Immoral conscription

Re: “Different systems”, (PostBag, Dec 19).

As a former conscript into the Australian Army, I would like to debate whether Thailand should abolish conscription. I respect Felix Qui’s erudite and frequent contributions to PostBag, but I believe a point of clarification is needed in his latest letter. It is the generals, who are the product of elite officer training academies, who have invariably led the 18 coups that have wrecked Thai democracy since 1932, not the low-ranked conscripts.

And, I would ask Samuel Wright some questions: What country is he from, does it have conscription, and did he serve in his country’s armed forces? I ask this because, in my experience, it is usually those who are exempt from conscription or who were not conscripted who are often its most ardent supporters.

There might be an argument for conscription if, as Mr Qui says, that system required all able-bodied citizens of a certain age to do the same form of military service irrespective of family status or wealth”. But that is not the case in Thailand, where conscription is a lottery — red ball in, black ball out. And stories abound of wealthy families “buying” their sons out of military service.

This is inequitable and immoral, as was the Menzies-era conscription to which I was subjected, which was based on a dubiously administered birthday ballot, with numerous cases becoming public of people with the same birthday where one was conscripted and the other not conscripted. Thankfully, Australia long ago abolished conscription and relies on an all-volunteer defence force.

DAVID BROWN