Singapore Economy underfunded compared to military
-
This thread is to all who feel that our military is a drain to our economy. I am very sorry to have clogged up the other thread, but lets start this here and now.
There are many supporters of Singapore's arms procurements of various weaponary to "defend" our city-state against our enemies. The proponents of this doctrine always imagine a future war in which we are needing the best equipment in order to beat an enemy. Some even see hidden reasons why Optus was purchased at the costs of some 9 billion of taxpayers money.
My stance is this. Its all going towards feeding a white elephant. We are now fighting for our economic survival in the age of globalization. Its my personal opinion that our military spending has exceeded what is needed to defend this land (and also to occupy a security border) What we have is gearing towards an all out invasion of certain countries.
Hence, to feed the military - industrial complex, we have sacrificed too much of our treasure and resources. We diverted funds away from development of Singaporean youth in order to satisfy our war-mongering nature.
We should use Japan as an example. We all know that Japan's no 1 enemy will be China. Yet Japan does not spend on troops and stuff capable of invading China. They spend enough to make sure that the taking over of Japan will be damn costly.
Similar for us. We already proved that taking over Singapore will be more costly than any of our potential enemies can take. Our adversary has also proved that if we want to take over his land, it will be very costly. Yet we pile in more money in order to try and achieve that very unreachable scenario. I been reading the posts. Many believe that with more purchases of equipment, we can actually beat their entire army and march right up to their capital with our tanks, planes etc. That is not a "defensive strategy".
We have since lost our economic and social edge over that same competitor. While our standard of living was the tops in the 70s, 80s and 90s, our people suffer. We lack cars. We lack local outlets for artistic and sports recreation. We import foreigners rather than pay the price (in time and money) to develop our local talents.
Why? Lets debate. No flaming please .. anyone flaming will be ignored. -
I disagree with this statement, Japan "defence" military budget is close second to US. This sort of budget is definitely not "defensive" force budget, imagine weapon like F-15J/16J(F-2)/4J in the thousands, Leapord 2 cloned improved MBT in the thousands, the largest surface fleet second to US Navy armed with Aegis, semi-carrier configuration.... The type of capabilities they invest in looks more like building an all-out offensive expeditionary force, kind of fishy....
Originally posted by kenhor:We should use Japan as an example. We all know that Japan's no 1 enemy will be China. Yet Japan does not spend on troops and stuff capable of invading China. They spend enough to make sure that the taking over of Japan will be damn costly. -
It depends on how u define a proper standard of living. If having cars and landed properity is used as a gauge of material wealth and personal standard of living, many people will never be satisfied.
On the issue of foreign talent, perhaps we should start differentating between what is foreign talent and those who are here to ride the tide. If they can help to uplift our economy...good, I welcome them since our nation was built up in past by immigrants and foreigners. But if they come to screw things up even more {like one bank of ours}...we should kick them out before it is too late.
The problem here is the mindset of the people. "If they is foreign they are better" While this is true in terms of experience and giving a fresh look to a new problem, not all foreign talent are suitable for us. We should perhaps take a hard look again on the criterion of letting such people in.
I read your previous post about creating a company to match that of foreign ones. The difficulties will be to find the expertise to run it. Further more, if we just shut off competition, it will in the long run prove hazardous to us.
I would recommand a good internet essay. You can read this to gain a better insight.
Paved with Good Intentions[/url] -
Well, the yearly expenditure for red dot defence budget is approx SGD5 billion, divided by our population of 4 million works out about SGD$125/year/head. This compared to our annual GDP of lets say USD$35,000(SGD$61,250)/head works out approx 0.20% load class of our current economy.
In contrast Malaysia yearly defence expenditure is RM12++ billion or SGD6 billion, dividied by their population of 20 million works out about SGD$300/year/head. This compared to their annual GDP of lets say USD$10,000(SGD$17,500)/head works out approx 1.71% load class of their economy.
This shows that the red dot is actually quite stingy in defence, Interesting huh?
Now imagine this, SGD5 billion is split into SGD3 billion for pay and expenses, SGD1 billion for equipment maintance/top-up/bills and left only SGD1 billion for new equipment development and purchase, this sort of money U can't even buy half a B2 bomber, perthatic huh?
The problem with our current money not enough syndrome has nothing to do with this tiny defence budget, but the type of budget system we have. The budget the PAP favours all over the year is NON DEFICIT BUDGET (in other words, no I OWE U now, my children PAY U LATER) this cause a tight squeeze in cash flow so every cents count (in short: you pay less tax, I spend less money). -
Originally posted by kenhor:
of course we need the best equipment to win! u expect to fight tanks and aeroplanes with sticks and stones?
There are many supporters of Singapore's arms procurements of various weaponary to "defend" our city-state against our enemies. The proponents of this doctrine always imagine a future war in which we are needing the best equipment in order to beat an enemy.Some even see hidden reasons why Optus was purchased at the costs of some 9 billion of taxpayers money.
nay... i think it was a clear case of SingTel not doing its homework and overly eager to make a purchase after losing other bids. it shows the lack of transparency in GLCs and u can say the same about all of them... not just singtel: Bloated, inefficient, opaque.
you fail to see that u cannot have a 50% commitment towards defence! its a zero sum game. u either are prepared or u are NOT... there is no half-half... and u fail to see that economic survival depends partially on the Nation preserving its sovereignty and security in such trying times.
My stance is this. Its all going towards feeding a white elephant. We are now fighting for our economic survival in the age of globalization. Its my personal opinion that our military spending has exceeded what is needed to defend this land (and also to occupy a security border) What we have is gearing towards an all out invasion of certain countries.
its not a white elephant. u feed it fully expecting it to work when u need it to... its not for nothing.
and how do u defend this land? we have no strategic depth! we need to project. by the time our enemies land on our shores, we would have lost the war. there is no such thing as a "defensive" posture in this case.Hence, to feed the military - industrial complex, we have sacrificed too much of our treasure and resources. We diverted funds away from development of Singaporean youth in order to satisfy our war-mongering nature.
the youths do just fine, for your information and we spend so much to prevent war, not because we desire to fight it.We should use Japan as an example. We all know that Japan's no 1 enemy will be China. Yet Japan does not spend on troops and stuff capable of invading China. They spend enough to make sure that the taking over of Japan will be damn costly.
that is the most misleading crap i have heard! the japanese are BANNED from having an armed forces in the immediate aftermath of 1945 and it is still banned from sending its troops overseas (although its trying to change that) and they won't invade china because they've tried it once and bled to death as a result. Its too damn BIG...
the americans protect them so nobody screws with them (except US and themselves...) and they SPEND like crazy when it comes to defence... they just don't talk about it because its even more sensitive there than it is here... memories of 1937 are still fresh...
we keep telling u, its not defensive, it never was and it never will be. forward defence capabilities are offensive in nature and that is the deterrent we try to have... having permanent defensive positions around the island will cost more and will not work! just ask the French. they tried it twice and failed.
Similar for us. We already proved that taking over Singapore will be more costly than any of our potential enemies can take. Our adversary has also proved that if we want to take over his land, it will be very costly. Yet we pile in more money in order to try and achieve that very unreachable scenario. I been reading the posts. Many believe that with more purchases of equipment, we can actually beat their entire army and march right up to their capital with our tanks, planes etc. That is not a "defensive strategy".We have since lost our economic and social edge over that same competitor. While our standard of living was the tops in the 70s, 80s and 90s, our people suffer. We lack cars. We lack local outlets for artistic and sports recreation. We import foreigners rather than pay the price (in time and money) to develop our local talents.
these are problems, i agree, but they are NOT due to defence spendings... we shouldn't try to force linkages where none exists... "lacking cars" just shows what a facetious, shallow person u are, measuring success according to material benchmarks.
the arts and sports have suffered because of our economic success... over-emphasis on making money that the arts and sports are not seen to be worthy of undertaking.
and u can't keep the foreign talents out anyway... they were bound to come in... globalisation does that. u'ld rather have them inside pissing out than outside pissing in. there is no such thing as "our" talents or "their" talents... its all for sale. its who the talents are working for that matters. -
I guess the facts and figures does not matter to kenhor, simply because he is not interested in them. What he is saying is simply that the Government is putting too much funds into the military instead of using them to bolster our economy. However because military "strength" and prowess is quite visible on the surface, whereares economy growth is often obscure, it keeps us from seeing the big picture.
-
Originally posted by kenhor:This thread is to all who feel that our military is a drain to our economy. I am very sorry to have clogged up the other thread, but lets start this here and now.
There are many supporters of Singapore's arms procurements of various weaponary to "defend" our city-state against our enemies. The proponents of this doctrine always imagine a future war in which we are needing the best equipment in order to beat an enemy. Some even see hidden reasons why Optus was purchased at the costs of some 9 billion of taxpayers money.
My stance is this. Its all going towards feeding a white elephant. We are now fighting for our economic survival in the age of globalization. Its my personal opinion that our military spending has exceeded what is needed to defend this land (and also to occupy a security border) What we have is gearing towards an all out invasion of certain countries.
The reason for the posture of our force lies in the fact that our lack of strategic depth compels us to adopt an expeditionary character to our force. We cannot afford to fight on our own soil. Anyway while invasion is an opponent territory is needed in order to fight on their soil, our military planners realise the foolhardiness of a complete occupation. Before we can talk about economic prosperity, physical security is an unspoken assumption. Let us not go the way of Renassiance Venice
Hence, to feed the military - industrial complex, we have sacrificed too much of our treasure and resources. We diverted funds away from development of Singaporean youth in order to satisfy our war-mongering nature. War mongering? Preparing for war to deter way is not what i would consider war mongering.
We should use Japan as an example. We all know that Japan's no 1 enemy will be China. Yet Japan does not spend on troops and stuff capable of invading China. They spend enough to make sure that the taking over of Japan will be damn costly. I agree with with a post that states that Japan force structure is not exactly defensive minded. Again Modern Japan realise the fallacy of an invasion of China. Japan geopolitical situation is different from Singapore. Their force do not need an expeditionary character as there is not requirement unlike Singapore to fight on a opponent soil to protect themselves. Once again I point out that our defensive posture requires an offensive orientation to our force however much a contradiction that might sound to you.
The Yellow Sea is more than an adequate barrier to invasion from the Chinese base on the projected growth and current ORBAT of PLAN.
Similar for us. We already proved that taking over Singapore will be more costly than any of our potential enemies can take. Our adversary has also proved that if we want to take over his land, it will be very costly. Yet we pile in more money in order to try and achieve that very unreachable scenario. I been reading the posts. Many believe that with more purchases of equipment, we can actually beat their entire army and march right up to their capital with our tanks, planes etc. That is not a "defensive strategy". To defend yourself, the most effective way would be to remove the opponent weapon. We spent much money to maintain a top notch defence force in order to deter our potential adversaries.
It is like a long term investment. We already proved that taking over Singapore will be more costly than any of our potential enemies can take. Our adversary has also proved that if we want to take over his land, it will be very costly This statement is true today because of our high level of investment in the SAF.
We have since lost our economic and social edge over that same competitor. While our standard of living was the tops in the 70s, 80s and 90s, our people suffer. We lack cars. We lack local outlets for artistic and sports recreation. We import foreigners rather than pay the price (in time and money) to develop our local talents. The possesion of cars as a mark of prosperity alone is not a good benchmark. Why do Singaporeans have a relatively low car ownership? That would be an instructive question. Knowing the reason, you will be quite surprise by the number of Singaporeans actually having cars 
Regarding the artistic and sports segment, when a country is in the infancy of economic development and especially for a country with so little resources, economic growth and wealth/asset generation should takes priority over everything else. Only when your basic neccessities have been met can you devote yourself to other more intangibles affair like the arts. You can view the import of foreign talent like skill and technology transfer. An interesting analogy would be the SAF. In our early years, we did ~import foreign talent~ like the Israeli advisers for our army and air force. It did us a world of good in term of doctirne developement and technology know how transfer
Why? Lets debate. No flaming please .. anyone flaming will be ignored. The chinese have a saying........~yang4 bin1 qian1 ri4 yong4 zai4 yi3 shi2~..... you rear an armed forces for a thousand years to prepare for one moment of eventuality. You do not plan your defence developement base on current situation but rather you must take into account all contingencies. Even when you are at an advance stage of developement, to rest on your laurels and neglect further investment of your armed forces based on current superiority would be a foolhardy thing to do. -
Facts and figures to matter to me.
Someone was quoting that Singapore spends $125 per head compared to some 20k GDP .. and Malaysia spends $300 per head compared to some %k GDP .. but ..
You take that same amount and divide up the budget of $5 billion by 600 sq km (singapore size) and compare that to the budget of $10 billion by what ever Malaysia size is. You see that they are actually spending less .. we can use also what the philipinos, Thais spend and divide them by their land area .. Singapore is over armed.
I agree with the forward defence policy. However, Malaysia also has a big northern neighbour. How come they don't go and worry so much on being invaded from the north, or in the east?
You can over spend on military. There is a precedence. Ronald Reagan successfully defeated the USSR from within with his Star Wars program.
And our military purchases do not reflect true defence in this new age. A F16 or F18 can do nothing to prevent a sudden Spetember 11 like attack against say the Swissotel. Even if you can launch all the missles, the plane will crash into heavily populated areas.
To those who think that the white elephants are neccessary, you have a right in your opinion.
You are all right by saying that Japanis forcefully limited in its budget .. but guess what .. Japan has less "forward defence" capable military than Singapore. If it really wants to "defend" itself the Singapore style, why has not it bought lots of more offensive capable stuff like aegis cruisiers (rather than destroyers), an aircraft carrier, StoS missles etc .. because their policy is for a SELF DEFENCE FORCE. Ours is not a self defence force. Ours is an offensive military complex. -
To greengoblin,
How to define a proper standard of living .. very easy. We know that the government says that 21% of Singaporeans want to migrate. And the No 1 place they want to migrate is to Australia.
So .. why are they wanting to migrate there
a) Lifestyle .. car, house, good working conditions (9-5), sports, green grass, low crime
b) Democracy .. some may want to leave as they want more political choice
c) Education .. better quality of education.
d) Healthcare .. better quality of healthcare
So these are the tangible reasons why people want to leave Singapore. The main reasons why Chinese people are leaving Malaysia for Singapore (and taking up citizenship) is that they are looking for a place with no racial discrinmination. Those who come here and work will never give up their Malaysian citizenship .. PR is all they need.
So if the government knows that they can't even give lifestyle, democracy, education and healthcare, should they try to spend more or give up? In my mind, they have given up. And decided with just diverting attention to non-consequential matters (such as allowing bar top dancing and defining "bohemians") and to make matters worse, we celebrate in the abovesaid white elephants.
I work for a MNC. Its not difficult to beat the MNC. you are right, You just need the right people. However, I am not talking about a GLC taking on a MNC. I am talking about a local company taking on a MNC. I am talking about how our government has not given enough opportunity for Singaporeans to start "private" companies.
Lets take airlines for example. SIA is the number 1 airline in SEA. Does it really make sense for SIA to also OWN THE SECOND airline in Singapore? Then we have SingTel .. does it make sense for the government (via temasek) to own STARHUB as well? It will end up killing M1 and Pacnet. How about banks .. overnight, the government wants to kill off the local family owned banks by letting them fight it out for 1 remaining licence.
The government gives no chance to the average joe in Singapore. hence my concern about the white elephants .. it does not benefit the whole but just a few individuals .. such as ST and temasek. (who also instead of spending money in Singapore during recession, paid $9 BILLION to C&W for Optus, thus enriching the British)
My ranting on the FT later. -
To CX
We do not have sticks and stones.. we already have the best .. just that I feel that we do not need more.
The chinese saying you quoted is very wise. I agree with it. I just feel that our militancy is taking away the other portion of the economy and hence affecting our society. Just this forum is very good. Note that in this "speakers corner" we have so many threads on military .. yet no one bring out the plight for the poor, no one care about the opposition, no one speak about FT woes, no one bring up current government policy, no one complain about the price of petrol etc .. its usually threads about MAF, SAF, IDF, etc .. war and military. If we are just a militaristic lunatic fringe of Singapore society, then ok. However, I think we are representing a very wide swarth of Singapore society. Are we now born just to serve NS and let the FT do our work for us?
On the japan thing .. I think you are right about their stance and policy being different from ours. But read my reply previous message anyway.
Our youth are now being starved in their sports because of economic interests some may say. I don't agree. Our neighbours sports development start in their teens (well before they need to earn $$$) We used to be the champions if sports that were popular here. Tennis, squash, Netball, Swimming, Bowling etc .. very urban games.
NOW, The Thais and Indonesians actually are better than us in tennis (we host a ATP saction event while I think they don't) The Indons even have a player that knocked off Anna Kournikova during the last USA open. In the Commenwealth games, our swimmers delivered a BIG FAT ZERO .. while a malaysian won a bronze (came behind Ian Thorpe!). We now lose regualrly to Malaysia in Squash, Bowling and Netball. (their WOMEN beat our WOMEN! .. so can not even blame NS on this)
Worst yet, the Malaysians are able to jump start into fields that they were never good at. Lawn Bowls was unheard off 10 years ago. In the last Manchester Games .. the most funny moment is this dark skinned (to be honest, ugly) girl won the women Singles lawn bowls from countries who have been playing the sport for hundred past years. And their men came in third.
Same goes for motor sports. We should be the best .. but nooooo.. Alex Young is finished .. there are dozens of Malaysian go-cart drivers who are teens all preparing for drives in Rallying, Formula Asia and F3 in 1 or two years time .. not to metion the hundred more Thais who are going to pass from Cub Prix racing to 125cc.
What are we doing with our youth?
My arguments on FT coming soon. -
To exco
I can try to get some numbers for you. I can show you how USa determines if it is doing well economically or not. They use two measures
a) Job creation
b) Consumer spending.
All other measures like inflation, growth, stock market index, currency rate are just indicators, but to truly reflect how strong the country is doing, they use those 2 measurements.
The last count, both are not doing well here in Singapore. I don't know by how much, but the number of jobs being created is definately not increasing. Ditto for consumer spending. I will try to get hard numbers for you. Donno where to find but I will try.
I won't be too pissed if we buy the fighters or subs and that increses the number of jobs in Singapore or increases consumer spending. But when we buy a Rafale or JSF etc .. we pay hard currency. Then the suppliers will be able to hire people to build the plane OVERSEAS. They supply all the missiles, avionics etc. We send our troops overseas for training. All this will lead to job creation overseas and consumer spending overseas.
I read this article in Time or some other magazine last month. It talks about how the kick backs work for the Malaysia submarine purchases. It also mentioned that the sub will be locally built in Lumut (job creation) and also the hiring of lots of workers (consumer spending)
As for how kickbacks can "enrich" the economy, let me explain. Say Datuk XYZ got kickback of RM100 million for the sub project. Do you think he will stash all of it in an offshore swiss bank account? Nope. He will park some of it there, some of it in Labuan. But he will then spend like shit. He will buy land, build a mansion, buy a few cars, get a new wife, buy each of his children a new toy. a generous one will even upgrade his office, give a raise to his loyal staff. some silly ones will even go to genting and lose a million. But that money will be somehow PUMPED into the Malaysian economy.
Unlike Singapore, ST gets the money from the arms sales. ST sits on the money and will invest in some JV with LKS of HK (buying Asia global Crossing .. which will compete against Singtel, price war, and both lose money). Do you think that for one minute that if ST wins a deal to supply arms that it will give a raise to its workers? No .. all that money will go back to Temasek who will spend it on Arms .. back and forward .. but does it enrich a huge section of the economy?
In our last recession, our government did not use any of its reserves to jumpstart the economy. A corrupt datok in Malaysia can spread his ill gotten wealth faster than our ST & temasek can.
I can't really see the big picture. I hope that i can agree with our government's "big picture" when I see it. I was reading a book. It says the purpose of the peasent is to till the land and be taxed. They are not suppose to interfere or meddle with the aristocracy. -
To Solaris,
You are right .. we have already invested so far, to not continue to do so will be fool hardy.
But let me ask you this. In the 37 years we have been independant, how come we are still in a state of siege?
We continue to amass plenty of weapons .. how come we still need to do so? What has the government done to reduce tensions along the peninsula?
Don't tell me that its our neighbours fault all the time. Even if its their fault, WHAT have the Singaporean GOVERNMENT actually done to reduce the chances of invasion from a non-military perspective?
Its like 2 neighbours with a quarrel. You can continue to buy guns to deter each other .. but what about making peace? Even if they do not want peace .. have our government actually done ANYTHING that looks like extending a oilive branch? One has to extend the branch. Have we done any branch extending? -
lets not bring parochial confucianism into this... a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
the problem with corruption is not that it won't spread, but that it is not equitable. u are dependant on the goodwill of your grand old datuk and it makes the economy all the more inefficient. this money cannot see the light of day so he'll probably have to stash it and launder it and not be able to spend it without raising eye-brows and getting arrested... if that doesn't happen, then u have a problem with rule of law which opens up a whole new can of worms...
imagine: you submit a tender to bid for a project. its a fair price, u make money, the government saves money and the job gets done.
but...
mr. corrupt datuk takes a bribe, gives the project to another who bids higher, the government wastes money, the contractor makes money... and mind you, its being paid with tax-payer's money.
i could argue the opposite that money wasted on corrupt deals cannot be used to better the welfare of the people by the government. its simplistic to think that corruption benefits everyone. -
Government policy gone wrong with FT.
I am a believer in that if the government can go wrong with its policy on FT (and still refuses to admit it), it can go wrong with its policy on military spending and also other issues.
What is the purpose of FT? The correct purpose of FT is
a) To do work that Singaporeans DO NOT WANT to do or is to LOWLY paid to do. Like Maids, road sweepers etc
b) To TEACH us how to do things that we do not know how to do as yet.
c) If we do not have the people in a important field, FT are needed so as to ensure that the industry can still grow.
Thats it. There are no other reasons. USA adopts the reasons above for their FT policy. I agree with all of the reasons above. However, our dear policy has then been abused by profiteering companies who use them to lower their costs. This is very widespread in Labour intensive industries, and the government will turn a blind eye to this practice (waiter carpenter construction worker) But this trend has also creeped up to affect CAPITAL intensive industries (like call centres, programming and IT Support) And now both skilled and unskilled workers are being thrown out of work. People want the job also can not get because FT is cheaper. So policy a) failed
Secondly, what is the most popular sport in Singapore? Soccer. But by the government standards, it must be ping pong. Never mind that less than 10% of the population follow it regularly. The govt import whole villages to play ping pong for us. And are they "teaching" our players to excell? Are they improving the visibility of the sport in our schools? Are they rallying the people to watch more international standard competitions .. big fat NOPE. So policy b) failed for sports
In business, say for LOCAL companies. The FT was hired to GROOM locals to take over.But these fat cats are smart. They make sure that they can never leave. They don't train the locals properly. They bring their expat friends from overseas, so that when they do have to leave, it will be another expat who will take over, so no singaporean will ever be promoted. So policy b) failed for business
c) No need to say this policy failed as FT are being inserted even in fields that they are not needed like banking, manufacturing & IT, in which we have plenty of willing and able people to do the work. But greedy bosses need the FT to keep costs low.
So 3 out of 3 policy failures.
For MNCs, its a different policy. Dr Mati of Malaysia has carped about the new colonialsizm. I thought he is talking to just Malaysians .. but it seems he is talking also to singaporeans.
We live in a country where our economy is NOT big enough to be self sustaining. we need to sell to our neighbouring countries and we need FDI. Hence, we need the good graces of the MNCs. Hence it will be very easy for expats to put whoever they want into Singapore. Australia has a tougher policy on jobs than Singapore (even for fellow whites) I was told that if a position open in Sydney, and american can not be sent to that position unless they can not find a suitable australian for the job, even if the company is an American MNC. In singapore, where got such policy.
So we need the favour of the white master. We make our immigration policy very favourable to them to work. We do not have a minimum "singaporean" quota for any MNCs. We also allow our womenfolk to be subject to the rape and molest of the white expat (who 90% will not marry our girls after having a good time with them) We suppport their home country foreign policy blindly (remember how we had to be pro_america during that incident with China shooting down the USA spy plane)and become their overseers for their businesses in SEA.
So what have we become? we are independant from tryanny of the Malaysians but we are now under different masters. We don't even vote 75% of the time.
So all this ranting is this .. if the govt fail in their FT policy and don't even admit it, how can we be sure that their policy of buying white elephants is true?
Malaysia also have white elephants .. petronas towers, airport, etc .. but they benefit more people than our white elephants. -
Corruption is terrible . but lets face facts. Some small bit of corruption does not hurt anyone.
USA is very corrupt as well. They have plenty of corrupt politicians also. Japan is corrupt, China is Corrupt.
In fact, the whole world is corrup with singapore being the top 5 non corrupt countries.
However, Malaysia's corruption is under control. While maybe Indonesia's is not. So is the corruption really destroying countries like USA and Malaysia?
Malaysia's case, its INEFFICIENCY rather than CORRUPTION than is their worst enemy.
Our Suchow project was a failure due to our government being to innocent in thinking that they can build Singapore II anywhere in the world. The Chinamen have showed Singapore how innocence can lead to disaster as much as corruption. -
btw...911 is not an attack frm other country..uts a terrorist attack..so very much different frm fighting a war against a enemy when u noe who is the enemy..but terrorist u dun..so pls leave out the part where F-16 n 18 is useless against that...thanx
-
Dear Nathan,
How to leave it out .. remember our motto .. total defense. So allocating funds to buy fancy new planes will take away needed resources to beef up and prevent such acts like september 11.
I am writing this as we are moving away from total defense but just buying white elephants .. we have to beef up social, psychological, economic defenses as well.
And with these idiotic terrorists, whose main aim is just to spread terror, we need to be able to have a security response against their intentions.
Buying a new fighter may mean millions lost to security of our nation, and we have to spend millions more on making sure that figher is protected while on ground. -
all the factors are interlink together....jus as total defense stated...
-
do u noe wat its take to bring down terrorism??Originally posted by kenhor:Dear Nathan,
How to leave it out .. remember our motto .. total defense. So allocating funds to buy fancy new planes will take away needed resources to beef up and prevent such acts like september 11.
I am writing this as we are moving away from total defense but just buying white elephants .. we have to beef up social, psychological, economic defenses as well.
And with these idiotic terrorists, whose main aim is just to spread terror, we need to be able to have a security response against their intentions.
Buying a new fighter may mean millions lost to security of our nation, and we have to spend millions more on making sure that figher is protected while on ground.
do u noe?
in SG total defence was never aiming at fighting terrorism
it is a competition country vs country..c who is better
not terrorism -
Dear Nathan,
One more thing .. you said that we have to prepare against and enemy that we know about, not against this "terrorists" who we don't know who.
Its exactly the same kind of thinking by the british of were planning to defend Singapore harbour, never thinking of the japanese who came in via kota baharu.
And even then, we already know for 1 year there is a threat from terrorist attack. Have we started considering how to prevent jurong island from going up in smoke? Or how to prevent an anthrax attack down in Dhoby Ghaut MRT?
I am not posting to change any of your minds .. just to make you all learn that there is more to life than the military. Observe. Question. Learn. Debate. But most importantly, do not be blindly led. -
If it is a competition .. then I think we have lost. We have no resources to waste. What is the use of sacrificing 2.5 years of our precious young lives if it is for show?
Might as well compete in sports .. who can win the first olympic gold medal or world cup .. that one is much harder to achieve.
Or in business .. whose locally educated boy can be the first SEA CEO of a fortune 500 company?
Or first to develop the cure for cancer?
Why just buy military stuff? -
simple intelligence is the key..SG is fighting terrorism wif intelligenceOriginally posted by kenhor:Dear Nathan,
One more thing .. you said that we have to prepare against and enemy that we know about, not against this "terrorists" who we don't know who.
Its exactly the same kind of thinking by the british of were planning to defend Singapore harbour, never thinking of the japanese who came in via kota baharu.
And even then, we already know for 1 year there is a threat from terrorist attack. Have we started considering how to prevent jurong island from going up in smoke? Or how to prevent an anthrax attack down in Dhoby Ghaut MRT?
I am not posting to change any of your minds .. just to make you all learn that there is more to life than the military. Observe. Question. Learn. Debate. But most importantly, do not be blindly led.
y pull in total defence???
the British noes who they r...duh...it is the British side who is complacent..not that they dunno who they r..the word is complacent..not dunno
btw...the govt noes there is threat frm terrorism for the past 30 years..so let me ask u...how to prevent those attack??
using wat? throw at the terrorist??..or show them our tallest financial building n scare them to death -
Terrorism is not new. It has been around since the time of the persian empire. How one kingdom had some kind of assasins willing to kill and die for their king.
We see plenty of terrorists .. be it in Belfast, Columbia, Philippines, India, USA and now even in neighbouring countries. How to win?
Well, we have to see what they want. And see if we are willing to sacrifice to get peace.
In Isreal, there was a land for peace program .. but failed as the hardline jews could not accept it.
In Belfast, there is now more or less peace, with N.Ireland giving into some demands of the catholics
We are waiting for peace in Sri Lanka, if only the Singhaless allow for a seperate homeland for the tamils.
In our case, the al qaeda is not out to get us. They are out to hit usa's interests by causing terror in Singapore and maybe Malaysia. How to prevent it? Well, thats the job of the government. . they are paid millions to find a solution. But I can tell you, buying aircraft is not a solution. -
the point is y do u keep saying the Govt is onli buying Military stuff..Originally posted by kenhor:If it is a competition .. then I think we have lost. We have no resources to waste. What is the use of sacrificing 2.5 years of our precious young lives if it is for show?
Might as well compete in sports .. who can win the first olympic gold medal or world cup .. that one is much harder to achieve.
Or in business .. whose locally educated boy can be the first SEA CEO of a fortune 500 company?
Or first to develop the cure for cancer?
Why just buy military stuff?
n have done nothing at all..to revive the economic again??
well..i agree tat in this forum its all mostly abt Military equipment..
but how can u be so sure the govt is not doing anything?? -
I am not saying that the government is doing NOTHING. I am saying that the government piority is wrong and that the ECONOMY is UNDERFUNDED compared to the amount of resources put into the MILITARY.
I am also challenging those who think that we can still afford to fund our military in the same way. I want people here to think and question on what better use of the money in other parts.
You buy less one squardon of fighter jets or less 1 submarine .. see what we can do with the 500 million saved.