And here we go again

Just caught a glimpse of the headlines on today's Straits Times. They're going to raise the severity of punishment for desertion. In most places, nobody would even blink. Desertion after all is serious business. You don't join the military and just leave arbitrarily. That would drastically impact the reliability of the military as a defensive force. So desertion has to be dealt with harshly.

But then we actually have a problem in the given context. Singapore has a conscript army. This is not about whether a conscript army can be effective or not. Military insiders have in general nothing but good to speak of the performance of the SAF NSmen. In short, in simulated battles, the conscripts actually do very well. As such, there is a case to be made for a coherent deterrence via military strength.

The issue is not with whether a conscription system is effective or necessary. No nation can survive without a military force and with Singapore's minute population, there are few viable alternatives. And as much as I would like to fantasise about the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a solution, the diplomatic problems with that just aren't worth it.

The issue, however, is with how the government relates to the citizens that they, by legislation, force into military service. I do not dispute the actual necessity of this. Singapore needs an army and this is about the only way to have one. What is rankling though is essentially how badly the government treats the people it so desperately needs for national security.

The state claims what is now 2 years of their lives, placing them in controlled but still risky training situations. In return, it provides some accomodation, no laundry services or means to clean clothing, meals and a paltry allowance. It should be noted the the aforementioned non-pecuniary benefits are also provided to the professional soldiers. The greatest difference, nuances aside, is in the remuneration.

NSF conscripts are severely underpaid. In actual fact, legally speaking, they aren't even paid at all. They are given an allowance that is a fraction of what they would earn if they were professional soldiers. Or if they worked the same hours selling burgers for McDonald's.

On the other hand, aside from the loss of freedoms, they become subject to military law, even after they are no longer serving the military as an occupation. Military law as a rule is harsher than civil law. In a nutshell, when charged under military law, an individual defends himself in a military court where he is prosecuted by the military and judged by the military. Despite safeguards otherwise that exist on paper, the potential for a Stigler-type capture remains a real and present danger. The situation does not improve when the person who charges you is both a superior officer and a professional soldier.

In the corporate world, if your manager pursues a civil suit against you, you can be reassured that the courts will see the both of you as equals in every respect. In a military court, this all becomes rather suspect.

The final nail in the coffin is of course what was published this morning. Desertion from an army you were forced to join is now punihsable by a jail term. And if you serve your military term, you will be paid a paltry allowance for the next 2 years.

Ultimately, there is clearly little balance between the carrots involved in serving the nation, and the stick involved if you decide not to. As a progressive and maturing society, it is time for the state to address this, especially if we are indeed as effective and necessary as they have preached.

P.S. The fact that if you leave after the age of 11 before enlistment, it will cost you 30 000 dollars doesn't really help the case for the status quo either.