Helen Drayton
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” That proverb reminds us not to be easily deceived. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal, even in difficult circumstances.
The Government has said the Military-Led Academic Training Programme (MiLAT) “has not been shut down” and that discussions are underway between the Defence Force Reserves and the Ministry of Tertiary Education to determine its future, with Minister Sturge promising further details by month-end. The young men and their teachers affected shouldn’t lose hope. These traumatised youth, now uncertain about their future, must stay committed to productive lives. In the interim, if retired military officers and the other mentors can continue to support them through meetings at community centres, churches, or other venues, their ongoing guidance would be an immeasurable national service.
In just 18 months, the Government has abruptly taken away the livelihoods of thousands. It has now “suspended” MiLAT in a similarly abrupt manner, pending a review of the programme’s financial viability and structural reform, citing “severe financial constraints” and the view that it is “not economically viable in its present form.” But was it necessary to suspend operations while conducting that review, given the serious impact on livelihoods?
What does “not economically viable” mean in the context of a social programme? The focus should not be solely on the expense incurred but on whether MiLAT delivers better outcomes than the alternatives for many of these young men—unemployment, gang involvement, repeated contact with the criminal justice system, or imprisonment. At the same time, it would be unfair and offensive to stereotype and assume that every MiLAT cadet would otherwise have become a criminal. To assess social viability, a comprehensive evaluation framework would include establishing measurable benchmarks for success to strengthen public accountability, including graduation and completion rates; job placement; dropout rates; improved academic achievement; tracking graduates who later offend and those who excel; and evaluating audited costs.
MiLAT was introduced in 2007 to give young men aged 14 to 18 life-changing opportunities. The intake is estimated at 60-80 cadets yearly, with an estimated 1200-1500 cadets graduating since inception, with varying levels of secondary school examination certificates. It serves those who struggled in the conventional education system, were socially marginalised, lacked positive mentorship, and were at risk of being drawn into crime. Without school-leaving qualifications, many face limited employment prospects.
MiLAT builds the nation’s human capital through academically and technically qualified, disciplined young men with high self-regard and the ability to lead and work in teams. Graduates enter the military, police service, other public services, security companies and commercial businesses. From a national perspective, a social project’s capacity to generate desired social returns justifies its cost. These social returns yield economic benefits.
Significantly, it is a voluntary programme, meaning these young men choose to become productive citizens and aspire to serve their country. Comparing the cost per cadet to that of university or secondary school students is irrelevant. Needs and circumstances differ. MiLAT is a residential programme requiring the State to provide, among other essentials, accommodation, uniforms, meals, academic and military instruction, counselling, a daily stipend, and certification opportunities.
The estimated annual cost of $97,000 (2024) per MiLAT cadet versus approximately $250,000- $300,000 per prisoner is notable. Crime imposes enormous costs, including policing, courts, prisons, business losses, reduced investment, and victims’ trauma. Preventing even 100 young men from entering the criminal justice system yields substantial public savings.
MiLAT should be viewed as an investment in prevention, not only an education programme. If it consistently produces productive young men, improves educational attainment and employment for a high-risk group, reduces welfare dependency, and increases productivity and consumption, those benefits far outweigh the cost per cadet.
There are obvious weaknesses; even getting statistical facts is virtually impossible, so there’s good reason for the Government to review and even enhance the programme for greater efficiency. Given its track record with the shutdown of CPEP, Reforestation and URP, and the suspension of the Civilian Conservation Corps —all of which served vulnerable people—don’t be fooled. Have hope and confidence in yourselves.
