MINDEF's English Lessons

[Carnoob]

But my experience of the standard of Chinese is that it is "not so good" - everyday conversation, ordering at foodcourt can do, but when it comes to "technical / professional" conversations, then mostly CMI - and these are uni grads I talking about.

 

## Disclaimer here, I don't speak so I really shouldn't say anything, my experience is based on having uni grads working for me, and asking them to translate ZaoBao only to see them face problems.

Not true, NUS offer degree major in Chinese and these grads are pro in Chinese... they do translations, copy write in chinese etc. These are the people that we can look for to work as translator. I have 2 friends major in Chinese working for SPH and one going into TCM. Sorry OT...

[Carnoob]

This called military diplomacy.

 

The Minister did not specify which course this PLA officer was attending. I am only guessing, but my guess is that he is attending a very senior course (like the Command and Staff Course) for those who are being groomed to become top leaders in their respective Armed Forces.

 

My army friends tell me that when foreign countries send candidates for overseas courses like these, they will usually send their better officers, if not their best officers to attend. Can you imagine the pressure that is put on the single PLA officer in his entire class? He has to do well and get a good report otherwise he will let his entire country down. So in order not to 'lose face', I imagine the PLA will send some of their best young officers to attend such a course.

 

Which also means, this officer, whoever he is, is likely to become a very senior person in the PLA. I even guess that this person is very likely to become some important General in the future.

 

So this is all about military diplomacy. Build better relations.

 

The above is just my guess only. Please don't flame me.

 

Edit - btw, at the rate it is going, China will rule over Asia very soon, in 10 to 20 years.

Yes, the best officer for the course but did your friend also tell you that all senior officers MUST LEARN MALAY across the SAF? This is to make sure that while the BEST OFFICER goes for course in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei his ability will not be undermined because of language barrier. I'm not asking every country to do the same but at least this is what SAF does.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Carnoob

[Andylkkg]

Then should such course be classified as part of the defence spending or across country bilateral

relationship building? I see no merit in spending a $25k for one to one coaching, there are simply a better way to spend this decent sums. If under defence budget spending, I do not think there are any need for Mindef on accountability to the general public!

[Myxilplix]

Since when are they accountable to the general public for any spending?

[Neutralsg]

Remember the spending on bicycles by NParks?

Since when are they accountable to the general public for any spending?

 

[Yewheng]

Not true, NUS offer degree major in Chinese and these grads are pro in Chinese... they do translations, copy write in chinese etc. These are the people that we can look for to work as translator. I have 2 friends major in Chinese working for SPH and one going into TCM. Sorry OT...

That is also depends on what they major in and secondary school Chinese o level result la. If major in field that has zero relations to Chinese and O LEVEL Chinese is average, then high chance when out at workforce will have trouble translate Chinese wording to English as all very rusty and they rarely need to use it.

[Camrysfa]

This story is a talking point because of the $25K spent on one person.

It also sets a precedent.

In comparison, even for overseas disaster relief efforts, the SG govts initial donation is only $50K.

[Forte3737]

very common for them to go 1 big round to avoid answering the question. as the saying goes, if you cannot convince them, confuse them, if cannot confuse them, con them

 

there you have it, the 3Cs

Sorry ah...flame bait here...

 

But my experience of the standard of Chinese is that it is "not so good" - everyday conversation, ordering at foodcourt can do, but when it comes to "technical / professional" conversations, then mostly CMI - and these are uni grads I talking about.

 

## Disclaimer here, I don't speak so I really shouldn't say anything, my experience is based on having uni grads working for me, and asking them to translate ZaoBao only to see them face problems.

 

On a different note, and addressing the thread topic..

 

Providing tuition at SAF expense so that a PRC can "get the most from" a course he was sent here to participate in doesn't quite seem right. It should be incumbent upon the PLA to send someone that is suitable for the course being offered - as the course provider, it shouldn't be SAF responsibilty to bring English up to scratch.

 

And notably, the answer provided in parliament totally misses the point - it addresses the procurement process, which no-one is doubting (the govt procurement process, past scandals notwithstanding) is actually pretty robust. The minister totally sidestepped the more relevant question - that of WHY are we providing english lessons in the first place. If it is not the responsibilty of SAF to do so, then even $500 is too much.

 

It had been dealt with already

Remember the spending on bicycles by NParks?

 

 

[Mustank]

Edmw say $1 paid capital, the school

 

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bglgt%5D-mindef-found-doing-business-%241-firm-4871637.html

[Yewheng]

Edmw say $1 paid capital, the school

 

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bglgt%5D-mindef-found-doing-business-%241-firm-4871637.html

Although it's the public right to question on government funding etc, I feel that to scrutinise towards the extreme end will slow down government work efficiency. We also don't want government to move backward in terms of efficiency right?

 

If public scrutinise every details of what government and agencies are doing, it goes to shows the complete lack of trust in the government. This is also not healthy in the long run. I believe that whatever we do, we should not swing towards the extreme end of it. Been too extreme to one end is really no good.

 

 

There are many more important issues that government need to handle beside this english lesson issue. If government spend a lot of time on issues that are of less important but because of the need to answer to public in terms of every detail, it will really slow down the work process and they would have lesser time to work on more important issues. As humans do make mistake, and if this carries on, the more important issues of the aspect maybe overlooked due to really not enough time or lesser focus on it because of handling less important cases. Singapore may move backwards instead of moving forward in terms on society, wellness, and etc..

 

 

Edited November 8, 2014 by Yewheng

[Kb27]

Came across this article afew back. Iirc, this was uncovered by someone with access to GeBiz.

 

MOE got no good English teacher?

 

Just think, how much public funds they are not spending prudently?

 

Seriously, do we have an independent Body to audit the spending of various Ministries?

 

MOE standard not good enough.

 

Must pay high price then got standard.

[Goldbug]

Although it's the public right to question on government funding etc, I feel that to scrutinise towards the extreme end will slow down government work efficiency. We also don't want government to move backward in terms of efficiency right?

 

If public scrutinise every details of what government and agencies are doing, it goes to shows the complete lack of trust in the government. This is also not healthy in the long run. I believe that whatever we do, we should not swing towards the extreme end of it. Been too extreme to one end is really no good.

 

 

There are many more important issues that government need to handle beside this english lesson issue. If government spend a lot of time on issues that are of less important but because of the need to answer to public in terms of every detail, it will really slow down the work process and they would have lesser time to work on more important issues. As humans do make mistake, and if this carries on, the more important issues of the aspect maybe overlooked due to really not enough time or lesser focus on it because of handling less important cases. Singapore may move backwards instead of moving forward in terms on society, wellness, and etc..

 

 

 

not for netizens, the brompton bike tender irregularities wouldn't be uncovered right?

[Bioinformatics]

Although it's the public right to question on government funding etc, I feel that to scrutinise towards the extreme end will slow down government work efficiency. We also don't want government to move backward in terms of efficiency right?

 

If public scrutinise every details of what government and agencies are doing, it goes to shows the complete lack of trust in the government. This is also not healthy in the long run. I believe that whatever we do, we should not swing towards the extreme end of it. Been too extreme to one end is really no good.

 

 

There are many more important issues that government need to handle beside this english lesson issue. If government spend a lot of time on issues that are of less important but because of the need to answer to public in terms of every detail, it will really slow down the work process and they would have lesser time to work on more important issues. As humans do make mistake, and if this carries on, the more important issues of the aspect maybe overlooked due to really not enough time or lesser focus on it because of handling less important cases. Singapore may move backwards instead of moving forward in terms on society, wellness, and etc..

 

 

 

if small thing like this also cannot make it right, how can we trust them to handle the whole country?

[Philipkee]

I learned many things in my nursing career. One thing I learned is always answer to the point but never trap yourself.

 

In this case, I think the minister answered as expected .

 

Example

Question

Why was 25 k spent on this one guy for English lessons?

Answer

To bring him up to the appropriate English standard

 

Was anyone actually expecting the minister to answer if it will set a precedent , if the 25 k was too much, his personal opinion notwithstanding?

 

I am not saying he is right or wrong since as a member of parliament and the minister of defence, we rightly expect more transparency in his answers. What I am saying is that politicians will always try to answer in a way not to entrap themselves. If they could not, they would not last long in the political field.

 

Ultimately, it is up to a discerning public to decipher what is said and left unsaid .

 

My two cents.

[Neutralsg]

3 Cs for today's era?

Btw, the mention of NParks was a sarcasm in support of earlier post.

very common for them to go 1 big round to avoid answering the question. as the saying goes, if you cannot convince them, confuse them, if cannot confuse them, con them

 

there you have it, the 3Cs

 

It had been dealt with already

 

 

That's why the country is not how it was governed or should have been governed

 

if small thing like this also cannot make it right, how can we trust them to handle the whole country?

 

Edited November 10, 2014 by Neutralsg

[Jamesc]

Absolutely nothing wrong with spending money to train a foreign military officer in language skills.

 

But what amazes me is that 1.3 billion people and a standing army of 2.2 million

they couldn't find s rising star that is proficient in English? How much potential can this officer have?

Especially in the area of military diplomacy.

 

One thing that impress me about the British army is that they send a Ccommanding Officer

to Iraq that has a degree from Oxford in Middle East history and he speaks fluent Arabic.

 

He ability to converse in the native tongue with local commanders and his

sensitivity to local culture, religious and historical events will help him solve a lot

of potential problems that need not arise.

 

But what really impresses me is the ability of the British army officer to refuse

to obey a direct command from a superior officer. We need thinking officers

and not bloody dumb yes men especially when lives of men,

war and the fate of humanity is at hand.

 

Just like Gen Mike Jackson who directly disobyed the command of Supreme Allied NATO commander

Gen Wesley Clark. He refused to start WW3.

 

 

In 1994, Jackson served his first tour in the Balkans, where he commanded a multi-national division of the Implementation Force. Following a staff job back in the UK, he was appointed commander of NATO's Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) in 1997.

 

He returned to the Balkans with the ARRC during the Kosovo War, during which he famously refused to obey an order from American General Wesley Clark, his immediate superior in the NATO chain of command, to block the runways of Pristina Airport and isolate the Russian contingent that was positioned there.

 

He reportedly told Clark, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you". The incident attracted controversy, particularly in the United States, and earned Jackson the nickname "Macho Jacko" in the British tabloid press.

 

Jackson established a working relationship with the Russian general commanding the detachment at Pristina, giving him a bottle of whisky, of which Jackson is known to be fond, and providing the Russians with the protection of a squad of British soldiers, commanded by his son, Mark.

 

Upon his return to the UK, Jackson was promoted to full general and appointed Commander-in-Chief, Land Command, the second-most senior position in the British Army. After three years as Commander-in-Chief, Jackson was appointed Chief of the General Staff (CGS), the professional head of the British Army

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson

 

The secret to the British Army success is to pension off the officers that cannot make it

as Captains and Majors and only let officers that can lead to be Colonels and Generals

 

How to tell if an officer can lead? They just ask the men they command. Simple and effective.

 

 

[Jamesc]

The quality of the education of the British army officer is so good and

 

this is one reason for the effectiveness of their COs

 

Gen Mike Jackson

 

Before leaving Sandhurst, he had applied to take an "in-service degree"—a degree sponsored by the Army at a civilian university—and was accepted to read Russian studies at the University of Birmingham.

 

The course required students to reside in the USSR for several months; as the Ministry of Defence refused to allow Jackson to travel to the country, the university agreed to waive the requirement.

 

Jackson returned to the army after graduation as a Bachelor of Social Sciences in Russian Language and Literature in 1967.

 

 

This is a man that knew how the Russian CO thinks and this is invaluable when dealing

 

with the adversary.

 

[Mustank]

Absolutely nothing wrong with spending money to train a foreign military officer in language skills.

 

But what amazes me is that 1.3 billion people and a standing army of 2.2 million

they couldn't find s rising star that is proficient in English? How much potential can this officer have?

Especially in the area of military diplomacy.

 

One thing that impress me about the British army is that they send a Ccommanding Officer

to Iraq that has a degree from Oxford in Middle East history and he speaks fluent Arabic.

 

He ability to converse in the native tongue with local commanders and his

sensitivity to local culture, religious and historical events will help him solve a lot

of potential problems that need not arise.

 

But what really impresses me is the ability of the British army officer to refuse

to obey a direct command from a superior officer. We need thinking officers

and not bloody dumb yes men especially when lives of men,

war and the fate of humanity is at hand.

 

Just like Gen Mike Jackson who directly disobyed the command of Supreme Allied NATO commander

Gen Wesley Clark. He refused to start WW3.

 

 

 

The secret to the British Army success is to pension off the officers that cannot make it

as Captains and Majors and only let officers that can lead to be Colonels and Generals

 

How to tell if an officer can lead? They just ask the men they command. Simple and effective.

 

 

 

best post of the thread!!!!

The quality of the education of the British army officer is so good and

 

this is one reason for the effectiveness of their COs

 

 

This is a man that knew how the Russian CO thinks and this is invaluable when dealing

 

with the adversary.

 

 

this guy sure look like some godfather or the joker, someone you dont want to mess around with