith Butler’s work on the structural discourse of power that regulates and constrains. See Gill Jagger, Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative, NY, Routledge, 2008.
[viii] This is a classic trait of fascist regimes.
[ix] Singapore’s Military Modernisation: Upgrading the City-state’s Deterrent, IISS, Vol. 13, Iss. 10, December 2007. See also more generally, Tim Huxley, Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore, London, Allen & Unwin, 2001.
———–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Dear Zheng Xi,
It’s good to be proud of your latest acquisition.
Having said that, if KJ is a computer software, I believe there are some serious bugs in it. It may be too impolite to point them out again.
Suffice it to say that if “Saussure” and a character called “To smallvoice585″ can have such bizarre misunderstanding of the subject and about the stand of various commentators here even after reading his article, KJ’s piece must have failed to provide clarity to lesser intellects.
On that count alone, the article is already not a success. So I hope that you and KJ could refrain from complacency. I thank you.
Singapore is a small island, slightly bigger than the Gaza Strip, so it can be said it is the last post to be defended. As a last post based on past history is always undefensible, so the only way to defend it is to attack. So we have to propagate Total Offence rather than Total Defend.
spirit-centred, so when should we start offending? :P
reading what smallvoice has written, i think he simply doesn’t ‘get it’. :)
-50
The provision of clarity, nevertheless, is a violent imposition not unlike the clarity of the ideology of defense imposed on others. The refusal to provide clarity to the so called “lesser intellectuals” has to be seen as an act that relinquishes the privilege to inflict violence on others, to position a potential other as an inferior.
On the other hand, the judgements via presumption practiced by those who believe that they know better, those who refuse to acknowledge the constructedness of their knowledge, does precisely the opposite: to denigrate, to reduce (in various ways). These are the people who fail to see the value of those who do not attempt to articulate the inarticulable, but instead to provide a direction toward it only to acknowledge the unfortunate limitations of such a move. Indeed, KJ’s attempt must seem feeble. For it is impossible to be anything else in the face of total power.
This comment, of course, is necessarily another bizarre understanding, which invites rational deconstruction by the erudite who can confidently say they know better. :)
KJ,
Sorry to say this but I think what you have written is total bull. Can you, even in you wildest dream, imagine SAF turning against Singaporeans, even to keep PAP in power? PAP may control the upper echelons of SAF politically, but that does not mean that NSF soldiers will obey them if they try to turn against the people. A more likely scenario is a Thai type military coup, which will end with the anti-democratic forces crushed.
Like Obama says, regimes that depend on force of arms to stay in power are on the wrong side history (not exact quote). Citizens are smarter and more educated nowadays so not so easy to brainwash for a fascist regime. And sorry, PAP is far from fascist, yet…
Comments edited by moderator.
Panache, pls refrain from making personal remarks against the author.
Dear Molly,
You cannot so irresponsibly advocate that power has to be relinquished! We know very well that there is a need for a transcendental authority before we can have enforceable discursive responsibility. KJ has failed precisely because of his inability to mitigate what he thinks is the total indoctrination of citizens!
Even the article, which attempts to subvert the indoctrination, fails to be responsible towards the indoctrinated Other and indulges upon a disparagement of the indoctrinated who do not see indoctrination qua indoctrination but instead are active citizens of indoctrination (c/f #54 Panache & smallvoice585 et al.), which has become a regime of pleasure for it offers these citizens a rationality with which they can claim the form of agency known as institutionalized superiority.
How could KJ deny others of the pleasure just because he has given up on it?
Dear See Nao,
You are being unnecessarily contradictory by suggesting the presence of transcendental authority that presumably disciplines the subversive and authorizes the permissible, yet indicting me for my therefore unsurprising failure to enlighten fellow citizens about the depths of total power and indoctrination. Indeed, how can enlightenment be possible, if even relevant, given that the total indoctrination that I have audaciously alluded to simultaneously exist yet does not exist?
I suggest that you refer to the various erudite commentators above for some urgent guidance in the art of strategic self-contradiction and unabashed simplicity.
However, you should not be so unkind as to accuse your rational superiors of being blind to what they cannot see, that what one cannot see consequently does not exist, and that what is unimaginable cannot and will not happen, for these predicaments are commonly diagnosed as symptoms of indoctrination, one that in Singapore’s instance, includes the indoctrination of the discourse of responsibility, rationality, linguistic conciseness, and the infinite benevolence of the state.
Accusing them of being blind is akin to complaining that darkness has no light. I thought such stupidity would be beneath you.
Your admonishment of Molly’s irresponsibility is disingenuous when Molly ceases to be Molly the moment she relinquishes her mantle of irresponsibility. It is not unlike the accusations of irrationality, irrelevance, and incomprehensibility ranged against postmodernism, when it is precisely being irrational and celebrating irrationality that the discipline of postmodernism can even be commenced, incomprehensibility comprehended, and irrelevance made relevant.
By extension, the numerous excited responses of rational indignance is only to be expected given that, in addition to the reasons laid out earlier, this column is obviously and officially a polemical one. Naturally, I welcome excited denunciations and condemnations as a matter of course, since the moment they stop appearing would be the moment I cease being polemical.
Then, I might just as well be accused of failing in my duty to be polemical.
Yours polemically : )
KJ
NS was started in 1966 ostensibly to defend Singapore el cheapo. I think it was more than that. It was a tumultous period and the British troops were withdrawing and the base closing down. Many people were thrown out of jobs. So the besieged PAP govt had to quickly think of something. What better way than to throw every school-leaver of age 18 yrs into the army camps for 2.5 years and postpone the problem of creating jobs for them? Once they started it, they couldnt stop and so the rest is history. Of course, it did make people wonder if we were a paper tiger tho. I guess using the instructors from Israeli, which at the time had just defeated the mighty Egyptian army, did improve the image somewhat.
BEST THING TO DO when many are JOBLESS:
In-Camp training for reservists.
1. More productive time for jobless. at the same time, one step closer to clearing the 10year cycle. In boom time, in-camp may be more disruptive. may = may not.
2. Less paper work – no claims for salary.
TOC
Between lines 824 to 829 there seems to be problem with the codes giving display problem to readers. comments cannot be read.
cheers!
Xhac
Today is total defence day – the day that Singapore – the vaunted impregnable invincible fortress ” the Gibraltar of the far east” . in 1942 , the unthinkable happened . The Japanese took over Singapore from the mighty British .
Since young, I always read about this stormy chapter of our history. Reminded that Singapore is vulnerable. a small little red dot. We are on our own . We can only depend on ourselves to succeed. I am proud of the fact that Singapore has risen from 3rd world to 1st world in 40 years.
Therefore, I strove very hard to read up on military defense- strategy and tactics since the age of nine. When I was bullied in primary school, I used Singapore as my example to motivate myself to beat them in terms of academics and physical fitness. When I was looked down as a person who would never amount to anything in life, I used Singapore as a example to get myself back on my feet. This was why I was a real loyal military man since nine years till 25 years old last year. I was not afraid of some pple who laughed at me for such a loyal Singaporean . A army crazy man – some pple called me. I kinda took pride from my Dad who was a sniper officer in his NS days. He told me his glory stories and he got personally commended by Gen Winston Choo. That he got asked if he want to join as a regular and a chance to go to America for advanced command school.
When I suffered my first major defeat in life – the failure of ‘O’ levels . I was branded as a failure of the education system. I kinda lost myself and thought that I could never succeed as some naysayers said of me. went into a eating binge to relieve myself of my troubles. I fell into depression when I entered national service. When my childhood dream of becoming a officer in the service of Singapore failed due to being only a ‘O’ level .
Thankfully, I had the support of some officers, sgts and fellow men who supported me through thick and thin . I thank them, specifically the commandant SCSC and Head SAF Psychological Care Centre (SAF Ward). They helped me a lot. Even if it is partly because fear of getting dragged down to censure by higher command if I die, I still thank them. But I can also tell that they also tried to help me as a fellow soldier regardless of rank for some genuine concern. For that, I really thank them and feel personally indebted to the SAF as a result for saving me from depression, suicidal thoughts and attempt.
I looked at my NS years as a big lesson for me that life is not perfect.
#56,
TOC, there is no need censor my post. The last line alledging that KJ might be a PAP spy is obviously in jest. If KJ takes personal offense, I offer my sincere apologies.
I am with smallvoice on this, that this article is unnecessarily rambling and obfuscated, peppered with wild insinuations that fail to link total defense to totalitarianism.
The main crux of KJ’s article is this:
“Are you defending the nation, or are you being used by the nation to defend it?”
My answer to him is:
Does it really matter? The country must be defended in any case. We can sort out our politics later.
From the viewpoint of a pragmatic realist, national unity in the face of external threats is paramount. Just look to the plight of the Jews over the past 2000 years and you will understand why. Any attempt to weaken national unity in order to score political points cannot but work against the oppositions’ case in Singapore.
Also, why this ridiculous ranting about indoctrination? Is this article not an attempt at indoctrination as well? Idealogy is idealogy. Good ones stand the test of time and bad ones get eliminated.
the point KJ is trying to make is that the state is creating a siege mentality, and through that, pulling singaporeans closer to the ruling government because of the fear of the “threat”, and in turn using that power to turn singaporeans into mice.
yes the country must be defended. the thing is that the lines between country, party and government is being blurred intentionally by the state, either consciously or subconsciously. PAP has woven into the minds of many. such blurring of lines is extremely distasteful. i’m sure you will defend your family, but will you defend the politicians and government leaders? if not, shall we sort out the politics now, since its peacetime.
i always feel that the government over-states the threats on purpose. without such “threats”, how else can you justify a year-on-year increase in defence budget and grease the many GLCs linked to it?
This place has become quite interesting, not least because of the presence of 3 characters:
(1) #55 Mollymeek.
He or she had by now famously said that the provision of clarity is an imposition or infliction of violence on lesser intellectuals and by this very act positions a potential other as an inferior being.
Not for 1 minute did he or she think that it is the basic responsibility of a writer to write clearly so that his readers do not misunderstand him. By the way, what’s the point of writing an article? Now, I’m not sure.
(2) #57 Lee See Nao.
He has unthinkingly bought the allegation of indoctrination wholesale. But his Oscar winning statement is that rational people submit themselves to indoctrination in exchange for a sense of institutionalized superiority.
I guess the only praise-worthy people are the schizophrenics who do not crave for superiority over others since they refuse to be rational! I certainly agree that it’s not easy to indoctrinate crazy people.
(3) # 58 KJ himself.
What I initially thought to be an off-day performance (this article, that is) by him is actually evidence of a systemic problem deep into his bones. He celebrates irrationality, enjoys irrelevance and relishes incomprehensibility. He also dubiously called postmodernism a discipline! Doesn’t he know that its essential character is its LACK of discipline? Derrida would have turned in his grave if he were to hear this. Maybe, he is new to post-modernism or worse, heaven forbid, he only thinks he knows post-modernism and nothing else!
Put simply, post-modernism is a revolt against the values of the Enlightenment which forms the cultural basis of the modern world. It is much discredited and remains merely as an interesting curiosity.
By the way, being polemical does not mean deliberately being irrational, obscure or post-modern in outlook. It merely means you can be forceful in your arguments, but it still must make sense.
#64
Perhaps we belong to a generation that has seen peace all our life, so we take take it for granted. No one can tell you whether we have spent too much or too little on defense, unless it is put to the test. But in the testing, so much is lost! Singapore’s defense hinges on deterrence, so that, god willing, we NEVER have to put it to the test. I fully agree with the government on this.
Sorry to interrupt this, but more I read the comments by smallvoice ? the more I think he doesn’t quite understand postmodernism, getting its definitions all wrong. If, according to postmo, the text cannot read itself, meaning is decentered, and I think, the reader makes a meaning out of his own subjectivity ? then there’s no point in smallvoice asking for meaning. Also there’s no point insisting on imposing his reading on others as the objective reality.
As part of Total Defence, we have the 3G SAF….going, going, gone. Total Defence, my foot….it’s just another methodology conjured by them to scare the rest of us into believing that we should be catching bullets while they catch their planes outta here.
smallvoice,
there is discipline in having a lack of it…i think postmodernism requires more discipline than not, since you have to remain disciplined in having no discipline and accepting everyone’s else view as valid.
As for defending the country or being used by the country to defend it – the difference is there although practically there is no difference. Probably the motivation is different – no soldier defends his country for his country, and certainly not in singapore…but we still defend the country.
When Saddam matched into Kuwait—the ELITES and ruling class skooted out of the country before you can say ‘QUIT Kuwait”.
Why did they return—US needs the OIL and their ASSET was still underground.
What would our ELITES do in the same situation?
Do they need to come back?–Is our asset undergnd or invested WIDELY overseas?
BTW –did MINDEF win the COMA in CAMP case?–Why were they not willing to take care of one of their own even in peace time? Cannot even pay for insurance for NS men?–Contrast this to how the Israeli would go to end of the earth to recover the body of one of their fallen.
HOW many have fallen since NS was forced on the male citizenry?
SHOULD we not build a MONUMENT to THESE FALLEN COMRADES?
To: 饮水思源,
Your comments will not be allowed until and unless you desist from making personal attacks and using derogatory names on others.
Defend what?
No enemy has attacked us BUT we have lost 58 billion dollars or more internally by lousy people.
What to defend for when Singapore’s money is gambled away by the BIG gambler.
Almost nothing is left.
Ya, TOTAL DEFENCE, a very nice concept and rhetoric echoing all the time since we were drafted into NS and the constant brainwashing of how vulnerable this island state is. We sacrified, we sweated and we conformed to the leaders’ call to defend our vulnerable nation. After 35 years and now retired at 60, I have to live on my CPF minimum sum turned annuity and a little of my humble saving all these years. I have to pray hard that I would not fall sick. Now above all, I have to worry that one day I could be dumped in a nusing home in JB away from the vulnerable nation I pledge to defend totally. I am so damn disillusioned and I could remember what my teachers in the old school days told me. Son, work hard, be honest, be loyal to your country, you will have a bright future. Total Defence now became defence for the rich, powerful and the migrant elites who are given citizenships. Now it dawns on me what vulnerability means, it means the vulnerability of the self-interest of these rich, powerful and elitists. I doubt if ever Singapore is under attack, these people will stay behind to defend it.
There seems to be more people standing on the side of PAP these days. I wonder if it has anything to do with the gov stepping into cyberspace.
I’m against conscription & I’m against the lack of human rights in a country. No one should be forced to or compelled to do anything against their own will, it’s that simple! “Loyal” singaporeans could love to serve, but there are others who hate being forced to belong to an organization against his own will.
Minister Teo Chee Hean asked what do we fight for. My answer:
1. We fight for Justice and Equality.
2. We fight for Freedom of Press, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly.
3. We fight for Democracy
4. We fight against despotic governments who do not show compassion and fairness to their citizens.
5. We fight for Transparency and accountability.
6. We fight for Capitalism with a socialist face, not State Corporatism.
7. We fight for a lean Cabinet, and for less moneyfaced Ministers.
kingrant, then the gahmen will use Total Defence to fight you.
This is too important an issue to discuss as it creeps into many people’s heart rather than their brain, supporters or non-supporters alike.
But Singapore is not the only country practicing national service.
I, for one, will want my son to complete his national service with full dedication and commitment, this way, he can be proud to call himself a Singaporean…one who believes in this own country and is ready to fight till the end for the independence, security and sovereign rights of Singapore!
There’s no right or wrong here, it all depends on what you believe in as a Singaporean.
I do have the personal impression that KJ had mixed his feelings of dislike for PAP with that of our country’s interest.
To be, OR not to be, that’s the question!
pugdragon, I agree with you that everyone has the right not to be forced to belong to an organization against his own will…but do you agree with me therefore, you should simply go away to some other organization where you feel you want to belong to, since you have no feelings for this organization and the people within it. WHY STAY??
So, you do have a choice and you can practice your rights by giving-up your Singapore citizenship, escape national service and never return to this land which you do not have a sense of belonging. FAIR??
To be a Singaporean, OR not to be a Singaporean, that’s the question!
I personally do want to know and assured that if one day, PAP becomes irrelevant and another party takes over control of Singapore, we’ll still have the mechanism and the resources to defend and protect Singapore against anyone who think they can invade us at their own will, and there are many of such “enemies” around us!!
“Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country”
When total defence was being conceived it was just to get everyone to fight on and on to defend the country.
There was a fear at that time that growing affluence was eroding the will to fight and to sacrifice for the state.
The brain behind it was a not so bright army officer who was a fanatic and bent on pleasing PS and so get a promotion to Lieut Col.
As he articulated his plan he got all the organs of the state to be involved in it and that was how ir came to be in its present form
This major, for some strange reason quit the army and got a humble job in the private sector.
He kept very quiet from then till now.
Thank God he was not a scholar.
He was not bright either.
But, he was the midwife pf total defence in its present form.
Strange leh…I read somewhere the idea was originally copied from Israel…they were the total defence concept master and was so successful in implementing it that even USA acknolwedged that it can never be implemented successfully in United States, but Singapore DID!
It depends on which side your argue from and what ‘links’ and ‘evidences’ you could gather to justify your claims. In really really elementary level, the reason why Singapore could exist in the first place is to justify our split from Malaysia (an excuse some might say, I do not disagree).
It just seems that in my perspective, if Singapore’s goals is similiar or perhaps even identical to your personal goals, you are pretty much in tandem with the system from initialisation. Whatever your personal goals are, essentially built from your experience, family and institutional education has a hand in this.
On the other side of the continuum, you might find yourself at odds at times just because your goals just wouldn’t coincide with Singaporean ‘ideals’. Its all about rules, roles and loyalty. Once you deviate from the norm, you could be essentially be labelled as invalid, perhaps internally as alienation (feels estranged doing work that are not of interest to you, or not even relevant, e.g. National Service), or even externally as denial of chance (e.g. can’t go to NUS/NTU just because you had stayed in detention barracks for ‘some time’).
The idea of Total Defence, is relevant then, when Singapore WAS weak. In my opinion, again, is that such idea is not so much relevant today, for people nowadays are more connected with each other across the horizon, in a loose peer-to-peer matter rather from a top-down-bottoms-up topology, Singapore, as a symbol (do not know if its a good word) has been loosing value in people’s mind, a revival of our national symbol is critical, but it should not come from such antiquated ideas.
Yes, we citizens are the forefront of the defences of Singapore. Without WE at the forefront, Singapore falls. Such deterministic logic is plausible. But what I will suggest Government should do is to think again, revise, and refine the real message using the original idea of Total Defence:
What Singapore means to us, and why Singapore need to exist?
Until the message is made relevant to this day and age, Total Defence would only be seen as a propaganda tool of sorts, catered to the very whims of aging governance. There goes my two cents.
Hi,
I am stunned that a week after this excellent article was posted there is not a single comment (and only 7 views)!
Is this a manifestation of the symptoms that this article talks about?
I agree there is a very thin line between the interests of the state and that of the ruling party. The media and the state security apparatus have been used since time immemorial by ruling elites to preserve their own position under the guise of preserving the ‘national interest’. Where the national interest ends and the party’s interest takes over is a matter of conjecture and very, very debatable.
National Service appears to be the ‘sacred cow’ of Singapore politics with very little discussion or original thinking in the media and certainly none from the present generation of Singapore’s leaders. It is in dire need of a complete re-formulation.
My take on NS:
- Length of service: The 2 years length of service was decided upon at a time when Singapore’s population was below 2 million and every able-bodied young man was needed. Some 40+ years on, with a resident (citizen and PR) population of over 4 million, there is a strong case for the period of service to be cut down to, say, 1 year, at most (the number in NS will still be the same). It can be argued that an extra year productively used by a young person, either to further his or her studies or by contributing to the workforce is equally in the national interest.
- Gender equality – in this day and age of gender equality, where women have equal opportunities for education and equal rights under the law and in society, it is only fitting that young women should also perform national service. Not in the rough and tumble of the front line but in the many supporting roles that Singapore women will be called upon to play in the event of a genuine national emergency. The Israeli system, upon which the Singapore system is largely modeled, requires _all_ citizens to belong to the reserve army, regardless of gender.
KJ, the parallel you draw between the situation in Singapore today and the Third Reich is quite scary! I hope more people get to read this article and think deeply about it.
The father of Total Defence a is a SAF major.
He was fanatical and one-sided. He wanted everyone to embrace this concept and he was out to indictrinate the whole country and the coming generations.
Where he got the idea of putting Total Defence everywhere only God knows.
The funny thing is that the PS and the whole lot of people in the ministry believed that it was a great thing. It was implemented and here we are – it is in operation.
Who is the enemy? He was open about it and he let me know about his feelings.
I was then on employment pass and working as a civilian in the great defence machine.
Then for some strange reason or reasons he wanted me out of his department and so I had to work from home. I was a risky fellow to have in his deep secret department.
This joker is strange and one kind and then he left the army for a job as a manager of a China based exhibition company.
Why did he chow from the army when he is so fanatical and a true believer in his beliefs.
Actually total defence is a kind of the Nazi blitzkrig and it means lightning war and that was the kind of war the Nazis waged.
The Japanese did too and they may have learnt from the Germans as they were buddy buddy even though the Nazis thought the Japanese were undermenshen or subhuman.
This army major refused to look at the backdrop that I had just mentioned as he was hell bent on indoctrination on the whole country and was convinced that that was the solution to winning the battle to save Sing from any invasion force. He meant that with total defence all Singaporeans will fight to death and the invasion force will be driven back by the ferocity and determination by a Total Defence force. What a crazy military tactic! But, it takes all types to make the world.
To add to his madness he knows little about military tactics or leadership
Hey Peter, interesting ideas you’ve got there. I’ve been meaning to write something along what you said about the economic costs/political economy of NS, though I disagree with your suggestion about NS for women. But it’d be great if we could collaborate on an article. Do send me a email or something, let’s talk about writing it? I’m contactable at cavalierioflute@yahoo.com
you can try play this game….
http://www.erepublik.com
u can try to be in govt can rule real citizen.See how it does?
it is a political game play by all others nation.
you can elected as a president and lead a nation,which has real players listen to.
There is a glitch for the comments in this page. If you
click the article under main story, you will see this.
“Total Defence – (Total Control)
Thursday, 12 February 2009, 3:00 pm | 7 views
TOC introduces The Polemic, a new feature by our new columnist KJ. It will feature fortnightly on Thursdays.”
And the comments will be totally empty. Perhaps its a browser thing.
But if you click on the archives comments link lower down, it will
lead you here.
Can the site admin take a look at this, cause it doesn’t happen to other
articles.
Have a good day.
Personally there are many many issues and questions to be discussed with regards to our national service. This ‘sacred cow’ must be reviewed.
1. How we derived at the number of soldiers that we need to maintain?
Currently stands at 350,000 if I remember correctly, so far no one has question on the number needed. Any studies done? Any reviews every year?
2. Cost of running a conscript army
The cost of running a conscript army so far has been ‘advantaged’ to the state, . Non market rate pay, enough said. For those who argue that it would bring about higher taxes, then so be it. You can’t try to save few pennies for your ‘survival’ can you?
3. Duration of Reservist
How the 40yrs old ‘mark’ was decided for the end of reservist life? So far we the citizen don’t even know how they have derive to this age limit. In correlation to point 1 on number of soldiers to maintain would this age be set to a lower age if we are let’s say maintaining a too ‘large’ army? Isn’t it more effective and beneficial to lower the age for ROD as the reservists would be younger (less work/family conflicts)? They would not have much problem passing IPPT if they were required to take it only say ORD-30 years old? The IPPT problem seems self made to me.
Lots more points but in summary what defense? when we can’t even defend our billion dollars of temasek holdings. what defense when the soldiers can’t even hold on to their CPF money? (assuming they can’t hit the min amount)
Very very refeshing article – very very articulate, thought provoking, and immensely lucidly examined of our defence platform. Salute to this writer. Hats off to Him/Her.
And it really set me thinking why I serve NS many many moons ago.
I may even venture to add or question – are we being led to believe that we have real enemies/adversaries or virtual enemies, could also possibly be make-believe enemies?
Ultimately, to cut and dissect away all the disguise of so-called nation building – I am quite safe to lean on the opinion we are all being brain-washed to a large extent, perhaps.
While I have made the above post #91, I remembered later some recent years ago, I read a book, ‘Defending the lion City’ by Tim Huxley.
I did a quick read and my reaction was, wow a very remarkable book – covers quite comprehensively the various aspects of our defence policy, from hardware to software encompassing foreign relations, the conduct of which part- forming the subject matter itself of the book.
And I also came to understand, from a couple of exhibition participants during my duty as a driver in the recent air-show, even though their info may not be definitive nor conclusive, that this book was kind of a must read for SAF personnel.
What do you think KJ, in relation to your ‘Polemic’?
To: Peter Sellers
If this brain washing regime introduce NS for female, it would be Political Suicide.
As it is now the nation is over-whelmed with PRs and new citizens who have used and continue to use every loop-hole in the book to avoid NS for themselves and their offsprings.
The burden on true-blue male Singaporeans is getting heavier esp when they constitute less than one quarter of the resident population—totally unfair–of course.
Of course the imports will take away “rightfully- theirs”scholarships and jobs
AS an 18-yr old male,you are expected to die to defend “your country” but you have no priority on anything—not on tertiary education–not on scholarship–not given a fair wage–NOT even allowed to VOTE .
Meantime they pay millions to their paper BGs—-who will parachute into another cushy million $ job in stat board or govt with French-cooking class as fringe benefit. So what does this true blue guy do—serve your 2-years and migrate if you can.Therefore only the “TRUELLY” patriotic remain to fight.–everybody else would have left.
Thanks KJ . thanks for raising such a brutally frank point about TD in a no holds barred manner. Can tell that you are a intellectual and interested in research . Good cos so Am I too as well. I shall email you to exchange more pointers.
I can relate your article to my childhood of being fervently indoctrinated into Singapore’s shared values through my schooling years. used to be a fiercely loyal Singaporean. Loyalty to country , Nation before community and community above self . Now I realize that these are admirable traits but we live in the real world (copied from LKY saying for the increased pay for ministers)
Now I changed my thinking to move along with the changing times. Personal interests have to be compatible with national and communal interests. just being more realistic and practical person. They want meritocracy and pragmatism . Ok I apply the principles of meritocracy and pragmatism for my loyalty to Singapore.
To see whether Singapore is the best for me ? I shall see…………………………
After reading so much… It just boils down to one thing…
why are singaporeans so disastisfied? at least some of the singaporeans here.
I happy in singapore with my friends, family, enjoying the food, proper public transport, etc… when i go overseas,. i miss the food, places, and sights of singapore.
for that i give my respect to the government for providing a nation that i truely love to be in. Surely there is no perfect government. With all the claims of giving welfare to the elites of society etc, and all the funds going down the drain in recent investments by GICs. I tot this is just a fact of investments, we win and we lose. when the government makes money..we dun praise..but when they lose..we blame.
Is that how we act to be grateful?
KL i cant talk as eloquently as you. but from what i see… Total defense if it is really total control…Sinagporeans will not be stupid enough to be controlled… but whats there to be controlled in the first place? Are your freedom and rights as citizen controlled?
I’m enjoying myself as a singaporean. I wish you to be as happy as i am.
Also, I’ve been hearing many people talking about this brainwashing thingy.
1) Are singaproeans really so EASILY brainwashed? Are our citizens unable to think for themselves?
2) Also from another prespective, could this “brain washing” idealogy be a form of brain washing from anti government sentiments to be used to their advantage?
3) To a large extent if we think about it. Every government in the world has been voted by their people. So the government has some form of respect from the people. So whatever is said by the government would have a certain impact and influence on its people. Wouldnt this be a form of brainwashing too?
I feel brainwashing is just too harsh a word. Its not like we are being brainwashed to die and be suicide warriors to fight for the government.
looking at you – Zenhora, tells me that there is some hope in maintaining the Singapore identity in me. brainwashing , indoctrination,propaganda and so on etc. are negative definitions. On the other hand , it can be defined positively as national culture, psyche and way of life. etc . There is a thin line between these things, depends on how you look at it. Just like the notion of freedom which I said in the blog feature on national service. http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/01/blog-feature-national-service/
Well, to each his own. everyone is entitled to his or her views based on individual life’s experiences. Circumstances play a big part in everything.
I see how it goes for me to decide whether I will continue to be loyal to Singapore in time to come .
When it was put to MM Lee that people hoped for leaders who were willing to make sacrifices and who were not there for the money, he replied that these were ‘admirable sentiments’. But he added that ‘we live in the real world’.
I learnt from him that I must set my emotions aside and be rational about things in the real world. So I put the loyalty to country , Singapore’s interests as paramount aside. Change it to conditional contract loyalty and personal interests compatible with national community interest.
Cos the Ministers are not willing to make do with a lower salary although they have official perks not available to private sector. Why should I be willing to give up some of my interests for the sake of Singapore. I learnt from them.