So … there’s this farce of an independent survey about how Singaporeans feel about National Service. For those who have missed it, the link is here.
Holy cow! Where do I even start with the amount of discrepancies and contrarieties found in this so-called "independent" survey?
For starters, the survey was conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, at the National University of Singapore. Yes, the University and the Institute may be independent of any governmental agency, but let’s not kid ourselves here, can one really be assured of “independence” when the School has been named after perhaps the greatest leader on planet Earth? Surely, any discerning mind would easily draw the conclusion that findings from the School would be in line with the great man himself; rather than against. Meanwhile, I bet my critics will argue that it is merely a name and that one should not read too much into it.
Furthermore, the study was commissioned by a group called the “Committee to Strengthen National Service” (page 2 - http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/NS-study-8-Oct-2013_web.pdf). Now, I don’t know anything about this group, but it’s fair to say that they’re not here to work out the carbon emissions of Singaporean farts. From the name alone, it would appear that they are pro National Service, which raises questions on its validity and accuracy. So, this raises ANOTHER question – if the study had shown a poor perception of National Service, would it have even seen the light of day? Again, critics will bring up the fact that it is merely a name, but as William Shakespeare has so eloquently said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” or in this case – a governmental proxy by any other name would stink as bad.
Then of course, there’s the number of people surveyed. Now, I am not a statistician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know that a sample size of 1251 for a population of 5.3 million people is not too bad (based on the confidence and margin of error). However, if one were to actually look at the percentage of people surveyed, one would be hard-pressed to put any degree of confidence in the findings. 1251 divided by 5.3 million equates to a paltry 0.024 of a percent. It’s not even one percent; it’s not even half a percent; it’s not even a quarter of a percent!
Furthermore, just who are they actually surveying? (Have a look at page 38 - http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/NS-study-8-Oct-2013_web.pdf). Any good survey would include both sexes, people of all ages and needless to say, people of all races. However, wouldn’t a survey on the attitude towards NS be focused more on men? Yes, women have strong views on the subject too, but ultimately, they are not the ones who have to go through it and I personally believe that that changes the results of this survey. Unfortunately for this survey, they’ve actually interviewed more women than men (50.4% versus 49.6%). Surely when it comes to a male-specific issue like National Service, more emphasis should be put on the male perspective. At the very least, the number of females should not outnumber the males!
Moreover, participants get an invitation letter from the NUS, which could easily turn prospective participants off, and possibly even skew the results (Have a look at page 5 - http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/NS-study-8-Oct-2013_web.pdf). If someone sympathetic to the opposition, like me, got a letter from the School, I would have taken one look at it and thrown it out. Now, I can’t speak for everyone, but I suspect many others would do the same. Similarly, if someone who wasn’t overly academic received a letter from the NUS, that person could easily be turned off and not respond. As such, the people who responded to the invitation would probably not be truly representative. Oh, and let’s not forget about the fact that the School is getting people who can be bothered to sit at home and wait for an interviewer, then invite them in for the next half an hour.
However, perhaps the most important question to ask is – what nationality is being surveyed here? “Aha, you moron! It’s clearly written on the graphic that 1251 Singaporean citizens were polled for the study,” I hear my critics shouting, while gleefully rubbing their hands together. However, a closer look at the published findings (http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/NS-study-8-Oct-2013_web.pdf) from pages 37 to 39 will show that PRs were also interviewed, although they were omitted from the results.
What I REALLY want to know is how the interviewers ascertained the nationalities of the people being polled. I suspect there are a number of foreign-born Singapore citizens who carry the once-revered pink I.C. These are the poor people, who become citizens and bear the heavy burden of a good job, a safe, secure environment, modern housing and infrastructure but unfortunately do not get the privilege of spending two years digging trenches, running in the hot sun, area cleaning and all the other fun shenanigans in the army or any other uniformed group. Don’t you think their views on this subject may be a little skewed? But in all seriousness, if any one of the 1251 people being polled is foreign-born and did not do NS, then this survey is irreparably distorted.
So to me, the survey is a bit of a joke. But you know what’s worse than a meaningless and distorted survey? Propaganda that’s based on it! One glance at the Institute of Policy Studies’ website on this study (http://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/news/ips-report-on-singaporeans-attitudes-to-national-service-2013) and you’ll see a list of the usual suspects of propaganda-peddling vomitus.
From the articles waxing lyrical about the many benefits of National Service, to the ones purporting the wonderful relationship that exists between employers and reservists; the one that really disgusted me was the article championing National Service and its role in character building. Maybe someone should take the time to remind the Lieutenant Colonel who abused the poor dog, as well as the SAF, which punished the whistleblower and not the perpetrator of the abuse, of this (http://therealsingapore.com/content/mr-spencer-my-son-saw-lieutenant-colonel-brutally-hitting-dog-pasir-ris-camp).
By BlackandWhite
TRS Contributor