I totally agree with you on this.
Putting aside whether the selection process/criteria is appropriate
and the mettle of the candidates chosen, I find that the relative
youth is a huge drawback for our army.
First, this is not the first time I have heard of other armies
commenting on our youthful generals. My experience in Thailand,
Taiwan and currently in the US are all consistent in this
feedback.
Second, the policy of just promoting and fasttracking all these
scholars doesn't really make much sense. Yes, of course these
scholars are supposedly the creme de la creme and provided with all
the opportunities to excel but at the end of the day, meritocracy
is supposedly based on performance. The fact that we label these
people scholars and then "blindly" fast track their career is
ironically against the meritocratic principle.
Third, I have been part of the div level command post knows how
things happen. Internal SAF exercises are not really real - we all
know that in the end there are things that are made to happen such
that some people don't look bad. Results of joint exercises with
other armies are never released so no one can verify how well we
really do. So at the end of the day there is no "scientific" way to
test how well SAF does or not.
Fourth, I have worked for 5 years in various GLC and have worked
for /with all levels from GM to MD and Chairman levels. My feedback
is that how well they perform depends on the individuals. I had a
MD who came out and went straight into the private sector, starting
from a sales manager level. He worked his way up and became the MD
- now that guy, I have respect for. On the other hand, I had a VP
who had just ROD from his LTC position. He led our division for a
while and decided to leave to become a VC during the dotcom period.
His leadership style was pathetic. The only reason why the division
thrived was because there were many existing senior staff who knew
what to do - with or without that guy. However, there is one
irritating trait common to these ex-officers and esp. those who
were scholars - their immense inability to get their hands dirty
and do real work. Command and control with their mouth really puts
me off. C'mon - if that's leadership, there's plenty of that in the
local kopitiam.
Lastly, as Dakkon-blackblade said, what do they know that can
really contribute to nation building outside of the military
experience. In response to one earlier post where he/she pointed to
all the logistics, manpower courses/work that is in SAF ... well,
obviously you have not worked or worked much cos the CONTEXT is
military and the other is commercial. Is it a wonder that our GLCs
have not managed to excel apart from Singapore while Korean and
Taiwanese companies have not only excel but flourished. The ability
to cross-over to a new field after spending 20 odd years is as
scarce as people's ability to master multiple languages. As LKY
recently admitted being bilingual or effective multilingual is
someting quite rare. Likewise being able to apply management skills
acquried in a highly insulated and unique context and then shift on
to some other context is a rare skill.
So, altho' I am not quite happy with the US paper (written by
someone who just spent his summer in Singapore) with the
high-handed tone typical of Americans, there is a need for
relooking at how things are currently done.
