In this blog post, we will examine the controversy surrounding the military service bonus point system, its necessity, and the key issues involved, and reflect on the meaning of true equality.

Controversy Surrounding the Military Service Bonus Point System

The South Korean government has repeatedly considered introducing the military service bonus point system or similar compensation schemes, but has not been able to institutionalize them due to opposition from women’s and disability rights groups, as well as widespread social controversy. The military service bonus point system is a system that grants a certain number of bonus points to individuals who have completed military service when they take employment exams for public institutions or private companies. This system had been in effect since 1961, beginning with the “Act on the Employment of Persons Eligible for Military Support,” but women’s and disability rights groups raised objections, arguing that it infringed upon the right to equality and the right to hold public office. Consequently, on December 23, 1999, the Constitutional Court ruled the system unconstitutional. Although discussions on reviving the system have continued on several occasions since then, the military service bonus point system in its previous form has not been reinstated to date, and social debate regarding appropriate compensation for fulfilling mandatory military service continues.

South Korea’s Security Reality and the Debate Over Military Service Bonus Points

The reason the military service bonus point system remains a constant source of controversy is closely related to the security environment facing South Korea. The Korean Peninsula remains divided, and military tensions have not been fully resolved. Amid this security environment, South Korea currently maintains a conscription system, and men who meet certain requirements are required to fulfill their military service obligations. Given this reality, many argue that men who have served the nation for a certain period on a mandatory basis deserve commensurate compensation or social benefits. On the other hand, women’s groups and others oppose the system, arguing that military service bonus points could place those who have not fulfilled their military service at a relative disadvantage in the hiring process. Thus, the military service bonus point system can be considered a prime example of a social issue where the values of compensation for military service and equality in hiring clash.

Different Perspectives on Equality

The fundamental differences in the realities faced by men and women are also a factor preventing a narrowing of the gap in opinions. It is an indisputable fact that, with the significant expansion of women’s participation in the workforce in modern society, women’s rights and social status have greatly improved compared to the past. However, since the current military service system in South Korea places the burden of military service primarily on men, various opinions have been raised regarding the appropriate level of compensation for military service. From a woman’s perspective, the fact that she may face relative disadvantages in the hiring process due to a military service system over which she has no control is viewed as a problem. Furthermore, since this logic could equally apply to those who are unable to fulfill their military service due to illness or disability—regardless of their own will—the military service bonus point system remains one of the policies for which it has been difficult to reach a social consensus.

Why is the military service bonus point system necessary?

So, should the military service bonus point system not be reinstated? I do not believe that is necessarily the case. Despite the various controversies mentioned earlier, the reason many people still advocate for the introduction of this system is that there are important values that must be prioritized over these concerns.
First is a proper understanding of the value of military service itself. Some argue that mandatory military service is a natural civic duty for men and, as such, is sacred in and of itself, so no compensation should be expected in return. However, I believe this perspective fails to fully consider the practical impact that military service imposes on individuals. Article 39, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that no one shall be subject to disadvantageous treatment due to the fulfillment of military service obligations. This can be understood to mean that, just as the state imposes obligations on its citizens, institutional measures are necessary to minimize any disadvantages arising from that process.
Therefore, rather than viewing military service merely as a factor that creates a distinction between men and women, it is necessary to also examine it from the perspective of social compensation for having served the nation for a certain period.
Some compare the burdens women face—such as pregnancy, childbirth, and menstruation—to men’s military service, arguing that “just as women must endure certain hardships simply because they are women, men must also accept some disadvantages associated with military service.” However, this line of reasoning—which compares different forms of suffering to determine which is greater—is unlikely to help resolve the issue. Rather, I believe a more fundamental solution that benefits everyone is to provide appropriate compensation for military service to men and expand welfare policies tailored to women’s needs.

The Impact of Military Service on Exam Preparation

Second is the disadvantage in exam preparation caused by military service. Those who enlist as enlisted personnel serve for approximately 18 months. Although the service period has been shortened compared to the past, this timeframe is by no means short for those preparing for civil service exams or corporate employment. Even with the existence of some bonus points, it is by no means easy to achieve a higher score than someone who has been studying continuously during that time.
In the past, there was a system that awarded a certain percentage of bonus points for various professional certifications, but the current civil service recruitment system has changed significantly compared to that time. Nevertheless, the fact that those who do not serve in the military can continue to obtain certifications, develop their careers, and prepare for employment during that period, whereas those performing military service find it difficult to fully utilize such opportunities, remains a significant point of contention. From this perspective as well, I believe the argument that some form of compensation for fulfilling mandatory military service is necessary is worthy of careful consideration.
Some argue that the environment should simply be improved to allow service members to earn academic credits or prepare for certifications after work hours during their military service. However, the fundamental purpose of the military is not to serve as an educational institution but as an organization dedicated to national security, and service members must perform various duties such as training and guard duty. Therefore, it is not realistic for all service members to secure sufficient study time. In fact, military life imposes significant constraints on how individuals can use their time, and service conditions vary greatly depending on the unit and assignment. Furthermore, since military service allows service members to acquire various experiences and competencies—such as a sense of responsibility, teamwork, and the ability to function within an organization—that are difficult to assess through certifications alone, I believe a compensation system that recognizes this social contribution also warrants thorough discussion.

How should the military bonus point system be implemented?

So, how should the military bonus point system be implemented? The first aspect to consider is the level of bonus points. The previous military bonus point system was ruled unconstitutional, and although various alternatives have been proposed since then, no social consensus has been reached. Therefore, rather than simply granting bonus points at a fixed rate, we need a system design that takes into account both the right to equality and compensation for military service obligations.
For example, some countries, such as the United States, provide certain preferential benefits to discharged military personnel during public sector hiring processes. However, since the United States has a different military service system than South Korea, it is difficult to apply this model directly. This is because South Korea operates a conscription system, meaning a very large number of people fulfill their military service obligation. Consequently, a method that uniformly grants bonus points at a specific rate is likely to spark further controversy over fairness. Ultimately, I believe the specific operational details of the system must be decided carefully, taking into comprehensive consideration the characteristics of the hiring sector and job roles, as well as the guarantee of the right to equality.

The Importance of Dialogue for Social Consensus

Furthermore, how to persuade those who oppose the policy will be a crucial factor. Public opinion on the military service bonus point system varies depending on the polling agency and the timing of the survey, and overall, there are both supporters and opponents. In other words, while there is general agreement on the need to compensate for military service, diverse views coexist regarding the specific method of implementation.
However, it is not advisable to unilaterally push forward with a policy simply because public opinion largely favors it. I believe that no matter how valid a policy may be, if the minority’s opinion is sufficiently well-founded, it is a fundamental principle of democracy to devise improvement measures through continuous dialogue. Therefore, while establishing compensation for those who have fulfilled their military service obligations, complementary measures must also be considered for those who worry they may face relative disadvantages in the process.
To this day, a primary reason cited for opposing the military service bonus point system is the concern that it may limit opportunities for those who do not fulfill military service, such as women and people with disabilities. Therefore, devising various alternatives that recognize compensation for fulfilling military service obligations while maintaining fairness in the hiring process could help reduce social conflict. I believe the key lies not in unilaterally accepting the arguments of just one side, but in fully understanding each other’s positions and creating a balanced system.

Military Service Compensation Policies Beyond Bonus Points

Finally, I believe that, separate from the military service bonus point system, various compensation policies for those who have fulfilled their national defense obligations are absolutely necessary from a long-term perspective. In fact, while the bonus point system has been cited as a representative form of compensation due to its advantage of being implementable at a relatively low cost, it is difficult to view this alone as sufficient compensation for fulfilling military service obligations.
Rather, a more substantive welfare system can only be established by implementing a range of complementary policies, such as scholarship support after discharge, expanded vocational training, employment assistance programs, career recognition, and systems linking military service to academic pursuits. Of course, since these policies require significant financial resources, it is not easy to implement them all in the short term. Therefore, I believe that gradually expanding these policies while taking realistic fiscal conditions into account is an important task that must be addressed in the future.
We have comprehensively examined the legitimacy of the military service bonus point system and the direction it should take moving forward. In particular, this issue has been the subject of intense debate for a long time because the perspectives of men and women, as well as those who have performed military service and those who have not, differ significantly. A key challenge for the future will be whether we will simply repeat our opposition without fully understanding the other side’s perspective, or whether we will strive to find a solution that everyone can agree on while acknowledging each other’s values. Social discourse aimed at achieving a balance between reasonable compensation for mandatory military service and the right to equality must continue, and I hope that a more balanced system will be established through this process.