something to share
-
This message was forwarded to you from Straits Times Interactive
(http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg) by
Comments from sender:
More bucks for the bang
Is South-east Asia moving towards an arms race? BHAGYASHREE GAREKAR examines
the recent patterns of arms acquisitions in the region for answers
ARMS deals in South-East Asia are making headlines once again as the region
surfaces from the 1997 economic crisis that shrivelled defence funding.
As the ink dries on multi-million dollar equipment deals, the buyers describe
them as long-overdue military modernisation exercises. No, it is an arms race,
say others, fearing that the new procurements would escalate tension in the
region.
In Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines - where the budgets for arms
spending are still tight - the weapon wishlists keep growing longer. But these
countries do not have the bucks for the bang.
But on the other hand, both Malaysia and Singapore have placed sizeable orders
for sophisticated equipment.
For Malaysia, even weightier deals are still in the works. In its largest
defence procurement exercise in decades, it ordered more than RM2 billion (S$958
million) worth of military equipment this month.
Among them are air defence systems from Russia and Britain, Polish combat
tanks, Pakistani anti-tank rockets, mobile military bridges and assault rifles.
It is also eyeing new fighter aircraft - possibly the US FA 18 Super Hornets or
Russian Su-30 - and French Scorpene submarines.
In the trail of the deals which created ripples across the region, Malaysian
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak explained: 'Malaysia is only trying
to catch up with the world because our spending was deferred during the crisis.'
International defence analyst Christopher Foss of Jane's Defence agrees with
this assessment.
'Much of the arms purchases are clearly a case of replacing obsolete technology
and old vehicles and aircraft,' he told Sunday Review recently.
However, the US-based global intelligence provider Strategic Forecasting
(Stratfor) said the big ticket items in the deals revealed strategic motives
beyond modernisation.
It said the crisis-induced five-year lull in spending does not wholly explain
the 'sheer scope and scale' of the recent purchases.
They 'suggest preparations for countering both insurgencies and full state
threats'.
In similar vein, Dr Andrew Tan, security analyst at Singapore's Institute of
Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), told Sunday Review: 'It's certainly not
mere maintenance of status quo. The deals are not just for replacement of
equipment but acquisition of new capabilities.
'Malaysia did not have a main battle tank or an SU-30 or a submarine which they
now plan to acquire.'
But he pointed out that inferences that Kuala Lumpur's procurement is meant to
match Singapore's recent and planned buys - submarines, helicopters, frigates
and fighter planes - are premature.
For one, most weapons being acquired were along expected lines, he said. Tanks
have long been on its list and as for submarines, Malaysians have been training
in submarine operations for over 10 years.
'The plan to buy a second squadron of MIG-29s has been on hold for five years
and if they're now looking at SU-30s instead, it's probably because they are
better value for money,' Dr Tan added, remarking that the end of the Cold War
and the shake-up in the global arms business had brought down prices.
In addition, he said: 'Malaysia does have legitimate defence needs. They have a
sprawling country to defend and they have territorial disputes with Thailand,
Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.
Of course, Singapore does matter, he commented, saying: 'Malaysia does not want
to be left behind and there's also the prestige factor. But it is not as though
Malaysia perceives a dire security threat from Singapore. This is not an arms
race.'
An arms race, he said, would presume that the two nations are mutually
antagonistic and an arms purchase by one was matched quickly by the other.
That is not true of the Malaysia-Singapore relationship, he said, which
consists mostly of normal social, political and economic interaction.
So what would account for Malaysia's undeniably big arms drive?
Datuk Seri Najib said the purchases were targeted at defending the country in
aerial combat, which he called the single-biggest threat in modern warfare.
But the acquisition of Russian, European and Pakistani anti-aircraft systems
are not connected to Singapore, according to Mr M. G. Mahmud, a Kuala
Lumpur-based defence analyst with the Asian Defence Journal.
He told Sunday Review: 'Malaysia's purchase of anti-aircraft missiles is not
directly related as such to Singapore. We have never really had an effective
anti-aircraft system.' -
Emphasising that neighbours should not be concerned, Datuk Seri Najib said
Malaysia spends only 2.5 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) on
defence, while Singapore spends between 5 and 6 per cent.
But in the eyes of a Malaysian social activist, Singapore has been made a bogey
to justify arms purchases.
The Malaysian media had been playing up the issue of Singapore's reclamation
works in the Johor Straits and its self-sufficiency in water, noted Mr Kua Kia
Soong of human rights group Suaram.
'It is very clear that this Singapore bogey is there to justify the arms deal,'
he told the BBC recently.
In Stratfor's estimation, however, 'rivalries with Singapore, which itself is
heavily armed with modern military equipment, are unlikely to escalate into
conventional war'.
Another possible reason for the surge in arms purchases is Malaysia's desire to
be the leading Asean country.
'Malaysian leaders want to expand the country's regional influence and a strong
military would add weight to Malaysia's economic strength and political
independence,' Stratfor noted.
It said some of Malaysia's purchase plans appear out of place given that the
main security threats are posed by immigrant labourers and religious, ethnic or
political violence.
Signs are that the country is instead preparing for 'long-term contingencies',
it said.
These could be in the form of unrest at its border with Thailand's
Muslim-majority southern provinces, it said. Or worse, a possible disintegration
of Indonesia. Malaysian defence planners think that if Jakarta loses control
over Borneo in particular, Malaysia must be prepared to act pre-emptively.
It should also be able to fend off aggressors or refugees from other areas,
especially Sumatra.
On its part, Indonesia has stayed unconcerned over Malaysia's weapons
expansion.
'Indonesia doesn't see Malaysia as a threat. If they had, then they would have
expanded their weapons purchases before the financial crisis when both Malaysia
and Singapore launched a major expansion,' analyst Bob Lowry told Sunday Review.
At less than 1 per cent of the GDP, the country has one of the lowest military
budgets in Asia at US$1 billion (S$1.8 billion), although analysts in Jakarta
said that about 70 per cent of actual spending of US$3 billion comes from the
military's network of legal and illegal businesses.
The funds crunch has delayed replacement of equipment. 'They are down to their
bare bones, they have no money to spend on new equipment. They are flat out
maintaining capability,' said another analyst.
Because of the US defence embargo since early 2000, the plan was for deals with
Russia and China, which offer cheaper equipment. But even this proved
unaffordable.
The strain is showing. For the lack of functioning transport planes, troops
cannot be deployed quickly to conflict areas. In Aceh, where at least 30,000
troops are deployed in counter-insurgency operations, soldiers complain they
lack boots and personal equipment.
Unlike Indonesia, Thailand has viewed Malaysia's arms purchases with some
concern but does not see the region in an arms race.
'Not yet, but it is close to one. Right now, countries are acquiring new
capabilities like electronic warfare, intelligence equipment to extend their
operational capability beyond their own borders,' said Dr Panitan Wattanayagorn,
a leading defence expert at Chulalongkorn University.
Thailand would like to match its neighbours but faces funds constraint - the
military budget is about 1.4 per cent of the GDP compared to 4.5 per cent a
decade ago.
Major-General Palangkoon Klaharn, the defence ministry's deputy spokesman,
said: 'When Malaysia and Myanmar bought Russian MIG aircraft recently, we did
not follow.
'We must accept that Asean neighbours have minor problems on and off, like
Thailand and Malaysia have over border issues. But war is not the option.'
Dr Panitan said: 'In the short term, Thailand's security threats come from the
Myanmar border, where drug and weapon smuggling is on the rise. It is also
concerned about the security of its sea lanes. In the long term, it is the
potential threat posed by emerging superpowers like China, India and Japan.'
But there are no plans for a major order of military hardware in the next five
years, Army commander General Surayudh Chulanont has said.
Instead, it would emphasise maintenance and modification of existing weaponry.
To cut costs, the army is modifying 40 personnel carriers into armoured carriers
using local contractors.
Last week, it accepted delivery of three Blackhawk helicopters bought using
last year's budget to replace its ageing Bell units.
Before the 1997 crisis, the navy had been beefing up with new frigates and an
aircraft carrier but its recent request for a submarine was rejected by the
government.
But perhaps the most hard-up are the Philippines armed forces, which are known
to be the most ill-equipped in the region.
For a time, the Philippine Air Force's aircraft were so decrepit that they were
described as 'flying coffins or widow-makers'. Naval vessels and army equipment
break down frequently.
'When we drew up the estimates for the modernisation programme in 1995, the
peso-dollar exchange rate was only 26 to a dollar. Now, it's 51-52 to a dollar.
Our estimates not only have to be revised; we need more money to upgrade our
fighting capability,' remarked a military official.
But money is hard to come by with the defence budget of 46.2 billion pesos
(S$1.6 billion) capped to about 4 per cent of the GDP and a separate
modernisation programme of 5 billion pesos for 2002.
The promise of equipment and at least US$100 million in aid from the US has yet
to materialise.
The Asia-Pacific region, along with the Middle East, is the world's premier
arms market and the latest rounds of acquisitions can be viewed as
modernisation. But that is not as innocuous as it sounds.
'Modernisation means it's not the maintenance of status quo, so mutual
suspicions can get reinforced,' said Dr Tan of IDSS.
'And these need to be allayed by bilateral and multilateral confidence-building
measures and diplomatic initiatives.'
WITH REPORTS FROM: Edward Tang in Bangkok, Leslie Lau in Kuala Lumpur, Luz
Baguioro in Manila and Marianne Kearney in Jakarta -
This message was forwarded to you from Straits Times Interactive
(http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg)
Comments from sender:
Beating drums of S'pore-Malaysia war 'is insanity'
by Brendan Pereira
KUALA LUMPUR - Singapore will continue to provoke Malaysia and create the
impression that it is strong militarily and ready to wage war, but Malaysians
must not behave hysterically, a newspaper said yesterday.
A senior editor of the Mingguan Malaysia, writing in the column that uses the
pen name Awang Sulung, noted that following the uproar over the reclamation of
land off Pulau Tekong, noises are being made about going to war with Singapore.
This time, it is a small group of Malaysians who are beating the drums of war,
he noted.
'These people who do not have a complete understanding of the problems at hand
want the government to stop the supply of water and take confrontational
action,' he said.
The columnist said that it was an open secret that if Malaysia cut off the
water supply to the Republic, Singapore would use its air power to attack Johor,
try and wrest control of the water-treatment plants and occupy the state.
'Many Malaysians talk about this. They also like to talk about how strong
Singapore's military is. In reality, we are in a position where we can face
Singapore head-on.'
But there would be little benefit in going to war - both sides will end up as
losers. Also, he did not believe that Singaporeans would support going to war.
'Kuan Yew has given them too good a life. Worldly pleasures are everything for
them. Are they willing to lose everything in a war?'
The Malay-language newspaper which often mirrors official thinking also
reproduced an open letter by Awang Sulung to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
It was published in September last year after Mr Lee's visit to Kuala Lumpur.
Among the many pieces of advice given was this: Like Israel, Singapore feels
that it is squeezed by neighbours who have the potential of becoming enemies.
Like Israel, Singapore feels the need to be strong militarily and to be able to
protect itself.
Just a reminder, said the letter, Israelis still live in fear and blood
continues to flow even though it is supported by the lone superpower.
He ended by saying that only insane Singapore leaders would wage war against
Malaysia, just as only insane Malaysian politicians would turn the taps off on
Singapore.
'Let us pray that our countries will not fall into the hands of such insane
leaders,' he said.
The talk of war also figured prominently in a column in the New Sunday Times by
Mr John Teo, executive director of the East Asian Business Council, and a
contributor to the English language daily.
He referred to a comment attributed to SM Lee about going to war if access to
water was cut off and wrote: 'That Singapore should even rhetorically air the
threat of war against its larger neighbour - even if its tries to justify it on
the grounds of self-preservation - exposes how arrogantly it still tends to
misread Malaysian sensibilities nearly four decades after separation.'
He blamed the Republic's 'un-neighbourliness' as the root cause of irritation
with other countries in the region. Post-1997 Singapore has made a conscious
effort to cut its reliance on South-east Asia for its economic prosperity.
'The timing of such a policy was unfortunate. Singapore probably compounded the
problem by giving the impression... that while it was happy to be part of the
region's success during the good times, it wanted out when SEA plunged into
crisis.' -
Tell that awang sulongkan... that if push come to shove...
we will conquer malaysia and give it to the indonesian, pinos and thais as gifts!!
we will probably contemplate cutting malaysia up into chinese malaysia, tamil malaysia, malay malaysia and watever racial group malaysia they want... muahahaaaaa.......
We might even consider a christian malaysia, muslim malaysia, buddist malaysia, hindu malaysia as well......
not enough??? we can always consider other options.. muahahahaa.a.......
I AM SO EVIL!!!!
-
wah lau eh.........
so evil ah???? -
Singapore unneighbourly? i don't think so. Is it Singapore that is being unneighbourly or does it have real concerns. Reclamation is a need for Singapore which is very short of land. Singapore is also doing regular checks on the environment near the site of reclamation, this shows that it bothers about others too.
Also, Malaysia criticises Singapore so often but has it looked enough at itself. In the famous Anwar case for example, look how Malaysia has handled it, with that guy beaten up in prison and everything. Malaysia also fails to address its corruption problem. Most who enter Malaysia frequently will slip some money to the immigration officers at customs at the causeway to ensure that there passport is stamped and they can proceed quickly.
Even if SIngapore is unneighbourly, which just happens to be NOT the case, what action of Malaysia merits any form of neighbourliness on the part of Singapore.
Please comment