I'm a girl, so maybe I'm not even in the best position to comment on MINDEF. And before anyone says, "Then women should do National Service too," that's not the discussion I'm trying to have.
I came across an article saying MINDEF is recruiting volunteer emcees, performers and technical production crew for events.
I have absolutely no issue with volunteerism.
Volunteers are the backbone of charities, community work and social causes. They step up because they're helping people who genuinely need support.
But this feels different.
What I don't understand is why a well-funded government organisation, supported by taxpayers and staffed by well-paid civil servants, is asking people to do work for free. And this isn't even for defence operations—it's for event entertainment and production.
This isn't about qualifications.
It's about principle.
If an organisation can afford to pay someone for a job, should it be asking volunteers to do it instead?
Lawyers do pro bono work. Doctors volunteer on humanitarian missions. Tutors help underprivileged students for free.
They do it because the people they're helping often can't afford those services.
MINDEF isn't a charity struggling to make ends meet.
The issue isn't whether Singaporeans are willing to volunteer. Many are, and that's admirable.
The real question is whether volunteerism is slowly replacing paid work.
Emceeing, performing, operating sound and lighting, managing registration, logistics—even sweeping the floor. Every role has value, and every person's time has value.
Those same volunteers could be spending their time helping seniors, children from low-income families, people with disabilities, or other social causes that genuinely rely on volunteers.
Volunteerism should support a meaningful cause, not become a substitute for paid labour.
Just because people are willing to do something for free doesn't necessarily mean organisations should ask them to.
Am I missing something, or does this blur the line between volunteerism and free labour?
Comments