PM's son charged & reprimaned
-
think the chap has enough publicity already in this forum/thread.
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
What constitute a 'RIGHT' decision from being a 'GOOD' decision or vice-versa ?
While i may have suffered similar disappointments with some of the decisions made by senior officers during my time, i am reconciled by the fact that not all officers make good decisions, and not all good decisions may be 'right' decisions.
As Dr Goh Keng Swee once said that in the new Army that Singapore was building and continue to build, SAF Officers are required to make their best conscienable effort to make decision to address issues. Any decision is better than no decision. Mistakes made is better than none made, so that lessons and experience can be learnt.
Is anyone perfect in this World, let alone in the SAF ?
As a recruit, I was appalled at the leadership quality in the SAF unit that I was posted, and I strived to be in a Command position that will enable me to be in control of any decision making situation that affect my Life.
It later dawned on me that at each command level, there will always be another higher level that will exist to affect the present. The next best option is to adapt and control one's circumstance, make the best of the present, so as to safely achieve the objectives decided by other lesser beings with the opportunity to affect oneself.
Unfortunately, my skepticism to your statement require me to ask that - unless you had signed on into Contracted Regular Service Personnel , how many of the ''numerous'' SAF units could you possibly be posted to in the otherwise normal 2 to 3 year NSF service - (which brought you to your views that the subject problem is endemic in the SAF) ?
Rest assured that while your opinion of Li's view is that of a localised problem, the truth is that such 'oversight' is endemic throughout the SAF. Having gone through numerous postings myself, i have observed many junior officers who abused their powers, skived their way through appointments and have displayed negligence in their own duties. And many basically got away with it. Such allegations by Li are not wild; they can be verified by other officers who have experienced them firsthand. However, the fact that these are obviously not documented will prevent the actual number from being realised. Those serious enough are elevated to summary trial; the rest are either settled by lower charges or dismissed.
Your very negative views towards SAF officers is something in itself, and seem to have seriously colored your usual characteristic sense of objectivity in this Speaker's Corner, and which I have read with interest.
I share your views on the gravity of the various scenarios that you have given. However, decisions are made given the unique set of circumstances and hardly could be an art in itself.
Handling complaints is an art, not simply a process. It is clear that some benign complaints should be dismissed outright, but cases that exhibit a lack of integrity should be further examined. Does a complaint where an officer went AWOL, lied to a superior officer and tried to implicate a fellow officer not reek of concern? Is it not serious enough to warrent further investigation? If the senior officers simply disregard the complaint, what message are they sending down - that an officer can break the rules and get away with it? I find this train of thought worrying.
What you say is true - the punishment metted out may not be satisfactory in the eyes of some, but the 'slap on the wrist' for LTA 'X' was surely disproportionate to his actions. Li compared it to managing a corporal against an officer. If a corporal went AWOL, it would surely be a charge and a quick drive to DB. If such disproportionate punishments are allowed to continue, how will the chain of command hold up to such lopsided favourism? Such actions may encourage the men to become more insurbordinate, and lacking in respect.
Given the same set of circumstances, different persons - (civilian and military, managers or officers compared to supervisors or NCOs) - may not necessarily converge into any common set of decision outcome based on their different individual and personal values, experience, exposures, maturity, objectives.
While some decisions may not be made to one's liking, the decision maker may have a set of objectives in mind; and in this instance, the senior commander to 2Lt Li could have a variety of reason that range from unit cohesiveness, to that of taking the sting out of the political rivalry amongst the leadership corp (between LTA X and 2Lt Li).
Right or wrong, the decision made by the Senior Commander to LTA X and 2Lt Li can only be respected as his prerogative based on the set of circumstance that the Senior Commander had weighed to arrive at the outcome that is now criticised.
It will be interesting to understand the circumstances that have brought you to this conclusion.
You say the "The consequences of (2LT Li's) allegations bring up many questions that concerns the quality of the SAF Leadership - and in turn the quality of the SAF ", and i say the quality of leadership is already of grave concern at the lower levels, nevermind the upper echelons.
Somehow, I cannot help but to detect in your tone - a sense of resentment from an 'Old Soldier' who have suffered some wrong, and is carrying the weight on your shoulder against the SAF leadership - especially those Scholars who got an easy ride to the Stars, as well as the present lot of NCOs who are in fact no better then 20 year old kids.
You should let the water pass under the bridge, and give everyone the opportunity to learn from their mistake - as said by Dr Goh Keng Swee - as you and I have been given our opportunity to make our decisions.
Let it pass, and give the present youngsters some objective encouragement, some room to make and learn from their mistakes as you and I have made ours.
As I had mentioned in my previous post, this matter must be broken down into three different parts - 'his personal problems with LTA X and the Senior Officers above him; secondly, his wild allegations on the entire SAF Officer Corp based on his 'LIMITED' and 'LOCALISED' experience at his Unit level; third - the indiscretion made to gain wide attention to his very localised problems encountered'.
Let's not allow the fact that it was the PM's son who made the complaint, distract us from the seriousness of the complaint itself.
Can we have any sensible conclusion when you prefer to delve into a complaint made by 2Lt Li without even the superficial details related to LTA X and his Superior Commander that are both implicated in the letter ?
Similarly, can we have any possible conclusion when you have assumed that your localised experience with ''X-number'' of SAF units in the past, and the localised unit encounter from 2Lt Li's - are now alleged by both of you to be endemic in the SAF ?
The only common ground left in engaging ourselves in debating this issue must center on 2Lt Li - his actions, his allegations, and his connections - as hinted by the Thread itself.
To do otherwise, will merely hijack the thread from the TS.
As a consolation, it might interest you to note that in the Straits Times Forum Page (dd 17 July 2007) - someone wrote to suggest that LTA X could be a 'Princeling' due to his audacity in repeating the same act despite being exposed.
Is it the SAF or the system that created the 'Super White Studs' in their 'Elitist Acts of Cynicism' towards the idea of National Service ? -
He was not reprimanded for whistle blowing. His “criminal” act was what earned him the formal reprimand.
If soldiers are allowed to be ill-disciplined what is there to stop a “self-righteous” “idealist” from using his live bullets to prove his point?
Bottom line is that “criminals” that break military laws, whether by AWOL or breaking General Standing Orders must be punished. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Your subject is about 'Leadership' and all I can say is that those who are selected into OCS are just like you and I, except that the criteria seems to shift with each passing decade, and giving more emphasis on academic qualification in the selection process.
IÂ’m afraid I will have to disagree with Atobe this time round on the general quality of leadership in the SAF.
First and foremost IÂ’ve served my NS in the capacity of an infantry Non Commissioned Commander and through a series of rather bizarre circumstances (mostly due to the term cut causing a lack of specialists) found myself going through the several units such as Guards and NDP (sia kang party) before ending up as a BMTC instructor, and while there are good commanders that get the job done fairly and justly, the general atmosphere of commanders in the units I have been through well and truly give rise to the kind of faults that 2Lt Li spoke out against.
I canÂ’t say this for the rest of the SAF, but by experience and also what the grunts from other places say (just pop by military nuts), the general impression on the ground is that in terms of having the men, equipment and will to fight the SAF isnÂ’t such a slouch, but the weakest link would be that of the leadership.
And unfortunately, the SAF, with it’s reliance on elite scholar generals sometimes with more book smarts then battlefield smarts has led to a kind of structure that any person serving in HQ will realize as unnecessarily bureaucratic and cumbersome in terms of developing the vision of the ‘thinking soldier’ and the 3G army.
All this 3G stuff is impressive, but the grunt is probably far more worried about losing his stuff or being a walking 1206 waiting to happen then to use his equipment to the fullest of its ability. And lets not talk about the red tape for other kinds of things.
Not that all this red tape is bad, but an overtly by-the-book approach and a lack of emphasis on personal honour, soldiering pride and skills towards NS has fostered a kind of “get-away-with-it” attitude in many who take a more selfish approach towards their time in the military.
Case in point, if you read Generation Kill, you will realize the American Marines have a far greater respect for the personal judgement of the lower ranks, to the point which NCOs and enlisted dare to stand up to their incompetent officers or even demand a hearing when they feel that the leadership in question is questionable. You will never find this condition in the SAF currently.
Had this happened in the US Military, 2LT Li would certainly still be punished in some way or another, but I doubt his actions would be as scrutinized as being stupid or suchÂ… in fact there would probably be much soul-searching.
And if you ask me, soul-searching is needed. I for one, from my personal experiences and accounts from my friends who have been at the hand of both competent and incompetent leadership realize that the parts of the SAF we have seen (at the very least), require a serious shake up to restore justice and ethics among the troops.
Being self-critical may hurt for a while, but I do not think it will cause us the psychological edge. But going into battle deluded with unquestioning faith in your leadership that has done nothing to prove itself will be disastrous.
This is why the grunt trusts his Sergeant first before his PC, and the PC before the OC, and the OC before the CO. because the Sergeant is less prone to the wishful thinking and glory-snatching that comes up pushing little blocks that represent them around in the sandbox model.
I am not saying that we are screwed, but I think in terms of leadership the SAF requires some serious shaking up to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you do not believe it, just drop by the military nuts forums and there will be plenty of grunts willing to give you their own perspectives on leadership in the SAF.
The character of the SAF Leadership had evolved from the early days 'mature tough guy with martial art skills', to the present day 'young, nerdy, and spectacled' types.
Is it the fault of MINDEF or the SAF Command, or is it the fault of the Political Leadership in their short-sighted manner of managing the Military Policies that affect all Singaporeans ? -
Congratulations for your balanced, insightful and original thoughts.Originally posted by equlus84:Ok, let me contribute some of my personal opinions and thinkings towards this saga.
Firstly, yes, it is true that SAF needs to deal with all those slack, unmotivated, refuse to work regulars that push their jobs to the NSF while they hide some where to sleep. I also laud 2nd LT Li for highlighting this issue to the public........BUT I seriously query the prudence and wisdom in CC it all over the SAF intranet all the way to the defense minister and the CDF. I believe this problem he face is a localised issue and that it can be settled within the four walls of the camp. If not, his next approach should be his CO or BDE CO things on that line. By CCing it all over the place, I really beg to question the real intentions of such an action. Bcos from what I see, this is no diferent from spamming or ah longs writing ur number all over the HDB void decks. By addressing the issue directly to the CDF or minister, I feel that he is abusing his position as a NSF whom has a father that is of high social, political influence, to coercive the SAF to bend to his desire. One must know that SAF is an instrument of war that is activated when the need arises, and it is politically neutral and fights for the freedom of it's ppls. The 2nd LT should not use the SAF as his own political arena to throw his weight around. For yrs, 'white horses' have been in the lime-light and a hot topic of debate, thus what he did, basically makes most SGreans feel disgusted and disdain towards the so called 'elite' of the society.
Besides, he should also as an officer know the importance of chain of command. In time of crisis, eg. a division goes to war, a proper chain of command is essential towards accurate, efficient flow of information from the sections all the way to the DIV. Just imagine the ground troops do not practise proper voice procedures, or they dun do the sitrep properly, the network will be all jammed up. So I think the 2nd LT should seriously learn how to respect the establishment, rather than make the establishment respect his wishes............. -
How can one respect the establishment when it is not respecting the average GI Joe enlistee?
-
Who knows? The military is a reflection of the mentality of the government that puts it into effect.Originally posted by Atobe:Your subject is about 'Leadership' and all I can say is that those who are selected into OCS are just like you and I, except that the criteria seems to shift with each passing decade, and giving more emphasis on academic qualification in the selection process.
The character of the SAF Leadership had evolved from the early days 'mature tough guy with martial art skills', to the present day 'young, nerdy, and spectacled' types.
Is it the fault of MINDEF or the SAF Command, or is it the fault of the Political Leadership in their short-sighted manner of managing the Military Policies that affect all Singaporeans ?
In any case it is clear that as a corps the SAF lacks maturity, which is not surprising given it is actually quite a young thing compared to other organizations like the British Army or the US Marines.
As to what 2LT Li did, it is certainly childish and silly- but plenty of good shall probably come of it. I'm not exactly sure what we want to see out of this: that he be charged and DBed or the like? White Unicon status aside, the average grunt would support what he did and he deserves some slack for it.
Ultimately a great military goes beyond its own laws, its members act for the greater good of it when they realize that the current laws and systems in place are working against it. I doubt 2LT Li has such selfless motives when he sent his E-Mail but how we handle this matter will probably determine if we get such a culture or one that is determined rigidly up by the book of law and not the heroism of men wanting to do the right thing. -
Originally posted by Atobe: What constitute a 'RIGHT' decision from being a 'GOOD' decision or vice-versa ?
Well said. But as you yourself have realised, each command layer has a distinct set of rules and guidelines to follow. What is practiced at the ground level may not be practical for higher up, simply because a 'helicopter' view of issues will ultimately determine the outcome of any decision, and this decision WILL differ between different officers with different perspectives.
As Dr Goh Keng Swee once said that in the new Army that Singapore was building and continue to build, SAF Officers are required to make their best conscienable effort to make decision to address issues. Any decision is better than no decision. Mistakes made is better than none made, so that lessons and experience can be learnt.
Is anyone perfect in this World, let alone in the SAF ?
As a recruit, I was appalled at the leadership quality in the SAF unit that I was posted, and I strived to be in a Command position that will enable me to be in control of any decision making situation that affect my Life.
It later dawned on me that at each command level, there will always be another higher level that will exist to affect the present. The next best option is to adapt and control one's circumstance, make the best of the present, so as to safely achieve the objectives decided by other lesser beings with the opportunity to affect oneself.
But this is not my contention. Officers in my opinion are overrated soldiers to a certain extent: they are empowered with certain requirements and standards but they themselves do not adhere to it. The fundamental statue that puts all privileged members of the officer's corps is the knowledge that each must maintain certain principles unique to their position. Coming back to the matter at hand - an officer who went AWOL...what is the supposed punishment for that? An officer who lied to another officer...what is the supposed punishment for that? An officer who tried to implicate a fellow officer...what is the supposed punishment for that?
Put all 3 together and what classifies as appropriate punishment?
If we accept your view that all concerned should respect the decision given by the senior officer, right or wrong, since by your definition everyone is going through a learning curve, what kind of exposure are we opening ourselves to?
Should we accept obviously 'wrong' decisions and allow officers to take the 'trial and error' approach? If this is the accepted standard of officers in times of war, i will pity the men whom they lead into battle.Originally posted by Atobe: Unfortunately, my skepticism to your statement require me to ask that - unless you had signed on into Contracted Regular Service Personnel , how many of the ''numerous'' SAF units could you possibly be posted to in the otherwise normal 2 to 3 year NSF service - (which brought you to your views that the subject problem is endemic in the SAF) ?
You may find it surprising that an NSF can cross 3-4 different schools and 3 separate vocational units/institutes during a short 2.5 years of service, but this is indeed possible, as was my case.
Your very negative views towards SAF officers is something in itself, and seem to have seriously colored your usual characteristic sense of objectivity in this Speaker's Corner, and which I have read with interest.
As I mentioned intrinsically, there are definitely officers worth their weight in gold, whilst those who do not deserve their ‘chocolate bars’ do form the minority, but because they are spread throughout the SAF, they permeate the entire spectrum of vocations and create the distinct impression that such officers exists in perceived numbers, and these are under-reported either because people choose to close one eye, or simply pass the buck to someone else to handle.
In this incident, a certain signal officer.Originally posted by Atobe: It will be interesting to understand the circumstances that have brought you to this conclusion.
I have long since left my NSF days behind me and whatever occurrences that took place back then are consigned to history. I certainly have no bone to pick with the SAF officerÂ’s corps- indeed I served my time with plenty of good memories to boot. My own experience is that there will always be the ugly 5% of soldiers, not just officers, who think they can bypass or abuse the chain of command with impunity. And these culprits are the cancer that gnaws at the heart of the system.
Somehow, I cannot help but to detect in your tone - a sense of resentment from an 'Old Soldier' who have suffered some wrong, and is carrying the weight on your shoulder against the SAF leadership - especially those Scholars who got an easy ride to the Stars, as well as the present lot of NCOs who are in fact no better then 20 year old kids.
You should let the water pass under the bridge, and give everyone the opportunity to learn from their mistake - as said by Dr Goh Keng Swee - as you and I have been given our opportunity to make our decisions.
Let it pass, and give the present youngsters some objective encouragement, some room to make and learn from their mistakes as you and I have made ours.
What leaves me bitter is that there exists other officers who readily turn the other cheek and choose inaction over action.Originally posted by Atobe: As I had mentioned in my previous post, this matter must be broken down into three different parts - 'his personal problems with LTA X and the Senior Officers above him; secondly, his wild allegations on the entire SAF Officer Corp based on his 'LIMITED' and 'LOCALISED' experience at his Unit level; third - the indiscretion made to gain wide attention to his very localised problems encountered'.
To certain lengths, we have both drawn opinionated inferences from the email based on our individual experiences in NSF. It is also from these comments that have given us both insight into our differing standards of the SAF, possibly at different time frames in the evolution of the SAF itself. (think Israel-trained vs local-trained for example)
Can we have any sensible conclusion when you prefer to delve into a complaint made by 2Lt Li without even the superficial details related to LTA X and his Superior Commander that are both implicated in the letter ?
Similarly, can we have any possible conclusion when you have assumed that your localised experience with ''X-number'' of SAF units in the past, and the localised unit encounter from 2Lt Li's - are now alleged by both of you to be endemic in the SAF ?
The only common ground left in engaging ourselves in debating this issue must center on 2Lt Li - his actions, his allegations, and his connections - as hinted by the Thread itself.
To do otherwise, will merely hijack the thread from the TS.
As a consolation, it might interest you to note that in the Straits Times Forum Page (dd 17 July 2007) - someone wrote to suggest that LTA X could be a 'Princeling' due to his audacity in repeating the same act despite being exposed.
Is it the SAF or the system that created the 'Super White Studs' in their 'Elitist Acts of Cynicism' towards the idea of National Service ?
Given the omission of crucial information, I have to agree that we are merely armchair critics giving our point of view. All 3 points which you highlighted above cannot truly be answered objectively, and to attempt to do so would merely serve to discredit both sides – the officer’s corps and Li Hongyi, without much accomplishment. -
I agree with you that CCing his complaint in the SAF intranet is amounting to the spamming and yes, more appropriately, like ah long, 2nd Li ‘s behavior is childish and rash, a little arrogant. But I do not doubt his desire or motive, he simply wanted actions, or just voiced his unhappiness because he was involved. Can’t see anything political in that.Originally posted by equlus84:Ok, let me contribute some of my personal opinions and thinkings towards this saga.
Firstly, yes, it is true that SAF needs to deal with all those slack, unmotivated, refuse to work regulars that push their jobs to the NSF while they hide some where to sleep. I also laud 2nd LT Li for highlighting this issue to the public........BUT I seriously query the prudence and wisdom in CC it all over the SAF intranet all the way to the defense minister and the CDF. I believe this problem he face is a localised issue and that it can be settled within the four walls of the camp. If not, his next approach should be his CO or BDE CO things on that line. By CCing it all over the place, I really beg to question the real intentions of such an action. Bcos from what I see, this is no diferent from spamming or ah longs writing ur number all over the HDB void decks. By addressing the issue directly to the CDF or minister, I feel that he is abusing his position as a NSF whom has a father that is of high social, political influence, to coercive the SAF to bend to his desire. One must know that SAF is an instrument of war that is activated when the need arises, and it is politically neutral and fights for the freedom of it's ppls. The 2nd LT should not use the SAF as his own political arena to throw his weight around. For yrs, 'white horses' have been in the lime-light and a hot topic of debate, thus what he did, basically makes most SGreans feel disgusted and disdain towards the so called 'elite' of the society.
Besides, he should also as an officer know the importance of chain of command. In time of crisis, eg. a division goes to war, a proper chain of command is essential towards accurate, efficient flow of information from the sections all the way to the DIV. Just imagine the ground troops do not practise proper voice procedures, or they dun do the sitrep properly, the network will be all jammed up. So I think the 2nd LT should seriously learn how to respect the establishment, rather than make the establishment respect his wishes.............
It does not appear that with a father of high social, political influence, his position was any different from other NSF. Did he have any direct channel to the higher echelon in the SAF to get what he desired? Apparently not.
How did he throw his weight around, using his political arena (if that is of any consequence)? We don’t see any weight in his letter. If he had warned the officers involved to act or else…..then he would be guilty of “throwing weight”. If he had CC his letter to the PM office it would be sufficient to charge him for “coercing the SAF”. But we don’t see anything of that sort. He broke the chain of command, like any other stupid young soldiers.
What is key here is the issue, is the complaint valid? By hiding behind the “Esprit de Corps” of other senior officers to go AWOL, the regular officer abused the trust and spirit of “esprit de corps”. If he were to come from a family of high social or political influence, then he would be guilty of “throwing his weight around, he had influence due to his position”, and I would be quick to join you in taking these ‘white horse’, ‘elite’ to task. We should not look at the persons involved to decide what was right or wrong.
Observing proper voice procedures is hardly comparable to respecting establishment. Dun do or wrong sitrep is like telling a lie to the higher command, and this is what the regular officer did, went AWOL but made everybody believed he was in. Imagine during crisis, your CO was told battalion at full strength and gives move order, but actually your OC is still away in Orchard Road. If this happened would you not alert other officers? Or just let your company move on?
The issue is not who did what, but what was done. It is sad for the SAF to have regular officer who took AWOL lightly, it is very sad to have senior officers who condoned such mistake, it would be very very very SAF if nobody dare to speak up for such mistakes. -
It seems that we have to indulge on the TS by digressing into the topic of 'Leadership' as much as I do not wish to.Originally posted by BillyBong:
Original post by Atobe: What constitute a 'RIGHT' decision from being a 'GOOD' decision or vice-versa ?
As Dr Goh Keng Swee once said that in the new Army that Singapore was building and continue to build, SAF Officers are required to make their best conscienable effort to make decision to address issues. Any decision is better than no decision. Mistakes made is better than none made, so that lessons and experience can be learnt.
Is anyone perfect in this World, let alone in the SAF ?
As a recruit, I was appalled at the leadership quality in the SAF unit that I was posted, and I strived to be in a Command position that will enable me to be in control of any decision making situation that affect my Life.
It later dawned on me that at each command level, there will always be another higher level that will exist to affect the present. The next best option is to adapt and control one's circumstance, make the best of the present, so as to safely achieve the objectives decided by other lesser beings with the opportunity to affect oneself.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said. But as you yourself have realised, each command layer has a distinct set of rules and guidelines to follow. What is practiced at the ground level may not be practical for higher up, simply because a 'helicopter' view of issues will ultimately determine the outcome of any decision, and this decision WILL differ between different officers with different perspectives.
But this is not my contention. Officers in my opinion are overrated soldiers to a certain extent: they are empowered with certain requirements and standards but they themselves do not adhere to it. The fundamental statue that puts all privileged members of the officer's corps is the knowledge that each must maintain certain principles unique to their position. Coming back to the matter at hand - an officer who went AWOL...what is the supposed punishment for that? An officer who lied to another officer...what is the supposed punishment for that? An officer who tried to implicate a fellow officer...what is the supposed punishment for that?
It is good to note that you are aware that ''each command layer has a distinct set of rules and guidelines to follow. What is practiced at the ground level may not be practical for higher up, simply because a 'helicopter' view of issues will ultimately determine the outcome of any decision... ''.
Having established a good grounding in the necessary space for the Officer, it is odd that you will see Military Officers to be ''overrated soldiers to a certain extent'' and that they ''do not adhere to the standards'' that they are ''empowered'' to require from others.
Is there not some kind of ambivalent feelings of what you expect of an Officer ?
All ranks in the SAF are subjected to the same Military Law is already an established fact, and I have personally known of the following events involving - a LTA being stripped of his rank to become a Private for a minor offence of gambling during duty hours on SAF premises; and also the promotion of two LTAs being frozen for authorising the Duty Vehicle to ferry Officers home after a late night Lunar New Year party at the Officers' Mess, and with the vehicle involved in an accident that caused the death of an Officer; then there was a Captain court-martialled on the complaint from his 2Lt (a Bible hugging nerd, who could not get along with his Muslim boss) for organising a 'strip show' during an Officers' Mess event - when the Captain was merely responding to the popular requests from his fellow officers.
Those were facts that are known, and it clearly shows that Officers are not above Military Law.
Is there any value to any wild claims that a lower rank will be treated more severely than an Officer, when the details of each event is unknown ?
The CO - as all Officers are empowered - is given the space and latitude to exercise his initiative to decide on a range of disciplinary actions using the Military Laws as his guide. He is at liberty to exercise his discretion to weigh the circumstances and make his judgement based on the situation at that point in time - i.e. whether in war or peace, how the event will affect discipline and morale.
Surely, you will not want our Officers to be robots subject to the tight rules and regulations imposed from top to the bottom, and with no possibility nor expectation to exercise initiative, creativity or imagination, all of which will not be tolerated from rank and file ?
The difference between the Israeli military culture and that of the Arab military - which followed the rigid Soviet military doctrines - should be quite evident, considering the outcome in all the wars that were fought.
I am uncertain how to put it except that I feel your approach is unfortunately flawed in that you are mixing two separate issues into one.
Put all 3 together and what classifies as appropriate punishment?
If we accept your view that all concerned should respect the decision given by the senior officer, [b]right or wrong, since by your definition everyone is going through a learning curve, what kind of exposure are we opening ourselves to?
Should we accept obviously 'wrong' decisions and allow officers to take the 'trial and error' approach? If this is the accepted standard of officers in times of war, i will pity the men whom they lead into battle. [/b]
The 3 events that you have described - in the preceding paragraph quoted - concerns the Senior Commander's method in handling LTA X seeming criminal act.
You have rolled that event into a general situation for the Officers to make 'Right or Wrong' combat decisions in times of War, or some general situation in Peace Time.
''Right or Wrong'' will depend on the circumstances of what transpired from the investigations by the Senior Commander on the charges laid by 2Lt Li against LTA X, which resulted in the decision that was made - as part of the Administrative Duties during Peace time.
Are you now suggesting that there are errors made by the Senior Commander in the manner that the 3 events are handled, when we have already agreed that there is insufficient details for us even to have a simple discussion ?
Even during times of War - even with all the training and honed skills - can any decision by any Commander (whether an Officer or a NCO) guarantee the victorious outcome in a war that is continuously fluid, and being an untested SAF - are we all not on a learning curve ?
Are you suggesting that every decision by Commanders that you see to be flawed will need to be debated, questioned, and mutiny take place before a wrong decision is acted on ?
It has always been my contention that any orders - 'Right or Wrong, Good or Bad'' must be acted upon to the best of each of our individual ability, with the information available, and with the manpower and equipment within the unit size that we are posted (i.e. a section, a platoon, a Company, a Batalion, a Brigade).
There are always alternative ways to do anything - even if we decide to positively follow the order, we could get it done as dictated or done in the best possible ways; or do something else more than the orders demand and completely different to achieve the same goals; or simply do nothing.
During the Yom Kippur war, Gen Sharon found the orders given to him to be bad, and he did more than his orders demanded and helped to turn the tide of the Egyptian surprise attack. His court martial absolved him of his acts of insubordination - how will you wish to look at this ? I surely will hope that you do not look at it as an 'esprit de corp' connivance in the Officer Corp.
continue below -
continuation
I am surprised at the number of postings that you have experienced, and I suppose your specialised expertise will require you to be sent for 'course after course'.Original post by Atobe: Unfortunately, my skepticism to your statement require me to ask that - unless you had signed on into Contracted Regular Service Personnel , how many of the ''numerous'' SAF units could you possibly be posted to in the otherwise normal 2 to 3 year NSF service - (which brought you to your views that the subject problem is endemic in the SAF) ?
Your very negative views towards SAF officers is something in itself, and seem to have seriously colored your usual characteristic sense of objectivity in this Speaker's Corner, and which I have read with interest.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may find it surprising that an NSF can cross 3-4 different schools and 3 separate vocational units/institutes during a short 2.5 years of service, but this is indeed possible, as was my case.
As I mentioned intrinsically, there are definitely officers worth their weight in gold, whilst those who do not deserve their ‘chocolate bars’ do form the minority, but because they are spread throughout the SAF, they permeate the entire spectrum of vocations and create the distinct impression that such officers exists in perceived numbers, and these are under-reported either because people choose to close one eye, or simply pass the buck to someone else to handle.
In this incident, a certain signal officer.
It is good to see your qualified clarification that - 'whilst those who do not deserve their ‘chocolate bars’ do form the minority'. However, could there be any possibility for this minority to be of such sufficient numbers to spread throughout the SAF as you have claimed ?
There are many Singaporeans bred from our education system to work smart and not work hard, and this culture flowed into the Tertiary levels, and stayed on into the Real World of Commerce and Industry.
Should we fault the SAF Officer Corp, when NSF Singaporean men prefer to ''Work Smart'' ?
It become worse, when these ''Smart Asses'' are also ''cynics toward the entire concept of National Service'' - is it then the fault of the SAF and its Officer ''Culture''; or simply the political environment that breed such mentality in the Singaporean men towards discipline during NSF ?
With such a ''work smart culture'', we may get to see a few Singapore rebel like ''General Sharon'' - if there is any truth that crisis will bring out the best in every individual.
I sympathise with you, as I have seen favoritism not only in the SAF, but also since my school days, when the kids from influential families are given close attention and morale support, the remainder in the class get to be picked constantly for ridicule and disciplinary actions.Original post by Atobe: It will be interesting to understand the circumstances that have brought you to this conclusion.
Somehow, I cannot help but to detect in your tone - a sense of resentment from an 'Old Soldier' who have suffered some wrong, and is carrying the weight on your shoulder against the SAF leadership - especially those Scholars who got an easy ride to the Stars, as well as the present lot of NCOs who are in fact no better then 20 year old kids.
You should let the water pass under the bridge, and give everyone the opportunity to learn from their mistake - as said by Dr Goh Keng Swee - as you and I have been given our opportunity to make our decisions.
Let it pass, and give the present youngsters some objective encouragement, some room to make and learn from their mistakes as you and I have made ours.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have long since left my NSF days behind me and whatever occurrences that took place back then are consigned to history. I certainly have no bone to pick with the SAF officerÂ’s corps- indeed I served my time with plenty of good memories to boot. My own experience is that there will always be the ugly 5% of soldiers, not just officers, who think they can bypass or abuse the chain of command with impunity. And these culprits are the cancer that gnaws at the heart of the system.
What leaves me bitter is that there exists other officers who readily turn the other cheek and choose inaction over action.
Like it or not, the World is not perfect, and much depend on the value system of each individual.
Until you wear those shoes, you will probably also have to weigh the political circumstances of your attitude towards such individuals that may affect your long term well being in your place of employment - and respond likewise.
If I were you, I would let the water pass under the bridge.
While we may have our own preferred position on several issues, it is comforting to note that we are able to share our views without sparks, and have managed our tone with respect towards mutual feelings.Original post by Atobe: As I had mentioned in my previous post, this matter must be broken down into three different parts - 'his personal problems with LTA X and the Senior Officers above him; secondly, his wild allegations on the entire SAF Officer Corp based on his 'LIMITED' and 'LOCALISED' experience at his Unit level; third - the indiscretion made to gain wide attention to his very localised problems encountered'.
Can we have any sensible conclusion when you prefer to delve into a complaint made by 2Lt Li without even the superficial details related to LTA X and his Superior Commander that are both implicated in the letter ?
Similarly, can we have any possible conclusion when you have assumed that your localised experience with ''X-number'' of SAF units in the past, and the localised unit encounter from 2Lt Li's - are now alleged by both of you to be endemic in the SAF ?
The only common ground left in engaging ourselves in debating this issue must center on 2Lt Li - his actions, his allegations, and his connections - as hinted by the Thread itself.
To do otherwise, will merely hijack the thread from the TS.
As a consolation, it might interest you to note that in the Straits Times Forum Page (dd 17 July 2007) - someone wrote to suggest that LTA X could be a 'Princeling' due to his audacity in repeating the same act despite being exposed.
Is it the SAF or the system that created the 'Super White Studs' in their 'Elitist Acts of Cynicism' towards the idea of National Service ?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To certain lengths, we have both drawn opinionated inferences from the email based on our individual experiences in NSF. It is also from these comments that have given us both insight into our differing standards of the SAF, possibly at different time frames in the evolution of the SAF itself. (think Israel-trained vs local-trained for example)
Given the omission of crucial information, I have to agree that we are merely armchair critics giving our point of view. All 3 points which you highlighted above cannot truly be answered objectively, and to attempt to do so would merely serve to discredit both sides – the officer’s corps and Li Hongyi, without much accomplishment.
Afterall, we are on the same side, thinking for the good of the SAF - which we are part of, and if I am injured in some way, I will gladly have your blood flow in my veins so long as it is of the same common O type. Even if our blood type is not the same, I will be thankful that you will be around to provide your specialist skills to cover my back during a medevac. -
From Channel NewsAsia
Li Hongyi was punished for contravening orders: MINDEF
By Julia Ng, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 18 July 2007 1937 hrs
SINGAPORE: The Defence Ministry responded on Wednesday to reports and letters in the media on how a Singapore Armed Forces officer was punished for "blowing the whistle" on his commanders who had allegedly turned a blind eye on a fellow officer's misconduct.
MINDEF said it is "important to return to the basics – the facts of the case, and the principles and procedures" for dealing with it.
The case involves Second Lieutenant Li Hongyi, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's second son, who had sent a complaint up the military chain of command and to the Defence Minister about a "lack of disciplinary action against another officer whom he had reported to his immediate superiors for being twice absent without leave".
MINDEF said any serviceman who thinks himself wronged by a superior or dissatisfied with the action taken by his commanders can raise the matter up his chain of command and to the Armed Forces Council chaired by the Defence Minister.
Such procedures on seeking redress are clearly set out in the Recruit's Handbook – a copy of which is given to all enlistees.
The complaint was investigated according to the SAF's procedures and disciplinary action was taken against the officers who were reported on.
What MINDEF took issue with was how 2LT Li had broadcast his complaint via email to many other officers and servicemen.
This contravened the general orders of the Ministry of Defence, which require complaints to be brought up through the proper channels and procedures.
2LT Li was therefore formally charged and reprimanded.
MINDEF said these facts show "the fair and equitable way in which the SAF treats all its servicemen, with each one receiving nothing more nor less than what any serviceman is entitled to".
It added that as a disciplined force, the SAF investigates all complaints that are not anonymous and takes action against any serviceman who has breached its regulations, regardless of who the complainant and the servicemen involved are.
Proper procedures are in place to maintain discipline, uphold morale and to protect confidential information. -
i am glad that they straighten the record and re-establish the command.
-
shiokz... looks like the lees are no longer "THAT" powderfulzOriginally posted by Arapahoe:i am glad that they straighten the record and re-establish the command.
Family business cannot last three generations bcos by the time the 3rd generation comes about, they are spoilt rotten.. -
By Adobe:
I'm not sure how we should disassociate wartime and peacetime when it comes to disciplinary action - are not both treated with equal seriousness? It's difficult to say a punishment should be more severe if shells are flying over your head, as opposed to normal peace time conditions.
I am uncertain how to put it except that I feel your approach is unfortunately flawed in that you are mixing two separate issues into one.
The 3 events that you have described - in the preceding paragraph quoted - concerns the Senior Commander's method in handling LTA X seeming criminal act.
You have rolled that event into a general situation for the Officers to make 'Right or Wrong' combat decisions in times of War, or some general situation in Peace Time.
''Right or Wrong'' will depend on the circumstances of what transpired from the investigations by the Senior Commander on the charges laid by 2Lt Li against LTA X, which resulted in the decision that was made - as part of the Administrative Duties during Peace time.
Are you now suggesting that there are errors made by the Senior Commander in the manner that the 3 events are handled, when we have already agreed that there is insufficient details for us even to have a simple discussion ?
Even during times of War - even with all the training and honed skills - can any decision by any Commander (whether an Officer or a NCO) guarantee the victorious outcome in a war that is continuously fluid, and being an untested SAF - are we all not on a learning curve ?
Are you suggesting that every decision by Commanders that you see to be flawed will need to be debated, questioned, and mutiny take place before a wrong decision is acted on ?
It has always been my contention that any orders - 'Right or Wrong, Good or Bad'' must be acted upon to the best of each of our individual ability, with the information available, and with the manpower and equipment within the unit size that we are posted (i.e. a section, a platoon, a Company, a Batalion, a Brigade).
There are always alternative ways to do anything - even if we decide to positively follow the order, we could get it done as dictated or done in the best possible ways; or do something else more than the orders demand and completely different to achieve the same goals; or simply do nothing.
During the Yom Kippur war, Gen Sharon found the orders given to him to be bad, and he did more than his orders demanded and helped to turn the tide of the Egyptian surprise attack. His court martial absolved him of his acts of insubordination - how will you wish to look at this ? I surely will hope that you do not look at it as an 'esprit de corp' connivance in the Officer Corp.
Certainly, it comes to a head when we discuss cases of AWOL - imagine a platoon of men mobilized for war and only half report for duty, the other half going AWOL. The implications can be enormous. But the gist of the matter is going AWOL itself, regardless of the situation.
As for the case of poor decision-making (note: i was not refering to a lack of good leadership), i can only stress that a trial and error approach should not be the way to handle it. Your style of absorbing the decision made: 'Right or Wrong, Good or Bad' must be acted upon to the best of each of our individual ability, with the information available... is probably the best and only way to circumvent poor decisions - by interpreting them correctly despite themselves.
If officers make consistently bad decisions, then it is for OCS to decide whether they should be dropped from the course - why inflate the number of officers simply to fill an SAF need? I came across several officers during my tenure, who during field training couldn't perform simple navigation, couldn't make decisive decisions during field combat and was absolutely horrendous in managing platoon discipline.
In times of war, will the men mutiny? Maybe...to escape being led by an incompetent officer into battle.
Your statement: There are always alternative ways to do anything - even if we decide to positively follow the order, we could get it done as dictated or done in the best possible ways; or do something else is idealistic because when one is boxed into a corner, having exhausted all avenues, there may be no other options. WWII has seen many cases of officer fratricide, because their men would sooner kill their PC than be led to senseless slaughter.
Should those men be courtmartialled? Certainly, but is there any doubt that they probably saved more lives by their actions, despite being heinous?
At the end of the day, people make choices, and in the case of Li Hongyi, not everyone will agree his actions stemmed from a righteous act, but simply because he was in a significant position to do so. But like i mentioned earlier, it is the gist of his argument, not the manner it came across. -
I'm glad the army has done what is right and proper.
Had little Lee awoled, he would had been put in jail and tekaned liek everybody else.
We do have a system that works.
It makes us all proud to be Singaporeans -
what about LTA X punishment? Who is he that was accordded the special treatment until 2LT Li exposure. hope mindef also reveal him and his punishment accorded to him
-
AWOL sure DB lah.
You think SAF will give chance? -
i believe he is being punish but do we really want to know publicly if he goes to DB or demoted ?Originally posted by SevenEleven:what about LTA X punishment? Who is he that was accordded the special treatment until 2LT Li exposure. hope mindef also reveal him and his punishment accorded to him -
i wld say too little, too late....these has been ongoing all along, is just that milkhas spill and trying to make up for it....this is nothing to be proud of it....Originally posted by Mat Toro:I'm glad the army has done what is right and proper.
Had little Lee awoled, he would had been put in jail and tekaned liek everybody else.
We do have a system that works.
It makes us all proud to be Singaporeans -
so this is the case which mrbrown made into a show called 'swordsman' lah...
-
Since it is a first time with the white house; it is better later than never don't u think so.Originally posted by duotiga83:i wld say too little, too late....these has been ongoing all along, is just that milkhas spill and trying to make up for it....this is nothing to be proud of it.... -
so you are implying for things to happen rather than trying to solve the problem while it is there?Originally posted by Arapahoe:Since it is a first time with the white house; it is better later than never don't u think so. -
And the punishment is?
"please dont do that again. Thank you"
"you may go now. Cap" -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Whether in times of Peace or War, ''Decisions'' on disciplinary actions that are judged to be ''Good or Bad, Right or Wrong'' depends on the circumstances of the situation, and as I have previously stated, it is the prerogative of the Commanding Officer in his assessment of the circumstances to arrive at whatever decision he deems fit.
I'm not sure how we should disassociate wartime and peacetime when it comes to disciplinary action - are not both treated with equal seriousness? It's difficult to say a punishment should be more severe if shells are flying over your head, as opposed to normal peace time conditions.
Certainly, it comes to a head when we discuss cases of AWOL - imagine a platoon of men mobilized for war and only half report for duty, the other half going AWOL. The implications can be enormous. But the gist of the matter is going AWOL itself, regardless of the situation.
Should one question the validity of the decision made given the circumstances concluded by the Commanding Officer ?
In times of War, it becomes even more critical when shortage of manpower is made worst by the removal of personnels due to disciplinary actions, and this maybe an influencing factor for a Senior Commander to be more lenient than usual.
AWOL is a symptom to a problem and if it cannot be identified and resolved during Peace Time, it will spell big trouble during crisis.
Will strict adherence to military discipline resolved such issues ?
Will we not end up losing any remaining value in the offender by sending him to spend useless days in a ''super clean, cold and silent environment'' of a DB Centre, with useless hours in foot drills at odd hours of during hot days ?
Or should the circumstances of the AWOL offense be understood, and ''disciplinary corrective actions'' be instituted with appropriate ''psychological motivational help'' to recover the ''lost soul'' and bring him back to the cause of protecting the Little Red Dot ?
Note my qualified term - ''disciplinary corrective actions'' - will include 'psychological assistance' to help the offender to recover his position.
AWOL is a term that can be twisted to suit any imaginery situation as used by 2Lt Li.
However, in a combat situation when all officers are no longer around, and the defense of a position is already useless considering that the unit strength and capabilities are severely depleted to the last few men and ammunition against superior foces, should the remaining few ''withdraw without leave'' from their assigned position, regroup with any main force, or to sacrifice themselves uselessly to their end - and considered AWOL ?
In our present context, was LTA X on AWOL - a term that is liberally applied by 2Lt Li, who had used the term merely for its ''severe alarming impact'' and to serve his own ends ?
The circumstance surrounding the supposed AWOL by LTA X remains unknown, and it may turnout to be anything else but AWOL, to which the Senior Commander had felt more appropriate to have handled it in some other way as had happened.
Decision making is largely dependent on maturity, experience, empathy and a presence of mind of the decision maker to the status of the environment.
As for the case of poor decision-making (note: i was not refering to a lack of good leadership), i can only stress that a trial and error approach should not be the way to handle it. Your style of absorbing the decision made: 'Right or Wrong, Good or Bad' must be acted upon to the best of each of our individual ability, with the information available... is probably the best and only way to circumvent poor decisions - by interpreting them correctly despite themselves.
How can 'decision making skills' be imparted to any new kid wearing the 'Leader's Boots' for the first time ?
Is there any computerise laboratory environment that provide real life situations for a decision making skills to be honed, and with the outcome gauged by the computer program - (much like scoring of a karaoke sound machine to the ability of a karaoke singer) ?
However, the graduate from such a computerised environment will still have to test out his skills in a Real World with many fluid situations.
Life is a ''Trial and Error'' laboratory itself.
OCS can only do so much to filter out those who are seriously and obviously unsuitable leadership material, and those who are 'smart' to swim with the tide can slip through the OCS net.
If officers make consistently bad decisions, then it is for OCS to decide whether they should be dropped from the course - why inflate the number of officers simply to fill an SAF need? I came across several officers during my tenure, who during field training couldn't perform simple navigation, couldn't make decisive decisions during field combat and was absolutely horrendous in managing platoon discipline.
Is this not part of the Real World too ?
During my NS, I have personally encountered mutiny on at least two occassions - once as a recruit, I noticed an operational company conducting a sit in at the Parade Square - in protest to the repeated training exercises that was insisted by the Company Commander, the Officers and the NCOs, with the extra training exercises being a form of disciplinary action that went on for about 36 hours.
In times of war, will the men mutiny? Maybe...to escape being led by an incompetent officer into battle.
The second mutiny was from a batch of fresh recruits - into their third month - collectively refusing to respond to a young NCO torment of ''change parade'' over four hours - for the most minor of offense in crap left unflushed in the toilet bowl.
Both incidences arose from poor communication and empathy by the immediate leadership towards those they were assigned to lead.
When more senior officers turned up at the scene, the matter was cleared, discipline restored with the orders executed, and the Junior Commanders - who were given private dressing down for the abuses of their misguided enthusiasm that blinded them to the condition of those whom they led.
This clearly showed that leadership require maturity and experience to have the presence of mind to judge the intangible atmosphere and the physical environment, PLUS the X-Factor Charisma in Leadership.
continue below