How young can a Major be?
-
not sure wat u mean by staff college.Originally posted by Xprobe:What about staff college then? Only when their Maj?
SCSC is for senior apptment and yes, usually by the time u go u r a maj.
o cos there r other courses b4 tt to prep u for mid-snr apptments. -
hahaha thats why its a challenge!Originally posted by vaxjunior:Those who come out after one contract do not really have to start from the bottom. They just need to go into any GLC and they should be able to start from middle management level. Otherwise, if they extend, they should come out comfortably as a LTC or COL and go into senior management as my AVP/VP was at SingTel and those who I saw in Keppel - same thing.
So it is difficult for them to start from the bottom
[/quote]
-
i'll never quite trust those SAFOS scholars... thats yOriginally posted by wuming78:they will go for their PC and instructional and OC tours after they return from their studies, when they r holding their CPT ranks. -
hm.. im not sure wat is the basis of ur mistrust, i guess its likely to be due to their accelerated career advancement - hence the perceived lack of experience. and i cant help but think theres an element of jealousy - pls dun be mistaken, this is quite common, even i haf it, and i think our society at large has it, hence the kind of disdain we show to scholars.Originally posted by HENG@:i'll never quite trust those SAFOS scholars... thats y
but wat i can say is, there r farked up scholars, but there r also good ones, and some of these safos scholars r really good - and tt makes up partly for their lack of experience. -
theres no need to be jealous of having to soend your uni holiday serving bonds to the govt when u could be holidaying all over USA or Europe. or having a fun time, or buying whatever u godamned well wanna becos u ain't there on the people's $$$.
in other words, freedom. like me.
-
o cos, we each haf our own dreams and aspirations. u haf ur freedom while they haf their prestige and career. society needs this diversity to be colourful and to thrive.Originally posted by HENG@:theres no need to be jealous of having to soend your uni holiday serving bonds to the govt when u could be holidaying all over USA or Europe. or having a fun time, or buying whatever u godamned well wanna becos u ain't there on the people's $$$.
in other words, freedom. like me. 
-
i'd love to needle them a bit.
hey during my hols i'd be touring Europe!!! whooooooo!!! -
There are good scholars and there are the hopeless, a waste of tax payers money kind.Originally posted by wuming78:hm.. im not sure wat is the basis of ur mistrust, i guess its likely to be due to their accelerated career advancement - hence the perceived lack of experience. and i cant help but think theres an element of jealousy - pls dun be mistaken, this is quite common, even i haf it, and i think our society at large has it, hence the kind of disdain we show to scholars.
but wat i can say is, there r farked up scholars, but there r also good ones, and some of these safos scholars r really good - and tt makes up partly for their lack of experience.
I have 2 questions:
1) How many of those scholars are really an asset?
2) You said the good makes up for the bad........I think the damage done by those bad ones and even average performing ones are far far worse than we can imagine.
Don't forget they will fester their way into the GLCs .........making more damage as they exit SAF.
Those in power has to treat scholars like investing in shares......if you make a lost SELL! Cut your losses and start again.
Unlike shares holding onto them will not see their value regained but will only do great injustice to the country. -
the policy of the leaders now is to nurture top talents, and concentrate resources on them. these top ppl will lead the rest. its pragmatic though it reeks of elitism, and they decided this was their option and how they wanted to use the limited resources tt we haf.Originally posted by Fairyland:I have 2 questions:
1) How many of those scholars are really an asset?
2) You said the good makes up for the bad........I think the damage done by those bad ones and even average performing ones are far far worse than we can imagine.
Don't forget they will fester their way into the GLCs .........making more damage as they exit SAF.
Those in power has to treat scholars like investing in shares......if you make a lost SELL! Cut your losses and start again.
Unlike shares holding onto them will not see their value regained but will only do great injustice to the country.
how many of them are assets? i dunno. the bodies giving out the scholarships shud noe. its hard for us to judge.
and i din say tt the good make up for the bad. wat i said was tt there r good scholars, whose intellectual capabilities can make up partly for their lack of experience.
and u seem to be very concerned abt the "damage" done by the scholars. can u name some examples of such damages? and why single out the scholars? wat abt those non-scholars?
i agree wif u tt personnel who cannot perform should be let loose. this applies to ALL personnel - scholars or not. -
haha...
last year's president scholar almost missed his flight to the states when he overslept.
how i know? he flew with my cousin, a PSC scholar, and my dad also knows his dad, thru work. i was at e airport to send my cousin.
how erm... responsible. -
The dumb ass who decided that insignia and patches were a waste of servicemen money. So, cant tell the difference between for example a cook sergeant and a seasoned NCO who have a few tours under your belt and been through hell and back. So you treat them the same. Thats why people leave.Originally posted by wuming78:the policy of the leaders now is to nurture top talents, and concentrate resources on them. these top ppl will lead the rest. its pragmatic though it reeks of elitism, and they decided this was their option and how they wanted to use the limited resources tt we haf.
how many of them are assets? i dunno. the bodies giving out the scholarships shud noe. its hard for us to judge.
and i din say tt the good make up for the bad. wat i said was tt there r good scholars, whose intellectual capabilities can make up partly for their lack of experience.
and u seem to be very concerned abt the "damage" done by the scholars. can u name some examples of such damages? and why single out the scholars? wat abt those non-scholars?
i agree wif u tt personnel who cannot perform should be let loose. this applies to ALL personnel - scholars or not.
Some people go for money. Those that do wont join the forces. Those who join the forces want recognition. Doesnt matter if rank is low, but if you see an NCO or Officer with a lot of insignia, medals, and patches, dont you cut him more slack and respect him more than one that doesnt? -
one problem about who decides who to let go is that those in power now were at one time or another a product of the same system ie. most of them are/were scholars. inevitably there will be some slack given to those who are scholars and they will be treated differently.Originally posted by wuming78:the policy of the leaders now is to nurture top talents, and concentrate resources on them. these top ppl will lead the rest. its pragmatic though it reeks of elitism, and they decided this was their option and how they wanted to use the limited resources tt we haf.
how many of them are assets? i dunno. the bodies giving out the scholarships shud noe. its hard for us to judge.
and i din say tt the good make up for the bad. wat i said was tt there r good scholars, whose intellectual capabilities can make up partly for their lack of experience.
and u seem to be very concerned abt the "damage" done by the scholars. can u name some examples of such damages? and why single out the scholars? wat abt those non-scholars?
i agree wif u tt personnel who cannot perform should be let loose. this applies to ALL personnel - scholars or not.
However I think you hit the nail on the head that we should keep a balanced view - those who are not scholars may not be the best either (but then they do not consume as much of our society's resources) and that we should be more objective (if those in power can do that) about the performance evaluation criteria.
Unfortunately, the objectivity needed and that which is practiced is still far from perfect. so ? we are in a social experiment all the time, hopefully we learn and amend accordingly. Taking a too skeptical view is not constructive either. -
I'm not against elitism. But for goodness sake choose the right ppl please.Originally posted by wuming78:the policy of the leaders now is to nurture top talents, and concentrate resources on them. these top ppl will lead the rest. its pragmatic though it reeks of elitism, and they decided this was their option and how they wanted to use the limited resources tt we haf.
how many of them are assets? i dunno. the bodies giving out the scholarships shud noe. its hard for us to judge.
and i din say tt the good make up for the bad. wat i said was tt there r good scholars, whose intellectual capabilities can make up partly for their lack of experience.
and u seem to be very concerned abt the "damage" done by the scholars. can u name some examples of such damages? and why single out the scholars? wat abt those non-scholars?
i agree wif u tt personnel who cannot perform should be let loose. this applies to ALL personnel - scholars or not.
The damages are all around for us to see though I sometimes doubt that it is wholly because of the fact they are average scholars but rather the system of 'nurturing' these 'assets' has created the Singapore of today.
Alot of them just ended up being spongers with no drive and relying on their networking/mentors to get going.
But this is for another forum.
Here we dream about war and the machines that supposedly makes us better warriors. -
all in all... im outta here.
this place is the pits.
they can keep their wonderful scholars as far as im concerned, and let other talents slip away. -
Second that brudder! I have long gone.Originally posted by HENG@:all in all... im outta here.
this place is the pits.
they can keep their wonderful scholars as far as im concerned, and let other talents slip away. -
hmm just a quick two cents,
I guess the problem isnt with the scholar system. It is here to stay and it remains one of the way to develop our human resource.
The discomfort, especially within the uniform service has to do with leadership / combat experience. Most foreign military officers with contact with SG are impressed with our scholar/soldiers and their level of professionalism as well as technical knowledge.
But many do note that their ranks are quite high in relation to their age and experience in a uniform. So the question of competence is there. Being a career military man is a complete package. Both intellectual competence, leadership ability, decisiveness and a deep sense of honour for the cause is necessary. Track record, so to speak is one of the measures that they take.
There has to be in the end a proper balance between promotion on time and promotion on merit. Rank being doled out as a means to tempt someone from staying is short sighted and devalues the rank and those that is wearing it. It does not address the root cause of why people want to leave.
If he really has the bearing and the gravitas of leader, the rewards are and will be natural consequence of his competence. It should not and usually is not his reason that he stays and does the job.