I have been receiving calls from several people (known and unknown to me) to seek my comment on the recent statement made by the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), Gen Tan Sri Zulkifly Mat Zain concerning the revelation made by some former Armed Forces (AF) retirees that the ballot papers of AF personals have been rigged in the past to favour BN candidates. Personally, I have not seen nor have I been involved in the rigging. But I did hear that such an activity has occurred in the past, and if one were to proceed with an investigation (I believe it should be done to redeem public confidence), I suggest it should start at the very source i.e. at Jabatan Rekod dan Pencen (JRP) and the AF Intelligence Division.
I fervently believe in a free and fair election where all contending candidates must be given equal opportunity to the electoral process. Just look at what Singapore had done in the last election where it was conducted in complete fairness to all candidates. The opposition (though small) were even given air time on TV to express their political agendas to the public, that is barely acceptable here. There wasn’t any arrest or harassment on opposition candidates by the authorities during the campaign. Everything was civil and orderly. Finally, the Singapore election saw a long standing minister being ousted and because of this, the government has taken drastic measures to win back public confidence; not by demonizing the opposition, but to see what more can be done to improve on their weaknesses. Here, I do not wish to make any further comparison between us and Singapore, but certainly there is a lot our politicians can learn from the Singapore election.
Now with regards to the CDF’s comment that was viewed on TV and in the alternative media, I have this to say. I personally think the CDF should have been more careful with the phrases used during the press conference. There must not be any political undertone that would subject him to odium by civil society. Please remember that civil society’s thinking today is unlike what it was in the 60’s. It has change dramatically. There is a lot of consciousness and differing perception among civil society today of the ruling government and of political parties. People now have greater access to the media, where in the past the MSM ruled supreme. Today the alternative media is easily accessible, even to grandfathers and grandmothers. There is no denying this fact.
I am rather shocked to hear that the CDF has referred the former soldiers as traitors. This is uncalled for and with such a declaration; it merely nullifies the former soldiers past service record of loyalty, sacrifice and service to King and country. What I fear is that by referring to them as traitors merely on grounds that they were trying to reveal the truth may also hurt the feeling of other former soldiers. This is because the camaraderie among soldier is strong even after having long retired from the service and this is true among them. If indeed they were traitors, such a declaration I think can only be announced by the King in his capacity as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.
While I have my highest respect for the CDF and the service chiefs, they ought to be extremely careful and weary of making statements that can be seen to have a political undertone. Please confine statement to reflect the AF apolitical stand and not to be dragged into the ‘abuses of politics’. Cast away the poor example shown by the likes of the Deputy Chairman of the Election Commission that clearly shows he acted as a tool to his political masters. Please remember too that the AF is not subservient to politics, if it is to be respected.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Showing posts with label cdf/armed forces. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cdf/armed forces. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Sunday, March 21, 2010
A RETIRED CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE AN AMBASSADOR DESIGNATE TO FRANCE
I have just been informed that a retired Chief of Defence Force (CDF) has been earmarked to be Malaysia’s honourable Ambassador to France. I began to make some quick inquiries to confirm the reliability of the information, and most that I talked to seems to acknowledge having heard the same.
I certainly have no qualms about someone from the Armed Forces being appointed Ambassador. The country has had a number of senior military officers appointed by the government to the post of Ambassador, and the first, if my memory is correct was Tan Sri Gen Sany Abd. Ghafar who was still a serving Chief of Defence Force when he was appointed the Ambassador to Luxembourg. The last senior military officer to be appointed Ambassador was Tan Sri Gen Md. Hashim Hussein who was appointed the Ambassador to Pakistan, and was also a serving military officer at the time of his appointment.
With regards to the appointment of the recently retired CDF as Ambassador designate to France raises many questions as enumerated below:
1. They say that to be an Ambassador of France requires someone senior from within the diplomatic fraternity and preferably a career diplomat. The person must be one with vast experience in diplomacy, and an expert in the many issues of state and government.
2. France being a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council with the powers of veto, will require that the Ambassador is well converse in issues affecting international relations, with the ability to discuss and to put forth Malaysia’s foreign affairs policies convincingly in any international forum. For someone without an exposure in international forum discussions and lacking in the ability to articulate international issues can be in for a serious problem. The issue here is that an Ambassador represents the King and the government, and he has to be one that is experienced enough to stand out and put across the nations policies and aspirations convincingly.
3. Understanding the diplomatic language and the ability to use it requires time and experience. I have read letters written by diplomats and the language used is ‘perplexing’ and at times confusing. There is so much of ‘finesse’ in the selection of words, which makes military writing sound so crude and awkward.
Understandably, military officers are well trained in hosting and entertaining guests. I think this is where the Ambassador designate can excel. But hosting and entertaining guest alone is not the primary function of the Ambassador, and too many of these can be a bane to the coffers of the embassy. We do not want the Malaysian Embassy to have a reputation as being the best host in France with lots of satay and ketupat to serve.
Beside what I have enumerated above, there is already the public perception that a possible reason why a retired military officer is assigned the post of Ambassador to France is because of our close association with the country for our defence procurement. This may be true given the recent defence purchases that seems to favours French made products. Certainly, French made cars are getting extremely popular among Malaysians these days, and most say that driving a French car gives one the extra smoothness to driving.
But what I do fear is that public perception can extend to negativity such as ‘that the appointment of a retired military officer as Ambassador to France is to look after the long term business interest of someone, particularly with regards to the procurement of defence related products ’.
I hope such a perception isn’t true.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
I certainly have no qualms about someone from the Armed Forces being appointed Ambassador. The country has had a number of senior military officers appointed by the government to the post of Ambassador, and the first, if my memory is correct was Tan Sri Gen Sany Abd. Ghafar who was still a serving Chief of Defence Force when he was appointed the Ambassador to Luxembourg. The last senior military officer to be appointed Ambassador was Tan Sri Gen Md. Hashim Hussein who was appointed the Ambassador to Pakistan, and was also a serving military officer at the time of his appointment.
With regards to the appointment of the recently retired CDF as Ambassador designate to France raises many questions as enumerated below:
1. They say that to be an Ambassador of France requires someone senior from within the diplomatic fraternity and preferably a career diplomat. The person must be one with vast experience in diplomacy, and an expert in the many issues of state and government.
2. France being a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council with the powers of veto, will require that the Ambassador is well converse in issues affecting international relations, with the ability to discuss and to put forth Malaysia’s foreign affairs policies convincingly in any international forum. For someone without an exposure in international forum discussions and lacking in the ability to articulate international issues can be in for a serious problem. The issue here is that an Ambassador represents the King and the government, and he has to be one that is experienced enough to stand out and put across the nations policies and aspirations convincingly.
3. Understanding the diplomatic language and the ability to use it requires time and experience. I have read letters written by diplomats and the language used is ‘perplexing’ and at times confusing. There is so much of ‘finesse’ in the selection of words, which makes military writing sound so crude and awkward.
Understandably, military officers are well trained in hosting and entertaining guests. I think this is where the Ambassador designate can excel. But hosting and entertaining guest alone is not the primary function of the Ambassador, and too many of these can be a bane to the coffers of the embassy. We do not want the Malaysian Embassy to have a reputation as being the best host in France with lots of satay and ketupat to serve.
Beside what I have enumerated above, there is already the public perception that a possible reason why a retired military officer is assigned the post of Ambassador to France is because of our close association with the country for our defence procurement. This may be true given the recent defence purchases that seems to favours French made products. Certainly, French made cars are getting extremely popular among Malaysians these days, and most say that driving a French car gives one the extra smoothness to driving.
But what I do fear is that public perception can extend to negativity such as ‘that the appointment of a retired military officer as Ambassador to France is to look after the long term business interest of someone, particularly with regards to the procurement of defence related products ’.
I hope such a perception isn’t true.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Friday, April 17, 2009
CDF – WHAT MAKES IT SO NECESSARY THAT HIS SERVICE BE EXTENDED
There has been comments from among some senior retirees of the armed forces, and including some from within the service, that there is no real justification for top senior officers of the armed forces to be given an extension of service exceeding their official retirement age. The top seniors officers that I am referring to are the three service chiefs i.e. army, navy and air force, and the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF).
The practice of extending the service of senior officers of the armed forces is more often applicable to the CDF, and occasionally, to the three service chiefs. I am told that the present CDF is on an extended service, and is scheduled to retire early next year, while both the Army Chief and the Air Force Chief would also be retiring at about the same period next year. The Navy Chief who was appointed to the post last year, has several more years to serve, and should both the Army and Air Force Chief retire, the Navy Chief, will in all probability be the next CDF.
The argument against the extension of service of top senior officers is simply that the armed forces does not have a well defined succession policy that is transparent, ideal, justifiable and fair. I believe, there is already a policy defining that the post of the CDF can be assigned to either one of the three service chiefs, which hitherto has been dominated by the Army Chief, except on one occasion where the post was held by the Navy Chief. The ideal would be to have the post assigned to the service chiefs on a rotational basis. But this often cannot be done, because of the aforesaid reason.
I am not able to reason out why is it so necessary that the CDF be extended, every time one is appointed to the post. Is it because he has such an important work that he wants to accomplish, that requires him to be extended? Or is it to give him the extra mile, because his tenure to the post is deemed too short? Or is it merely for a compassionate reasons? Or is he so outstanding in his job that he is deemed in-dispensable?
Whatever be the reason, by extending the service of the CDF, it does not really help in the subsequent succession plan. More often, the successor to the post will in all probability be extended too, maybe for one of the reasons stated above, or for other unknown reason. And this process of succession will go on endlessly. If at all there are strong and justifiable reasons that a CDF should be appointed for a reasonable period, why not then make it a policy, that upon an officer being assigned to the post of CDF, he will remain in that post for a specified period e.g. 3 years maximum, regardless of his age. This will give each service the opportunity to plan for the next succession, since they are informed of the retirement date of the incumbent CDF.
It has been rumoured that cronyism is presently being practiced by some senior officers. It is a question of whom you know, and not what you know, that finally decides the promotion and the succession plan. They say that the reason for this is to protect the interest of certain officers even after they leave the service. If this indeed be the practice of some officer, I wouldn't be surprised that we will no longer have a dedicated and professional armed forces, but one that is build on cronyism and self interest.
Let us hope that the current corps of officers of the armed forces remains true to their profession, and not be subjected to the 'worldly temptations' that will destroy the outstanding image of the force, that has been meticulously build by officers of the past.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
The practice of extending the service of senior officers of the armed forces is more often applicable to the CDF, and occasionally, to the three service chiefs. I am told that the present CDF is on an extended service, and is scheduled to retire early next year, while both the Army Chief and the Air Force Chief would also be retiring at about the same period next year. The Navy Chief who was appointed to the post last year, has several more years to serve, and should both the Army and Air Force Chief retire, the Navy Chief, will in all probability be the next CDF.
The argument against the extension of service of top senior officers is simply that the armed forces does not have a well defined succession policy that is transparent, ideal, justifiable and fair. I believe, there is already a policy defining that the post of the CDF can be assigned to either one of the three service chiefs, which hitherto has been dominated by the Army Chief, except on one occasion where the post was held by the Navy Chief. The ideal would be to have the post assigned to the service chiefs on a rotational basis. But this often cannot be done, because of the aforesaid reason.
I am not able to reason out why is it so necessary that the CDF be extended, every time one is appointed to the post. Is it because he has such an important work that he wants to accomplish, that requires him to be extended? Or is it to give him the extra mile, because his tenure to the post is deemed too short? Or is it merely for a compassionate reasons? Or is he so outstanding in his job that he is deemed in-dispensable?
Whatever be the reason, by extending the service of the CDF, it does not really help in the subsequent succession plan. More often, the successor to the post will in all probability be extended too, maybe for one of the reasons stated above, or for other unknown reason. And this process of succession will go on endlessly. If at all there are strong and justifiable reasons that a CDF should be appointed for a reasonable period, why not then make it a policy, that upon an officer being assigned to the post of CDF, he will remain in that post for a specified period e.g. 3 years maximum, regardless of his age. This will give each service the opportunity to plan for the next succession, since they are informed of the retirement date of the incumbent CDF.
It has been rumoured that cronyism is presently being practiced by some senior officers. It is a question of whom you know, and not what you know, that finally decides the promotion and the succession plan. They say that the reason for this is to protect the interest of certain officers even after they leave the service. If this indeed be the practice of some officer, I wouldn't be surprised that we will no longer have a dedicated and professional armed forces, but one that is build on cronyism and self interest.
Let us hope that the current corps of officers of the armed forces remains true to their profession, and not be subjected to the 'worldly temptations' that will destroy the outstanding image of the force, that has been meticulously build by officers of the past.
CRUSADE AGAINST CORRUPTION
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)