Mindef policy of early retirement for senior army officers.
-
Top army officers must give up their full time military post for secondment b4 45.
This has resulted many young generals 'floating' around taking up top post in statutory board. Couple of them also get into politics.
We also read about their military rankings ( reservist ) on the newpapers. Since have to serve to 50 why 'retire' so early. Singapore should have a couple of more experienced and matured generals in the Mindef too see us through in time of crisis.
USA General Peter Pace the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is 62 year old.
Canada's General Hillier the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces is 52 years old.
Singapore chief got replace at around 42-44 years considerable young age.
Govt says we lack of talents.
What the implications on the image of the country with more and more generals running the shows in the future. Our practice is abit different from the West.
Comments , comments please. -
It is a system where the leader is feeling extremely insecure about his position. So he retires all the good people as early as possible using excuses like putting in new blood or talents to revitalise the older leaders ..err except the leader himself.Originally posted by qpicanto:Top army officers must give up their full time military post for secondment b4 45.
This has resulted many young generals 'floating' around taking up top post in statutory board. Couple of them also get into politics.
We also read about their military rankings ( reservist ) on the newpapers. Since have to serve to 50 why 'retire' so early. Singapore should have a couple of more experienced and matured generals in the Mindef too see us through in time of crisis.
USA General Peter Pace the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is 62 year old.
Canada's General Hillier the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces is 52 years old.
Singapore chief got replace at around 42-44 years considerable young age.
Govt says we lack of talents.
What the implications on the image of the country with more and more generals running the shows in the future. Our practice is abit different from the West.
Comments , comments please.
So Goh Keng Swee was too good in his job and might pose a challenge to his position. Toh Chin Chye has the strategic outlook about what singapore needs to survive and upgrade.
One by one all will have to go under the name of new blood replacing old blood and they were all gotten rid of.
Military men were conceived as people who are likely to create power base and they were all subjected to rotational deployments.
Ministers too were treated in the same way and many were shifted out of their established ministry to avoid building of loyality or power base.
This has been our self-centred leadership system for years. That is why singpapore has no chance to build excellence. -
The old man never puts a General in charge for too long, think he's afraid of a coup d'état, the longest serving General I know of is Winston Choo, think after that, old man retires the Head of Joint Chief of Staff every few years.Originally posted by robertteh:It is a system where the leader is feeling extremely insecure about his position. So he retires all the good people as early as possible using excuses like putting in new blood or talents to revitalise the older leaders ..err except the leader himself.
So Goh Keng Swee was too good in his job and might pose a challenge to his position. Toh Chin Chye has the strategic outlook about what singapore needs to survive and upgrade.
One by one all will have to go under the name of new blood replacing old blood and they were all gotten rid of.
Military men were conceived as people who are likely to create power base and they were all subjected to rotational deployments.
Ministers too were treated in the same way and many were shifted out of their established ministry to avoid building of loyality or power base.
This has been our self-centred leadership system for years. That is why singpapore has no chance to build excellence.
New blood replacing old blood? Was rumoured that the old man has that procedure performed on him every month. -
This is done to keep the military vibrant and to make the military a viable career option - if this was not done, promotion would be very very slow. In addition, if you do not kick them out at 45, these people would have no chance in their second careers.Originally posted by qpicanto:Top army officers must give up their full time military post for secondment b4 45.
This has resulted many young generals 'floating' around taking up top post in statutory board. Couple of them also get into politics.
We also read about their military rankings ( reservist ) on the newpapers. Since have to serve to 50 why 'retire' so early. Singapore should have a couple of more experienced and matured generals in the Mindef too see us through in time of crisis.
USA General Peter Pace the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is 62 year old.
Canada's General Hillier the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces is 52 years old.
Singapore chief got replace at around 42-44 years considerable young age.
Govt says we lack of talents.
What the implications on the image of the country with more and more generals running the shows in the future. Our practice is abit different from the West.
Comments , comments please.
I think they have overdone it abit though. Only the very best should be generals and generals should be able to serve till they are 60+. IMO. -
And then the Govt puts these inadequate morons into jobs that they have no competency in, short of making them champions of their much vaunted scholarship system.Originally posted by robertteh:It is a system where the leader is feeling extremely insecure about his position. So he retires all the good people as early as possible using excuses like putting in new blood or talents to revitalise the older leaders ..err except the leader himself.
So Goh Keng Swee was too good in his job and might pose a challenge to his position. Toh Chin Chye has the strategic outlook about what singapore needs to survive and upgrade.
One by one all will have to go under the name of new blood replacing old blood and they were all gotten rid of.
Military men were conceived as people who are likely to create power base and they were all subjected to rotational deployments.
Ministers too were treated in the same way and many were shifted out of their established ministry to avoid building of loyality or power base.
This has been our self-centred leadership system for years. That is why singpapore has no chance to build excellence. -
thats the outcome of awarding SAF scholarships, PSC scholarships, and what nots. In order to keep these scholars happy, they must have somewhere to go mah. Its only by top-led movement that the bottom rungs can move.
That means ppl who aspire to grow up from the ground and move up are facing tougher times. And I agree, many times these retired armed forces honchos are given cushy jobs in govt-related companies, examples are aplenty, and their results, I think there's room for doubts. -
I doubt it's to give these generals a second career, they are forced to leave, because the old man fears military coup. If a general stays too long in his position, he can garner enough power to do a coup. Old man realised that a coup is a way his hold on power can crumble, that's why they have this policy of not letting a general stay in his position for too long.Originally posted by scabstermooch:This is done to keep the military vibrant and to make the military a viable career option - if this was not done, promotion would be very very slow. In addition, if you do not kick them out at 45, these people would have no chance in their second careers.
I think they have overdone it abit though. Only the very best should be generals and generals should be able to serve till they are 60+. IMO. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:New blood replacing old blood? Was rumoured that the old man has that procedure performed on him every month.
-
No wonder the papers recently mentioned that our blood bank supply going low....
-
Why? Because we are special nations
-
these men may be in uniform but they are certainly no military men....they are used as managers, not much different from those in the civil service....the top general doesn't stay in his position for more than 3 - 4yrs and a good part of those years are spent studying post-graduate programme to prepare their 'return' to administrative service...this was as the media reported....return? i had thought the military was their first calling.......
apart from choo and subsequently ng jui peng, i can't for hell recall who were at the helm...not that it matters....there's a double edged sword to all this rotation....you remove the threat of a coup but you also fail to build loyalty should you need it during an armed crisis.....same thing for school principals, every 4 years they get rotated out...and every new broom sweeps clean, how to build continuity??
all generals are given extended careers, so fear not for them.....you see plenty of them as perm secretaries, directors in glcs and then some in the foreign service and finally, there's always the red-cross.... -
Second career may not be on the mind those who are passionately wanting to serve in the military service, to serve the country. A couple of good generals should be able to serve longer, 45 is bit too young to lead an army.Originally posted by scabstermooch:This is done to keep the military vibrant and to make the military a viable career option - if this was not done, promotion would be very very slow. In addition, if you do not kick them out at 45, these people would have no chance in their second careers.
I think they have overdone it abit though. Only the very best should be generals and generals should be able to serve till they are 60+. IMO.
The private sectors will be starved of the people it needs. -
The Chief of Air Force is a President's Scholar. Has 6/6 perfect eyesight. May well be the next Defence Minister.
-
Actually the real reason why they have early retirement for senior army officers is because of the army's policy of not sacking inefficient regulars... what they do is they keep transferring them around and creating new posts just to put these inefficient regulars somewhere...
To the SAF, just fire those that you deem inefficient and the army will be a more efficient fighting force.... -
did someone just suggest coup? in sg?
-
Gov give scholarships, give them a high and fast track career, then at their prime ,before these scholars have enough experience vision to start to think about being the number 1 and overtake , ask them to retire and leave. Its life in the fast lane.
-
Yah, and you see what fcuk up strategies US came out with in IRAQ, cuz these old man never update themselves and gets dissociated by strategizing in their ivory towers...Originally posted by qpicanto:Top army officers must give up their full time military post for secondment b4 45.
This has resulted many young generals 'floating' around taking up top post in statutory board. Couple of them also get into politics.
We also read about their military rankings ( reservist ) on the newpapers. Since have to serve to 50 why 'retire' so early. Singapore should have a couple of more experienced and matured generals in the Mindef too see us through in time of crisis.
USA General Peter Pace the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is 62 year old.
Canada's General Hillier the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Forces is 52 years old.
Singapore chief got replace at around 42-44 years considerable young age.
Govt says we lack of talents.
What the implications on the image of the country with more and more generals running the shows in the future. Our practice is abit different from the West.
Comments , comments please.
Mindef is good in allow them to early promote, do something good/great while they are up there, and then let others have to chance to do their stuff too. Not like USA where the big oldies stay on top and prevent young ones from coming up.
Also, MINDEF will always give good management jobs to these people when they finish they jobs up there, like some CEO or General Manager or in GOVERMENT jobs or MPs, so that they can further grow, in terms of knowledge on other stuffs, like a new field, etc. Pay almost always increase also.
So, my take is good one for Mindef. -
It's easy for USA to win the war, but not the ideas of people, US has managed to take control of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not the people there in; it's like another Vietnam.Originally posted by nightzip:Yah, and you see what fcuk up strategies US came out with in IRAQ, cuz these old man never update themselves and gets dissociated by strategizing in their ivory towers...
Mindef is good in allow them to early promote, do something good/great while they are up there, and then let others have to chance to do their stuff too. Not like USA where the big oldies stay on top and prevent young ones from coming up.
Also, MINDEF will always give good management jobs to these people when they finish they jobs up there, like some CEO or General Manager or in GOVERMENT jobs or MPs, so that they can further grow, in terms of knowledge on other stuffs, like a new field, etc. Pay almost always increase also.
So, my take is good one for Mindef.
The USA has proven that it can win battles but not the hearts of people; what has MINDEF proven? Has MINDEF taken part in any war or battles? The closest we have come to war is peace keeping missions. We are much like the Generals strategizing in an Ivory Tower; everything is good in the war theatre and in paper, but when an eventual war breaks out, I wonder how many will suffer from shell shock. -
As I said, they need to leave so that others can progress and the army is kept vibrant. If they have to leave anyway, it is best to let them go at 45.Originally posted by qpicanto:Second career may not be on the mind those who are passionately wanting to serve in the military service, to serve the country. A couple of good generals should be able to serve longer, 45 is bit too young to lead an army.
The private sectors will be starved of the people it needs.
THe only problem with the way the scheme works is that way generals are removed so early. Perhaps it is to prevent them from gaining a power base (not that any of them are competent enough to start a coup anyway...). Apart from that it is a good idea. -
why the US have to go to war? they are just like kids, they just want to prove something? like prove to the world they are 1st class army? Or they deliberately want to have war so as can train their soldiers?Originally posted by maurizio13:It's easy for USA to win the war, but not the ideas of people, US has managed to take control of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not the people there in; it's like another Vietnam.
The USA has proven that it can win battles but not the hearts of people; what has MINDEF proven? Has MINDEF taken part in any war or battles? The closest we have come to war is peace keeping missions. We are much like the Generals strategizing in an Ivory Tower; everything is good in the war theatre and in paper, but when an eventual war breaks out, I wonder how many will suffer from shell shock.
Mindef is WISE not to engage in these ANTI-KARMA activities.
As to experience, it can be gained through bi-lateral, or multi-lateral exercises, live-firing, etc.
Do you think if there is real world-war, we would be using armies to conquer lands or for defense? It would be IT-war, air-bombing, nuclear etc, soldiers activities are secondary anyway. -
THe US doens't need to prove it can win wars. The world already knows that. FFS the US spends more on defence than the rest of the world combined. The IRaq war is a silly and illegal war prompted by stupidity and blind nationalism. The afghanistan war, whilst more justified, is being conducted in a misguided manner and will last for years and years.Originally posted by maurizio13:It's easy for USA to win the war, but not the ideas of people, US has managed to take control of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not the people there in; it's like another Vietnam.
The USA has proven that it can win battles but not the hearts of people; what has MINDEF proven? Has MINDEF taken part in any war or battles? The closest we have come to war is peace keeping missions. We are much like the Generals strategizing in an Ivory Tower; everything is good in the war theatre and in paper, but when an eventual war breaks out, I wonder how many will suffer from shell shock.
That is not to say that I have confidence in Mindef. Let's face it, if you join the Singapore army, you are not generally what people would call 'talent'. One really wonders why these people wants to join the SAF. I suspect the thought of having to slug it out in the real world has proven too scary for many of them. -
SIngapore supported the invasion so I do not know what you are talking about.Originally posted by nightzip:why the US have to go to war? they are just like kids, they just want to prove something? like prove to the world they are 1st class army? Or they deliberately want to have war so as can train their soldiers?
Mindef is WISE not to engage in these ANTI-KARMA activities. As to experience, it can be gained through bi-lateral, or multi-lateral exercises, live-firing, etc.
Do you think if there is real world-war, we would be using armies to conquer lands or for defense? It would be IT-war, air-bombing, nuclear etc, soldiers activities are secondary anyway.
Your assesement about soldiers being secondary is also silly. You will always need soldiers. -
You need to have perfect eyesight to become Defence Minister?Originally posted by norm:The Chief of Air Force is a President's Scholar. Has 6/6 perfect eyesight. May well be the next Defence Minister. -
US invaded Iraq because of oil. Kids? Don't think so. They are technically superior in conventional and unconventional warfare.Originally posted by nightzip:why the US have to go to war? they are just like kids, they just want to prove something? like prove to the world they are 1st class army? Or they deliberately want to have war so as can train their soldiers?
Mindef is WISE not to engage in these ANTI-KARMA activities. As to experience, it can be gained through bi-lateral, or multi-lateral exercises, live-firing, etc.
Do you think if there is real world-war, we would be using armies to conquer lands or for defense? It would be IT-war, air-bombing, nuclear etc, soldiers activities are secondary anyway.
Exercises and live firing exercise with planned out scenarios hardly resembles a confrontation in war. In an exercise everything is planned, so you would expect everything to run in sequence, it's like playing a chess game where you know your opponent's move in advance, whereas in real wars, every move and countermove is a big unknown. You charge to over run the practice enemy right now, wonder how many would charge against a real enemy firing real bullets at you. Would you? I certainly wouldn't, most probably I would engage in trench warfare.
Defence? Singapore will not sustain a long stretch war, it will run out of resources like food in maybe a month. IT war? nuclear war? You must be fantasizing. Foot soldiers are still the primary force in any wars, how can it ever be secondary, you can see from the invasion of Iraq, the amount of troops that was deployed to occupy Iraq. Ground troops will never be secondary in any confrontation! -
the usa went to war because bush got lobbied by the defense contractors...they wanted to make and sell weapons....it's a trillion dollar industry right now....america has more than 30mil living under poverty level....if bush gets his $2.9 trillion, that would mean every poor in america could have received $100k ++ per head.....what a waste of money.....