The issue of Ex-SAF hotshots sitting pretty in GLCs

last SG · 2006-01-05T08:47:20+00:00

How can they not be smart and hardworking and be a schorlar in the first place? Do you think they get promoted solely on their degrees?

BillyBong SG

When the scholarship programme was instituted by LKY at an early stage in the late 1960s to groom emerging talents to fills the eventual gaps in the cabinet, many visionaries believed it to be the right move, the bold leap. As an immediate consequence, a large portion of the old guard had to step aside to accommodate these future leaders.

30 years on, the ruling party can laud the success of this canny move. But while many of these scholars stay on in government office, some choose an alternative to political service the SAF. Having served my 2 ½ years of national service, spent time in a GLC and ending up in the private sector, I cant help but draw comparisons to the way the stepladder is drawn.

A generic scholar is provided with his/her roadmap. So long as he clears all the arranged hurdles in his path, he will make minimum full colonel by the end of his career.wait I meant end of his military career. It appears the nanny-like style of our govt has spilled over into providing these retired war veterans with a cushy job that arguably pays well in most aspects and ensures continuity within the govt sector and corporations.

When I say continuity, I refer to the 'tune' that these people sing when they sit on the board of listed govt corporations. Is that perhaps the first concern? To ensure that GLCs remain well-oiled and balanced in terms of ex-SAF personnel vs genuine contenders? The immediate result of such a move ensures no external influence can threaten the said corporation. By external, I mean anyone with wild intentions to change or overtly influence the direction of the corporation away from the 'govt song'.

By retiring directly into the potential seat of a vice president or senior manager of say GIC or ST Eng, does that not deprive others of a place? When I say others, I refer to those average joes who work their way up but lack the protection of the scholar society. These unfortunate diehards do not have the luxury of pre-planned roadmaps towards their comfortable retirement. Lest you start thinking, the other non-SAF scholars inculcated within the fresh ranks of the company, need not feel insecure when faced with these ex-40-somethings; the board will ensure there are sufficient vacancies to consolidate their career paths. If not, a convenient creation of a new position is not unthinkable.

Hence the time old question remains: why reward these >45 retirees with a posh position that arguably can go to an emerging talent? Isnt this considered a double-incentive to serve the SAF, knowing you can go out with a bang and a fat pay cheque and still retain a high-end position in an industry without prior experience nor background knowledge? Since the govt so aptly loves to measure yardsticks by dollars and cents performance, is there some gauge measuring these old hands whether they are well-equip to do the job?

And as for those old guards who stood aside for these upstarts decades ago, some must be left scratching their heads and pondering about our MM: When is it your turn?

Salman SG

Good question.

A few things to note here. A well trained soldier can indeed be a good decision maker and manager.
However the minus point in this situation is, w/o relevant experience, how well can they perform outside the military?
Another question to note is the automatic promotion and smooth career path provided for these schorlars. Will it prevent truly capable non schorlar officers from promotion to senior ranks? I'm sure the answer is yes. Can SAF adjust the system so that the capable are rewarded based on performance?

robertteh SG

Decorating GLCs like flower pots. What could flower pots do except to look pretty.

Can generalist highly academic scholars become instant professional engineers or architects or designers or technologists in industries to lead in major businesses like SIA or PSA or Keppel etc.

Can a organization like STIC or CSM be headed by people other than those who are technologically trained with savvy industrial background expertise acquired from years of actual exposures to make good.

No wonder one by one where general ex-scholars are put in to decorate around one by one such companies have become gardens and are soon heading south.

Atobe SG

Sometimes I wonder why only BG rank make it to politics, while anyone holding a rank above BG will end up either as a VP in a GLC, or as an ambassador; and those below the rank of BG (minimum Lt Col) will probably be assigned to be a Super Salesman (arms dealer) for the military equipment that is designed by DSTA or ST Kinetics or Chartered Industries.

Are these 'hotshots' found to be wanting after they made their mark as Lieutenant Generals (3 Stars) or as Major Generals (2 Stars) ?

Is there some 'fear factor' in allowing Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals to enter politics - whether in the Ruling Party (or surely never in the Opposition ) ?

With these 'hotshots' attaining high ranks in the SAF, it seems that up till this date, only those who attained the rank of BG (1 Star) has been allowed to hold high office as Ministers and CEO of GLCs.

Most of these Ex-SAF Hotshots will continue to have a career path in the Government Service as long as they remain obedient and non-radical.

Can one expect any further performance from these presumably highly paid 'hotshots' - if all they need to do is to ensure that the department or organisation assigned is simply 'well runned' ?

Is it any wonder that the performance of most GLC has been rated to be below par, and that the general rate of return to Government Investments is highly unsatisfactory.

Without the Official Secrecy Act, will those Old Guards - who have been "persuaded" to retire against their will - have spoken out against the grip that the Elite Family has over the national assets.

Surely, these Old Guards must be wondering where is the benefit to their own sacrifices and contributions to the struggles of the early years, when the one whom they "chose" as their representative leader seems to be outlasting them, and is allowing his own to have a grip over power and assets.

Can one venture to guess if "money politics" must be at play to keep the golden mouths of the Old Guard from expressing their conscience ?

Salman SG

I don’t think GLCs are performing below par. Most GLCs actually perform well.

Atobe SG

Try digesting the information from the following sites :

Singapore needs to think out of the Box - 2005
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/050217ft.htm

Temasek Holdings - 2005 Report
http://www.answers.com/topic/temasek-holdings

GIC Investments - any good news ?
http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/SGIC/8_cases.html

Securing the Singapore Nest Egg
http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/01Pf/cpfaw170501.html

shade343 SG

Lt Gen Ng Jui Ping does not sit on the board of a GLC listed company. Laughing

And he doesnt seem that well verse in finance if you ask me... Confused

Salman SG

I think they are doing ok. What do you think?

robertteh SG

The leaders have been largely rhetorical for despite many years of trying to promote all kinds of values like creativity, "thinking out of the box" and entrepreneurship, here is what Dr. Avolio has found as quoted in the Financial Times:-

QUOTE:

As Dr Avolio points out: "A fundamental question now is: If Singapore wants to become a 'thinking and learning nation', able to compete by using the full potential of an engaged workforce, what are its leaders willing to do to make this happen?

"To create value based on driving innovation will require a fundamental refocusing on how leaders are selected and developed in Singapore."

There needs to be a clear shift in mindset and priorities. A closed and regimented leadership style may have worked in the past. But as economic progress brings nations closer, the need for an open and consultative leadership direction has become more critical to adapt to a fast changing global environment.

Creativity and entrepreneurship have been buzzwords in Singapore's business circle for years. But little has been done to achieve them.

Unless Singapore's corporate leaders dare to think "out of the box", and take bold actions, the desire to achieve a creative and entrepreneurial culture will be unfulfilled UNQUOTE

Salman SG

Its easy to talk, its easy to criticise. Has Dr.Avolio runned a country before? Who is Avolio anyway? Soem tom dick and harry? Even the janitor & taxi driver has an opinion.

Atobe SG

Yes, everyone has an opinion, some are based on facts.

What are yours based on ?

Your self-advertised economic credentials will be questioned if you "think they are doing ok" after reading the following referenced sites that was offered in my earlier post:

From the Temasek Report - 2005 :

"The 2004 report states that Temasek manages S$90 billion in assets. This represents an average total shareholder return of 18% year-on-year since 1974. This single year return was quite controversial as the average return over its 30-year history is only around 3%, far below the industry average " .

In the report on "Singapore needs to think out of the box" - it was reported that :

Given Singapore's loose regulatory environment and the government's pro-business policies, setting up and operating a company is not difficult in the city-state. There is little room for bureaucracy or mismanagement.

But the government's strong influence over business and economic direction has also led to a degree of complacency, with most managers failing to take the initiative and averse to risk-taking.

As a result, most corporate leaders in Singapore prefer to stick to tried and tested management styles and policies, rather than push the envelope and break new ground.

The majority of both government-linked companies and private sector groups have a top-down management style, which, critics argue, has stifled creativity and innovation in the workplace.

'Part of the problem with a top-down method is it becomes very performance-driven," says Dr Bruce Avolio, director of the Gallup Leadership Institute, which helped undertake the research. "This leads to a lack of focus on talent development.'

There is also very little receptivity to employee feedback, a point underlined by the survey.

Singaporean workers felt the leaders in their organisations do not get them to look at problems from different angles. There is also no encouragement to be more creative or entrepreneurial. Most felt their best ideas were not implemented. All these areas were rated low in the poll. "

Are the leaders of the Singapore GLCs given a star rating for their inspirational and effective managerial skills ?

The other two referenced sites are even more damning of the performance of the GLCs when compared to similar corporations in the industries that the Singapore GLCs have entered.

One can only wonder how you can still come to your conclusion that "they are doing ok"

robertteh SG

"The 2004 report states that Temasek manages S$90 billion in assets. This represents an average total shareholder return of 18% year-on-year since 1974. This single year return was quite controversial as the average return over its 30-year history is only around 3%, far below the industry average " .

The only way to look at the performance is through Fund Managers' MISC Fund Management indices.

How many of GIC's fund investment returns have outperformed MISC averages. Any tracking of such returns in more accountable and transparent manner to assure the citizens that their monies are in safe hands.

All we know is that after the NKF outcry an online petition to ask for figures and disclosures have been turned down on technicality that online petitions were not signed by actual persons. Citizens may now ask: then why was IR online petition accepted and commended as good piece of effort.

BillyBong SG

A sharp point.

In the case of ethical business decisions, and the fact that the IR 'referendum' was initiated by PM LHL, any petition brought forward by the people have to be acknowledged. Else it will simply lead to a public outcry against the ruling elite for stonewalling the public.

Despite this, we all know the final decision was alredy made. The IR petition simply added a form of 'we take note of your considerations, however...' PR job.

In the case of disclosing controversial charity figures, it was simply not appropriate to release them, with or without MOH sanction. Call it selective or diplomatic decision-making.

Salman SG

Temasek invests in companies based on national strategy, its a direct investment company, not a typical fund manager. So what industry average are you talking about? Where is the basis of your comparison?

robertteh SG

What strategic economic master plan? For years since 1970s, citizens saw no sign of any economic master plan or strategy.

If there is one, citizens would have seen Singapore economy upgraded from the labor-intensive model of Goh Keng Swee to the later talked about value-adding model.

If there was one, we would not be losing out to the Asian Tigers in building our own brands and new technology start-ups in international products like Samsung or Tai Tong etc etc and lagging behind in entrepreneurship due to neglect of practical broad-based education for too many years.

The reason why we do not have one is because all the cabinet ministers are generalists who know little about the latest race in the technology front.

The closest strategy is the latest announcement of the IR which was the final confirmation of our lack of economic strategy in that Singapore ministers have finally admitting its inability and failure to compete in the economic strategic fronts.

I have posted to the feedback unit on the necessity of adopting an economic master plan to benefit from spin-off effect of proposed IR. So far all we hear are excuses about uncertainties signalling that we do not have ministers who understand strategy to leverage on our resources and other advantages in Sun Szu Art of war as applied in good management.

All these lapses clearly showed that our ministers have run out of steam and ideas. They are now managing the economy ad hoc as seen in PSA and SIA and know only reactionary measures and not enough about economic preemptive and strategic management. They only try to talk like they know and make promises without implemeting a total strategic plan.

If they have the right mix of strategies through the GIC we should have seen results better than 3% pa. GIC has under-performed and it is doubtful if they have ever come up with an overall economic master plan to leverage on the IR as suggested or other plans that will outperform competitors by more than MISC has been capable of doing.

vito_corleone SG

lets face it…if military personell were good at business then armies would be earning their own keep..defense budget in other words nstead of leeching off massive amounts of tax payers money which could be put to better use like health care, research and education. just look at the US military and hothead bush..clinton spent years creating a surplus reserve and bush sent the country plunging into debt by going to war.

BillyBong SG

To be fair, the bulk of a defence budget has to come from taxpayers. Since many of the military equipment and build-up is relatively 'secret', one cannot simply market a potentially new weapon or procure joint ventures that make money.

The 'business model' in the army is completely different, if any. Defence corporations usually award contracts, not the other way round.

anonymouscoward SG

Well.. I think I'm qualified to comment on this but don't ask me why...

Firstly, not all scholars gets a cushy job after their mandatory 45 years of services. And even when they do, the expectation from them are still there or they'll be fired (take the 2 former Chief of Navy who failed miserably in SMRT and NOL).

Secondly, when they are placed in GLC, they are placed in position that befits their position the most. In most cases, the are required to perform people/business management tasks (not ground level work). Prior to that, they would have taken their MBA from Harvard or Standford. Therefore, I believe they are mostly capable in handling their job unless they are most misfortunate.

Now consider this...

The SAF has a mandatory retirement age at 45. What would all these scholars do after that if the government does not make certain they'll have something to see them through. Will citizens still be keen in taking up scholarships then? What if they start to make use of knowledges on secret information that are accessible to them before their retirement? Emigrate to another courtry with all these sensitive data and become another Tang Ling Hong??

On the question of who gets what. The SAF scholarship has a mentoring system where each scholarship has an assigned mentor. Prior to their retirement, they are put through stringent selection process to determine if they would fair better in politics or business. If they don't, they will be promoted to senior positions within the SAF (1 Star and above).

From what I heard of, LKY was TCH's mentor and TCH would have been made CDF if he had not been pulled out to do politics.

anonymouscoward SG

just because military has a budget from the government doesn't mean that they are not accountable for it. in most cases, military commanders needs to justify their acquisition and negotiated for the lowest cost. anyone who has done business with our government knows how difficult these people can be. I hate dealing with government and stat boards cause they always squeeze every margin out of you.

Bush may be an idiot on the apparent but a war is precisely what the US needs to get itself out of the red. There are of course, many other factors but there no relevance in this thread.

BillyBong SG

The question is not whether the job is cushy but why should this option be open in the first place? Why provide and provide for those who are consider the 'cream of the crop' and should easily be able to fend for themselves?

Does a Harvard MBA magically translate into success? Did Bill Gates get his gloss sheet? Years of experience in the relevant field means more than a embossed certificate, yet the 'paper qualification' style of our ruling party remains.

Will a retired navy colonel placed in ST Marine perform any better than a senior executive who worked his way up and knows the playing field? Will retired army colonels be able to differentiate LTA traffic movements from military convoy manoeuvres?

What is the relevance of pampering these paper-trained SAF scholars when their contracts are up?

Even more sickening, these 'retirees' continue to run their post retirement jobs in the same bureaucratic manner as the SAF.

Aren't they not the best of the best? The most brilliant minds in Singapore? Is the nanny-govt so afraid that they cannot survive after 45? What about the average singaporean then? What offer of help is extended to them?

What these 'scholarly creampuffs' do after 45 is entirely their business. The whole idea of scholarship is to entice the best minds to join the govt service. After 45, they should be given a firm handshake and a big thank you.

If all our current and future scholars look to is a secured future in a high end chair of a plush GLC, then i fear for the future generations of scholars in an already saturated scholarship industry.

Will we see another 'dog-eat-dog' situation? Open hostility between 2 SAF retirees who duke it out over 1 remaining vacancy in a GLC?

As to your question of revealing military secrets, there is a reason why officers sign the official secrets act. That barrier is already in place to ensure secrets are not divulged openly by disgrunted ex-SAF scholars.

Isn't it time the govt revamp the whole scholarship system before it degrades into an aristocrat-only culture?