There is a saying in my office: the job of the Military Medicine Institute is to prove that you don’t have what you say you have. It began as a joke, based on observations that we have made during our time in Basic Military Training. Unfortunately, it seems that the statement is truer by the day.

I told my colleagues the story of a recruit in my company in Pulau Tekong. He suffered from severe flat feet. The arches of his feet would collapse after running for too long, making him highly unsuitable as a frontline soldier.

He demonstrated that he had flat foot during his medical check-up. He even went to a private specialist to confirm his condition. But he was sent for PES A/B training. It took over a month before he was officially downgraded and posted out – in the interim, he was pulled out of training and spent his days sitting in the company office and running simple errands.

Fiction? I wish. It is merely just another case of irresponsibility.

The price we pay

Every time a recruit is declared ‘Out of Training/Course’ in BMT because of a pre-existing medical condition that could have been detected but was not, he would have to be sent for the next BMT recourse that caters to his actual PES status. All the money heretofore spent on him, from food to utility bills to ammunition, would effectively be wasted – and that money comes from taxpayers’ wallets.

Pre-enlistees, too, have to bear the cost of a medical misdiagnosis. My former company mate scrambled to have a private specialist to diagnose him with flat foot, after realizing that the doctors at the Central Manpower Base would send him for PES A/B BMT. Armed with this documentation, he proved to his superiors that he should be medically downgraded, and was declared OOT from the third day.

Had he not consulted his specialist, there is a very high chance that he would have suffered feet injuries before the MMI realized its mistake. But it is absurd that he had to pay a private specialist to perform a service that a military doctor could, and ought to, have done just as competently, and for free. Private specialists charge steep prices; should a pre-enlistee with a medical condition be unable to afford a specialist, and be wrongly classified during his preliminary medical check-up, he would be in for a spell of bad luck and trouble. And the SAF would then have to pay for his treatment.

Worse still is the effect on the recruits’ health. One of my colleagues has scoliosis, curvature of the spine, and was sent for PES C BMT. The simple act of carrying his military and civilian clothing and equipment to his bunk injured his spine, and he had to be excused from carrying heavy loads. It should have been a given, considering his back problem, but nothing in the SAF seems to exist unless it is officially documented in triplicate.

A few months later, he was ordered to wear a fully loaded Load Bearing Vest to the live-firing range for nearly the whole day, further aggravating his injury. He now has to perform personal physiotherapy every other hour, courtesy of several slipped discs, and can only sleep on a waterbed because regular ones would aggravate his condition. Here, the SAF has to spend time to process his injury report – his case stretches back to December 2007, and has yet to be resolved – and determine if he was eligible for compensation. A medical board is being convened to determine if he should be downgraded to PES E9L9, the lowest grading a serviceman may get before being discharged on medical grounds. The result: even more time and money spent to rectify something that could have been prevented.

Perhaps the most debilitating of all is the effect on the morale of affected servicemen. My colleague now bears a grudge against his former commanders, refusing to refer to them without using unprintable vulgarities. Every serviceman who had had to turn to a private specialist because the military doctors have failed in their job would lose his faith in the MMI, because of that failure, and would have judged it rightly. Left unchecked, the negative attitude that emerges from each lapse would extend to embrace the SAF in its death grip. Indeed, to the disaffected, ‘SAF’ is an acronym for four words. The first two is ‘serve and’, and the last is ‘off’. I will leave you to speculate what ‘F’ means.

Should his ennui be entrenched by future incidents, the serviceman would lose any incentive to do his best while serving his National Service liability. The efficiency of his unit would then be compromised in the area he is currently responsible for, be it logistics or clerical work. From a macro perspective, compounding the negative effects of each disappointed soldier, the overall effectiveness of the SAF would be further compromised – and therefore, its ability to defend Singapore.

The price of every misdiagnosis and every act of negligence is in the currency of money, time, operational readiness, and blood. We, the people of Singapore, are the only people who can pay for it.

Duties and expectations

The military sees National Service through the paradigm of duty. The average citizen, however, sees it through the paradigm of compulsion. The SAF wants to instil a sense of loyalty in every serviceman, to have him understand that National Service is a duty imposed upon all male Singaporeans to provide for the common defence, because there are too few people to sustain an army of regular soldiers. But many Singaporeans simply see National Service as a mechanism that tears their sons, brothers, fathers, husbands and lovers away from them.

Neither side is wrong. But their perspectives are irreconcilable. The death of every serviceman attributed to a military lapse would heighten the tension between them, and eats away at the military’s core. The military, in turn, would want to play down the extent of any lapses, because it – and its political masters – have no desire to lose the public’s support, which was never significantly high to begin with. I would not be surprised if stories of cover-ups were to surface; after all, nobody, least of all a regular soldier, would want to lose face. Yet this is only a temporary solution at best. It does not at all resolve the situation.

What should be done is the recognition of responsibilities on both sides. The military must recognize that it is a public organization that is mostly staffed by people against their free will. This restriction of such a basic human right must be recompensed through a pledge of honour and professionalism, to develop each enlistee’s potential to the fullest.

In the event of a lapse, especially one so severe that it leads to death or injury, the SAF must spare no effort in investigating its cause and punishing the guilty, and it must be done as transparently as possible. The military must aim to minimise the cost of maintaining the SAF, especially the cost imposed by negligence and misdiagnoses. Nothing less will do, because the survival of the nation and the honour of the military rest on the SAF’s shoulders. It is the public’s duty to urge the government and the SAF to do so, to prevent bureaucratic inertia from suffocating the investigation, as it is the public that must bear the cost of military irresponsibility.

Recognising responsibilities

Civilians, in turn, ought to recognise that they must provide for and support the common defence. Pre-enlistees should realise that only they can defend their loved ones, because there are not and never will be enough regulars to do so for them. They should play their part by meeting the rigours of National Service – servicemen by doing their best, civilians by supporting them. The legal system assures us that anybody who chooses to renege on his national duty would be punished if caught. But it is education, public messages, and the attitude of the military towards servicemen that would influence what people truly think of National Service.

The ultimate objective of this exercise is to reduce the cost borne by the public caused by negligence and misdiagnoses. When the military recognises its responsibility and acts professionally, doctors would examine pre-enlistees more carefully, commanders would care more for their men, clerks would pay more attention to their work, and so on. The citizenry would support the military in its task, and take it to task when needed. This means less public money spent on recourses and resources, less time wasted for new postings, less blood spilt and hearts lost by trainees, and a lower chance that the SAF, should it be needed, would be found wanting.

In times of peace, sons bury their fathers. In times of war, fathers bury their sons.

Let us hope that it becomes so.

—————–

The author wishes to remain anonymous.

—————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Dentists up in arms, call for Special General Meeting over proposed new framework which will affect public 

A group of dentists in Singapore are up in arms against the…

约占教育部全年预算1.8巴仙 国际生奖学金、学费补贴预算共2.38亿元

工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon Perera)续在国会追击教育部,质问该部对国际生的开支。贝理安询问教育部长,过去10年来,政府每年在国际学生平均开支多少;以及在技职学院、初级学院和自主大学的学生总群体人数中,目前接受政府任何形式财务援助的外籍学生巴仙率。 为解答议员提问,王乙康表示,第一点,我国教育体制核心目的是为国人服务,没有国人会因为国际学生而从高等教育学府中被排挤。 他说,高等学府都有设下录取资格,在本地和国际上保持水准,确保学生有能力应付学业,且能符合市场和业界需求。 在上月8日,教育部长王乙康透过书面回答,我国政府确实为国际学生提供少量奖学金,每年总支出高达1亿3000万新元。不过,他解释政府的确为就读于我国学校和自治大学的国际学生,提供少量奖学金。有关的奖学金总值相当于教育部年度预算的130亿元中的一巴仙,即1.3亿元。 王乙康在今日也重申,130亿元大部分都用在本地学生身上,确保教育成本可负担。 他说,虽然上次已阐明,国际学生的奖学金仅占教育部年度预算的1巴仙,但一些网络消息却扭曲报大叔,从1.3亿元夸大到三亿元。 “真正的开支,我相信肯定少过1.3亿元。”至于国际学生的大学学费补贴预算,则为1亿800万元。 故此,加上奖学金和学费补贴,政府针对国际生的预算总开支,高达2亿3千800万新元。 强调各国透过大学招揽人才 王乙康认为,如果我国不录取国际学生,那么本地学生将会失去同其他国家学生建立关系的机会,也没有机会扩大社交圈子。此外,他强调全球各国都一样,都是透过大学来招揽人才,即便新加坡的人才也被他国招揽,人才的竞争是全球性的。 王艺康补充,全球最佳大学如牛津、耶鲁、慕尼黑大学等都有提供奖学金,很多欧洲大学提供奖学金或免费学费等,有400名我国学生在法国和德国大学受惠。…

TOC apologises to Ms Stephanie Chok

TOC responds to Alex Au’s blog post.

MAS suffers net loss of over 6 bln USD

The loss represents about 3.5 percent of the central bank’s average total assets. Xinhua Net.