MINDEF/ SAF Senior Commanders
-
Originally posted by walesa:
This reply is SO SO SO Wrong. Read my comments above.
But the point is most professional armies deploy their generals at military institutions (think West Point, etc) to give them a solid grounding that prepares them for a career in the military and nothing else - that's the kind of training I am talking about.
This is old school way of learning...and i cant believe the US are still using this. It just shows that they are not progressing. How is it that military institutions will only provide a career in military and nothing else?? In our SAF, we learn soldier management, how to motivate people, technical stuff, human-relations, social skills, deployment of units, inventory optimizations, etc...which are ALL very useful whereever you go...including private companies, etc.
Let's face it - someone cut out for West Point isn't necessarily Harvard material; likewise, someone who is cut out for Harvard isn't necessarily going to make the grade for West Point. That's simply because Harvard and West Point prepare individuals for two very different lives entirely.
This is typical tunnel-vision. Who says that all who is cut out for Harvard cannot be cut out for West Point. For heaven's sake, there is the OCS, and tonnes and tonnes of courses, PT tests, SOCs, etc...if you do not pass the military institution with flying colours, for both war tactics, physical fitness, combat readiness, discipline, etc, you will still not become an officer. That is, whether you are from Harvard or not, is secondary, because EVERYONE, REGARDLESS of your educational background, HAVE TO GO THROUGH MILITARY SCHOOL, not direct posting to your positions, duh...
What Singapore is effectively doing is picking someone qualified for Harvard and have them schooled at Harvard and then place them at West Point on virtue of the fact that they're Harvard-material - evidently, this is going to compromise the quality of the individuals West Point is intended to serve when they might never have been West Point material had they not been eligible for Harvard. Similarly, there could be many worthy West Point candidates turned away simply because they aren't Harvard material when there clearly is no direct and intrinsic relation to suggest Harvard and West Point require the same set of assets and skills to thrive.
Again, another boo-boo....I dont know about what West Point or no West Point, in Singapore, there is no such things. All this writing by the americans just shows they do not know Singapore well and at the same time, want to act smart as if they know and knows how to strategize, etc. In SAF, depending on your educational background, you can be groomed to become specialists, sergeant majors, master, warrant officers, and if your performance is good, you can convert to commissioned officers to majors. A personal experience of mine is that i know of a poly student who worked his way to warrant officer, then he took up a degree course and go through advanced officers course, and know he is already LT-COL. a department head. How's that?
The fact that Singapore picks its generals from a pool of academically-inclined applicants and subject them to their own form of military training cannot and will never compensate for the quality of training what many professional armies do with their generals... -
there is one...Originally posted by menoob:from wat i know, there isen any malay commandos in saf
but col. lim said there IS
came out in pioneer a few years ago..dunno if he is still there....can count with 1 hand i think...my fren last time bmt in CDO in 2003 said his batch had 5 -
The point is, there's nothing to suggest that someone who thrives at Harvard will thrive at West Point - and vice versa? Let's use other analogies to analyse the logic in question : Does a world class rugby player necessarily make a world class footballer? Or for that matter, would an accomplished singer necessarily make an accomplished dancer?Originally posted by Shotgun:Woah.
On what basis do you say that someone cut out from Havard may not be cut out for West Point? Do you know of people who were from Havard or other top Universities that did not do well in West Point?
There could be a select few who'd do well at both, but that alone isn't going to justify the fact that the same set of attributes/skills to thrive at both Harvard and West Point is identical? -
Originally posted by nightzip:
Read my response to shotgun. For a start, the criteria for excellence in an academic environment and a military environment are worlds apart - how you would even regard an academic talent as one who would naturally excel in the military is beyond me.
[b]This reply is SO SO SO Wrong. Read my comments above. [/b]
If every skill could be learnt and perfected just because someone is academically-gifted, then I can only presume it's fair to suggest a Harvard graduate shouldn't only be qualified for West Point - he should be good enough to play football for Manchester United, star in a Hollywood blockbuster produced by Warner Bros and perform with the Royal Philarmonic Orchaestra all on the basis that he's good enough to attend Harvard!
Does that make sense to you? If not, that effectively was the parallel you tried to draw - at least, the best military in the world adopts a policy which is reflective of where I (and I believe many others) am coming from... -
I dont know how many there are now but the first few came in the early 90s...few didnt make it others downgraded and then there was only one left and he is the son of a Warrant Officer,back in 1980/81 there was even one Indonesian of Javanese descent.Originally posted by menoob:from wat i know, there isen any malay commandos in saf
but col. lim said there IS -
[qucasts obvious doubts on their ability to lead in a conflict against battle-hardened troops".
ote]
Gentlmen :
Pls read the above sentences, At the end of the day -- There is only 1 KEY Question to ask: In the event of a conflict can our Military leaders lead us to "WIN" the Battle.
Can we have some feedback on this question.
[/quote] -
Let's look at history shall we?
General Omar Bradley, 5 star General, led the US army in the European offensive after D-Day. One of the greatest field generals in US history. Where did he come from? West Point.
General George Patton, 3 or 4 star General.. can't remember, another great field general who outfought Rommel in N. Africa and led the US 3rd army and executed some of the most brilliant tactical maneuvers in history that showed a sound grasp of tactics and logistics. Where did he come from? West Point.
Let's not kid ourselves on West Point's fine reputation and extraordinary list of alumni Generals who proved themselves time and time again. -
Napolean from West Point ?
Genghis Khan from West Point ? -
I'm pretty sure they were not academics.Originally posted by KoolKool:Napolean from West Point ?
Genghis Khan from West Point ? -
in event of trouble dun hesitate to shoot some of the ministers?Originally posted by mancha:Once I happen to see US marines at Clifford Pier. They talk very loud, in fact they bark. And then I think of our NS men, I think ours are whispering by comparison.
I have served NS, and I went through it secure in the knowledge that I would never see action. So just sort of go through the motion. The closest I got to "action" was pay escort for Safti. We were issued live rounds for that duty. That was a long time ago. RSM was Inche Samsudin, and he told us, in the event of trouble, if have to, don't hesitate to shoot. wow! To have live rounds loaded in AR15s and deployed around Chase Mantatten Bank in Jurong. That made our day.
Of course, nothing happened.
-
I totally agree with you on this.
Putting aside whether the selection process/criteria is appropriate and the mettle of the candidates chosen, I find that the relative youth is a huge drawback for our army.
First, this is not the first time I have heard of other armies commenting on our youthful generals. My experience in Thailand, Taiwan and currently in the US are all consistent in this feedback.
Second, the policy of just promoting and fasttracking all these scholars doesn't really make much sense. Yes, of course these scholars are supposedly the creme de la creme and provided with all the opportunities to excel but at the end of the day, meritocracy is supposedly based on performance. The fact that we label these people scholars and then "blindly" fast track their career is ironically against the meritocratic principle.
Third, I have been part of the div level command post knows how things happen. Internal SAF exercises are not really real - we all know that in the end there are things that are made to happen such that some people don't look bad. Results of joint exercises with other armies are never released so no one can verify how well we really do. So at the end of the day there is no "scientific" way to test how well SAF does or not.
Fourth, I have worked for 5 years in various GLC and have worked for /with all levels from GM to MD and Chairman levels. My feedback is that how well they perform depends on the individuals. I had a MD who came out and went straight into the private sector, starting from a sales manager level. He worked his way up and became the MD - now that guy, I have respect for. On the other hand, I had a VP who had just ROD from his LTC position. He led our division for a while and decided to leave to become a VC during the dotcom period. His leadership style was pathetic. The only reason why the division thrived was because there were many existing senior staff who knew what to do - with or without that guy. However, there is one irritating trait common to these ex-officers and esp. those who were scholars - their immense inability to get their hands dirty and do real work. Command and control with their mouth really puts me off. C'mon - if that's leadership, there's plenty of that in the local kopitiam.
Lastly, as Dakkon-blackblade said, what do they know that can really contribute to nation building outside of the military experience. In response to one earlier post where he/she pointed to all the logistics, manpower courses/work that is in SAF ... well, obviously you have not worked or worked much cos the CONTEXT is military and the other is commercial. Is it a wonder that our GLCs have not managed to excel apart from Singapore while Korean and Taiwanese companies have not only excel but flourished. The ability to cross-over to a new field after spending 20 odd years is as scarce as people's ability to master multiple languages. As LKY recently admitted being bilingual or effective multilingual is someting quite rare. Likewise being able to apply management skills acquried in a highly insulated and unique context and then shift on to some other context is a rare skill.
So, altho' I am not quite happy with the US paper (written by someone who just spent his summer in Singapore) with the high-handed tone typical of Americans, there is a need for relooking at how things are currently done.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:I agree that the SAF's policy of retiring its generals by the age of 45 is quite ridiculous. In other armed forces around the world, you'd only be a BG or colonel at most at that age. The SAF seems to place emphasis on youth for its senior commanders, but what for? It's not as if they are going to really chiong sua with the grunts. I'd value experience in a commander more than youth or enthusiasm or drive.
Also, the justification of transferring the expertise of SAF generals to other government ministries or stat boards is just plain rubbish. How many of those retired generals have made genuinely valuable contributions outside the SAF? Having been closeted in the myopic world of the SAF for more than two decades, what expertise could they possibly offer outside of the military? There are certainly many more qualified candidates for leadership positions in stat boards and ministries outside of the SAF. -
A totally, if not otherwise, meaningless comment.Originally posted by KoolKool:Napolean from West Point ?
Genghis Khan from West Point ? -
+1Originally posted by vaxjunior:I totally agree with you on this.
Putting aside whether the selection process/criteria is appropriate and the mettle of the candidates chosen, I find that the relative youth is a huge drawback for our army.
First, this is not the first time I have heard of other armies commenting on our youthful generals. My experience in Thailand, Taiwan and currently in the US are all consistent in this feedback.
Second, the policy of just promoting and fasttracking all these scholars doesn't really make much sense. Yes, of course these scholars are supposedly the creme de la creme and provided with all the opportunities to excel but at the end of the day, meritocracy is supposedly based on performance. The fact that we label these people scholars and then "blindly" fast track their career is ironically against the meritocratic principle.
Third, I have been part of the div level command post knows how things happen. Internal SAF exercises are not really real - we all know that in the end there are things that are made to happen such that some people don't look bad. Results of joint exercises with other armies are never released so no one can verify how well we really do. So at the end of the day there is no "scientific" way to test how well SAF does or not.
Fourth, I have worked for 5 years in various GLC and have worked for /with all levels from GM to MD and Chairman levels. My feedback is that how well they perform depends on the individuals. I had a MD who came out and went straight into the private sector, starting from a sales manager level. He worked his way up and became the MD - now that guy, I have respect for. On the other hand, I had a VP who had just ROD from his LTC position. He led our division for a while and decided to leave to become a VC during the dotcom period. His leadership style was pathetic. The only reason why the division thrived was because there were many existing senior staff who knew what to do - with or without that guy. However, there is one irritating trait common to these ex-officers and esp. those who were scholars - their immense inability to get their hands dirty and do real work. Command and control with their mouth really puts me off. C'mon - if that's leadership, there's plenty of that in the local kopitiam.
Lastly, as Dakkon-blackblade said, what do they know that can really contribute to nation building outside of the military experience. In response to one earlier post where he/she pointed to all the logistics, manpower courses/work that is in SAF ... well, obviously you have not worked or worked much cos the CONTEXT is military and the other is commercial. Is it a wonder that our GLCs have not managed to excel apart from Singapore while Korean and Taiwanese companies have not only excel but flourished. The ability to cross-over to a new field after spending 20 odd years is as scarce as people's ability to master multiple languages. As LKY recently admitted being bilingual or effective multilingual is someting quite rare. Likewise being able to apply management skills acquried in a highly insulated and unique context and then shift on to some other context is a rare skill.
So, altho' I am not quite happy with the US paper (written by someone who just spent his summer in Singapore) with the high-handed tone typical of Americans, there is a need for relooking at how things are currently done. -
The point I was trying to make is : there are some great Generals from West Point, and there are many great Generals not from West Point. There will also be officers from West Point who don't make it to General grade.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:A totally, if not otherwise, meaningless comment. -
I believe they are all good enough to lead soldiers into battles otherwise they wouldnt hold the rank of General in the first place.Of course you wont see them in a foxhole next to you fixing a bayonetOriginally posted by Arapahoe:[qucasts obvious doubts on their ability to lead in a conflict against battle-hardened troops".
ote]
Gentlmen :
Pls read the above sentences, At the end of the day -- There is only 1 KEY Question to ask: In the event of a conflict can our Military leaders lead us to "WIN" the Battle.
Can we have some feedback on this question.
[/quote] -
i'm ok with the age.
After all some of the greatest generals were really young when they made their mark.
Former PM of Israel Ariel Sharon was 38 when he took command of an armoured division during the 6 day war.
Napoleon was 27 when he took command of the French Army of Italy and kicked the shit out of the Italians. And he famously remarked something about how a General peaks in his 30's or something like that.(The irony being he needed and infact did fight his toughest battles after that age hah)
And i'm sure there were alot more Generals and military commanders who were young when they made it big. -
+1 ! I totally agree!Originally posted by KoolKool:The point I was trying to make is : there are some great Generals from West Point, and there are many great Generals not from West Point. There will also be officers from West Point who don't make it to General grade.
-
I dun agree with this type of old school of think tank thinking.Originally posted by walesa:The point is, there's nothing to suggest that someone who thrives at Harvard will thrive at West Point - and vice versa? Let's use other analogies to analyse the logic in question : Does a world class rugby player necessarily make a world class footballer? Or for that matter, would an accomplished singer necessarily make an accomplished dancer?
There could be a select few who'd do well at both, but that alone isn't going to justify the fact that the same set of attributes/skills to thrive at both Harvard and West Point is identical?
Who says someone who thrives at Harvard would not thrive at West Point?
And i dont consider some of the US generals world class in the first place.
A very good rugby player can also be a very good footballer. My own example is....can a very good singer be a very good actor? Many HK singers are very good actors too.
I am not saying that the same set of attributes/skills thrive for both academic and military. I am only rebutting the pointless argument made by the US soldier on the saying that young soldiers cannot be good generals.
I would say that old generals are out-dated rather. -
please dont rebut with with the worldclass or best general stuff...
for in my own view, non in US, or china, or SG are the BEST general. They can only be very good at most. -
Interesting point.
But these maybe "outliers" or exceptions to the point. For every Ariel or Napoleon there are many "young generals" who are handicapped not by capabilities but by experience. Scientific studies have shown that improved outcomes come from learning by experience. Albeit, there is a tradeoff in that after a point, experience may also constrain one's capabilities by blindsiding you. So the key here is to maintain a balance of young highly competent staff officers and experienced generals. Highly effective generals are those who are able to temper their experience with youth energy and enthuasiasm. The current SAF structure loses the experience factor.
Would someone correct me - but was Winston Choo a "scholar" and how long did he take to reach LT Gen? he is one person in the SAF (retired now) that I fully respect. Further, his "physical" presence does bring some pride to the entire institution. The current CDF severely lacks that and frankly when I saw him finally in person, I really felt abit awkward that "this guy" is our Chief.Originally posted by |-|05|:i'm ok with the age.
After all some of the greatest generals were really young when they made their mark.
Former PM of Israel Ariel Sharon was 38 when he took command of an armoured division during the 6 day war.
Napoleon was 27 when he took command of the French Army of Italy and kicked the shit out of the Italians. And he famously remarked something about how a General peaks in his 30's or something like that.(The irony being he needed and infact did fight his toughest battles after that age hah)
And i'm sure there were alot more Generals and military commanders who were young when they made it big. -
True... but you want to at least know that he had done that before and done it consistently well for a period of time so that you can trust his judgment when he orders YOU to do the same.Originally posted by Short Ninja:I believe they are all good enough to lead soldiers into battles otherwise they wouldnt hold the rank of General in the first place.Of course you wont see them in a foxhole next to you fixing a bayonet
If you see the Band of Brothers series, you gain respect for Lt winters and his command becos you see him work thru the ranks and doing what a leader is expected to do - Lead from the front not from the back. The reason many of us (not everyone in the forum) are to point it mildly irritated by scholar/paper generals is that their tour in the active battalions tend to perfunctory. They rarely (not all of course) spend more than 2 - 3years. How do you expect us on the ground to be fully convinced if the general up there only have a helicopter/20000mile high view of what is happening? That is the crux of the problem of "young" generals. Not so much the age but the ground experience that they have gained to really "deserve" the command and power that they thrust into. In essence some of the current practices subvert the oft quoted but only given lipservice principle of meritocracy. -
We must give credit where it is due. Though i must admit that he could be mistaken for Kim Jong Il's first cousin, the current/outgoing CDF was also responsible for successfully pulling off Op Flying Eagle - the most challenging and massive rapid deployment by SAF to date. That does speak volumes about the quality of the military leadership - scholars or notOriginally posted by vaxjunior:Would someone correct me - but was Winston Choo a "scholar" and how long did he take to reach LT Gen? he is one person in the SAF (retired now) that I fully respect. Further, his "physical" presence does bring some pride to the entire institution. The current CDF severely lacks that and frankly when I saw him finally in person, I really felt abit awkward that "this guy" is our Chief.
Aside from Winston Choo, there was also Patrick Choy, an 'O' level brigadier who rose to become Chief Armour, 3 div CO and Dir JOPD. I believe Major-General Tan Huck Gim, who was CO of UNMISET Peacekeeping Force as well as 9 div CO, was a non-scholar type as well. Hope to see more generals of such caliber -
Old school or not, world-class or not - the facts speak for themselves. The world's strongest military (measure it in terms of its military activities or just its worth in terms of the amount its government has spent on its defence) clearly pursues a policy (in fact, many of the world's leading militaries) of what is "old school" to you and commonsensical to me. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion and can remain oblivious to what are inconstestable facts if you like (you could argue North Korea is actually the world's most prosperous regime if you insist). And old school or world-class or not isn't the main issue here anyway. So back to your point...Originally posted by nightzip:I dun agree with this type of old school of think tank thinking.
Who says someone who thrives at Harvard would not thrive at West Point?
And i dont consider some of the US generals world class in the first place.
A very good rugby player can also be a very good footballer. My own example is....can a very good singer be a very good actor? Many HK singers are very good actors too.
I am not saying that the same set of attributes/skills thrive for both academic and military. I am only rebutting the pointless argument made by the US soldier on the saying that young soldiers cannot be good generals.
I would say that old generals are out-dated rather.
Who says someone who thrives at Harvard would not thrive at West Point? --> You raised a very good point here, but you still are not answering the crux issue. Why should the benchmark for admissions to Harvard be used as the benchmark for admissions to West Point (That, in essence, is what the Singapore military does - if you aren't good enough academically, you haven't got a hope in hell of rising through the ranks even if you were genuine military general-material. At least, that's the case for the current generation of generals.)? Surely, an individual gifted enough to possess the attributes to excel in both domains will have no problem getting past their respective admissions process and the crux of the issue here is obviously not whether there're such individuals. Rather, the point is, if West Point were to admit candidates based on their Harvard credentials, are those whom they admit (at least, generally speaking in a manner reflective of their entire student body) really the best candidates West Point intend to nurture? Although Colin Powell attended neither West Point nor Harvard, he nevertheless bears testament to the point that one's competence in one domain is by no means indicative of one's credentials in another as he happens to be an accomplished general, but a less-than-mediocre statesman.
Just as a very good rugby player could potentially be a very good footballer, the top football clubs are not going to sign a very good rugby player without first having taken a look at him playing football. That's the distinction between your stance and the Harvard-West Point one. In the Singapore context, there'll be no one admitted to West Point who isn't Harvard material - that is the underlying and the biggest difference! -
I think General Tan is BG. MG was a local rank for the deployment. Deploying Gen Tan with a temporary rank and then reverting him back to BG upon his return does not speak very well of our leaders. Was wondering why they did not deploy a future CDF, so he can be someone we can associate with as an experienced soldier.Originally posted by IAF:We must give credit where it is due. Though i must admit that he could be mistaken for Kim Jong Il's first cousin, the current/outgoing CDF was also responsible for successfully pulling off Op Flying Eagle - the most challenging and massive rapid deployment by SAF to date. That does speak volumes about the quality of the military leadership - scholars or not
Aside from Winston Choo, there was also Patrick Choy, an 'O' level brigadier who rose to become Chief Armour, 3 div CO and Dir JOPD. I believe Major-General Tan Huck Gim, who was CO of UNMISET Peacekeeping Force as well as 9 div CO, was a non-scholar type as well. Hope to see more generals of such caliber -
until our SAF are tried and tested in the battle we will know the actual outcome of having young general ...
But the good points of young general are they could be more dynamic and more drive will can spur the advancement of SAF .... though they are not battle or field experience hardened
I know of CDO who are malay .... anyway CDO role not very strategic more tactical in nature .... CDO does recon and strike mission in the front line ... they dun hold sensitive info as signal, etc