Argument: One of the great strengths of national service is that it demonstrates that everyone is equal

Both the Constitution and the National Security Act [1] make it explicitly clear that there are occasions when individuals in South Korea must surrender some of their liberty in the interests of preserving the state. These pieces of legislation and others reflect the reality of living next door to North Korea. The whole point of legislation that preserves the state is that it applies to everybody.

Particularly in the instance of national service, the moment it becomes optional it ceases to work. No doubt many of those who have been arrested under the NSA took the attitude that it really didn’t, or shouldn’t, apply to them. It does.

Even if a compelling case could be made for celebrities to have the right not to serve, it is inconceivable that such a case could be made exclusively for celebrities. It is hard to see how the national interest is well served by having someone appear in a soap opera or a record sleeve but not by having someone in an emergency room or classroom.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_(South_Korea)#cite_note-2

Candidate 1: "Celebrities fulfill two important roles that allow them to demonstrate that they are better serving the national interests by pursuing their careers. The first is the unifying and moral building effect on the nation. It is even possible to argue as some scholars have [1] that in an increasingly fractured society, celebrities may be the only people who can have a unifying effect.

The second role is taking an international profile. They act as a constant reminder to the world of the existence of South Korea and that it is a free country with a thriving arts scene. These roles make a far greater difference to the process of protecting the state and the freedoms for which it stands than they could ever do as just another man in fatigues.

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00380.x/full"
Candidate 2: "There may well be a case to be made that certain other professions or groups should be given exemptions. That does not, however, demonstrate that celebrities should not. This simply reflects the fact that, by definition, celebrities are not typical citizens.

They provide a valuable role in society and that should be recognised. They provide entertainment and glamour in peoples’ lives, they promote Korea around the world and they are also very few in number.

News reports whenever a celebrity undertakes national service are always keen to stress that they will not receive special treatment, it is difficult to see why. Historically, entertainers serving in military forces around the world are always used to build national morale and yet in South Korea they are not. It is this instance that is the exception to the rule."
Candidate 3: "Celebrities are in the unusual position of requiring constant media attention

The career path of celebrities is unusual in that it accretes over time on the basis of the performers standing in the public mind. Unlike other professions this does not lend itself to taking two years out of the limelight, especially years when fame is coming to its height.

The media is notoriously fickle and equally well-known for having a short memory. It generally struggles to stay interested in a celebrity if they’re out of the limelight for more than a few weeks. It is simply unfeasible that they would remain interested when someone has been out of the spotlight for over two years. In effect this means that for a Korean musician or actor their career will finish at the age of 29.

In other profession it is possible to build a career around national service and employers know that at some point any young man they employ will need to undertake their military service but celebrities simply aren’t employed in this way."
Candidate 4: "Having the age of 30 as the cut-off point is uniquely unfair to performers as this is the age when they are likely to be at the height of their fame and towards the end of their career.

For most professions, getting military service out of the way early in one’s career makes sense. Nobody would suggest that members of other professions should be expected to interrupt it when they are at the height of their profession. In reality for most people this would be when they are in their fifties. For professions like acting and music this tends to be the late twenties and early thirties. Indeed, for pop singers in particular their career is likely to be over when they are 35.

In the light of this setting the age limit where it is is uniquely unfair to performers – just as it is to athletes.

Military service anywhere in the world is considered to be something you undertake before your career, not in the middle of it. Regulations should reflect reality, in this instance that means allowing performers to get on with their careers."
Candidate 5: "In practical terms how would you define who should be given an exemption and how do you prevent abuse?

The advantage of the current system is its universality, it does not require any interpretation of who is and is not included. Who exactly is a celebrity? How do you define that and how do you insure that it isn’t used to cover the children of law makers and other influential individuals?

Celebrity, almost by its nature, is impossible to define and the moment you attempt to do so – ‘all professional singers’ for example – you create a loophole that people will rush through."
Candidate 6: "Anyone setting out on such a career is aware of the legal requirement to undertake service in the armed forces. There is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it before they start their career. There are plenty of jobs where it is inconvenient to have to take an extended break. Anything relating to technology or research, for example, where there is a need to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field is fairly unforgiving of such a break and so people build their careers around it, knowing that at some point they will be out of the loop for 24 months or so.

To suggest that it is more important that a pop star is able to keep on recording but that it is for scientist and technicians in the most wired country in the world to keep up with changes in technology is as inconsistent as it is unfair. The case of the performer is clearly weaker it’s simply that they have the status and fame to mean that they can make a big fuss about it and people will notice.

Whatever the vanity of celebrity may suggest it’s just another job and it’s questionable as to how much benefit it actually provides to society at large.

Further pandering to that vanity by suggesting that society can’t cope without a particular singer or actor for two years is ridiculous. There is no shortage of people wanting to do the job."
Candidate 7: "It seems, frankly unfair to ask people to destroy their careers on the basis that it will encourage others to do something that the law already requires of them. The legislation for national service was structured on the basis of a country that was very different from modern day Korea. In 1953 Korea was the poorest country in the world and national service was, among other things, a useful tool for training and providing employment for the young. That is simply no longer the case. The legislation and the principals that underpin it are simply not designed to deal with a Korean in their twenties who is already recognised around the world and has a staggeringly successful career.

It’s clear that the framers acknowledged that there was at least one profession where people could excel while still young – hence the exemption for highly successful athletes. The fact is that 60 years ago the idea of a rapper, singer or actor who could genuinely promote Korea around the world was simply not there."
Candidate 8: "Celebrities, unlike athletes, work for themselves whereas athletes represent the country. Military service means representing the nation to the rest of the world as does being an athlete, that’s the reason for the exemption, not simply a matter of celebrity.

The psychologist Hwang Sang-Min [1] has made clear that “Entertainers are thought to work for their own sakes. That’s the difference.”

Park Ji-Sung and his teammates were representing their country and achieved a national first. Granting an exemption recognised their accomplishment on behalf of the country. In a very literal meaning of the phrase they performed national service.

Equating such an accomplishment with a performer who is simply doing their job – for which they are well paid – misses the point of the exemptions. Singers and actors happen to be Korean; they are not acting or singing for Korea. Indeed given the speed with which some performers have given up their nationality in a bid to avoid national service, comparing it to a genuine national accomplishment seems absurd.

When actors such as Song Seung-heon attempted to avoid national service they were rightly decried and their actions have far more in common with the sons of politicians and businessmen who seek to use their status to avoid the draft.

[1] Salon.com , Jim Lee, Pop Sensation Rain Joins the South Korean Army"
Candidate 9: "It could be done in much the same way as with sportsman where ‘exceptional achievement’ is recognised concept and, while difficult to define, is easy to apply. As long as the whole process takes place transparently it should ensure that it is not abused. The issue is not so much introducing exemptions to the universality of the current system but, rather, ensuring the transparency of the process.

There are already abuses of the system with the children of the powerful, the so called ‘sons of gods’ often finding ways around the law. That is not a difficulty of definition, it’s simple corruption."
Candidate 10: "There are many professions that could more sensibly be given exemption such as teachers

Only in a world truly and unhealthily obsessed with the cult of celebrity would pop singers and soap stars be at the top of the list for exemptions to military service. Surely scientists and surgeons would have a better claim. Indeed with shortages of professionals reported in both science and technology [1] it would seem to make far more sense to offer opt outs there in an effort to encourage more people to study the subjects at university and to make their careers in those areas.

On the basis that people are not even given an exemption on the basis of religious or moral conviction, it seems perverse to give exemptions on the basis of fame [2] .

[1] http://www.prospects.ac.uk/south_korea_job_market.htm

[2] http://www2.gol.com/users/quakers/korea_solidarity_for_CO.htm"
Candidate 11: "Celebrities, like athletes, enhance the nation’s image and generate revenue

The South Korean government issues occasional exemptions to athletes who have won an Olympic gold medal or achieved a similar feat. If we accept that the law ought to be consistent then there is no reason why entertainers should not be proffered the same opportunity. Both professions tend to favour the young and the requirement that military service needs to be completed before the age of thirty mean that either career would be interrupted just at the point when the individual is likely to be at the height of their skills.

Equally both groups bring prestige for Korea as a nation. Entertainers like Jung-Ji Hoon (Rain) have just as much of a following as athletes such as Park Ji-Sung who, along with his team mates on the Korean national team was exempted from military service for reaching the semi-finals of the world cup [1] .

Indeed Rain predominantly works in Korea and has a following throughout the country and the region whereas Park has spent most of his career playing for foreign teams.

[1] Arsenal Forum , August 30 2011"
Candidate 12: "Again, there is nothing to stop celebrities doing their military service before they start performing but, even were that not the case, military service is not something that is undertaken because it is convenient or easy but rather something that is done because it is necessary. The country is at risk of invasion, it is still technically at war with the North and in the last Kim Jong-Il has become increasingly erratic.

Of all professions surely performers, with their peculiar interest in the combination of a consumer society and the right to freedom of expression have the greatest interest in insuring that the north doesn’t invade. Neither wars nor dictatorships are particularly known for encouraging the performing arts."
Candidate 13: "Celebrities are respected by young people and this is a way in which they can act as a role model and set a positive example.

At a time when the 1950-53 war is becoming less relevant to peoples’ daily lives and all generations, particularly the youngest, are becoming reluctant to fulfil their duty in a country that is still at war, celebrities have a powerful opportunity to act as role models for others to fulfil their national service obligations.

Allowing them an opt out would set a terrible example. By definition they are of a generation with others entering the military and there is a powerful symbolism in their doing so as well.

By contrast allowing them an exemption would encourage others to try and find a way out of serving.

Although it seems probable that in the event of a conflict the main protagonists would be the USA and China rather than the conscript armies of North and South Korea, there would seem to be a definite benefit in having the male population trained sufficiently well to take on civil defence duties and to be able to ensure their own safety and that of their families."

Celebrities fulfill two important roles that allow them to demonstrate that they are better serving the national interests by pursuing their careers. The first is the unifying and moral building effect on the nation. It is even possible to argue as some scholars have [1] that in an increasingly fractured society, celebrities may be the only people who can have a unifying effect.

The second role is taking an international profile. They act as a constant reminder to the world of the existence of South Korea and that it is a free country with a thriving arts scene. These roles make a far greater difference to the process of protecting the state and the freedoms for which it stands than they could ever do as just another man in fatigues.

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00380.x/full
