Should women serve National Service?

And so it happens that I was watching "talking point" on Channel News Asia, where the topic for the episode was whether women should be conscripted into the military. Hot potato just keeps getting passed around the room it seems. In a recent survey, it has been shown that the vast majority of women support the idea of national service in Singapore, which is the use of mandatory conscription of men into the military, Singapore Police Force or Singapore Civil Defence Force. However, it seems that when asked if they would serve in NS, only 10% said they will. Such disparity begets the question of whether it is right that the current system excludes women from NS liabilities. Is it a cultural factor? A notion of masculinity that links the military to men? Or are women liable to certain forms of discrimination in such a male dominated environment?

No, women shouldn't serve!

First, let us look at the arguments many have against the conscription of women. The military is an institution that emphasizes much on physical limits of individuals, of which men have always been known to be better at. After all, in combat, in the gruelling route marches and the tough strain on our physique, the innate strength of men is an overwhelming advantage compared to women, who weren't biologically hardwired for that. While this is a most logical answer for most, they are actually forgetting that there are many vocations in the military, such as support vocations (e.g. medical corp, clerks, logistics), which do not need individuals to undergo the tough physical training of combat units. Also, is it not possible that women can be trained to perform such duties as well? In Israel, mandatory conscription into the military includes both men and women. And this system has not shown any adverse effects on women in the military. In fact, I would believe that the arguments that hot blooded young men learn resilience and many other life's lessons from the military can also be applied to women if they so decide to join the military. And anyway, not all men are conscripted into the military as cavemen. Many of us were conscripted as individuals who failed their physical fitness test, or were obese. Yet military training allowed many able bodied men to eventually gain the level of physical fitness required of a soldier.

The second argument would probably be about discrimination against women. The military is indeed a place where masculinity is over emphasized. In fact, I would even argue that the greatest motivation for those serving in the military is based in masculinity associated with being a soldier. Is it possible that women would be discriminated against in the military? Well, no. Not by first hand accounts. Those who have served alongside women in the military have told me that not only do they not discriminate against women, they actually respect these women who "do the same thing that all the guys are doing". My brother would even say that these women put to shame anyone who does poorly in physical tests or other activities. The environment where women serve is largely different as well, as majority of Singaporean men (or generally, all civilised men worldwide) have had the notions of piping down on "men's talk" before ladies.

Another reason raised was the fact that women have to take much time off for childbearing. A rather valid argument, given our low birthrate. While it is true that childbearing puts a woman out of service for a considerable period of time, given the low birthrate of less than 2, assuming that each woman spends 3 separate years from gestation to giving birth to 3 healthy children without any further complications (which would be expected with our sophisticated medical science), what about the remaining 20+ cycles of reservist, and other high key operations that do not fall in those years?

Yes, EVERYONE should serve!

Should we then believe that Singaporean women should be sheltered from the harsh duties of protecting the nation while it is no secret that men literally give their lives serving in the military every year? Already, many Singaporean men are complaining that they are lagging behind their female counterparts at the workplace because 2 years of their prime have been given to the military. Not to mention the constant need to go for In Camp Training, to pass IPPT and failing which, to go for Remedial Training. All these disrupt the career of Singaporean men and has been cited as one of the reasons why foreigners are reluctant to employ Singaporean males. But this is another topic for another day. In the mean time, girls are free to concentrate on their work and whatever pleases them without having to balance between their commitments at the workplace and a certain camp in Singapore. Is it fair that all men, ABLE BODIED OR NOT, have to be conscripted into the military, while ALL women get off scott free?

Also, I believe that conscripting women into the military would, if anything, forge a stronger sense of identity among Singaporeans. As of now, only half of the Singaporean population would have a common experience to relate to with their fellow countrymen, but what if women were conscripted too? When all of us go through thick and thin together, wouldn't we be better able to forge a society that possesses a stronger national identity?

Finally, my brother raised a point which still lingers on in my mind now. In the strife for equality, many women have made arguments that have pretty much gotten them many well deserved rights. But when it comes to contentious issues like this, it seems the use of equality is shunned by those who advocate it. If women are to be equal to men in all rights, shouldn't women also bear the responsibilities taken up by men currently? This includes mandatory national service. If we never accept that women can and should serve in the defence of the nation, how can we come to terms with accepting them as equals? In the American civil war, it was known that blacks, who were seen as inferior races, or even sub humans, were not allowed to serve in the military because they were seen to lack the right to serve in the military. In my opinion, to say that women are incapable of serving in the military because they are weak, physically or mentally, is almost bordering on peddling the treatment of blacks in the American civil war, and the only cure to this stereotype is to get the vast majority of women to prove themselves in the military.

Don't make me laugh, you can't get everyone to do it!

Perhaps, the biggest barrier to realising this is the fact that majority of women would disapprove of it (and that the ruling party is taking a bashing on the polls). In the words of a lady, a former SAF regular, who called in during the talk show, "they don't want to serve NS, they want the guys to serve them". How aptly put. Is it justified that Singaporean men are called upon to readily give their lives for a nation where women would STOMP them for sitting on trains, for women who do not understand the environment in military enough to respect the men who have emerged from it?

For those who can't imagine women serving in the military, shouldn't it be fair if women can also be made to serve 22-24 months in places such as nursing homes, day care centres for the elderly, in VWOs etc?

On a final note, I would like to touch on the use of conscription. No one should be conscripted, but if we need conscription, everyone should be conscripted. After all, we should respect the rights of all people to decide what they wish to do, if possible. But in the spirit of fairness, and in view of our falling birthrate, it is my opinion that we should eventually conscript women to serve in National Service in future.

Exams are just too close for comfort this time. CA1 and CA2 6 weeks apart. What is the faculty thinking? Maybe our seniors had it too easy and they're getting the wrong ideas on... promoting "studious, laborious, productive, scholastic students". From 2 months apart + pass/fail -> 6 weeks apart + quartile banding. 

Anyway, I was just speaking to some housemates who participated in the Inter-house championships and they were commenting on how they had joined under the impression that it was going to be a fun, friendly match, unlike Inter Faculty Games where people were out for blood (really! I've heard comments from other faculties about how Medicine is so competitive in IFG).

Well, the believers had it bad. They were all freaked out by the intensity of the competition. At the end of all their recounts and comments on the ensuing chaos and violence, I simply said, "welcome to medicine" and "that's why we're here now". Must bode well for our future healthcare scene.

Gods that walk today's world: do doctors and judges hold disproportionate power?

Just a few days ago, I was discussing about different ethics essay topics appearing in the examinations for year 1 medical students. Although I had intended for it to be last minute revision combined with crowd intelligence. However, an interesting conclusion was reached by my family, one that I had never seen despite similar facts being presented before me, or most of us who have ever been implicated in the healthcare system, or the legal system for the unlucky layman.

So, it was just a usual family discussion over dinner when my brother decided to make a statement I was told was commonly made in the legal circles. "Lawyers should not play doctor, and doctors should not play god", he proclaimed, loud and proud, much to my horror as he told me that no doctor has the right to remove patients off life-support, or to allow patients to refuse treatment that a doctor deems to be necessary for the patient's survival. While the horror wasn't due to my brother's opinion that "the plug should not be pulled", I was rather affected by how strongly he held onto his belief that doctors in the medical field (i.e. my self in the future) are attempting to play god.

Indeed, many would argue that deciding if people live or die should be a power that resides in divine powers. After all, if all men are to be considered equals in society, which is what most societies enforce with the rule of law, no one should have the power over the life of another man. However, it is quite apparent that doctors, in certain situations, end up taking charge of the fate of their often incompetent (e.g. patients being coma) patients, and a single statement from the doctor could well bring "good-willed" death to patients in the name of beneficence. If doctors are to be considered humans and hence equal to their patients, do they have the right to decide the fate of their patients without their consent?

Doctors  are not the only ones who wield such disproportionate powers. Judges can be said to wield power even greater than those of doctors. Judges, in their sentencing of individuals facing the death penalty, decide the fate of competent individuals who might have otherwise lead lives longer and potentially much more fulfilling than those of coma patients (who probably don't have social and family support as well) who are left under the charge of doctors.

It is worth noting the "distortions" within society caused by this. I can almost confidently say that many view doctors and judges as saintly figures, much like the way the view powerful religious figures. A survey conducted in the UK showed that doctors and judges are some of the most trusted people, with over 90% of those interviewed saying that they trust doctors. But some would argue that it is a matter of chicken and egg as we review how the opposite may be true as well, as these respected individuals are only conferred power because of their morality.

Less apparent to many is the impact seen in doctors as well. In judges, such information is not well collated (if at all) but I will not be surprised if it was the similar to those of doctors. It has been shown that doctors have high depression rates. Perhaps, taking on superhuman roles such as deciding on the fate of fellow human beings whose lives they see as equals has impacted the medical community adversely as much as it has made it respected. In fact, the jury system, which comprises the average man on the street, has been shown to churn out individuals who require counselling after they realised that what they have said in court lead to criminals being convicted of the death penalty. To make such decisions, to take on the role of divine powers, takes a toll on all who attempt it, lest he/she be ignorant or twisted, both of which people entrusted with such responsibilities should never be.

With all the pessimism stated above, perhaps, it should be appropriate to end off with a quote by William Shakespeare. "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them". It is indeed a sad fate that doctors (and possibly judges) end up doing stretching their minds, and more so their conscience just to find the compromise and reach a decision on what to do. But eventually, someone has to get the job done. While it may be taxing for doctors and judges to be "playing god", it is only right that they, the most qualified people, take over these roles to ensure that the best outcome is reached presumably from their superior knowledge and experience (and in many cases, intellect). To have greatness thrust upon me one day makes me fearful, but when I reach that day, I will not give this power up to anyone who will not be in a better position to make the decision than me.

After all, this is what the profession is at its best. Doctors are but a candle burning on both ends: burning ever faster to shed light to the lost and bring warmth to cold, while draining itself of all that sustains the burning passion before it runs out.

Phew mid-terms/CA1 is finally over... but I probably only got by well enough to be in the bottom quartile anyway. Strange that the school will think that giving us our quartile is going to help REDUCE COMPETITION among medical students. Save that load when you're talking to multi-talented, holistically developed students who go for international COMPETITIONs in sports and olympiads, or have been to other local sports and academic COMPETITIONs. The fact that we came in with stellar grades shows we outCOMPETEd everyone else on the bell curve. I'd be happier to know I'm still a long way from failing but sitting in the bottom quartile, which I suspect will be the case with the faculty stressing up an already academically inclined student population. 

On a side note, for anyone who actually bothers about knowing what I do/go through, this section will be shifted all the way from the front of my posts to the end of each post from now on.

Announced changes: Singapore education system

Wow it's been a long time since I posted on this blog! I guess I really meant it when I said the blog was for me to practice my GP before A levels haha. Whatever the case, the frequency, consistency, quality and content of my posts might vary quite a bit now that I have moved on to a new phase in life: med school!

I was just reading this post on RJ confessions about how the changes made to the education system are nothing more that a realignment on emphasis on achievements, rather than a solution to the problem of students being immersed into a competitive environment since their childhood. Well written, as expected of someone who has "jumped through the hoops" of our education system and made it into the "dream school" of so many parents (YES, I TOTALLLY AGREE THAT MANY PARENTS END UP CHOOSING THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS). But here's my 5 cents worth on this matter.

So, where does the problem truly lie?

Asians, being asians (especially the ethnic chinese in the Singapore context), place a strong emphasis on achievements. Already, it has become apparent to many westerners that their "yellow-skinned counterparts" are outperforming them in the academic arena at many levels. Quite a few years back, Shanghai was known to have blown the world away in a standardised test conducted across several countries, when students there were shown to be overwhelmingly proficient (here, we mean leagues ahead of even the second in line) in tests on reading, mathematics (and possibly other subjects). Also, in east asia, recurrent stories on extra tuition, cram school or any similar institutions have been a subject for many years that have passed and even more to come. The history of scholastic achievements and the strife for it in asian societies is longer than the history of paper itself, and today, confucian values still expound "working hard to bring glory to the family name". Under this system, children have to work hard to bring fame and parents have the duty to push them in that direction. How many times have we heard parents telling their children to work hard to "become doctors and lawyers" (the 2 most dignified professions here)? This is a culture we are talking about here, one as widely accepted as filial piety (which I most definitely support). Culture takes a long time to be diluted and eventually overturned. Perhaps this nation just hasn't had enough time.

Secondly, parents all want the best for their children. Or maybe, more correctly, they all want what they believe is best for their children. What in life can guarantee that more than a good education, to get them a good job, a good payslip, and with it the comforts in life? In this globalised world, to be "skilled" is to be irreplaceable, and hence, to achieve all that was mentioned before. Naturally, parents would assume that a school with a good name provides that education which secures the rest. It's not difficult to see why when almost half of law and medical school cohort here is from one single JC. Throw in a little economics on demand and supply and you can see how grade inflation sets in every year, and how it forms this vicious cycle that stresses up many students, and perhaps more importantly, their parents.

As we can see, much of the problem comes from people in the system, not flaws in the system. The education system was created to impart knowledge to students, and tests to stream out the weaker students who need extra attention, perhaps through additional years of education, so that everyone would be on a certain similar standing by the time they all start work, albeit at different ages. However, parents often misunderstand the system. To them, having their children placed into a different banding requiring "special attention" would mean years wasted away while their peers' children zoom ahead in life. Perhaps, even more parents would find it difficult to admit that it weighs down on their pride for their children to be seen as different from others, inferior to others, just the way the news reported that special needs students are not placed in special needs schools because parents do not want themselves and their children to be seen in a different light. Except in this case, the repercussions are less obvious, or less serious.

Is the tweak in PSLE scores into wider bands, and a greater emphasis on CCAs going to change anything? 

Yes. It is going to make tuition centres close down. Is it going to make education less stressful? No, rather, it will make education more stressful. A holistic education in the eyes of achievers means more things to learn, more things to be tested on, and more possibilities for bad grades to show up. In the end, the criteria for getting into top schools will only be changed from PSLE score of 2XX to PSLE score of 2XX AND proven proficiency in a musical instrument AND proven proficiency in sports  AND anecdotal evidence of "leadership" qualities. More to work on, not less. At the tender age of maximum 12, this system is arguably the worst version of educational achievements I know of. Sure, it looks impressive. Even I would want such a kid in my school. But just think about it, those CCAs that can become achievements are all financially draining. Sports would require coaches and music would require teachers, both of which schools are only able to afford at a limited extent. In the end, it is the parents who pay for extra lessons beyond the school. This simply perpetuates the rich poor divide. In the end, this just allows schools to select parents rather than students.

And leadership? Does anyone with a rational mind actually believe that primary school students are capable of leadership? As a child, I have only seen prefects, the epitome of leadership, being selected based on how obedient they are, or how academically inclined they are. None of these have anything to do with leadership. In fact, I would argue that obedience is the lack of leadership, and primary school teachers are the worst judges on this issue. And if student leaders are selected by academic aptitude, aren't we back where we started off?

What can we do? 

Nothing really. It is just depressing to know that this is the fate of being born in Singapore, or asia, as a matter of fact. Competition is cutthroat even in our childhood and adolescence. Which, for better or for worse, feels like a reflection of life beyond school. In our lives as working adults, there will always be competition. Everyone wants the best jobs, the best pay, the most glorified positions and occupations. Not everyone can have what they want, just the way not everyone can get into the school of their dreams, unless they really are exceptional individuals. In the end, it is just the law of nature that there will be gainers and losers because everyone is so inherently different in terms of physical prowess, intellectual capability or other qualities we can use as a yardstick for "accepting" students into top schools. Systems are just rules and boundaries within which us innovative humans will compete, and as long as that competitive spirit lives in us, there will be no end.

Is there really no hope?

Well, there is. If the world around us cannot change, we can change ourselves. Rather than trying to find a school with a fancy badge, we should get parents to try to find a school that can develop children to their full potential. Allow students to take up the educational route that gets them to the proficiency of their peers, not the other way around. Rather than give them tuition to send them into brand name schools, why not send them to other schools that will make up for the need for tuition? Also, stop glorifying these coveted schools. "A school for every child's needs" should be the motto of our education system and those who dwell in it. Parents need to realise that every student should be intellectually stimulated according to their individual capacity, lest we turn them off by stretching them beyond their limits. Every school can be a good school, provided it caters to a child's needs. Throwing students of all academic aptitude into the same school would only hold back the brightest and overwhelm the weakest. The government should also be sure that allocation of teachers is done in a way that would allow the vast majority of students to learn better. Having good teachers posted to elite schools should only happen if they are the only ones who can further push the already proficient students to become exceptional, and just not to help them grasp basic concepts that they could well have learnt on their own without attending lessons.

"Be a doctor, be a lawyer!"

Finally, I would like to share my own experience. I have probably lived my life in the "Singaporean Dream", being born to parents who worked their way up the social (or in our modern world, the financial) ladder, all while raising their only 2 children to join the "Singaporean Dream Professions" of a doctor and a lawyer in our prestigious local universities. But never once in my life, or in my brother's, have we been forced into living our parents' dreams. They would speak of trying for X secondary school, but emphasise that it was not the only place to be. My mother herself believed that should there be a need to, it was for the best interest for her children to be sent to the Normal Academic stream rather than the express stream if need be, so the extra year of studies can help us reach our end goal. I am thankful that we never resorted to that, but today, what I see is the exact opposite. Do we really believe that being where we don't belong will make us better? I was from a top government secondary school and JC, and every year, I am not surprised that a good number of DSA students have to retain or do badly for their O and A-levels. I have known many RJC students who lacked any opportunity to participate in much CCA because of the stiff competition there, and I certainly do not think RJC has done their talents justice. In the end, I believe that what each student can achieve depends on where they really want to be, and not where they are at present. As my brother aptly phrased his view on students he met through a series of interviews by the Public Service Commission, it's not that some JCs produce particularly exceptional individuals, but to some, by the mere fact that they are from coveted institutions, they already have a quality imbued into them that others do not possess: confidence! So whoever you are reading this, if the facts don't say otherwise, if you know you have something to offer, always keep your head held high and your spirit strong! Once you have proven yourself, where you were from makes little or no difference anymore. If you reach here, I congratulate you on your patience, and I wish you all the best for your pursuits as students, or that of your children's as parents.