Originally posted by BillyBong:
While i may have suffered similar disappointments with some of the
decisions made by senior officers during my time, i am reconciled
by the fact that not all officers make good decisions, and not all
good decisions may be 'right' decisions.
What constitute a 'RIGHT' decision from being a
'GOOD' decision or
vice-versa ?
As Dr Goh Keng Swee once said that in the new Army that Singapore
was building and continue to build, SAF Officers are required to
make their best conscienable effort to make decision to address
issues. Any decision is better than no decision. Mistakes made is
better than none made, so that lessons and experience can be
learnt.
Is anyone perfect in this World, let alone in the SAF ?
As a recruit, I was appalled at the leadership quality in the SAF
unit that I was posted, and I strived to be in a Command position
that will enable me to be in control of any decision making
situation that affect my Life.
It later dawned on me that at each command level, there will always
be another higher level that will exist to affect the present. The
next best option is to adapt and control one's circumstance, make
the best of the present, so as to safely achieve the objectives
decided by other lesser beings with the opportunity to affect
oneself.
Rest assured that while your opinion of Li's view is that of a
localised problem, the truth is that such 'oversight' is endemic
throughout the SAF. Having gone through numerous postings myself, i
have observed many junior officers who abused their powers, skived
their way through appointments and have displayed negligence in
their own duties. And many basically got away with it. Such
allegations by Li are not wild; they can be verified by other
officers who have experienced them firsthand. However, the fact
that these are obviously not documented will prevent the actual
number from being realised. Those serious enough are elevated to
summary trial; the rest are either settled by lower charges or
dismissed.
Unfortunately, my skepticism to
your statement require me to ask that - unless you had signed on
into Contracted Regular Service Personnel , how many of the
''numerous'' SAF units
could you possibly be posted to in the otherwise normal 2 to 3 year
NSF service - (which brought you to your views that the subject
problem is endemic in the SAF) ?
Your very negative views towards SAF officers is something in
itself, and seem to have seriously colored your usual
characteristic sense of objectivity in this Speaker's Corner, and
which I have read with interest.
Handling complaints is an art, not simply a process. It is clear
that some benign complaints should be dismissed outright, but cases
that exhibit a lack of integrity should be further examined. Does a
complaint where an officer went AWOL, lied to a superior officer
and tried to implicate a fellow officer not reek of concern? Is it
not serious enough to warrent further investigation? If the senior
officers simply disregard the complaint, what message are they
sending down - that an officer can break the rules and get away
with it? I find this train of thought worrying.
What you say is true - the punishment metted out may not be
satisfactory in the eyes of some, but the 'slap on the wrist' for
LTA 'X' was surely disproportionate to his actions. Li compared it
to managing a corporal against an officer. If a corporal went AWOL,
it would surely be a charge and a quick drive to DB. If such
disproportionate punishments are allowed to continue, how will the
chain of command hold up to such lopsided favourism? Such actions
may encourage the men to become more insurbordinate, and lacking in
respect.
I share your views on the gravity
of the various scenarios that you have given. However, decisions
are made given the unique set of circumstances and hardly could be
an art in itself.
Given the same set of circumstances, different persons - (civilian
and military, managers or officers compared to supervisors or NCOs)
- may not necessarily converge into any common set of decision
outcome based on their different individual and personal values,
experience, exposures, maturity, objectives.
While some decisions may not be made to one's liking, the decision
maker may have a set of objectives in mind; and in this instance,
the senior commander to 2Lt Li could have a variety of reason that
range from unit cohesiveness, to that of taking the sting out of
the political rivalry amongst the leadership corp (between LTA X
and 2Lt Li).
Right or wrong, the decision made by the Senior Commander to LTA X
and 2Lt Li can only be respected as his prerogative based on the
set of circumstance that the Senior Commander had weighed to arrive
at the outcome that is now criticised.
You say the "The consequences of (2LT Li's) allegations
bring up many questions that concerns the quality of the SAF
Leadership - and in turn the quality of the SAF ",
and i say the quality of leadership is already of grave
concern at the lower levels, nevermind the upper
echelons.
It will be interesting to
understand the circumstances that have brought you to this
conclusion.
Somehow, I cannot help but to detect in your tone - a sense of
resentment from an 'Old
Soldier' who have suffered some wrong, and is carrying the
weight on your shoulder against the SAF leadership - especially
those Scholars who got an easy ride to the Stars, as well as the
present lot of NCOs who are in fact no better then 20 year old
kids.
You should let the water pass under the bridge, and give everyone
the opportunity to learn from their mistake - as said by Dr Goh
Keng Swee - as you and I have been given our opportunity to make
our decisions.
Let it pass, and give the present youngsters some objective
encouragement, some room to make and learn from their mistakes as
you and I have made ours.
Let's not allow the fact that it was the PM's son who made the
complaint, distract us from the seriousness of the complaint
itself.
As I had mentioned in my previous
post, this matter must be broken down into three different parts -
'his personal problems with LTA X
and the Senior Officers above him; secondly, his wild allegations
on the entire SAF Officer Corp based on his 'LIMITED' and
'LOCALISED' experience at his Unit level; third - the indiscretion
made to gain wide attention to his very localised problems
encountered'.
Can we have any sensible conclusion when you prefer to delve into a
complaint made by 2Lt Li without even the superficial details
related to LTA X and his Superior Commander that are both
implicated in the letter ?
Similarly, can we have any possible conclusion when you have
assumed that your localised experience with ''X-number'' of SAF units in the past,
and the localised unit encounter from 2Lt Li's - are now alleged by
both of you to be endemic in the SAF ?
The only common ground left in engaging ourselves in debating this
issue must center on 2Lt Li - his actions, his allegations, and his
connections - as hinted by the Thread itself.
To do otherwise, will merely hijack the thread from the TS.
As a consolation, it might interest you to note that in the Straits
Times Forum Page (dd 17 July 2007) - someone wrote to suggest that
LTA X could be a 'Princeling' due to his audacity in
repeating the same act despite being exposed.
Is it the SAF or the system that created the 'Super White Studs' in their
'Elitist Acts of Cynicism'
towards the idea of National Service ?
