Singapore: National University of Singapore Press [distributed by The University of Chicago Press], 2019. xxviii, 495 pp. (Tables, figures.) US$42.00, paper. ISBN 978-981-32-5007-9.
Samuel Chan’s Aristocracy of Armed Talent attempts to replicate Morris Janowitz’s The Professional Soldier (Free Press, 1960) with its examination of the socio-historical and political rendering of the post-independence officer corps of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). Chan traces the changes that have occurred in the Singapore military during the past five decades, relying on primary documentary sources and interviews with 28 Singaporean flag officers.
For a country that viewed soldiering as less than an honourable profession, regarding the military as “little better than hired jagas [security guards]” (47), creating the armed forces was a huge challenge. While conscription ameliorated the early shortfall, attracting suitably qualified and committed men to the join the profession in arms remained a problem.
Aristocracy of Armed Talent details how these adversities were overcome (chapter 2). The role of Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s first defense minister, was critical. Goh tapped on the “pioneers”: foreign military officers on service loan, the “Old Guard” from the two oldest infantry regiments, and civil servants seconded from the Administrative Service. He established the Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute in 1966 and began an indigenous pipeline for the commissioning of officers.
Chan’s interviews reveal why Singaporeans decided to make the military a career despite its low regard, at times over familial objections (chapter 3): the allure of a scholarship, which provided opportunities for overseas tertiary education; employment; and the prospect for atypical and cutting-edge engineering and medical careers. The attractiveness of a military life was surprisingly not a primary motivation for joining the armed forces and neither was the expectation of higher remuneration, even though an SAF career offered significant monetary incentives.
Chan points out that approximately only one-third of SAF officers in service remain beyond the requisite minimum term of service (chapter 4). He discerns several reasons: the lure of opportunities beyond the armed forces, which include the pull of the private sector; disillusionment with a military career; and society’s continued lack of respect for the military profession. From his elite interviews, he offers the surprising revelation that certain officers viewed their military service in purely contractual terms, in which they extracted pecuniary benefits that were extended early in their careers. Chan also sheds light on the discontent with the way meritocracy is practiced in the armed forces: certain officers noted the lack of advancement and career ceiling due to their “non-scholar” status.
The “scholar” vs. “non-scholar” officer divide in the SAF deserves further explication. Reminiscent of the Confucian understanding of civil servants, the Singapore government offers study awards to attract the country’s “top brains” (90). The most prestigious is the SAF Overseas Scholarship (SAFOS), which since its inception in 1971, has seen its recipients rapidly rise up the ranks, as “the scholars automatically became the crème de la crème of the SAF.” This scheme “gained notoriety due to the categorization of career officers in the SAF into ‘scholars’ and ‘farmers’” (91).
Chan demonstrates that the SAF has indeed favoured scholar-officers (chapter 7). Scholar-officers get posting preferences; some hold command appointments despite poor performance; others are more likely to have second chances over officers who are more capable albeit with lower estimated career endpoints. Since 1971, one out of every three SAFOS awarded have attained flag rank; 108 out of the 197 (about 55 percent) SAFOS reached the rank of colonel and above. Scholar-officers are also more likely to become service and defense chiefs.
SAFOS’ benefits go beyond a military career (chapter 7). These officers have had their post-military transition managed for them, with the majority moving to positions in the government and government-linked corporations after retirement. Several have moved into politics; prominent past SAFOS awardees include current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, current coordinating minister for security Teo Chee Hean, speaker of parliament Tan Chuan Jin, trade minister Chan Chun Sing and former foreign minister George Yeo, and several others.
The book concludes (chapter 8) with an examination of the contemporary challenges confronting the SAF, affecting the quantity and quality of Singaporeans willing to join the military. Singapore’s peace dividend, emigration, migration, declining birth rates, and affluence are among the factors that make joining the armed forces less attractive, which will concern defense planners as they formulate the future manpower needs of the SAF.
Chan’s study is the most comprehensive examination of the Singapore officer corps to date. Although Tim Huxley’s widely cited Defending the Lion City (Allen & Unwin, 2000) covers more ground in its examination of the SAF’s organizational and operational structure, Chan offers a more empirically detailed insight into Singapore’s military elite, illustrating how the country’s socio-historical circumstances bear on the formation of the armed forces and the officer corps. With its extensive use of vignettes, the book offers a remarkably personal and deep first-hand insight into the motivations and perceptions of the country’s military elite.
The book, however, lacks a coalescing theme. The chapters, although well organized, do not cohere to develop a central argument. The study is descriptive rather than analytical, listing the motivations of the young men when they chose a military life, the reasons why they continued in the careers, and the processes they encountered as they ascended the military hierarchy. A key question, related to the book’s title, remains unanswered: Do military officers in Singapore constitute an aristocracy?
Another limitation of the book is the reliance on elite interviews, namely flag officers, without distinguishing when they entered service. This approach treats the attitudes of the early officers and those that followed as the same. Attitudes about the military service do alter over time and by interviewing only the military’s upper echelon, Chan overlooks the mindsets and motivations of the larger officer corps, the ones that constitute the majority of the SAF command.
Overall, the Aristocracy of Armed Talent provides a compelling socio-historical portrait of the leading officers in the SAF. It is a useful text for scholars interested in Singapore and military sociology.
Terence Lee
National University of Singapore, Singapore