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).]