Originally posted by socrates:
Since girls are not included in the picture, we
already seems to have a "compulsory" school named "NS". For
training officers, we already have an OCS. If you want them to
start early, we have NCC or NPCC.
i assume u have served before right??? there is a difference
between soldiering as a "grunt" and soldiering as an effective
commander. besides, girls do sign on.
10 mths in OCS is NOT ENOUGH and uniformed groups only provide
occassional immersion on weekends.
Being specialised at such a young age is not
a good thing (you have proposed students to be able 16 right ?). If
they do not like their jobs or got themselves injured during
training, they cannot have another equally good option available
for them.
i suggest applying for this school as a matter of choice and its
curriculum as academically as well as physically rigourous. i
hardly see 16 as "too young"... individuals on saf poly
scholarships would have signed their bond at around that time as
well.
i have no answer to those who "don't like it" and regret the
decision, but to those who are injured, what's the problem? SAF
deals with these situations all the time. if one is downgraded,
they can either convert to a desk position, or given the choice to
opt out of the bond and their term there can be considered their NS
served...
also it would depend what form of academic accredition such a
proposed institution would offer... if it were to offer "a" levels
for instance (for easy uni aplication) , even if one were to drop
out in the first year, arrangements can still be made to switch to
a normal JC (since one who could get into this military school in
the first place must already possess strong academic results)
...
Training can make out good officers ? That
is true. However how much time should be given to them ? 10 months
just purely training up the army aspects of an individual seems to
be... sufficient.
a narrow "army-aspect" is not sufficient. at best, it teaches
one how to act like a puke
with a chocolate bar, not behave like a proper officer and
gentleman. i think that it doesn't even ensure a minimum level of
competency.
such is life i think, as u mentioned that academically gifted
individuals don't always make good officers. i think they can...
given more time to work on the "personal development", and not the
"military" aspect.
They too have training for another year of
practical training when they are assign to a unit before they get
to ORD too. If by your suggestions, that these people need to study
as well, I can foresee they do not have the time to do all these 3
areas well. (Tactical, fitness, academic).
why not? it depends how long is your course and how u break it
down. lets not kid ourselves... when i was taking "a" levels, i had
the time of my life... 3 "a" and 2 "ao" isn't bad. i had time to go
canoeing, go mucking around orchard road, go home play doom2
(that's how old i am 
) chat on the phone for hours, etc etc... and i
still got decent grades
... Instead of looking at the bad side,
there are also wonderful officers that had graduate from OCS. The
main problem of it is not the training provided but the fact that
they let more academics, who are relatively more used to the softer
part in life, to be in OCS...
i already said... the point is not to have the occassional
wild-card, but to ensure that all who go through officer's training
are at least minimally competent...
its not a question of academically inclined versus the rest...
academically inclined pple are not "softer" by nature, but that the
demands of soldiering requires them to undergo some adjustments
which OCS in unable to accomplish in 10 months.
Improving on individual strengths,
organizational learning and flatter structures to improve
flexibility on the ground... I think instead of asking discipline
people who has lived through the old system to change the system,
it may be wiser to let a new, more creative and had experience in
outside privatises organisation to lead the changes.
have u ever worked with consultants before? an experience like
that would convince anyone that its not always possible.
u wanna bring in news ideas, u need a very thorough knowledge of
HOW the original situation is to begin with. even if u bring in
"new blood", they will either need to immerse themselves, or get
the help of those who know.
MIT had this experience... they brought in consultants and they had
a really bad time... in the end, it didn't solve much...
might a military school help that by training pple who have in
depth knowledge of military organization and insights AND old-boy's
networks help this situation? it might... they're already pretty
immersed by the end of it. some might go off to uni on scholarships
or disruption for uni, and they come back armed with more knowledge
to apply.
That is asking people who had graduate from
the "normal" university to see to the improvment of the structure
of the army. Being more focus in training etc just make them more
used to the old system and relectant to introduce any new
changes.
that doesn't work. lets say, i wanna implement a system to
manage logistics. i say we computerise and implement an enterprise
resource planning computer program... MIT uses SAP for that now (so
does SAF 
)...
SAP is not easily configurable. entire organizations have to
re-shape and re-focus their procedures to use it. there's a reason
for that: the software's procedure was designed and optimised for
large companies around the software's functions.
but every org is different... its the same twisted rationale that
kicked off the dot.com bubble... "if u don't see it or can't
change, the problem is with YOU, not the software..."
so if u get clueless newbies who might be graduates and smarty
pants by any measure, but that doesn't mean that they'll be most
equipped to bring in new, workable ideas.
for info on SAP in the SAF, just ask any store man or CQ...
That is an example in USA. China or other
powerful countries have such school as well. However there is a
difference between USA, China and Singapore. USA and China citizens
do not serve NS. They do not undergo 2.5 years of training. They
need a school to specially train people into officers. This is
already something we have, OCS. We too have "potential president"
that came from OCS too. LHL... 
i see a military school as a parallel structure to improve and
complement the situation, not replace it... OCS will still be
there, but pple with the army as a career in mind might want to
have the choice of an education more focused, and a little
earlier.
About art and sports school, they are sort
of necessary because we do not have one with a similar structure
here. For military, I guess we already have one in place. NS, OCS
etc...
to reconcile my point with yours, i say the existing structure
can be positively complemented by one more path. we need not assume
that the existing system is perfect...
