‘Defending what’s ours’. That is the new tagline from the recent advertising campaign for National Service. In an article on The Online Citizen (TOC), an article was written on the above topic and local blogger Sam Ho was cited. In his blog, Sam Ho voiced his unhappiness with the National Service. He quoted the oath all enlistees undertake:
“We, Members of the Singapore Armed Forces, do solemnly and sincerely pledge that: We will always bear true faith and allegiance to the President and the Republic of Singapore. We will always support and defend the constitution. We will preserve and protect the honor and independence of our country with our lives.”
Sam Ho then stated his thoughts on the oath and National Service.
“I think the oath has to be revised. We need to protect our economy, our foreign talents and do the jobs foreigners cannot and do not want to do, i.e. National Service. Mind you, time and again, the government has force fed us with the rhetoric and reason that foreign talents in Singapore are recruited to do the jobs Singaporeans cannot and do not want to do. Well, that is true to a large extent. If we saw beyond the xenophobia, we will come to realize, is it worth it defending what’s ‘ours’?”
“I do not share the same definition of ‘ours’ as the government and its self-professed state-independent military organization do.”
Inevitably, many would have their doubts and dislikes regarding National Service. The occasional tale of the death of a soldier never fails to generate a negative public response. Furthermore, most men in Singapore that have been through the SAF as part of their National Service obligations tend to dislike their time spent there. This general unhappiness with the SAF organization could be derived from negative personal experiences. I had to admit that my time in the SAF was not always a pleasant one. I personally do not believe in National Service. It tore me away from my family, my work and the things I love to do. I do not want to be part of any organization that promotes and reinforces dominant gender norms and norms. It is possible the SAF are failing in the aspect of organizational communication.
So let us take a closer look at organizational communication.
An organization is a system consisting of a large number of people working together in a structured way to accomplish multiple goals.
-Trenholm (2005)
An organization is interdependent and contains a hierarchical structure. Other typical characteristics of an organization include orders and ranks, specialization and bureaucracy. The SAF is such an organization.
In a successful system of organizational communication, members of the organization are subjected to organizational structure (hierarchy) and positions. Members should be driven not by personal goals, but by common or collective goals. Members should likewise be formal and deferential with a degree of relational distance and detachment.
Organizational communication employs formal channels of communication. Information flows through a structured chain of command made explicit in an organizational chart. In order to be successful, information should have downward flow, upward flow and horizontal flow. In National Service, there is usually a lack of upward communication. Perhaps it is because the management generally neglects upward messages. It is probable that subordinates who are ambitious, insecure or distrustful might distort or withhold upward information. Upward communication such as through progress reports, feedback and suggestions schemes could help to improve the organizational communication in the SAF.
Moreover, an informal organizational structure could improve organizational communication in the SAF. An informal structure is effective as it satisfies the individual’s personal interest and needs unlike the formal channels. An informal organizational structure would generate mainly useful information with minimum rumors. Although information may be incomplete, accuracy levels can be comparatively high (75% – 95%). Information can likewise be more reliable than formal channels.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 15, 2009 at 7:38 pm
M.T
National service is always a very depressing time for male Singaporeans. Many of us if given a choice, don’t want to serve. Its not that we don’t like it, national service just isn’t for all of us. Some of us just ain’t made for the army.
March 18, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Marcus
The aspect of organisaitional communication in the SAF is interesting. I believe that all communication within organisations is very important toward the success of the organisation. The SAF should improve on their organisational communication and maybe more people will start to find favour with them.
March 18, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Weitiong L
Speaking from personal experience, I believe that the SAF has good downward and horizontal communication. However, I agree that the SAF needs to work on their upward organisation.
Upward communication may just be as important as the previously named two forms of communication. Most of the time, the lower ranks are too afraid of communicatiing to the higher ranks. The higher ranks also may easily disregard feedback from the lower ranks.
March 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Keith Koh
I think it’s time to convert National Service to a voluntary obligation.
For a long time, we have been fed that Singapore is in danger of invasion from other nations. I guess this danger exist only in our leaders’ ‘beautiful minds’.
If Taiwan is converting its conscription-based armed forces to a voluntary one, I don’t see why not Singapore can’t do that as well. It’s shameful that a first-world nation like Singapore is still resorting to a outdated defense policy.
In modern warfare, wars are not won by only manpower.
March 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Abu
National Service or conscription should be aborted or at least seriously relooked, NS interferes with the personal developments of our youth. It does not make our youth more patriotic nor contribute significantly to the defense of our nation.
March 23, 2009 at 6:57 pm
KY
The Government should seriously look into the National Service and determine the need for conscription in today’s modern world.
Soldiering as a voluntary profession allows citizens to be gainfully employed and provides the people careers. A professionally trained armies certainly makes better fighters than conscripts that are largely unwieldy and uncommitted, many, like me, even loathe being conscripted.
March 25, 2009 at 2:26 am
James Y
NS is a psychological thing – hence “ours” for the sense of belonging & something to defence. Nothing wrong with it for nation building, social cohesion and racial harmony. Our NS helps to deter possible enemies as well. Happy to serve too.
March 26, 2009 at 10:57 pm
K H
Ministers serving the country are paid millions of dollars. NS boys serving the country are paid a miserable $400. That is a huge difference. Furthermore, NS boys have no choice thus the low pay given. Maybe we shld give NS boys a slice of the fat bonuses. Perhaps an ORD bonus would be nice.
March 26, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Pei Xuan
I think National Service should be abolished if not reduced. I feel that NS extracts a heavy toll on the nation’s resources such as financially and with regards to manpower. Furthermore, external threats faced by our nation is no longer significant compared to the past. There is no need for a citizen’s army in modern times, unlike the past where there was a real threat from regional countries and communism.
March 27, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Guy R
Hmm… NS is a waste of time la. If its so impt why not get the girls to do also? Then we will have more ppl to defend singapore too. Alot of girls like to talk abt NS even though they nv been through it. How its so gd, help discipline guys etc…