“We should not discriminate against those who are well-off
on the grounds of social justice”
PSC Chairman Eddie Teo, on defending scholarships and some scholars
- Home
- Blogs & Sites
- Moderation
- TOC Store
- Vision, Mission & Core Values
- Join Us!
- Contact Us
- Privacy
- RSS
All rights reserved. Singapore Wedding Videography and Photography | Cream Pictures
In conventional military, a command can only get their man to fight efficiently after 2 years of bonding as PC.
Then the company commander stage will take another 2 years.
All military command need at least 4 years of field service at company commander and below. First, to build a team of comrade in arm that will trust the commander with their life. These team of commrade will then move on with the commander to next level, this is how chain of interrupted command works in army. Its most effective when people knew personally that the commander is going to bring them to victory.
All military commander went through this stage and whenever they went, they brought along some their previous staff.
While I do not know how long really these SAF BGs spent on field. (lee Hsien Loong)8 years to BG, I do not know how much he really knew about soldiering and how much he contributed to merit this.
All outstanding commander has 1 characteristic. They in infront. Rommel brave bullets in the front building brigdes with his combat engineer.
I never see any of SAF BG digging a single trench. What I know is they are perpetually in aircon room.
In short, they have no integrity no caliber and (might not be able to pass IPPT and SOC)
I don’t know enough about military doctrine to contradict most of what you wrote. You could write to MINDEF and see what they have to say?
I do know that you are wrong in implying that BGs generally dig trenches alongside their men – I seriously doubt any army in the world practices this as combat doctrine.
But don’t misunderstand – I never said topping military schools makes a scholar deserving to be appointed BG. In fact, none of my examples were BGs. I was only making a specific point that “too young” is not a valid criticism on its own as these officers are able to do well compared to more experienced peers.
I also said that I understand that topping a class at Sandhurst is not the same as winning a war. In fact, I believe nothing can replace actual combat experience. But we also can’t wait for a war to prove our soldiers before we appoint any generals.
If 1) too young is not a valid criticism, and 2) we don’t wait for a war to appoint generals, then I think it follows that we should just appoint the best person to do the job. That is why I went on to talk about selection based on merit, although I only talked about the current situation as I have no information about how generals were selected in the past e.g. PM.
*Kenneth
As i mentioned before, you selected quotes come from very carefully composed speeches and statements of public and govt leaders. These statemnts are made to support one view the govt’s view. Therein lies the problem when discussing this issue wit other posters here – we are seeing the issue from very different perspectives.
I choose to see the term scholarship in its most basic definition and what is stands for – i.e.. financial assistance to the talented who are unable to afford higher education to further realize their potential. I have a problem with the ‘scholarships’ as defined by PSC or our govt – as a means to attract and retain talent.
Instead of subverting what is essentially a honorable scheme to help the underprivileged, we now have scholarships given to the privileged. I would rather the PSC rename their so called scholarships as what it is – Finanical Aid for Civil Service Bondage or FACS. Lets call a spade a spade and lets not corrupt the original meaning of words. This is what our leaders are good for especially when it comes to terms like ‘human right’, ‘democracy’ and ‘meritocracy.’
You have clearly taken my statement ‘to level the economic playing field’ far beyond its original meaning. I made the statement with reference to scholarships, and seen in this context, my statement is an extension of the original intent of the term. I certainly did not imply anything about forbidding parents to send their children to enrichment classes etc.
Parents can do all they want for their kids with the means they have to give them a head start; the govt’s role, where scholarships are concerned, is to provide a sponsored head start to those without means. Right now, if you have the means, your head start begins at a very young age. So lets us do the right thing and help those who simply have no way of helping themselves.
And if the universities here truly wants to ensure that every qualified person is given a chance at a tetiary education, why have astronomical fees in the first place? Why not have practically free education for our citizens as it is in many countries like Australia and Germany. Citizens here pay five figure sums every year for their university education while our taxpayers money goes to scholarships for the rich (53%) and foreigners (yes thats another issue!).
Where a scheme can be used to be a tool for social good, I find it sad that our authorities have used it to create an elite class of wealthy, powerful people intent on preserving their superior roles in our nation. I find it sad that our govt has used it for their own selfish intents without paying heed to the masses and instead, chastise us for discriminating against the rich. I must say we have to be the only nation in the world where a senior civil servant has made a statement like that.
Re 51) Kenneth
Well Kenneth, say whatever you want to say but we have all plenty of young BGs in army which got their rank earlier many great soldiers.
You may argue this is the best system in the world which I cannot prove anything otherwise except that no army elsewhere doing it is self evidence enough to show it is a junk system. Otherwise, the US would have implemented it.
And definitely we would have trashed people like Powell, Patton for they are failed in exam but are among the greatest soldier proving themselves better than those exam kids.
Our system actually murders great soldiers.
If there is little for army to prove their talent, those appointed in GLCs may give us benchmark.
Bey Soo Kiang since his appointment on SIA brings only dismay results bring our once profitable airlines to serial loses. Worse still, those ex-SAF in Temasek ( you know who ) basically gamble all our hard earn saving.
Kenneth many are already self evidence. These air-con BG is good because our government say so. They failed miserably once there is a benchmark.
“I do know that you are wrong in implying that BGs generally dig trenches alongside their men – I seriously doubt any army in the world practices this as combat doctrine. ”
This is the trait of all great general although it is deemed absurb in practice.
L General Erwin Rommel built bridge with his combat engineer braving enemy fire with his men. M General Rommel’s tank is always in the front of Afrika Corp.
Most great soldier (very often even at brigate level) lead soldiers at the front.
The counter-intuition practice is against all combat doctrine but it has one extremely valuable purpose.
It energise all the soldiers.
Now you get it and now you know why air-con BGs are useless. Or are you implying Rommel is stupid?
Dear Kenneth
http://books.google.com/books?id=sIZHRDSGiDMC&pg=PA119&dq=IDF+officer+candidate&lr=#v=onepage&q=IDF%20officer%20candidate&f=false
The above links you to how the best army in the world (our teacher as well) IDF, Israeli Defence Force form its officer.
It took them 5 years to graduate as a PC.
Because IDF believe that only officer can only earn the trust of men and comrade working together that duration of time. Else, it would have an ineffective fighting unit, (maybe a unit full of air-con BGs).
We learn many stuff from IDF and why not follow them on their promotion system as well, since they are a success proven system. Whereas we can only speculate and boast how good our BGs without firing even a shot at enemy.
Mindef knows best what is the reason.
Dear sloo,
I apologize if I took your comment on leveling the playing field out of context – it was not deliberate. Also, I quote from government speeches for points that I agree with – I hope that the source does not detract from the content. I hope it is clear that I am representing my own views, even when I am using someone else’s words.
I believe you have asserted a basic definition of scholarships that is incorrect. http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx and
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn both give the following definition “financial aid provided to a student on the basis of academic merit.” I have not seen a source which says that scholarships are strictly (or were originally) awarded for the purpose of social equity. The writeup in Wikipedia, although US-biased, further substantiates this understanding, describing different types of scholarships.
That said, I do not object to the idea of increasing the weight or special consideration given to scholarship applicants who come from poorer families. But this is not a black and white issue – a grey line is drawn once you need to define how poor is poor? And select, based on merit, who to award scholarships to within this group of eligible applicants.
Because there is no numerical quota on scholarships, I see the award of scholarships to so-called rich-kids as a separate issue, meaning that it does not take away from the opportunities given to applicants from poorer families. Fundamentally, I agree with the concept of using scholarships as a talent attraction mechanism to attract talent regardless of socio-economic background because I feel that the civil service needs to attract some of the best brains+hearts to serve Singapore.
May I ask if you know anyone who has missed out on a university education because he couldn’t afford the fees? I would suggest the case be raised to MOE for their attention because this is something they have promised wouldn’t happen.
I understand that I am seeing the issue very differently from other posters – but that is why I thought discussion would be useful. People who already agree would not benefit from a discussion as much as people who disagree but are trying to understand each others’ points of view. There will be more than one perspective on every issue and even if each side fails to persuade the other, it is still constructive to understand new perspectives.
I agree that our civil service leadership could be more diverse in terms of social and educational background. But I do not agree that scholarships have “created an elite class of wealthy, powerful people intent on preserving their superior roles in our nation.” That is an unfair description of most of the scholars that I know. In fact, scholars who are mainly driven by money are more likely to leave for a more lucrative pay package overseas than to stay in the civil service to “preserve a superior role” for the so-called elite class in Singapore.
Just to be clear, I would like to ask if you see the government’s scholarship policy as a bad decision and lousy policy, or do you really see the entire Singapore government as completely corrupt and using scholarships for their “own selfish intents?”
To: http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/
I have not argued that our system is the best system in the world. I only have said that your arguments are unfair and I do not accept your assertion that it is self-evident that our system is junk.
Two of your supporting statements to argue that our system is junk are:
1. Otherwise, the US would have implemented it.
2. Our system actually murders great soldiers.
First, I would not measure the merit of our system by what the US has implemented. Second, our system has produced good soldiers acknowledged by other militaries including the US, even if they have not proven themselves in a war.
You also said that “And definitely we would have trashed people like Powell, Patton… [truncated],”
Just to clarify, Powell graduated in 1958 from City University in New York, and earned his MBA in George Washingtopn University in 1971. Patton was forced to repeat his plebe year at the United States Military Academy for poor performance in mathematics but eventually graduated in 1909 as Cadet Adjutant (our equivalent is one step below SOH). I do not know whether they would have the same opportunities to rise up the ranks in our system but I do not think we would have “trashed them” and especially not Patton.
Do I think Bey Soo Kiang has done poorly in SIA? I think so, acknowledging at the same time that I have access to pretty limited information to draw this conclusion. But I also think Nixon did poorly. And Madoff. And Tian Wenhua. But I do not think Bey Soo Kiang received his SAF appointment because he was once a scholar, which is what I believe you’re trying to imply.
Deliberately provocative language is seldom constructive. I was not implying that Rommel was stupid. I was implying that, notwithstanding one positive example, no army in the world requires that BGs dig trenches alongside their men as part of combat doctrine. Neither the Israelis nor the United States armies have this as part of their combat doctrine. In any case, the Division command trench is dug by Combat Engineers, not Division HQ personnel so the point is entirely moot.
If you were trying to talk about whether the men in the unit respect our generals then I think the answer is specific to the individual unit. I am not famliar with too many SAF units but among the units that I am familiar with, at least those under Lim Chuan Poh and Teo Chee Hean had a great deal of respect for them.
Re Kenneth 57)
Powell is a Cs student in CCNY, one of the less academic challenged university in USA.
Patton was forced to repeat his plebe year at the United States Military Academy for poor performance in mathematics.
You look at our top beuracrat and how many of got Cs in Uni and how many of them ever repeat in their studies?
Our system has all those EM3 and NT which is a point of no return. Patton may have been stream to EM3 or NT given a slight mishaps. Which General of Patton’s Level in SAF ever repeat OCS and given a chance to rise on top? Maybe there is but I knew none.
What about HK top beuracrats like Donald Tsang and Tang King Shing, they joined as A level. Where is our top boss from A level entry. Isnt it self evidence that our scholarship class actually prevent the rise of people who deserve it?
All these late boomer may prosper under a true meritocratic system but no ours. Is it not self evidence we have steamrolled non scholar?
About digging trench, I did not mean it literally. What I mean is all great soldiers either love to spent a great deal of time with man or quality time with give their man lasting impression that they sacrifices their life. Many lead in front. Sorry I give the wrong cue.
At least on their days when they are junior or middle level officer.
How our general are well like I am not too sure. But I can tell you our conscription is a total failure if we benchmark with IDF(if you want I will explain).
How capable our SAF scholar is, the time you know is they went to profit oriented private sector, example Temasek. They are among the worst.
And IDF officer serve a total of 4 years. If he he good, he will be consider for company level command. I do not know why BG Lee can attained his position just around 8-9 years of real service in SAF.
Re 57) Kenneth
I want also to explain why our SAF system will not work when others do not implement it.
In democratic country, every life lost in battle produces a hugh anti war sentiment. Hence, all democratic government strives to fight as efficicently as possible.
Take for example the best soldier in democratic country is Israel.
It may be possible the Israeli parachute white horse or scholar in some point of time to high ranks of army. (remember every countries have their privellege class who want nothing less than commanding position)
If it produces good results and good command, they would have continue doing it and with more vigor.
The fact that Israel especially, requires its commander to spend significant time in career as low and middle ranking officer instead of a “groom leadership” track shows that there is no basis for 32 years old BG. (unless he is Napoleon)
Do you think SAF can win IDF in war? And how you compare SAF commanders to IDF legendary soldiers? And why IDF forged concensus that commanders should never have our kind of short circuit track?
If a cambridge scholar can win a war better than an IDF verteran, IDF is certainly willing to adopt our system.
We learn many things from IDF unfortunately our elite like too much to promote fast and young.
To: http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/
I repeat that I do not know enough about military doctrine to debate this issue.
That said, if I were to speculate, then no, I do not think SAF can win the IDF in a war. The IDF has rich combat experience, and I do not think anything can replace combat experience. They also (probably) have superior technology from the US and the benefit of using experienced soldiers to train their new recruits.
But I do not think that anyone would credit a hypothetical IDF win over the SAF simply to the rapid career progression of SAF generals. I think that the real problem would be lack of combat experience, followed by IDF’s superior technology and training. But I do not have an answer as to how we should get real combat experience. Training, however realistic, will always fall short.
I understand your point – rapport between leaders and the ground is important. And not just in the military. But I disgaree with your assertion that all our (scholar) military leaders have no rapport with soldiers on the ground because of my personal experience with good counter-examples. And I completely disagree with your statement that our generals have “no integrity no calibre.”
To: http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/
No, I do not think the SAF can win the IDF in a war. This is because the IDF has rich combat experience – I do not think anything can replace combat experience. Furthermore, IDF probably have superior technology from the US and superior training from their war veterans. Experience, technology and training will, in my view, matter much more than how fast the generals progressed in their careers.
But I understand your point – you are trying to emphasize the importance of rapport between leaders and the ground. I agree that this is important, in fact for all leaders and not just those in the military. But I disagree with your assertion that all our scholar military leaders have no rapport with the ground. And I completely disagree with your statement that all of them have “no integrity no caliber” because I know of concrete counter-examples.
Re 62) Kenneth
I have raise several points and not just this one. You have failed to reply me why there is no Donald Tsang and friends here.
Next please do you due diligent to read more about how other military works before even commenting. Do a google book search.
And I am going to give you one more doctrinal lesson. Historically, all army started off with white horse system. Thats all the OCS and non-comms rank system came about. The aristocratic (aristocrat are best educated people) basically has a short circuit career.
It evolve into the current form where aristocrat no longer able to have parachutte because the white horse short circuit system are not able to match the efficiency of the system IDF and other modern armies have. Thats why it dies out though not completely.
And why not we go the IDF way since they are combat proven?
And scholarship system not only injured the army but the whole society as well. We do not have industrious and creative output because our government lock in many of the above average people.
Next government thinks they can emulate the french dirgiste system by asking scholars to run GLCs which till now failed miserably.
Singapore is the only Chinese society without significant entrepreneur. What a shame.
Even the French ENA system is the most corrupted system in the whole western democratic world. Ours is even worse than them.
I believe asking scholar to run the army might not be the worst system, There are plenty of junk system like asking relatives, cronies to run the army. I agreed scholar on the whole may make some sound judgement sometimes. Unfortunately, there are much better way of doing things elsewhere.
And I want also to conclude our conscription is a failure now. Must I cite IDF again?