June 17, 2008
RECENT DEATHS IN THE MILITARY
By Bernard Fook Weng Loo
WHAT should the military do when its personnel tragically lose their lives in the course of training?
This is a potentially loaded question, for how one answers it can lead to the person being labelled as either insensitive to human tragedy or irresponsible about the demands of national security.
The question becomes an even greater minefield when it is addressed to a military that has known no wars.
The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) decided last week, in the aftermath of the deaths of two of its personnel in the course of training, to suspend training while it reviewed all its training safety regimes.
Given that the two deaths occurred on consecutive days, though in different locations, it would be tempting to think that their cause was lapses or gaps in the SAF's training safety regimes.
The review conducted by the SAF since has shown that this was not the case. In both instances, training safety regulations were followed. The SAF's safety regimes are indeed stringent.
The numbers bear out the SAF's claim. In the preceding nine years, there have been 19 training-related fatalities in the SAF. In comparison, a United States government agency puts the number of non-combat-related fatalities in the US military during the Clinton presidency at 3,953, although it does not indicate how many of these fatalities were the result of training activities.
Seen in this context, the number of training-related fatalities in the SAF has been remarkably low. It is possible to draw two conclusions from that fact.
One, the SAF's training systems have become lax, and this would account for the low number of training-related fatalities. Two, the SAF's training systems are tough, and its safety regimes have kept the numbers of training-related fatalities low.
The purpose of military training is to prepare soldiers for combat operations. That means training has to replicate as closely as possible the harshness and risks of the combat environment.
Before World War II, the German and Soviet armies had notoriously tough and realistic training. As a result, their training-related fatalities were extremely high.
One can clearly go overboard in trying to replicate a combat environment. But the point nevertheless remains: military training, even in peace-time, has to closely replicate combat conditions. To have it otherwise would be irresponsible.
This means that any citizen enlisting in the armed forces, whether voluntarily or through conscription, is entering an environment where the risks are inevitably higher than in virtually any area of civilian life.
If the main purpose of National Service is to ensure an SAF that can function effectively as a deterrent and a defender against armed aggression, military training has to be as realistic and tough as possible.
Granted, the point is not to die for one's country; it is to make the other fellow die for his country, as American general George Patton was alleged to have said.
Nevertheless, to slacken in training rigour would only result in a military organisation that is unable to meet the demands placed on it. Given this necessity, training-related deaths during National Service will almost certainly occur.
So is the SAF's training safety regime inadequate in any way? The numbers suggest that its safety record is actually rather good. And the fact that the SAF is often lauded by foreign military observers for its professionalism suggests that its training is tough, realistic and effective.
In other words, there may be nothing wrong with either the SAF's training systems or its training safety regimes.
Of course, National Service is not just about the creation of a credible and potent SAF. The institution of National Service serves a second, equally important, function: Namely, national identity formation.
Singapore may not have grand symbols of national identity like America's Statue of Liberty or France's Eiffel Tower or Japan's Mount Fuji. But there is one thing that unifies all Singaporean males above the age of 18 - and that is National Service.
Indeed, while National Service directly impacts only Singaporean males, it still has an effect on all Singaporean families, as people go through the experience of watching their sons, brothers and boyfriends go through this national institution.
In this regard too, training rigour is important. Most Singaporeans who have gone through National Service have heard of two names: 'Tiger' Hong and Encik Shamsuddin, who were legendary (perhaps infamous) for their toughness.
There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence of soldiers, who had been trained by them, speaking with pride of how they endured the privations and rigours of military training.
National Service creates a common pool of shared memories and experiences. These shared memories and experiences really need to be forged in fire. National Service - precisely because it is tough and on occasion life-threatening - makes it easier for those who undergo it to bond more effectively.
All of us who have been through National Service ask acquaintances where they served. We swop stories of how we endured National Service and how we sneaked in moments of enjoyment in the midst of deprivation and degradation.
There is no way to make this sound palatable to the families who have sons who lost their lives while in National Service, but military training has to be tough, but generally tolerable.
For military training to be effective, it has to replicate the extreme conditions of war as closely as possible. In the event of a war, it is such military training that will save lives - Singaporean lives.
There is one final issue. It is important to remember that these soldiers lost their lives in the defence of the country. The very claim that the SAF makes - that its deterrence posture ensures Singapore's continued stability and security - means that every soldier, past and present, was and is defending the country.
When a solder loses his life as a result of military training, the country has to demonstrate its genuine sorrow and gratitude to that soldier's family.
Both the soldier and his family made the ultimate sacrifice, and they deserve to be honoured and respected accordingly. Otherwise, the soldier would have died a meaningless death.
As a nation, we cannot allow that to happen.
[Comment: When NSmen die in training or in combat, they died in the service of the nation. They died defending our nation. There is purpose in their service, and there is sacrifice in their death, and there is honour and nobility in their service. Because National Service in Singapore is not just "play, play".
It is about serious defence and deterrence.
As an aside, National Service in Malaysia lacks this element of serious purpose. And until they realise this, copying Singapore's National Service to forge racial harmony is misapplying the programme.]
RECENT DEATHS IN THE MILITARY
By Bernard Fook Weng Loo
WHAT should the military do when its personnel tragically lose their lives in the course of training?
This is a potentially loaded question, for how one answers it can lead to the person being labelled as either insensitive to human tragedy or irresponsible about the demands of national security.
The question becomes an even greater minefield when it is addressed to a military that has known no wars.
The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) decided last week, in the aftermath of the deaths of two of its personnel in the course of training, to suspend training while it reviewed all its training safety regimes.
Given that the two deaths occurred on consecutive days, though in different locations, it would be tempting to think that their cause was lapses or gaps in the SAF's training safety regimes.
The review conducted by the SAF since has shown that this was not the case. In both instances, training safety regulations were followed. The SAF's safety regimes are indeed stringent.
The numbers bear out the SAF's claim. In the preceding nine years, there have been 19 training-related fatalities in the SAF. In comparison, a United States government agency puts the number of non-combat-related fatalities in the US military during the Clinton presidency at 3,953, although it does not indicate how many of these fatalities were the result of training activities.
Seen in this context, the number of training-related fatalities in the SAF has been remarkably low. It is possible to draw two conclusions from that fact.
One, the SAF's training systems have become lax, and this would account for the low number of training-related fatalities. Two, the SAF's training systems are tough, and its safety regimes have kept the numbers of training-related fatalities low.
The purpose of military training is to prepare soldiers for combat operations. That means training has to replicate as closely as possible the harshness and risks of the combat environment.
Before World War II, the German and Soviet armies had notoriously tough and realistic training. As a result, their training-related fatalities were extremely high.
One can clearly go overboard in trying to replicate a combat environment. But the point nevertheless remains: military training, even in peace-time, has to closely replicate combat conditions. To have it otherwise would be irresponsible.
This means that any citizen enlisting in the armed forces, whether voluntarily or through conscription, is entering an environment where the risks are inevitably higher than in virtually any area of civilian life.
If the main purpose of National Service is to ensure an SAF that can function effectively as a deterrent and a defender against armed aggression, military training has to be as realistic and tough as possible.
Granted, the point is not to die for one's country; it is to make the other fellow die for his country, as American general George Patton was alleged to have said.
Nevertheless, to slacken in training rigour would only result in a military organisation that is unable to meet the demands placed on it. Given this necessity, training-related deaths during National Service will almost certainly occur.
So is the SAF's training safety regime inadequate in any way? The numbers suggest that its safety record is actually rather good. And the fact that the SAF is often lauded by foreign military observers for its professionalism suggests that its training is tough, realistic and effective.
In other words, there may be nothing wrong with either the SAF's training systems or its training safety regimes.
Of course, National Service is not just about the creation of a credible and potent SAF. The institution of National Service serves a second, equally important, function: Namely, national identity formation.
Singapore may not have grand symbols of national identity like America's Statue of Liberty or France's Eiffel Tower or Japan's Mount Fuji. But there is one thing that unifies all Singaporean males above the age of 18 - and that is National Service.
Indeed, while National Service directly impacts only Singaporean males, it still has an effect on all Singaporean families, as people go through the experience of watching their sons, brothers and boyfriends go through this national institution.
In this regard too, training rigour is important. Most Singaporeans who have gone through National Service have heard of two names: 'Tiger' Hong and Encik Shamsuddin, who were legendary (perhaps infamous) for their toughness.
There is a mountain of anecdotal evidence of soldiers, who had been trained by them, speaking with pride of how they endured the privations and rigours of military training.
National Service creates a common pool of shared memories and experiences. These shared memories and experiences really need to be forged in fire. National Service - precisely because it is tough and on occasion life-threatening - makes it easier for those who undergo it to bond more effectively.
All of us who have been through National Service ask acquaintances where they served. We swop stories of how we endured National Service and how we sneaked in moments of enjoyment in the midst of deprivation and degradation.
There is no way to make this sound palatable to the families who have sons who lost their lives while in National Service, but military training has to be tough, but generally tolerable.
For military training to be effective, it has to replicate the extreme conditions of war as closely as possible. In the event of a war, it is such military training that will save lives - Singaporean lives.
There is one final issue. It is important to remember that these soldiers lost their lives in the defence of the country. The very claim that the SAF makes - that its deterrence posture ensures Singapore's continued stability and security - means that every soldier, past and present, was and is defending the country.
When a solder loses his life as a result of military training, the country has to demonstrate its genuine sorrow and gratitude to that soldier's family.
Both the soldier and his family made the ultimate sacrifice, and they deserve to be honoured and respected accordingly. Otherwise, the soldier would have died a meaningless death.
As a nation, we cannot allow that to happen.
[Comment: When NSmen die in training or in combat, they died in the service of the nation. They died defending our nation. There is purpose in their service, and there is sacrifice in their death, and there is honour and nobility in their service. Because National Service in Singapore is not just "play, play".
It is about serious defence and deterrence.
As an aside, National Service in Malaysia lacks this element of serious purpose. And until they realise this, copying Singapore's National Service to forge racial harmony is misapplying the programme.]
No comments:
Post a Comment