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.