A school with a military tradition
-
I thikn this is a pretty good idea... however I think the number of people enroled in it will not be enough.
The only use I see for such a school is when their parents had lost control of their children. No matter how they talked, how they spend time with them or whatever they do, the children just keep creating havoc... In such situations, the parents may not know what to do too. Having such a school may instill discipline into these youngsters and forcefully staighten their life to be good...
Just think of this scenario. There is this child, after the parents have neglect or didn't pay attention for a while, becomes a "gangster". He skips school, involves in fight, throw packets of drinks at the blackboard while the teacher is writing on it, play truant etc. The parents realise this and try to correct their negligience. However it seems too late as their son do not listen to them anymore, no matter how much effort they made and what they do. This son of theirs just keep playing involves in fight, visit prostitutes, loiter around, steal the family money, beat up his own younger brother etc. I have heard of sad cases where the son use a knife and pointed at the mum neck, blackmailing the father to give him money. What should the parents do in such cases ?
I believe forcing these kids into military schools where they will be forcefully change may be the best option available... Sad but true... This is life... -
why are we associating military education with delinquency???
why can't perfectly well adjusted and intelligent individuals want a military education as well?
as long as we see this road as being reserved for those who have "lost control" and "lost their way", u're not gonna get prestige and recognition for your institution... u'll continue having an ill-conceived program like SAFEC.
i essentially see a military school as a place where one can get a rigourous education, coupled with military routines and enforced military discipline. a great place for individual development and growth.
funny thing is, we might as well have said "prison" while we're talking about "military schools"... -
Posted something related to Military School for delinquency students in Chit-Chat.Originally posted by CX:why are we associating military education with delinquency???
why can't perfectly well adjusted and intelligent individuals want a military education as well?
as long as we see this road as being reserved for those who have "lost control" and "lost their way", u're not gonna get prestige and recognition for your institution... u'll continue having an ill-conceived program like SAFEC.
i essentially see a military school as a place where one can get a rigourous education, coupled with military routines and enforced military discipline. a great place for individual development and growth.
funny thing is, we might as well have said "prison" while we're talking about "military schools"...
Dated few days back...
"My stand in this issue is similar to those of Ayukat.
What you are suggesting is going to introduce in fact, a further polarization of the youth society.
As compared to the previous streaming policies in mainstream schools, the concept of shipping off all ‘delinquents’ into a military is even worse.
Instead of addressing the beneficial pulls from the ‘additional attention and care’ from the running concept of the military school that you have, it is higher probable that backfiring will occur.
Delinquents need to be counseled and reconditioned to allow them to re-enter the mainstreams in society.
For their sake, educators and parents alike share a common responsibility to ensure that the educational and other all-rounder learning IS there to ensure that the majority of these students are capable of mingling well.
To have a military school just for the sake of clustering up these particular group from society, especially given their young age, is something rather high-handed.
Why must a delinquent youth, or someone who has been branded under this term for one, HAS to have his / her future career path decided for by members of the public?
Is this arrangement a fit with what we call 'democracy' in our society? -
that is why i say... WHY do we see a military school as a potential solution to youth problems AT ALL???Originally posted by Spear:Posted something related to Military School for delinquency students in Chit-Chat.
Dated few days back...
"My stand in this issue is similar to those of Ayukat.
What you are suggesting is going to introduce in fact, a further polarization of the youth society.
As compared to the previous streaming policies in mainstream schools, the concept of shipping off all ‘delinquents’ into a military is even worse.
Instead of addressing the beneficial pulls from the ‘additional attention and care’ from the running concept of the military school that you have, it is higher probable that backfiring will occur.
Delinquents need to be counseled and reconditioned to allow them to re-enter the mainstreams in society.
For their sake, educators and parents alike share a common responsibility to ensure that the educational and other all-rounder learning IS there to ensure that the majority of these students are capable of mingling well.
To have a military school just for the sake of clustering up these particular group from society, especially given their young age, is something rather high-handed.
Why must a delinquent youth, or someone who has been branded under this term for one, HAS to have his / her future career path decided for by members of the public?
Is this arrangement a fit with what we call 'democracy' in our society?
a military school is SUPPOSED to be a distinguished and prestigious institution that offers academic rigour, physical demands and military discipline. NOT a prison-style rehab facility.
pple who choose to go there are pple should be those who think that its right for them, that it offers them the programme for personal developments and career prospects AND who QUALIFY under stringent admission requirements.
thats why i say, WHY DO WE SEE MILITARY SCHOOL AS A PRISON STYLE REHAB FACILITY???
it stems from a basic ignorance and misconception of HOW other countries have established such institutions successfully and trained soldiers and leaders out of promising, young candidates, NOT reclaim problem youths. that should NOT be its main mission at all! -
As for diciplince, don't forget there are uniformed groups, and they are militarist in some ways (Drills, "yes-sir No-sir). I think its totally up to the individual school to shape the diciplince of their students.
-
that is why i say... WHY do we see a military school as a potential solution to youth problems AT ALL???
.....
a military school is SUPPOSED to be a distinguished and prestigious institution that offers academic rigour, physical demands and military discipline. NOT a prison-style rehab facility.
pple who choose to go there are pple should be those who think that its right for them, that it offers them the programme for personal developments and career prospects AND who QUALIFY under stringent admission requirements.
thats why i say, WHY DO WE SEE MILITARY SCHOOL AS A PRISON STYLE REHAB FACILITY???
it stems from a basic ignorance and misconception of HOW other countries have established such institutions successfully and trained soldiers and leaders out of promising, young candidates, NOT reclaim problem youths. that should NOT be its main mission at all!
then what is the point of building such schools since it is already similar, or worse than the ones we have ? I rather my children to be in normal schools where their creativity will not be stifled due to being over disciplined... Being physically fit is enough if he choose to be an engineer or othe white collar jobs. What is the point of him being as fit as commando or ranger other than him really becoming a comando or ranger ? If training for leadership or teamwork, ECAs should be enough.
I think they may not be happier there as well... Some people are just Siao On about army thingy while others prefer to challenge their brains more than their brawls...
BTW men already have NS, and they can still strive for OCS, IPPT gold, marksman, airborne etc...Striving for being President of student union, representation of schools in a sports offer its own challenges as well... -
u call THAT militaristic???!!!Originally posted by Jazzswing:As for diciplince, don't forget there are uniformed groups, and they are militarist in some ways (Drills, "yes-sir No-sir). I think its totally up to the individual school to shape the diciplince of their students.
-
What you are suggesting is going to introduce in fact, a further polarization of the youth society.
Talking, counselling and reconditioning is just idealistic. If that works, then there wouldn't be hard core criminals in the first place. If sending over them to a disciplined miltary schools, it may forge a sense of discipline into them so as to change their way. In the past they have too much freedom and took things from granted. They never know what future they should seek. If they went to a military school, they are slammed into the cold facts of reality and knows they cannot do things just because they want to. Of course this will turn out to be an issue that deals about psychology.
As compared to the previous streaming policies in mainstream schools, the concept of shipping off all ‘delinquents’ into a military is even worse.
Instead of addressing the beneficial pulls from the ‘additional attention and care’ from the running concept of the military school that you have, it is higher probable that backfiring will occur.
Delinquents need to be counseled and reconditioned to allow them to re-enter the mainstreams in society.
For their sake, educators and parents alike share a common responsibility to ensure that the educational and other all-rounder learning IS there to ensure that the majority of these students are capable of mingling well.
To have a military school just for the sake of clustering up these particular group from society, especially given their young age, is something rather high-handed.
Why must a delinquent youth, or someone who has been branded under this term for one, HAS to have his / her future career path decided for by members of the public?
Is this arrangement a fit with what we call 'democracy' in our society?
Democracy ? I think we better fix the basis on how to live in a society first. -
Originally posted by socrates:
well, just for the sake of debate, i say the point will be to offer one more alternative for promising candidates aiming for a career in the military and to provide one more avenue of recruitment for the military. i do not mean for all schools to become military schools.
then what is the point of building such schools since it is already similar, or worse than the ones we have ? I rather my children to be in normal schools where their creativity will not be stifled due to being over disciplined... Being physically fit is enough if he choose to be an engineer or othe white collar jobs. What is the point of him being as fit as commando or ranger other than him really becoming a comando or ranger ? If training for leadership or teamwork, ECAs should be enough. I think they may not be happier there as well... Some people are just Siao On about army thingy while others prefer to challenge their brains more than their brawls...
one can make a strong case that OCS doesn't do enough (judging by the rather inconsistent quality of the officers passed out every 10 months) ... the whole point of modern military training is the recognition that not everyone is a military genius like napoleon or rommel, but that it is possible to mass-produce military competence through proper training.
we've even gone BEYOND that now... with the emphasis to leverage on individual strengths, organizational learning and flatter structures to improve flexibility on the ground... but the consequence of this i think, is that u actually need MORE focused training and more specific applications. aspects which are lacking now.BTW men already have NS, and they can still strive for OCS, IPPT gold, marksman, airborne etc...Striving for being President of student union, representation of schools in a sports offer its own challenges as well...
Westpoint was brought up as an example earlier as a prestigious military academy... it has trained officers, generals and presidents in the USA.
if we can think about a sports school, and a music school, why can't we think along the same lines and conceive of a military school as well? school CCA offers sports and music as well... but is that enough?
a diverse and intellectually mature society has to recognise different strains of talents and offer the right opportunities for young minds to develop them.
could it be because that we dislike our military so much that we do not see the skills needed to run a military as being unique in itself and worthy of a specialised training school? -
Since girls are not included in the picture, we already seems to have a "compulsory" school named "NS". For training officers, we already have an OCS. If you want them to start early, we have NCC or NPCC.
well, just for the sake of debate, i say the point will be to offer one more alternative for promising candidates aiming for a career in the military and to provide one more avenue of recruitment for the military. i do not mean for all schools to become military schools.
Being specialised at such a young age is not a good thing (you have proposed students to be able 16 right ?). If they do not like their jobs or got themselves injured during training, they cannot have another equally good option available for them.
one can make a strong case that OCS doesn't do enough (judging by the rather inconsistent quality of the officers passed out every 10 months) ... the whole point of modern military training is the recognition that not everyone is a military genius like napoleon or rommel, but that it is possible to mass-produce military competence through proper training.
we've even gone BEYOND that now... with the emphasis to leverage on individual strengths, organizational learning and flatter structures to improve flexibility on the ground... but the consequence of this i think, is that u actually need MORE focused training and more specific applications. aspects which are lacking now.
Training can make out good officers ? That is true. However how much time should be given to them ? 10 months just purely training up the army aspects of an individual seems to be... sufficient. They too have training for another year of practical training when they are assign to a unit before they get to ORD too. If by your suggestions, that these people need to study as well, I can foresee they do not have the time to do all these 3 areas well. (Tactical, fitness, academic). You may say that the officers that graduate from OCS sucks big time, but then what further improvements should be implemented ? How effective these implementation will be ? Instead of looking at the bad side, there are also wonderful officers that had graduate from OCS. The main problem of it is not the training provided but the fact that they let more academics, who are relatively more used to the softer part in life, to be in OCS...
Improving on individual strengths, organizational learning and flatter structures to improve flexibility on the ground... I think instead of asking discipline people who has lived through the old system to change the system, it may be wiser to let a new, more creative and had experience in outside privatises organisation to lead the changes. That is asking people who had graduate from the "normal" university to see to the improvment of the structure of the army. Being more focus in training etc just make them more used to the old system and relectant to introduce any new changes.Westpoint was brought up as an example earlier as a prestigious military academy... it has trained officers, generals and presidents in the USA.
That is an example in USA. China or other powerful countries have such school as well. However there is a difference between USA, China and Singapore. USA and China citizens do not serve NS. They do not undergo 2.5 years of training. They need a school to specially train people into officers. This is already something we have, OCS. We too have "potential president" that came from OCS too. LHL...
if we can think about a sports school, and a music school, why can't we think along the same lines and conceive of a military school as well? school CCA offers sports and music as well... but is that enough?
a diverse and intellectually mature society has to recognise different strains of talents and offer the right opportunities for young minds to develop them.
could it be because that we dislike our military so much that we do not see the skills needed to run a military as being unique in itself and worthy of a specialised training school?
About art and sports school, they are sort of necessary because we do not have one with a similar structure here. For military, I guess we already have one in place. NS, OCS etc... -
Originally posted by socrates:
i assume u have served before right??? there is a difference between soldiering as a "grunt" and soldiering as an effective commander. besides, girls do sign on.
Since girls are not included in the picture, we already seems to have a "compulsory" school named "NS". For training officers, we already have an OCS. If you want them to start early, we have NCC or NPCC.
10 mths in OCS is NOT ENOUGH and uniformed groups only provide occassional immersion on weekends.Being specialised at such a young age is not a good thing (you have proposed students to be able 16 right ?). If they do not like their jobs or got themselves injured during training, they cannot have another equally good option available for them.
i suggest applying for this school as a matter of choice and its curriculum as academically as well as physically rigourous. i hardly see 16 as "too young"... individuals on saf poly scholarships would have signed their bond at around that time as well.
i have no answer to those who "don't like it" and regret the decision, but to those who are injured, what's the problem? SAF deals with these situations all the time. if one is downgraded, they can either convert to a desk position, or given the choice to opt out of the bond and their term there can be considered their NS served...
also it would depend what form of academic accredition such a proposed institution would offer... if it were to offer "a" levels for instance (for easy uni aplication) , even if one were to drop out in the first year, arrangements can still be made to switch to a normal JC (since one who could get into this military school in the first place must already possess strong academic results) ...Training can make out good officers ? That is true. However how much time should be given to them ? 10 months just purely training up the army aspects of an individual seems to be... sufficient.
a narrow "army-aspect" is not sufficient. at best, it teaches one how to act like a puke with a chocolate bar, not behave like a proper officer and gentleman. i think that it doesn't even ensure a minimum level of competency.
such is life i think, as u mentioned that academically gifted individuals don't always make good officers. i think they can... given more time to work on the "personal development", and not the "military" aspect.They too have training for another year of practical training when they are assign to a unit before they get to ORD too. If by your suggestions, that these people need to study as well, I can foresee they do not have the time to do all these 3 areas well. (Tactical, fitness, academic).
why not? it depends how long is your course and how u break it down. lets not kid ourselves... when i was taking "a" levels, i had the time of my life... 3 "a" and 2 "ao" isn't bad. i had time to go canoeing, go mucking around orchard road, go home play doom2 (that's how old i am ) chat on the phone for hours, etc etc... and i still got decent grades ... Instead of looking at the bad side, there are also wonderful officers that had graduate from OCS. The main problem of it is not the training provided but the fact that they let more academics, who are relatively more used to the softer part in life, to be in OCS...
i already said... the point is not to have the occassional wild-card, but to ensure that all who go through officer's training are at least minimally competent...
its not a question of academically inclined versus the rest... academically inclined pple are not "softer" by nature, but that the demands of soldiering requires them to undergo some adjustments which OCS in unable to accomplish in 10 months.Improving on individual strengths, organizational learning and flatter structures to improve flexibility on the ground... I think instead of asking discipline people who has lived through the old system to change the system, it may be wiser to let a new, more creative and had experience in outside privatises organisation to lead the changes.
have u ever worked with consultants before? an experience like that would convince anyone that its not always possible.
u wanna bring in news ideas, u need a very thorough knowledge of HOW the original situation is to begin with. even if u bring in "new blood", they will either need to immerse themselves, or get the help of those who know.
MIT had this experience... they brought in consultants and they had a really bad time... in the end, it didn't solve much...
might a military school help that by training pple who have in depth knowledge of military organization and insights AND old-boy's networks help this situation? it might... they're already pretty immersed by the end of it. some might go off to uni on scholarships or disruption for uni, and they come back armed with more knowledge to apply.That is asking people who had graduate from the "normal" university to see to the improvment of the structure of the army. Being more focus in training etc just make them more used to the old system and relectant to introduce any new changes.
that doesn't work. lets say, i wanna implement a system to manage logistics. i say we computerise and implement an enterprise resource planning computer program... MIT uses SAP for that now (so does SAF
)...
SAP is not easily configurable. entire organizations have to re-shape and re-focus their procedures to use it. there's a reason for that: the software's procedure was designed and optimised for large companies around the software's functions.
but every org is different... its the same twisted rationale that kicked off the dot.com bubble... "if u don't see it or can't change, the problem is with YOU, not the software..."
so if u get clueless newbies who might be graduates and smarty pants by any measure, but that doesn't mean that they'll be most equipped to bring in new, workable ideas.
for info on SAP in the SAF, just ask any store man or CQ...That is an example in USA. China or other powerful countries have such school as well. However there is a difference between USA, China and Singapore. USA and China citizens do not serve NS. They do not undergo 2.5 years of training. They need a school to specially train people into officers. This is already something we have, OCS. We too have "potential president" that came from OCS too. LHL...
i see a military school as a parallel structure to improve and complement the situation, not replace it... OCS will still be there, but pple with the army as a career in mind might want to have the choice of an education more focused, and a little earlier. About art and sports school, they are sort of necessary because we do not have one with a similar structure here. For military, I guess we already have one in place. NS, OCS etc...
to reconcile my point with yours, i say the existing structure can be positively complemented by one more path. we need not assume that the existing system is perfect... -
I am going to just give a short reply on it
10 mths in OCS is NOT ENOUGH
Plus the 1.5 year practical training in real military units. I guess that makes it sufficient. You can extend the course if you so desire, however do you think the result will improved a lot ?a narrow "army-aspect" is not sufficient. at best, it teaches one how to act like a puke with a chocolate bar, not behave like a proper officer and gentleman. i think that it doesn't even ensure a minimum level of competency.
WHat do you think they should further include ? What does the other military schools teaches that OCS doesn't ?why not? it depends how long is your course and how u break it down. lets not kid ourselves... when i was taking "a" levels, i had the time of my life... 3 "a" and 2 "ao" isn't bad. i had time to go canoeing, go mucking around orchard road, go home play doom2 (that's how old i am ) chat on the phone for hours, etc etc... and i still got decent grades
Well... probably you are gifted and you do not need much time to study. However one need to take note that when one is training in OCS, does he have the time to play CS, canoeing or mucking around in orchard rd ? I don't think they even have the time to sleep.i already said... the point is not to have the occassional wild-card, but to ensure that all who go through officer's training are at least minimally competent...
There are many people that went through OCS. Not all of them are performed badly after they graduate from it. As I said in my previous points, the quality of people from OCS are not due to the improper training but due to the poor quality (army quality) of people entering in the school. There is nothing wrong with it with the school or its short period of training in the first place.
its not a question of academically inclined versus the rest... academically inclined pple are not "softer" by nature, but that the demands of soldiering requires them to undergo some adjustments which OCS in unable to accomplish in 10 months.might a military school help that by training pple who have in depth knowledge of military organization and insights AND old-boy's networks help this situation? it might... they're already pretty immersed by the end of it. some might go off to uni on scholarships or disruption for uni, and they come back armed with more knowledge to apply.
That is very interesting. There has always been many officers in the military now and had done nothing to change the system they had adapted to. True, they may be the one that can "change" the environment, however they are the one that DO NOT want to change it. In fact they are probably the ones that resists any changes.so if u get clueless newbies who might be graduates and smarty pants by any measure, but that doesn't mean that they'll be most equipped to bring in new, workable ideas.
How about "experienced and successful" businessmen from other organisation that had gone through a "normal" university education ?i see a military school as a parallel structure to improve and complement the situation, not replace it... OCS will still be there, but pple with the army as a career in mind might want to have the choice of an education more focused, and a little earlier.
Why "more focused" and "earlier" ? When they are 16, their bodies are not even fully developed yet. Why not let them make a choice after they gone through NS and know what is like serving in the army rather than they just get all these ideas from TV or games ? After going through NS, if they really like it, then they can sign on and be an officer. Now the system, instead of asking students to focus on physicial, discipline, academic SIMULTANEOUSLY, they can concentrate fully on academic first during JC or Poly before fully focusing themselves on the army aspect during NS. IMO taking things one step at a time provides better result than attempting to work on all areas at a single go.
Is one school, OCS really that insufficient to cope with the number of potential officers ? Why waste money, land, resources, manpower to open up another school when the other one is under utilised ?to reconcile my point with yours, i say the existing structure can be positively complemented by one more path. we need not assume that the existing system is perfect...
From my point of view, our system, though imperfect, is already the best possible solution. Opening up a new school for people to join the army ? How many people will go there in the first place ? How many officers are needed by the SAF per year ? How enticing does joining in the army appears to normal citizens ? I guess they need at most a few hundreds which have already been cater by one school, OCS. Extending the time for training just decrease the number of people joining the army as it inevitably extend the length of their contracts. -
sigh... we go round in circles here...
what i do think is, from the responses of pple here, one can see that the military lacks prestige as a career.
scholars, athletes and musicians, of course! but soldiers? hmmm... but we have NS, but we have OCS, but kids need the time to choose...
or worse! yes, its a great place to place delinquents... spank some sense into them!
how come nobody points out that athletes may decide to move on to something else halfway? or musicians may peak and crash without gaining the recognition they seek? how many maestros can a conservatory hope to inspire and train?
but soldiers? a millitary school ties u down! and oppresses your creativity! soldiering is not a "real" profession
summed up in one sentence: this society does not value soldiers.
-
Talking, counseling and reconditioning is only idealistic when it is being talk about. When really carried, the approach still has a relatively visible track record of corrective actions – to a certain extend of course.Originally posted by socrates:Talking, counselling and reconditioning is just idealistic. If that works, then there wouldn't be hard core criminals in the first place.
As for the existence of hardcore criminals, obviously the motive and arise of criminal intentions would have first arise even before a criminal act.
While I see your point in conveying that hardcore criminals might not be reformed upon being counseling recipients, I will question the strength or intensity of the corrective session in relation to its intended ‘overriding’ power to a criminal’s inherent harbor of crime-spurring elements, rather than the technical effectiveness of the approach itself.
And so, all the more immediate task at hand with respect to the above should be the reorienting efforts on the youthsÂ’ sense of lost direction wouldnÂ’t it?Originally posted by socrates:If sending over them to a disciplined miltary schools, it may forge a sense of discipline into them so as to change their way. In the past they have too much freedom and took things from granted.
Discipline is important, but sole dependency on that mere aspect alone will merely build up on an ability to comply and to conform, but not reflect and correct.
Without a subjectÂ’s personal understanding and reflection on why they should change for the better, even the survivor from the harshest military training camp in the world would be no better off, like a living dead zombie.
Maybe.Originally posted by socrates:They never know what future they should seek.
But it will still not justify a public decision to dictate their fate and options in life for them.
Not just psychology, but it will also sound a little more like punishment to those whom have swayed out of our mainstream system.Originally posted by socrates:If they went to a military school, they are slammed into the cold facts of reality and knows they cannot do things just because they want to. Of course this will turn out to be an issue that deals about psychology.
Democracy and sociology. These 2 are definitely an chicken and egg issue.Originally posted by socrates:Democracy ? I think we better fix the basis on how to live in a society first. -
Singapore is already conditioned enough.Originally posted by CX:sigh... we go round in circles here...
what i do think is, from the responses of pple here, one can see that the military lacks prestige as a career.
scholars, athletes and musicians, of course! but soldiers? hmmm... but we have NS, but we have OCS, but kids need the time to choose...
or worse! yes, its a great place to place delinquents... spank some sense into them!
how come nobody points out that athletes may decide to move on to something else halfway? or musicians may peak and crash without gaining the recognition they seek? how many maestros can a conservatory hope to inspire and train?
but soldiers? a millitary school ties u down! and oppresses your creativity! soldiering is not a "real" profession
summed up in one sentence: this society does not value soldiers.
the problems musicians and athletes face are due to repressive environmetnal conditions and repressive laws, like the academic requirements for the SIngapore Arts School and SPorts School.
solidering cannot be put in the same league as these.
perhaps, the negative attitude of soldiering is because it is something forced down our throat, and political rhetoric cannot water that down.
but soldiering as a profession, i think, is very much different from a military school. i beleive it si as noble as any other profession. After all, soldiers protect national security.
but as for a military school... have you heard of the Vietnam War? the atrocities committed by American soldiers toward Vietnamese wer because fo ahrsh training they received at military schools. and that was the same thing that was in Japan, that gave us the brutal Kempeitai during World War II. SOldiers were traiend to be brutal.
SO, A MILITARY SCHOOL WILL JUZ CREATE A GENERATION OF COLD, CRUEL SINGAPOREANS, WHICH IS WHAT WE DON"T NEED AT ALL!
n btw, i salute the sprotsmen and musicians who are trying the best of their art locally. fight for teh arts scene, u guys!
the contemplative pikamaster (who is still agaisnt the Death Penalty) -
Talking, counseling and reconditioning is only idealistic when it is being talk about. When really carried, the approach still has a relatively visible track record of corrective actions to a certain extend of course.
I agree that talking and conselling is indeed effective... up to a certain point. What happened if the delinquents has reach a stage where no amount of counselling or talking helps ? What should be the next stage of action then ?While I see your point in conveying that hardcore criminals might not be reformed upon being counseling recipients, I will question the strength or intensity of the corrective session in relation to its intended overriding power to a criminal inherent harbor of crime-spurring elements, rather than the technical effectiveness of the approach itself.
I will question too on the strength or intensity of the corrective session in relation to overwriting delinquents rebellious nature and sometimes lack of plain discipline and arrogance.And so, all the more immediate task at hand with respect to the above should be the reorienting efforts on the youths sense of lost direction wouldnt it?
How are you going to reorientate the youth's sense of lost direction ? Is solely talking and counseling a fool proof method of achieving this ? Why not steal off their arrogance, cut off their rebellious nature slam them into the hard facts of reality during military training while in the meantime, provide counselling and talk ? Work on both field at the same time. They will be more receptive then isn't it ?
To comply and conform is needed before reflect and correct. If they do not comply or listen to any words or meet willingly to a councellor, will their words get in and make them reflect and correct ?
Discipline is important, but sole dependency on that mere aspect alone will merely build up on an ability to comply and to conform, but not reflect and correct.But it will still not justify a public decision to dictate their fate and options in life for them.
Is being a criminal, drug addicts or wasting their youth in fights and jails consider an option in life for them ? We should be pulling them onto the right path, not telling them what they had done is their own free will and we have no rights to care for them.Not just psychology, but it will also sound a little more like punishment to those whom have swayed out of our mainstream system.
I guess my earlier phrasing of statement is a bit bad... What I am trying to say is whether being a nice fellow and resort only to counselling a better method or giving them trainings on discipline and after their trainings they start to receive counseling.
Therefore this question deals with psychology on people. Being just "soft" and pursuading people to change is effective or employing both "hard" and "soft" method to change people is more effective.
Counselling is like both parents being nice to the child and never hit them. They just use words to "pursuade" and "discipline" their children.
Military and counselling is much like a father, playing the role of the "bad guy" and physically discipline a child while the mother plays the role of the "counsellor" who later tell them what had they performed wrongly and what to change.
Which method should be employed ? Different people will resort to different methods to discipline their child. In my case, I will probably resort to the "bad guy" and "counsellor" method to teach my children and prepare them for the world -
Originally posted by pikamaster:
and u judge that HOW?
Singapore is already conditioned enough.
i hardly think that a kid who has not served NS is fit to comment on that point.the problems musicians and athletes face are due to repressive environmetnal conditions and repressive laws, like the academic requirements for the SIngapore Arts School and SPorts School.
the law does not forbid u from playing sports or music...
the enviornment is not conduscive not because it is repressive, but because societal norms do not value sports and the arts.
they are seen as "unproductive". even now, though we apparently see an "opening up", are we really seeing a more conduscive enviornment or a dramatically different value system?
the answer is NO. Sg is going into this because it is now seen as "productive" and "profitable" to engage in sports and the arts. they are basically defining these activities with old benchmarks, whether they're relevant or not.
they are not doing it to breed sportsmen and musicians... they're hoping (despite official rhetoric to the contrary) to breed winners and maestros, which is quite frankly, SICK because how can u judge sports and music strictly on these measures?
whatever happened to "sports for life" and "art for art's sake" ?solidering cannot be put in the same league as these.
u think it noble but u do not see a need to train soldiers for the special demands that they face? so how is that reconciliable?
perhaps, the negative attitude of soldiering is because it is something forced down our throat, and political rhetoric cannot water that down.
but soldiering as a profession, i think, is very much different from a military school. i beleive it si as noble as any other profession. After all, soldiers protect national security.
u are forced to serve NS... but nobody forces u to sign on... this hypothetical military school i was talking about is essentially for regulars.
u don't have to like soldiering, but shouldn't a society respect the aspirations of those who are willing to make that choice and provide the facilities to maximise that potential?
or would your limited, liberal, self rather just oppress these aspirations because u see them as a threat to your narrow vision of liberalism?
but u would promote sports and music because u feel them to be liberating and peaceful? well... lets have our athletes jogging to the tune of Wagner then... we'll see how "free" that turns out to be... Leni Riefenstahl and Josef Goebbels would be so proud...but as for a military school... have you heard of the Vietnam War? the atrocities committed by American soldiers toward Vietnamese wer because fo ahrsh training they received at military schools. and that was the same thing that was in Japan, that gave us the brutal Kempeitai during World War II. SOldiers were traiend to be brutal.
not all G.I's were fornicating white trash...
they innoculated livestock, attended to the health and welfare of the vietnamese they came into contact with and protected them from viet-cong brutalities (which were just as worse, if not more so than american atrocities... ) .
makes me wonder just how much YOU know about the vietnam war...
as for the japanese, the kempeitai were only a small, vocal and brutal part of the imperial army... the army and navy basically just wanted to get on with life after the initial disruptions caused by the invasion.
no theatre commander likes to be in command of a hot-spot! after the initial invasion, they provided security, implemented education and attempted to bring about efficient administration so they could exploit the resources of the places they conquered... just like the dutch and the brits.
would u believe it if i told u that se asia was actually considered a "soft-posting" and a popular R & R destination for japanese troops during the war?
they would've done better if the american submarines had not sunk a ship full of japanese administrators on their way to their appointments here...
it is important to understand what REALLY happened instead of taking at face value what your history text book says.
nobody denies that japanese rule was brutal and harsh, but are we to say that british, dutch and french rule was any better or more humane by comparison? get real... at the very least, they were ALL imperialistic crooks.
and get this straight... they ALL went through military TRAINING... but not all of them went to military SCHOOLs...
the atrocities were commited by soldiers who went through the TRAINING.
the senior officers were the ones who tried to restrain the violence and control the situation... they went to the SCHOOLS. not every japanese officer was a "Tsuji" ... the perversity and depravity of THAT war criminal was not easily matched...SO, A MILITARY SCHOOL WILL JUZ CREATE A GENERATION OF COLD, CRUEL SINGAPOREANS, WHICH IS WHAT WE DON"T NEED AT ALL!
so... by your logic, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton and Schwartzkopf, who were ALL West Point Alumnis were cold, cruel americans which the world doesn't need?
bearing in mind that macarthur was the hero of the southern pacific theatre, liberator of the philippines and genius of the korean war, eisenhower was a WW2 hero as well and president of the USA, patton, again, war hero, the mastermind of numerous allied victories and Schwartzkopf, the man who commanded the gulf war...
these people defeated your "cold cruel japanese " , defeated the even more unscrupulous nazis AND liberated kuwait from the unprovoked iraqi invasion ordered by saddam hussein.
u just have a very skewed idea of what a soldier is... and an even more bizzarre one of what an officer does.n btw, i salute the sprotsmen and musicians who are trying the best of their art locally. fight for teh arts scene, u guys!
salute all u want, whoever u want... but why write off any profession just because it doesn't fit into your twisted "liberal" mould?
the contemplative pikamaster (who is still agaisnt the Death Penalty)
your contemplation requires more depth and perspective. -
I see your point here and I agree with you that it has strong validity. It is regrettable to acknowledge that beyond youth homes run by MCDS and the limited number of counseling avenues, there are too few other alternatives that can offer a stronger medicine apart from counseling. And due to the established procedures, there are also many cases whereby society can do little about.Originally posted by socrates:I agree that talking and conselling is indeed effective... up to a certain point. What happened if the delinquents has reach a stage where no amount of counselling or talking helps ? What should be the next stage of action then ?
Take the sentencing of a delinquent youth who has been sent into a Home, subsequently released but is still unrepentant for example.
Without repeated offences or a valid court order, even the parents of the delinquent youth might be helpless to do anything more to the kid. What is persistent will be a rebellious mentality, and unless private counseling is opted for voluntarily, the social structure canÂ’t just step in to intervention and implore for alternate judgments to be meted out on the kid for the harboring of an rebellious and non-mainstream mentality.
Perhaps the only legal course of action available will be a prolonged and entangling series of recurring talks, with varying degree which might included even those as provided by the Prison Service, and these will all certainly be prescribed with direct relation to a delinquentÂ’s breach of law and order. But apart from that, we are unable to carry out any more pressing forms of corrective actions on such youth delinquents in the absence of a criminal breach of law, without infringing into their basic human right and raising hell with the tyrannical style of approach.
Hi^5.Originally posted by socrates:I will question too on the strength or intensity of the corrective session in relation to overwriting delinquents rebellious nature and sometimes lack of plain discipline and arrogance.
The conventional approach and strategy has emphasized mainly on courses of actions to recondition a subjectÂ’s mental phenomena, values and precognitive towards society.Originally posted by socrates:How are you going to reorientate the youth's sense of lost direction ? Is solely talking and counseling a fool proof method of achieving this ? Why not steal off their arrogance, cut off their rebellious nature slam them into the hard facts of reality during military training while in the meantime, provide counselling and talk ? Work on both field at the same time. They will be more receptive then isn't it ?
Your emphasis and stand on sending delinquents into a military school works along the concept of ‘softening the iron first – before hammering it out into mold’, which in essence is truly the crucial element for any corrective attempts.
There is nothing wrong with the ultimate technical effectiveness of this approach.
However since the ultimate end goal is for a delinquent to be able to re-enter society again as a better individual, wouldnÂ’t you agree that using a civic setting as the platform for reorientation and reforming work will come better over a military platform?
I think the balance between compliance, conformity, reflection and correction will have to be a continuous process within which all 4 elements must be employed in a balanced and mutually supporting manner.Originally posted by socrates:To comply and conform is needed before reflect and correct. If they do not comply or listen to any words or meet willingly to a councellor, will their words get in and make them reflect and correct ?
To be fair to the issue in discussion, excessive reliance on either the Comply and Conform Approach or the Reflect and Correct Approach will probably result in either further resistance buildup for the C&C Approach and deliberate oblivious for the R&C Approach.
I am still for the eradication of vice and delinquent mentalities and activities although the personal opinion is that a military boot camp style of approach might come to feel as being slightly overboard.Originally posted by socrates:Is being a criminal, drug addicts or wasting their youth in fights and jails consider an option in life for them ? We should be pulling them onto the right path, not telling them what they had done is their own free will and we have no rights to care for them.
So YES. I am for the your stand to pull them back onto the right and orthodox path in Life.
However, we would also have to remind ourselves of just how deep we should go into such efforts without becoming overbearing down onto another.
If I were to put this into analogy, it be like describing the case of pulling a delinquent out back on track as the stopping of a car going in reverse where the road at the rear ends with a sharp drop into a valley.
But apart from getting the car to brake and going into neutral, I cannot force the car to proceed forward in a direction where I personally wish for it to go in.
HmmÂ… Think youÂ’ll make quite a good father next time.Originally posted by socrates:I guess my earlier phrasing of statement is a bit bad... What I am trying to say is whether being a nice fellow and resort only to counselling a better method or giving them trainings on discipline and after their trainings they start to receive counseling.
Therefore this question deals with psychology on people. Being just "soft" and pursuading people to change is effective or employing both "hard" and "soft" method to change people is more effective.
Counselling is like both parents being nice to the child and never hit them. They just use words to "pursuade" and "discipline" their children.
Military and counselling is much like a father, playing the role of the "bad guy" and physically discipline a child while the mother plays the role of the "counsellor" who later tell them what had they performed wrongly and what to change.
Which method should be employed ? Different people will resort to different methods to discipline their child. In my case, I will probably resort to the "bad guy" and "counsellor" method to teach my children and prepare them for the world -
I guess different people have different opinions on issues such as discipline.
I probably watched too much US shows in which they portrayed parents sending their children to a military school when they had lost control of them.