Officers
-
Don't know if this has been discussed before.
I was having a chat with my friends one day after football and one of them had an encounter with a US soldier while he was at Sembawang Wharf.
Maybe you guys know of it already...
In the US Army, before becoming an officer, he must be a sergeant for at least 3-5 years before he is can be recommended to be an officer.
I was thinking, "hey this isn't bad actually..."
But I guess it just won't fit into Singapore's system, because of the 2 1/2 yrs service.
I still think the US Army is using the direct intake system.
Anyway, what are your comments on this system compared to the one we currently have?
Do you think an officer should be a specialist who has proven to be able to lead or a recruit through direct intake? -
US army arty officers had to go thru basic guner course, rotate the various postions within the gun , then proceed on to spec level , then to acting GPO, FO, BC.... then become commissioned officer. this would take them a good 3 to five years.
this is a good way officers should be trained. so they would understand the what the men and spec. lead by example.
duty honour country 's only for the polo Ts.Originally posted by kopiosatu:Don't know if this has been discussed before.
I was having a chat with my friends one day after football and one of them had an encounter with a US soldier while he was at Sembawang Wharf.
Maybe you guys know of it already...
In the US Army, before becoming an officer, he must be a sergeant for at least 3-5 years before he is can be recommended to be an officer.
I was thinking, "hey this isn't bad actually..."
But I guess it just won't fit into Singapore's system, because of the 2 1/2 yrs service.
I still think the US Army is using the direct intake system.
Anyway, what are your comments on this system compared to the one we currently have?
Do you think an officer should be a specialist who has proven to be able to lead or a recruit through direct intake? -
?
I thought the better educated and qualified always get officer rank v quickly no matter which army you are in. In Singapore its about 1 yr rite? In US shouldn't be very different, makes no sense wasting your skilled manpower doing work that can be done by other men. And don't think you can attract highly skilled (graduates, etc) people with the prospect of having to be a sergeant for 2-3 years before they can even become junior officers.
In the past in almost all armies, your bloodline and social standing determined your rank and prospects in the army, now its education and qualification. Don't think it would've changed much. -
This is something which had been going ard...
In a few yrs time.. to be a commission officer.. u must go thru BSLC first before u can get selected to got for the OCS course.
But den, whether this will be implement or not... we still donno lah..
Anyway, when the new SISPEC is up.. there will be 9 BSLC coy + 3 ASLC coy and 1 ASTW coy. -
skilled manpower? how u define better qualified? rank is given to you, commissioned by the President of the Republic of Singapore. Respect, has to be earned. i have seen one too many young 2lts KPKB (kao peh kao bu)ing. demanding things to be done in certain time frame, demand this demand that. respect had to be earned, make them go thru wat the men and specs go thru. lead by example. duty, honour,country?Originally posted by John Wong:?
I thought the better educated and qualified always get officer rank v quickly no matter which army you are in. In Singapore its about 1 yr rite? In US shouldn't be very different, makes no sense wasting your skilled manpower doing work that can be done by other men. And don't think you can attract highly skilled (graduates, etc) people with the prospect of having to be a sergeant for 2-3 years before they can even become junior officers.
In the past in almost all armies, your bloodline and social standing determined your rank and prospects in the army, now its education and qualification. Don't think it would've changed much. -
highly educated was what i meant by 'better qualified'. i dont mean to say all degree holders will make good officers. i am using it purely at face value... obviously being an officer and leader, not only in the army but in any other profession, requires more than academic qualifications.
maybe what i'm trying to say is that kopiosatu shouldn't take whatever his friend says as the truth. i'm pretty sure officers in the US army don't have to spend 2-3 years as a sergeant, 1-2 years training... maybe. -
that's what my friend said, but i remember i read somewhere that they are running the same system as us.Originally posted by John Wong:highly educated was what i meant by 'better qualified'. i dont mean to say all degree holders will make good officers. i am using it purely at face value... obviously being an officer and leader, not only in the army but in any other profession, requires more than academic qualifications.
maybe what i'm trying to say is that kopiosatu shouldn't take whatever his friend says as the truth. i'm pretty sure officers in the US army don't have to spend 2-3 years as a sergeant, 1-2 years training... maybe.
But over here, what i'm trying to say is that, do you think this system is better or the one we currently have -
Ehz, actually what can be said to be true is that while there are avenues for soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines to go from "green to gold" (Enlisted to Commissioned) in the US Military.
The main forms of Officer Ascension programs in the US Military are still the Service Academies (USMA, USNA, USAFA - Each Cadet/MIDS taking four years to earn his/her dip+degree+commision[US citizens only]), Officer Candidate Schools(much shorter, I'm not certain of the length) and ROTCs...(not sure about the Arti officer part though)
An Enlisted, if having proven him/herself can actually join any of the above (less ROTC)to earn their commissions together with other Cadet/MIDS who are fresh (no previous military experience..)
With all due respect, such arrangment ensures a steady mix of experience within the junior ranks of the officer corp but I suppose time is a luxury we can't afford.. At least not to have ALL our officers rotate thru the basic ops level before moving them up... -
well Ive heard tat theres a british soldier tats been a private for 6 yrs.
I believe tat the army shouldnt dish out 2Lt rank so fast. U think 9 mths can train out a officer tat can fully understand its men needs?
Well Ive seem all my Dy s' getting from bad to worse from its attitude, its bochapness. Of cos there r some good young officers but those are rare. -
hm...Originally posted by RaTtY81:Of cos there r some good young officers but those are rare.
it seems the 2LTs are always at the brunt of all complains and criticisms. -
i know y got so many probs. the selection for officers is flawed. people with lousy characters too can become officers. many a times i have met cadets with so flawed characters u wonder how the hell did they get into ocs... but anyway once these ppl commission, they go on to think that as an officer they are very zhai and smart. they are the most kns type. many 2LT cant even make a phone call to another dept themselves. asking the clerks or specs to do it. but they are then happily playing computer games at the pc.
i m not a great cadet or offr. i too am flawed but to see what the rest of your cohort is doing is simply embarassing. from my cohort, there were offr who sexually harass their female specs, do funny things to tekan the whole bn when the unit was away on fatep and so on. it continues to amaze me how someof these ppl were the SOM too.
Flawed as the system may be, unless u guys agree to extend your NS period of 2.5yrs, it is unlikely that we can see a solution to these problems. -
from my bmt cohort, the selection was plain simple.
those who failed SOC -> they will be sent to units, schools for further training ;
those who pass SOC:
1. IPPT silver - SISPEC BSLC
2. IPPT gold - OCS;
i was one of the unfortunates to be sent to SISPEC.
there were 7 guys from my platoon sent to OCS and i from wat i can see, most of them, actually 5 of them, ain't oficer material. all damn wayang people,but very fit i must say, and if the peer appraisals did meant a thing in the selection for OCS, i would dare say these people would not have made the cut.Originally posted by wocc:i know y got so many probs. the selection for officers is flawed. people with lousy characters too can become officers. many a times i have met cadets with so flawed characters u wonder how the hell did they get into ocs... but anyway once these ppl commission, they go on to think that as an officer they are very zhai and smart. they are the most kns type. many 2LT cant even make a phone call to another dept themselves. asking the clerks or specs to do it. but they are then happily playing computer games at the pc.
i m not a great cadet or offr. i too am flawed but to see what the rest of your cohort is doing is simply embarassing. from my cohort, there were offr who sexually harass their female specs, do funny things to tekan the whole bn when the unit was away on fatep and so on. it continues to amaze me how someof these ppl were the SOM too.
Flawed as the system may be, unless u guys agree to extend your NS period of 2.5yrs, it is unlikely that we can see a solution to these problems. -
hm.. im not sure if SOC is a determining factor.Originally posted by foga:from my bmt cohort, the selection was plain simple.
those who failed SOC -> they will be sent to units, schools for further training ;
those who pass SOC:
1. IPPT silver - SISPEC BSLC
2. IPPT gold - OCS;
i was one of the unfortunates to be sent to SISPEC.
there were 7 guys from my platoon sent to OCS and i from wat i can see, most of them, actually 5 of them, ain't oficer material. all damn wayang people,but very fit i must say, and if the peer appraisals did meant a thing in the selection for OCS, i would dare say these people would not have made the cut.
wat im sure is fitness is not a very impt factor when it comes to selection to advanced schools, as fitness can be trained afterall.
as for whether or not one is of officer calibre, it's realli not for us layman to decide. i agree wif u that peer appraisal should play a heavier role. however, peer appraisal is more often than not subjective - and a measure of popularity rather than ability. leaders, on the other hand, need not be popular. (tt depends on the type of leaders the org is looking for. in the case of SAF, they may be more outcome oriented and hence, y the need to be popular? the same goes for our senior national leaders - if u noe wat i mean) -
fitness sure is an important factor during my time.
the question is can a leader be trained? the problem the SAF is facing here is they pay too much attention to paper qualifications.
i was from artillery and for those who were in artillery before, many of our COs are above the age of 35? during my time in service, my unit CO changed 3 times. the first one was changed about 2 months after i was posted to unit. he was 34 then, LTC. the second one was posted in as a major, 33. the CO post was supposed to be a 2 year rotation kind of posting but he was promoted to LTC after the first 6 months and by the 11 month mark, he was too posted out. the incoming CO was a major. just before i ORDed, he was too promoted to LTC.he was 33 and you know what, they were all saf/PSC scholars.
i'm sure they can are highly intelligent creatures. but do they have the leadership credentials to lead the men in time of war? do they have the respect of the men and specs under them? no.Originally posted by wuming78:hm.. im not sure if SOC is a determining factor.
wat im sure is fitness is not a very impt factor when it comes to selection to advanced schools, as fitness can be trained afterall.
as for whether or not one is of officer calibre, it's realli not for us layman to decide. i agree wif u that peer appraisal should play a heavier role. however, peer appraisal is more often than not subjective - and a measure of popularity rather than ability. leaders, on the other hand, need not be popular. (tt depends on the type of leaders the org is looking for. in the case of SAF, they may be more outcome oriented and hence, y the need to be popular? the same goes for our senior national leaders - if u noe wat i mean) -
To be a Specialist is harder in a social and interpersonal context.Being an officer is merely about having fitness and some basic navigational quality which can be gained through lectures and training Ops.To lead men , much more is needed, especially the ability to lower yourself humbly to your men's level and see life throught their eyes before you can lead them and get them to listen to you.Humans are not sheep, they only respect and follow people who think are able and can lead them to greatness.If a young punk is given his bars , will his men respect him or merely fear him?An incompetent or arrogant officer's rank gives him the authority, not the moral standing to give a command.Is fear the best motivating factor in leadership?I think not.
In fact, I feel Specialists are the ones who get most of the brunt of the work, caught between demanding and childish NSF officers and their men.Its tough to juggle both being a subordinate and a leader, and it actually opens his eyes much wider than those officers.You realise you can't throw your rank at them and get them to do things, and they can make your life a living hell too.Im totally for the idea that officers have to come from specialists who are appraised highly through their work, at least for those who will become combat officers or holding important appointments. -
yes leadership can be trained. alot of studies have shown this to be true.Originally posted by foga:the question is can a leader be trained? -
do u mean "being an officer is NOT merely about .....? i hope so...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Being an officer is merely about having fitness and some basic navigational quality which can be gained through lectures and training Ops.
If a young punk is given his bars , will his men respect him or merely fear him?An incompetent or arrogant officer's rank gives him the authority, not the moral standing to give a command.Is fear the best motivating factor in leadership?I think not.
In fact, I feel Specialists are the ones who get most of the brunt of the work, caught between demanding and childish NSF officers and their men.Its tough to juggle both being a subordinate and a leader, and it actually opens his eyes much wider than those officers.You realise you can't throw your rank at them and get them to do things, and they can make your life a living hell too.Im totally for the idea that officers have to come from specialists who are appraised highly through their work, at least for those who will become combat officers or holding important appointments.
and yes i agree. i hope wat u said applies only to young punks and not all young officers. -
ok ok, so that system is in a way better in the long run compared to the one we have now lah?
the only problem implementing that system is time -
Originally posted by wuming78:
The first part was meant sarcastically.Yup, I referred to young punks, not the other capable young officers I've seen and worked with.
do u mean "being an officer is NOT merely about .....? i hope so...
and yes i agree. i hope wat u said applies only to young [b]punks and not all young officers.
[/b] -
personally i feel that leadership cannot be taught.Originally posted by wuming78:yes leadership can be trained. alot of studies have shown this to be true.