When five-year-old Marcus Quek shared his ambition to be "an aircraft carrier caption" with Singapore's Chief of Navy (CNV), he never expected the two-star admiral to reply.
The correspondence between the two has made waves among netizens as news of the heart-warming episode snowballed in cyberspace.
Read Marcus' hand-written letter here.
For his trouble, Master Quek received an invitation to bring his parents and little brother to the recent Navy Open House, organised by the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN). The reply from CNV included tickets for a sea cruise aboard a Bedok-class mine countermeasure vessel which brought the Queks out to the Singapore Strait to give them a taste of shipboard life. Their radiant smiles showed that the family outing was a happy one.
Here's CNV's reply:
I'm not sure if RADM Chew's letter will open the floodgates to similar appeals from aspiring sailors, or whether it will springboard Marcus' naval career once he reaches enlistment age. Even if CNV's mailbox gets crammed with snail mail, it will definitely be a plus as the silent Service raises its profile among Singapore's dwindling pool of future enlistees.
We can hem and haw about Civil-Military Relations (CMR) and debate till our faces turn blue about CMR's terms of reference, but what matters is whether we walk the talk.
As noted in an earlier post about how the Navy Family rallied together when the RSN lost one of its young naval officers, the Navy Family is more than an catchy advertising slogan. The Navy Family starts them young too. And this episode should stand as an emblem of pride for the RSN.
I find this episode touching because it shows that the RSN has its pulse on public opinion and actively engages Singaporeans, whatever their age.
Our Navy may be the smallest of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) three Services, but it certainly punches above its weight class.
So once again, the RSN deserves a Bravo Zulu.
Read the blog entry here.
8 comments:
You should have phrased the sentence as follows:
"We can hem and haw about Civil-Military Relations (CMR) and debate about the terms of reference in CMR till our faces turn blue.
But if we're going to talk the talk, we've got to walk the walk".
Well done Navy! Thanks for highlighting this :)
Well.... several ships are capable of supporting helicopter operations, and helicopters are aircraft, after all. I wonder if the LSTs would be able to support sea harrier operations.
Thanks David for bringing out this touching piece.
With regard to your statement, that "Our Navy may be the smallest of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) three Services, but it certainly punches above its weight class." There is no doubt in my mind that it is a true statement.
There is something to be said about Navy Officers and Specialists - In both staff and command appointments, Navy personnel are known to be cool, level-headed and solid tacticians. Amongst the three Services, the Navy may be the smallest, but it also performs the most intensive operations - A fact borne out by the various sea patrols (each one lasting long periods!) in the Straits.
Out there in the deep blue waters, it is not an overstatement that they have to depend on each other as a family to see through the ops. An overbearing/harsh officer who fails to recognise signs of fatigue/frustration in his sailors or mistakes the signals of an oncoming fishing boat as a hostile craft is an accident waiting to happen.
Come to think of it, a Naval Officer sounds best suited for the DPA appointment :-)
Harriers had an operational loss rate of 30% in the Royal Navy and the US Marines and one of 50% in the Indian Navy. Think carefully if you really want such naval aviation.
Thailand's loss rate is probably zero. That is because they don't fly them.
Besides Singapore doesn't need an aircraft carrier nor a big surface fleet.
My apologies - this too:
"We can hem and haw about Civil-Military Relations (CMR) and debate about the terms of reference in CMR till we are blue in the face.
But if we're going to talk the talk, we've got to walk the walk".
ear Final Five and David,
I'm sorry I have to agree with you completely. I'm a Naval Officer and have always been proud of the multitude of skills and perspectives which we have.
We work as a team similar to tanks, we direct guns similar to Arty, we are communicators and C3 operators like in Signals, we conduct replenishments on the ship like logisticians, we overcome obstacles and mines at sea like a combat engineer, we stand face to face to danger like an infantry man during fire fighting, we drive the ship like a pilot have to fly an aircraft, we conduct air defence for our ships like our other air warfare officers, we direct aircraft like the other RSAF controllers
We work as tacticians onboard the ship, do planning as a strategist on most occasions. We can move at ease from macro to micro.
We sail for real time missions all the time in Singapore straits, out for overseas deployment to contribute to the international community, perform Defence diplomacy, extending Singapore's soft power.
I'm also proud that the Navy had kept itself tight and well knitted. I'm always proud and happy to see my ex colleagues who had left and the camaraderie which we still have is exemplary.
We are small but we certainly punch above our weight!
PS. As for choice of DPA, I do have one naval officer which will be really suitable! =)
Post a Comment