Does it still translate to Discipline? Patriotism?

Does it still translate to Discipline? Patriotism? 

Or “thoughts after proposed mandatory military service,

 reviving the Reserve Officers Training Corps, 

and how people perceive it amidst scandals rocking the program.” 

Recently, Vice President Sara Duterte promised to bring back mandatory Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) training for secondary and tertiary schools as one of her campaign promises last election. 

Just like her father, using words like “discipline” and “nationalism” as reasons to restore the controversial program, the thought of making ROTC as well as mandatory military service has been an object of debate as the program itself been riddled with issues from corruption, using students as intelligence agents against the opposition, to that of blind obedience, as well as cases of hazing and sexual harassment against cadets. 

As argued by its supporters, restoring mandatory ROTC for senior high school and making Military service mandatory would be a means of preparing able-bodied Filipinos as army reservists and cultivating civic consciousness, discipline, and moral virtues especially in younger generations – arguments which the current administration has stood by in advocating for its return.  Furthermore, supporters wanted a need for an additional force multiplier, a ready reserve to defend and to do humanitarian/relief work, or most likely-a deterrent against domestic dissent. 

How come? In a time the administration tends to emphasise peace and order the idea of reviving ROTC and making military service mandatory is one of its top priorities to be discussed if not approved regardless of its controversies. For its supporters would say that the program can be reformed, if not trying to outweigh the issues with opportunities such as allowances and chances of service in the armed forces.  

But, like the DDS/Loyalist narrative, what drives the idea of restoring these is a mix of rural nostalgia and Marcosiana. The former glorifies "simplicity and contentment," while the latter emphasises "responsibility and discipline." Even Magsaysay's fascination and cold war hysteria against the "dreaded red" make moralist populism and the need for "benevolent" paternalism appealing to them. Of course, they will continue to claim that they will defend democracy at all times, which is sometimes contradictory to what democracy is. Nevertheless, despite their justifications, if not fascinations, that make the idea favorable, this doesn't prevent from having the controversies as stated above exposed, as well as the need for funds and resources to accommodate and sustain; in addition, since the nation isn't on a war footing, there's a little need for a general mobilization. 
It is not surprising those kind of thoughts enough to justify mandatory military service and ROTC, maybe because of the experience of Martial Rule with mobilising the cadets for internal security if not the memories of the Second World War with cadets fighting against the Japanese. However, such experience would say that maintaining a sizable backup force would be challenging. True it may be the intent to cultivate patriotism and disciple as supporters claiming to be, but the mobilization and armament of the reservists would also demand more money. A big reserve army would be useless without modernisation, as the Second World War's experience demonstrated. Furthermore, being an archipelago, the Philippines would benefit more from enhancing its naval and air capabilities (ships, missile systems, etc.) than from developing foot soldiers who can only engage in ground combat.

Altogether, that puts a halt to the proposed mandatory military service program and making ROTC remain an option within the National Service Training Program (NSTP) if not abrogated. Some would even believe students should instead have the option to take up community service or related subjects that will enhance their performance of civic duties, if not with the absence of external threats to national defense and security, a focus on military training was no longer necessary. 

But what keeps wondering if is the program they’re advocating really translate to discipline? Respect to authority? Or promoting sense of responsibility? As far as a concerned person knows that patriotism and discipline for democratic states does not mean obedience as what these supporters claiming about, but rather responsibility. Furthermore, imposing blind obedience is not the same as promoting patriotism nor discipline. Despite claims that the program promotes critical thinking and leadership, the shallow notion that "supporting the government means supporting the country" makes one reminds of "right or wrong but need to obey the commander in chief." Obviously, this instills boredom, a lack of imagination, and sloth, which contradicts the definition of patriotism: which requires inspiration, ingenuity, and effort.

And to think that the Defence secretary knew there are numerous problems surrounding the program particularly that of much needed funds and resources, of exposing uniformed delinquents and corrupt officers, does the program truly emphasise much-needed respect for human rights? The long history of corrupt and oppressive institution rooted on blind obedience has been all along streamlined to feed the interests of the current order. True that “it tried to be reformed to prevent unlikely matters to happen” but the order’s siege mentality as well as the scandals that surrounds it makes a concerned think that these trumps their valid reasons to restore the program.