Can anyone say 'Boxer'?
This guy got pwned. Get ready for the newspeak from MinDeath sometime soon.
*I never have a good impression of SAF's Army regulars. I despise (most of) them.
Nov 6, 2007
Warrant officer asked to retire 5 years earlier
I WAS a regular serviceman in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). I served a total of 32 years, comprising full-time national service, reservist and regular service, from 1974-2006.
I was one of more than 200 regular servicemen and women in the Army who were notified in May last year that we would be given Special Early Transition. Some of the reasons cited included difficulty in offering us 'suitable jobs' in the long run, restructuring and possible 'stagnation'. We were given only six months to transit.
Having attained the rank of a warrant officer in 2001, it meant that I was able to serve till the compulsory retirement age (CRA) of 55. I transitted last November after just turning 50, five years short of the CRA.
The Control of Personnel Centre announced that we were not under-performers. I was still PES 'B' and I received my performance bonuses annually without fail. I had also met all other requirements, i.e., Individual Physical Proficiency Tests, Annual Trainfire Programme, Body Mass Index, and Annual Proficiency Knowledge Test.
I also did not have any discipline or medical problems. The latter meant that I was still combat fit and still deployable. There are some who have not conformed to one or more of these requirements and yet are still serving in the organisation.
Till today, I am still somewhat in a state of depression at how the organisation had overlooked all my years of loyal and dedicated service.
The SAF Management Philosophy states:
'The SAF is concerned with the well-being of its people and their families, the SAF values its people, looks after them and their families so that they can give wholehearted attention to their assigned duties.'
The Defence Minister himself said last year:
'Every soldier is precious to us. Every national serviceman, every operationally ready national serviceman, every regular who serves with us is a precious and valuable person.'
The organisation failed to honour its word to allow me and many others to serve till the CRA of 55. I have a wife and two young children still attending school.
Second Warrant Officer (Retired)
Henry Minjoot
Edit (8 Nov): Too old to work, too young to retire?
3 comments:
Takchek,
I was in the department which helped to push through the SET policy.
At that time (and it's still happening now), the SAF intended to slim down into a leaner force relying more on technology than men in their 3rd generation SAF transformation plan. Unfortunately, in this plan, some sectors are restructured or done away with - particularly because they were viewed as unneeded in the end goal of the transformation plan.
View this as corporate restructuring - inevitably, some people get retrenched. What would you expect the SAF to do? Keep them on until they retire by transferring them to more useful purposes or the admin sector? For one, their specialised training is such that they cannot simply be transferred to another area. As for the admin area, the admin departments are bloated as it is - the admin staff in most departments are being cut back too.
-lamerooze
P.S. You should allow comments from 'Other' - it's restrictive using a Google account to post comments!
03s17,
::::their specialised training is such that they cannot simply be transferred to another area::::
Because it is the SAF, people join it thinking it is a stable job so they don't mind taking up ' specialised' skills that have little commericial value outside. In other words these people trusted SAF to take care of them given they sacrificed their own employability else.
What the SAF did in unconscionable. Here we have a Lim Boon Heng saying that employment for elderly is a national priority and we have SAF, the best funded organisation in Singapore retrenching people just because it thinks it is too "troublesome" to retrain them. If SAF thinks it can't retrain them, how do you think they can get decent jobs after retrenchments.
Because the defense industry is a specialised one, even in highly capitalistic countries they don't hire and fire their solders/regulars because it is understood they have sacrificed they employability to take up a specialised job.
I'm glad you gave rationale of the SET policy. The SAF baited and switched these people who are employed for 2-3 decades. They have the right to be unhappy.
Takchek,
:::::I never have a good impression of SAF's Army regulars. I despise (most of) them:::::
Remember they are Singaporeans with a families to feed. It is cruel to despise people based on "an impression".
Yeah, tell that to the regulars who are abusing NSFs for their own personal gain.
NSFs are also fellow Singaporeans with families.
Don't get me started on this.
Post a Comment