I would like to stipulate that one should not use personal
attacks, this is supposed to be an objective argument; and the
objective is not to swear like a drunken sailor.
If you have problems articulating your points, take a little time
to think twice/thrice rather than get so frustrated. =)
All right, so far it's about inequality of selection for rank in
the SAF.
Firstly, BG Lee became brigadier-general in 2 years.....2 years!
That's amazing. He must be a military genius, like Napolean
Bonarpate, Alexander the Great etc.
I don't think he's a military genius. In fact, if he wasn't SM's
son, his SAF career would have ended already after his remark about
Malays in the SAF.
Second, a good political leader doesn't equate to a good military
leader. In war, perhaps BG Lee could be good at the economic
situation & diplomacy, but ask him to strategise in warfare and
combat? I don't think so.
We see all ministers and their secretaries holding military
positions, again that's biasness. Since when did politicians make
great military personnel?
But to say people wouldn't dare touch a minister's son is uncalled
for though. I know I would blast Mah Bow Tan's son
right into the sky. This isn't personal, it's military discipline;
but Mah Bow Tan isn't exactly loved after he said he wanted to
downsize HDBs, so I'm using bad example. If those PAP ministers
knew what was good for Singapore's safety, they wouldn't interfere.
Anyway, why should they unless there's been some deliberate abuse
of power?
Third, why it seems that talent is related to rank. First, good
'A'level grades do not equate to talent. This view seems more like
a notion of jealousy from those who don't do well in their studies;
whatever it is, it's definitely sweeping and immature.
I want to point out that the SAF scholarship is the 2nd most
prestigious scholarship in Singapore, after the President's
scholarship. It most definitely rakes in someone
of calibre. You need 9 'O'level A1's, 4 'A'level distinctions + 2
'S'paper distinctions, excellent ECA record, and displays of
leadership/ancillary skills. So there's no question about calibre.
However, it is noted that those who take up the scholarship are
there just for the prestige and really don't find the SAF very
iteresting - this, we see in all areas, proven by the bond breaking
commited by President's scholars. So the question is, are you
getting the right calibre? Military aspect requires knowing the
battlefield, strategy, even understanding psychology and physical
condition of men. Doubt those high-flying SAF guys know that much
ie not the right calibre.
Next, why those in NJ, RJ, HCJC get higher ranks. First, what about
VJC and TJC? I happen to be in TJ, so am I left out?
Thing is, the selection committee needs to be able to look and
judge from track record, as it tells a lot and acts as hard
evidence. Who's got already got a bit of experience (NCC etc.), Who
shows calibre(the fairly decent achievers), and finally Who's got
outstanding intelligence? They don't know for sure, but they have
to make calculated estimations, you can't expect them to let sec
school dropouts be in charge of JC graduates. Call it unfair? But
that's meritocracy. If anything here is insensitive (as I do feel),
go bug the PAP. Anyway, in TJ most guys are going to be normal NS
chaps, only a few to be pilots.
Plus you need good NAPFA tests on top of other qualities to be
selected, I got friends in TJ who are already confirmed
clerks.
Also, most importantly there are screen tests; intelligence,
mentality, character are looked into through the aptitude and IQ
tests. After that, those who score high are required to return for
more tests to see whether they really are the right people, then
they gradually filter out each individual's capability/potential. I
only know one guy in my class who's called back for more testing
because he scored VERY HIGH in the aptitude test.
So there's a little on the basis of selection. But what
particularly annoys me is that there're no Malays in the Air Force,
Navy, missile/tank combat units etc. That is not
meritocracy. I don't even like meritocracy in the first place,
democracy is what I value most. So long as you don't have
democracy, selection for leaders (no matter what type), will be
inaccurate. If Singapore was a democracy, the democratic mechanism
would seep out good leaders. That's why they can't find successors
for the PAP cabinet, and even wage hikes are futile. The PAP is
heading in the wrong direction, if any of you here sympathise with
them, be warned of a bleak future!
There's a Malay guy in TJC who's one of the Youth Flying Club's top
achievers. Just because of his race, I doubt if his talent will be
put into good use in the military. So there's still lack of
accountability in the SAF.
Ask me? Singapore's posing as a democracy, after all the word
'democratic' is in the pledge, but not in the heart of the
government.
Regards.
[This message has been edited by watchdog (edited 18 October
2000).]