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: "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 2: "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 3: "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 4: "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 5: "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 6: "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 7: "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"

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
