The issue of Ex-SAF hotshots sitting pretty in GLCs
-
Good point. Also a good pointed noted by LazerLord about this being GLC and not MNCs.Originally posted by SilverPal:Hi, perhaps we can look at this issue from an alternative point of view.
When these military hotshots are given cushy jobs in a totally irrelavent industry, with an incredible amount of useless military experience, do they do good work and justify their pay? Do they make things better or outperform the non scholars whose advancement they recently deprived?
If they can justify their pay and position with examplary performance, then the coporation benefits from their "scholar" capability. But if they are poor performers and merely warm seats and produce oxygen till their second retirement, then we have to ask ourselves why do companies want to waste money on them.
Remember, companies are profit driven. Money is the bottomline.
The other consideration is that the government is giving these scholars an opportunity. Not a guaranteed position. As I've mentioned, there have been many Presidential scholars/ Service chiefs who has been given the boot due to poor performance in the private sector. -
Some people seem to take issue with the fact that the ex-scholars have no relevant experience in running GLCs. This may be the case but I believe that there are some general skills that can carry over from the public to private sector eg. general intelligence, people management, motivating staff. You don't always need relevant experience to lead a GLC although you have to pick up the key issues quickly and have capable staff.
For example, if LKY were to run SIA, he would no doubt be able to lead it very capably, even if he has few experience in the aviation sector.
For me, the real issue is whether ex-scholars who underperform continue to lead GLCs. Can anybody raise an example? When a GLC is managed poorly, they get knocked by private companies in the market. If the ex-Chief of Air Force can't perform, why would SIA want to keep him. Afterall, Chairman SIA has to answer to the Government as well. Sure, the ex-scholar has more openings for him in GLC vis-a-vis a peer from the private sector. However, it is performance in the long term that determines success, whether in a GLC or not. -
Look, if you don't make them CEOs of big government linked companies and give them something more than peanuts, they will become corrupt and sell military secrets to other nations. Remember our civil servants and generals are not saints...we have to be realistic. These people will will sell their mothers if necessary....
-
This topic makes me wonder: what do other countries do with their retired generals?? Where did Gen Norman Schwarzkopf go? What happened to Montgomery? Perhaps in the US they went into politics or business or the public-speaking circuit or academia, while in the UK they just retired to the countryside and become minor tourist attractions.
But the point is, retired military men still need something to do, especially if they retired young, e.g. at 45. Or else they'll do bad things like turn to drink or gambling or sell military secrets, plot coups, out of sheer boredom. Singapore's way of dealing with them is as good as any I can think of. As for performance, I don't expect stellar ratings, but as long as they don't make any spectacular mistakes, I can forgive them for the minor failings. But to safeguard against catastrophe, I suggest that having capable subordinates would do. After all, didn't these generals and colonels rely on their subordinates to do much of their work in the SAF anyway? -
eisenhower went into politics eventually becoming president. others like macarthur and gang simply faded into oblivion.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:This topic makes me wonder: what do other countries do with their retired generals?? Where did Gen Norman Schwarzkopf go? What happened to Montgomery? Perhaps in the US they went into politics or business or the public-speaking circuit or academia, while in the UK they just retired to the countryside and become minor tourist attractions.
But the point is, retired military men still need something to do, especially if they retired young, e.g. at 45. Or else they'll do bad things like turn to drink or gambling or sell military secrets, plot coups, out of sheer boredom. Singapore's way of dealing with them is as good as any I can think of. As for performance, I don't expect stellar ratings, but as long as they don't make any spectacular mistakes, I can forgive them for the minor failings. But to safeguard against catastrophe, I suggest that having capable subordinates would do. After all, didn't these generals and colonels rely on their subordinates to do much of their work in the SAF anyway?
-
u cant expect those a bg to drive a taxi for living isit?
-
Granted nothing is fair in the world. Fortunately, there are always people who try to make it a fairer place.Originally posted by anonymouscoward:You're talking about an idealistic world where people work for honor. That doesn't exist. People work for money. I do. And I'm not ashame to admit it. Do you?
Why are scholarships coverted by students? Because it is a guaranteed path to success. If that path is set to end at 45, even the average students would not take up the scholarship. These scholars would be smart enough to know that.
This has nothing to with being cronies. It about giving well deserving scholars an opportunity after their manadatory 45 years retirement. Otherwise, the other options would be to increase or do away with the 45 years retirement age but that would introduce a whole new set of problems wouldn't they?
Again, this has nothing to do with free economy. You are saying that it is unfair for the average Singaporean. True. But what has the average Singaporean done for that our government needs to ensure their continued employement after 45??
Also, no one expects to be given high paying jobs after their retirement. Only the selected few will be given the opportunity. There are incidents that some SAF Overseas Merit scholars are condemned and they didn't even reach LTC rank because they fail their tasks.
There is a distinction between honour and decency. We have to be clear in each context. The honour of receiving the scholarship coupled with a roadmap to the top (or success) comes with the scholar's own effort and ability, and not everyone makes it all the way as you have pointed out.
But you should also realise that there are limited positions at the pinnacle, positions where the other predecessors are nesting. The whole idea of the govt scholarship system is that each scholar shall serve their 'tour of duty', in essence, each position is tenable for a pre-determined time; after which, that position must be relinquished to a qualified young blood.
The service expectancy of each chief vocation officer is a prime example.
So the early retirement age of 45 is already pre-planned by the govt. It is up to the govt to determine whether to shift the date. Their main consideration was the need to 'fast track' budding talents within the SAF to avoid dissent, which in turn requires a short service span within each appointment.
With pay adjustments with every promotion and appointment (you get increments for both), these 'hotshots' are already very well taken care of. If they have planned their post SAF careers right (they ARE scholars aren't they?), they should be financially sound.
Can the same be said for the average singaporan who may struggle to secure a decent-paying job come retirement? Should we take PM Lee HL's audacious claim that "it is not the job of the govt to provide employment to the people" at face value? Is that how he expects to secure votes for the upcoming elections?
It has become a question of decency when unqualified 'hotshots' cross trade into a different industry, devoid of experience or relevant skills and thereby denying other more qualified talents that office. Are you aware of the internal animosity created due to such a high-handed act?
Doesn't the average singaporean contribute to the gross GDP of Singapore's economy? Doesn't the average singaporean pay taxes? Or are you suggesting that only scholars and employees of govt stat boards have 'done for that our government'
These 'scholars' CHOSE to sign on, CHOSE to receive SAF scholarships. For better or worst, they SELECTED their military careers of their own free will. They should have no illusions about life after that. -
Would he run it 'capably' or in his self-styled draconian way?Originally posted by dracky:For example, if LKY were to run SIA, he would no doubt be able to lead it very capably, even if he has few experience in the aviation sector.
With SIA's attrition rate already legendary, would an LKY-led SIA create still more extraordinary manpower turnovers?
Would SIA employees harbour the thought of having a strong union to fight for their rights or a subdued and passive team solely created to maintain the facade? The recent fiasco of Alpa-S being hit by the IRON FIST would be a disturbing example of how he runs things.
My way or the highway. -
Sell our secrets to the highest bidders? If that is the dark side of the govt not providing a plump assignment upon retirement, then the moral standards of scholars have really fallen indeed.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Look, if you don't make them CEOs of big government linked companies and give them something more than peanuts, they will become corrupt and sell military secrets to other nations. Remember our civil servants and generals are not saints...we have to be realistic. These people will will sell their mothers if necessary.... -
Err...dun think moral standards is something that is being considered when they award scholarshipsOriginally posted by BillyBong:Sell our secrets to the highest bidders? If that is the dark side of the govt not providing a plump assignment upon retirement, then the moral standards of scholars have really fallen indeed. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Err...dun think moral standards is something that is being considered when they award scholarships
I didn't know that... That's terrible.
I had the impression that there is a stringent screening process since many scholars would be groomed for politics...
Oh well, perhaps those in charge found it unnecessary or too impractical.
-
Ever wondered why top officials do not stay long within one organisation?Why the CDF changes every few years?
And look at the turnover rate of each officer once he reaches the rank of BG.They are moved out for a reason, and not everyone will become co-opted into the party machinery
-
The reason why no heads of any major organizations like SAF, etc will stay long is because by allowing such heads to stay long, they will eventually build their own spheres of influnce of power base.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Ever wondered why top officials do not stay long within one organisation?Why the CDF changes every few years?
And look at the turnover rate of each officer once he reaches the rank of BG.They are moved out for a reason, and not everyone will become co-opted into the party machinery
Shrewd politicians want to build their own power bases and loyality. They cannot allow any heads of major organizations to build their own power bases. To them such accumulation of powers will be dangerous to their own power bases especially at the SAF. So they long ago have set up a system where the heads will be rotated after a few years and broken up from their bases. At the end only one person will be powerful in such a system. -
There were a few Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels - who retired - becoming Swimming Pool Managers and / or Club Managers.Originally posted by RaTtY81:u cant expect those a bg to drive a taxi for living isit? -
Well, you know, I know.But not many others know..Originally posted by robertteh:The reason why no heads of any major organizations like SAF, etc will stay long is because by allowing such heads to stay long, they will eventually build their own spheres of influnce of power base.
Shrewd politicians want to build their own power bases and loyality. They cannot allow any heads of major organizations to build their own power bases. To them such accumulation of powers will be dangerous to their own power bases especially at the SAF. So they long ago have set up a system where the heads will be rotated after a few years and broken up from their bases. At the end only one person will be powerful in such a system.
-
In ancient China was balls less amn, in 19th century was Heshen, in modern US is Cheney.Originally posted by robertteh:The reason why no heads of any major organizations like SAF, etc will stay long is because by allowing such heads to stay long, they will eventually build their own spheres of influnce of power base.
Shrewd politicians want to build their own power bases and loyality. They cannot allow any heads of major organizations to build their own power bases. To them such accumulation of powers will be dangerous to their own power bases especially at the SAF. So they long ago have set up a system where the heads will be rotated after a few years and broken up from their bases. At the end only one person will be powerful in such a system. -
The Military Organisation work on the basis of 'follow the order' and 'no questions asked'.Originally posted by dracky:Some people seem to take issue with the fact that the ex-scholars have no relevant experience in running GLCs. This may be the case but I believe that there are some general skills that can carry over from the public to private sector eg. general intelligence, people management, motivating staff. You don't always need relevant experience to lead a GLC although you have to pick up the key issues quickly and have capable staff.
Can the Military Management System be followed in any commercial or industrial organisation ?
One would expect a CEO to appreciate some sound Financial Management in running a corporation - whether it is a GLC or otherwise.
Can a Military Person operate in the commercial world and in a Senior Position that require some understanding of Financial Management ?
Firstly, Singapore is already too small for his talent', will not SIA be even smaller ?
For example, if LKY were to run SIA, he would no doubt be able to lead it very capably, even if he has few experience in the aviation sector.
If LKY was to run SIA, emigration will certain happen, as already evidence by the 'brain drain' over the last few decades.
Can SIA ever take off ?
Is Singapore Telecoms performing as well as its peers in the Telecoms Industry ?
For me, the real issue is whether ex-scholars who underperform continue to lead GLCs. Can anybody raise an example? When a GLC is managed poorly, they get knocked by private companies in the market. If the ex-Chief of Air Force can't perform, why would SIA want to keep him. Afterall, Chairman SIA has to answer to the Government as well. Sure, the ex-scholar has more openings for him in GLC vis-a-vis a peer from the private sector. However, it is performance in the long term that determines success, whether in a GLC or not.
If not, the CEO is a President's Scholar and would be a fine example of the bungles that has occurred in their financial adventures overseas.
The PM's wife, Ho Ching's decision - as Head of Temasek - to invest in the Hard Disk Drive industry resulted in a loss of over US$500 Million.
Was she fired ?
No, but the then Minister of Finance, Dr Richard Hu made a strong defense to excuse her for the heavy loss as tuition fee to learn about the HDD business.
Is it performance over the long term, or will political connections protect those who face failures. -
A man decision making process is always influence by his past experience and behaviours. It is undeniable that army top brass has been proven to be good decision makers in the past.
But are they capable of switching the mentalities and working culture when they are leading our city state economy in the globalisation age - every product and concept has a very limited lifespan.