Report: MÂ’sian Armed ForcesÂ’ Modernisation
-
Malaysian National News Agency : Bernama
September 15, 2003 19:33 PM
ATM's Modernisation Not Linked To Flashpoint Theory
KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 15 (Bernama) -- The modernisation being undertaken by the Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM) is not in preparation for a possible outbreak of armed conflict in Southeast Asia, a region military analysts describe as a "time bomb".
The water supply and Pulau Batu Puteh issues between Malaysia and Singapore, the Jemaah Islamiah militant group, overlapping claims on Spratlys, the Philippines' claim on Sabah and political instability in Indonesia are considered potential flashpoints leading to war and intervention by foreign powers.
In the mid-90s, predictions of regional turmoil almost came true when two Vietnamese navy vessels sank after being shot by Chinese warships as a result of territorial dispute over the Spratlys, which are also claimed by Malaysia.
ATM's modernisation in the early 90s, which saw it acquiring the R-77 Beyond Visual Range (BVR) guided missile from Russia for its MiG-29N/UB, had led defence analysts to regard Malaysia as starting an arms race with Singapore and Thailand.
None of the other countries in the region had the BVR system, which allows an MiG-29 to fire at enemy aircraft from more than 60km by merely picking them up on the radar screen using a location detection device.
The United States Congress had initially refused to approve the sale of the American BVR system to friendly countries in the region but finally allowed the sale of the AIM-120 (a type of BVR) for use by the F-16 fighter jets of Singapore and Thailand.
Malaysian Armed Forces Chief Jen Tan Sri Mohd Zahidi Zainuddin dismissed the notion that tension was running high in the region and that Malaysia was involved in an arms race.
Five years ago, the situation was truly tense in the Spratly islands and many parties had predicted that the area would be a flashpoint of armed conflicts, he said.
"However, it did not happen and in fact the issue has abated, because we have military diplomacy preventing such a situation from happening," he said in a recent interview with journalists in conjunction with the 70th anniversary of ATM.
Furthermore, political and military leaders in the region practised "bilateral cooperation" to minimise such risks, he said.
He said ATM's modernisation was to attain Minimum Deterrent Capability (MDC) to defend the country from outside attacks because the ATM had just switched from counter-insurgency warfare to modern warfare.
The purchase of the Astros II multiple rocket launcher, Scorpene submarine and Sukhoi 30MKM aircraft was not meant to create threats to any country because Malaysia's defence budget was still low compared to those of neighbouring countries, he said.
"We need at least RM24 billion to meet our defence needs but the government approves only about RM7 billion a year, and this is far from achieving our MDC aspiration," he said.
ATM's present assets may be seen as modern and possibly stronger than those of their regional counterparts but Zahidi admitted that Malaysia still lagged behind in terms of electronic warfare because it lacked an Airborne Early Warning System.
He said ATM only wanted a fair fight if it was attacked by enemies.
He took pride in the fact that ATM had quickly transformed itself from an outfit primed for guerilla warfare to a conventional force which had successfully served under the United Nations banner.
ATM now has a strength of 118,000 personnel and this is small compared to Thailand (225,000 personnel), Indonesia (343,000) and Singapore (70,000 regulars and 250,000 reservists).
"Our current strength of 118,000 might be expanded according to our needs. The government previously wanted to reduce the number of personnel so that modernisation of assets can be implemented," he said.
The conclusion is, after going through two crises -- the emergency and confrontation -- ATM is undertaking modernisation in line with the country's development and this, according to Zahidi, has nothing to do with the concept of "bargaining power".
The ATM has never used its strength as a power projector to resolve issues with neighbouring countries, and instead it views diplomacy as a key weapon for maintaining the country's peace.
-- BERNAMA -
The Star, Malaysia
Sunday September 14, 2003
One quick sequel after another
By DALILAH IBRAHIM
LIKE Hollywood movies, there is a sequel to stories that emerge from the Dewan Rakyat. However, unlike The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or The Matrix, you do not have to wait one year for this sequel.
While the leading roles have changed, the setting and theme remain almost the same – two sides trying to inflict political wounds on one another.
The MPs were debating the Supplementary Supply Bill tabled by Second Finance Minister Datuk Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis when Kerk Kim Hock (DAP - Kota Melaka) came up with a tale about how the people in Malacca were offended by some National Day buntings and pamphlets.
These publications, besides having pictures of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and past prime ministers, also depicted one on Umno’s founding fathers, Datuk Onn Jaafar, standing in front of a group of people with a banner that said “Malaya for Malays.”
“People are offended with the words 'Malaya for Malays'. For those who do not understand history, they will say: We have achieved our independence for 46 years, why must there be such a phrase?” Kerk said.
Kerk said that while such pictures were fit for use during UmnoÂ’s events, they should not have been used on National Day when the Government was trying to promote racial unity.
As expected, KerkÂ’s remarks sparked strong response from backbenchers, especially those from Umno.
Prime MinisterÂ’s Department parliamentary secretary Datuk Noh Omar said Kerk simply did not understand the message, and that OnnÂ’s struggle against the Malayan Union was part of the countryÂ’s history.
Kerk defended his actions by saying that two ministers whom he approached outside the Dewan had agreed with his views.
Datuk Ruhanie Ahmad (BN - Parit Sulong) took to the floor and warned Kerk that it was his (KerkÂ’s) words that would do more damage to the unity of the country.
“Bacul saya sebagai anak Melayu tidak bangun dan berani memperkatakan perkara yang benar, memang bacul (As a Malay, I’ll be a coward if I do not get up to tell the truth, real coward),” he said, to thumps of support from the backbenchers.
Chong Eng (DAP - Bukit Mertajam) defended Kerk, saying he had the basis in bringing up the topic.
“We can debate here, we can say the reasons if what he said was wrong. But what we see here is an extremely emotional response,” she said.
One backbencher said the opposition MPs were merely nitpicking and that it showed they were out of ideas.
Moving on to another tale, PAS MP Husam Musa told the Dewan that the price of a Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jet was sold 30% cheaper on the Internet compared to the price the Government had agreed to.
Husam said the Government would be paying RM1bil extra for the 18 Sukhoi Su-30MK fighters.
“The price offered on the Internet for the international market is lower than what we are paying,” he said when debating the Bill at committee stage.
Husam then suggested that perhaps the extra money was in exchange to train the first Malaysian astronaut to be sent to the moon.
“Is this the price to pay to prove the slogan 'Malaysia Boleh'?” he said.
In reply, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal said the purchase of the jets was based on a study done by military experts on the suitability and capability of the equipment.
“The price we pay cannot be compared to the price on the Internet. That price did not take into account the detailed specifications and those of additional equipment that we purchase from other suppliers,” he said.
Husam then insisted that Shafie reveal the amount paid for the specifications so that the people would know where the money went.
Shafie said it was not appropriate for the ministry to reveal details of its military equipment to the public as it involved the countryÂ’s security.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad had already tabled Budget 2004 on Friday.
There should be more interesting tales for weeks to come. Care for another sequel? -
This is interesting to note.
118k regulars out of a population of 22 million citizens = 0.5% of the population.
70k regulars out of a population of 3 million citizens = 2.3% of the population
I think we have diverted too much of the economy into the military. -
Go home to Malaysia traitor.
-
Sigh .. discuss facts also people get worked up.
-
please forgive kenhor.... he got peanuts for a brain...
afterall... poor chap only can see numbers but not reality....
peanut brains just dont understand that being small means you need to invest more in defence to be able to match up against a bigger foe...
that is why in nature... the smallest organism carries the most toxic poison.... a single drop of which....can kill an entire town..... -
oooiiiii!!! stupid.....Originally posted by kenhor:Sigh .. discuss facts also people get worked up.
the purpose of defence is to be able to defend yourself against your foes... NOT making figure comparison....
whats the point of matching percentage figures in defence if in the end you cant defend yourself?
now you see you are S T U P I D>? dont worry.... we know you are...
-
While Typhoon's response was uncalled for, I would like to point out that you, Kenhor, has seem to caught an affliction pervasive with this dear PAP government of ours, taking a small morsel of information or statistic, and use it to sell your ideas/opinions.Originally posted by kenhor:Sigh .. discuss facts also people get worked up.
The use of the term "regulars" in the report is flawed in a Singaporean context. The number of 70,000 (more like 50-55000 according to sources more trustworthy IMO than Bernama, and no its not our own local media) includes real regulars as well as almost 40000 NSFs. The use of the term "full time soldiers" would be more accurate, but then like the PAP, why should Bernama let the truth and accurate terms get in the way of a good story?
I suppose in your enlightened opinion 15000 real regular soldiers (not in Bernama's context) is enough to defend Singapore?
And while our defence expenditure does seem high compared to our neighbours, we must also take into account the need to base significant forces overseas and unfortunately that costs money, which is a constraint we must work with due to our size. Hey, I don't like it either, but the way I see it, theres lots of areas where we can save money without cutting back on security. -
We can use the 50k figure .. and we will still arrive at 1.6% if the total number of citizens in Singapore. That is 3x the percentage of the next country.
In fact Malaysia probably has too high a percentage as well, as they have only 22 million people compared to 50 million Thais, 70 million Philippinos and 100 million Indonesians.
Of course, I am just picking on some statistic. But thats also what unemployment is right? A statistic, ... why bother when 5% of our people are unemployed (thats 150k citizens) and there are close to 1 million foreigners in Singapore .. after all thats statistics too.
And forget about economic growth .. so what if we are in recession, thats just a number as well. Who cares if we have 0.1% growth for the whole year .. its meaningless.
And the number of people who can actually vote in Singapore .. who cares if 70% live in walk over areas .. thats just a number. Its just a meaningless statistic.
Everything will boil down to meaningless statistics if we want it to be. But if you are concerned, you will use those statistics to plan. -
Of course its all statistics, but thats not the point. I'm picking on the fact that you use a small part of the facts and figures to reinforce your point, like the dear government you like to criticise. But then, you're doing the exact same thing. You take the figure from Bernama and quote it to justify your opinion that too much is being spent on defence, WITHOUT looking at the whole big picture. Thats my point.Originally posted by kenhor:We can use the 50k figure .. and we will still arrive at 1.6% if the total number of citizens in Singapore. That is 3x the percentage of the next country.
In fact Malaysia probably has too high a percentage as well, as they have only 22 million people compared to 50 million Thais, 70 million Philippinos and 100 million Indonesians.
Of course, I am just picking on some statistic. But thats also what unemployment is right? A statistic, ... why bother when 5% of our people are unemployed (thats 150k citizens) and there are close to 1 million foreigners in Singapore .. after all thats statistics too.
And forget about economic growth .. so what if we are in recession, thats just a number as well. Who cares if we have 0.1% growth for the whole year .. its meaningless.
And the number of people who can actually vote in Singapore .. who cares if 70% live in walk over areas .. thats just a number. Its just a meaningless statistic.
Everything will boil down to meaningless statistics if we want it to be. But if you are concerned, you will use those statistics to plan.
Of course we need to use statistics to plan and analyse info. But if everyone is like you, using tiny morsels of statistics to justify their arguments (or in you case, flog an old and tired one), then anyone who listens to these analysis are in trouble.
Which is why I say the PAP is like you in that sense, but thenm thats another topic for another forum.
All the other statistics are important to me too, but not in the context of this topic and what we're discussing now, which is the fact that you're selectively using some facts and figures to justify a (arguably flawed) argument, and ignoring all those facts and figures you don't like and doesn't agree with the point you're trying to prove.
Get it?
-
Originally posted by nWo:
LOL!!! SEND A MALAYSIAN COSMONAUT TO THE MOON!? LOL!!!! RUSSIA IS STRUGGLING TO KEEP ITS COMMITMENTS TO THE ISS AFLOAT AND IT WANTS TO SEND MALAYSIANS TO THE MOON? And since when was a sukhoi fighter ever available on the net? Even the biggest was a civilian huey on ebay. no way man. inviting terrorists. stupid dumb $%^&ess.
The Star, Malaysia
Sunday September 14, 2003
[b]One quick sequel after another
By DALILAH IBRAHIM
LIKE Hollywood movies, there is a sequel to stories that emerge from the Dewan Rakyat. However, unlike The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or The Matrix, you do not have to wait one year for this sequel.
While the leading roles have changed, the setting and theme remain almost the same – two sides trying to inflict political wounds on one another.
The MPs were debating the Supplementary Supply Bill tabled by Second Finance Minister Datuk Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis when Kerk Kim Hock (DAP - Kota Melaka) came up with a tale about how the people in Malacca were offended by some National Day buntings and pamphlets.
These publications, besides having pictures of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and past prime ministers, also depicted one on Umno’s founding fathers, Datuk Onn Jaafar, standing in front of a group of people with a banner that said “Malaya for Malays.”
“People are offended with the words 'Malaya for Malays'. For those who do not understand history, they will say: We have achieved our independence for 46 years, why must there be such a phrase?” Kerk said.
Kerk said that while such pictures were fit for use during UmnoÂ’s events, they should not have been used on National Day when the Government was trying to promote racial unity.
As expected, KerkÂ’s remarks sparked strong response from backbenchers, especially those from Umno.
Prime MinisterÂ’s Department parliamentary secretary Datuk Noh Omar said Kerk simply did not understand the message, and that OnnÂ’s struggle against the Malayan Union was part of the countryÂ’s history.
Kerk defended his actions by saying that two ministers whom he approached outside the Dewan had agreed with his views.
Datuk Ruhanie Ahmad (BN - Parit Sulong) took to the floor and warned Kerk that it was his (KerkÂ’s) words that would do more damage to the unity of the country.
“Bacul saya sebagai anak Melayu tidak bangun dan berani memperkatakan perkara yang benar, memang bacul (As a Malay, I’ll be a coward if I do not get up to tell the truth, real coward),” he said, to thumps of support from the backbenchers.
Chong Eng (DAP - Bukit Mertajam) defended Kerk, saying he had the basis in bringing up the topic.
“We can debate here, we can say the reasons if what he said was wrong. But what we see here is an extremely emotional response,” she said.
One backbencher said the opposition MPs were merely nitpicking and that it showed they were out of ideas.
Moving on to another tale, PAS MP Husam Musa told the Dewan that the price of a Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jet was sold 30% cheaper on the Internet compared to the price the Government had agreed to.
Husam said the Government would be paying RM1bil extra for the 18 Sukhoi Su-30MK fighters.
“The price offered on the Internet for the international market is lower than what we are paying,” he said when debating the Bill at committee stage.
Husam then suggested that perhaps the extra money was in exchange to train the first Malaysian astronaut to be sent to the moon.
“Is this the price to pay to prove the slogan 'Malaysia Boleh'?” he said.
In reply, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal said the purchase of the jets was based on a study done by military experts on the suitability and capability of the equipment.
“The price we pay cannot be compared to the price on the Internet. That price did not take into account the detailed specifications and those of additional equipment that we purchase from other suppliers,” he said.
Husam then insisted that Shafie reveal the amount paid for the specifications so that the people would know where the money went.
Shafie said it was not appropriate for the ministry to reveal details of its military equipment to the public as it involved the countryÂ’s security.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad had already tabled Budget 2004 on Friday.
There should be more interesting tales for weeks to come. Care for another sequel?
[/b] -
u are out of point here dude..you are toking abt defence now..not unemployment..Originally posted by kenhor:We can use the 50k figure .. and we will still arrive at 1.6% if the total number of citizens in Singapore. That is 3x the percentage of the next country.
In fact Malaysia probably has too high a percentage as well, as they have only 22 million people compared to 50 million Thais, 70 million Philippinos and 100 million Indonesians.
Of course, I am just picking on some statistic. But thats also what unemployment is right? A statistic, ... why bother when 5% of our people are unemployed (thats 150k citizens) and there are close to 1 million foreigners in Singapore .. after all thats statistics too.
And forget about economic growth .. so what if we are in recession, thats just a number as well. Who cares if we have 0.1% growth for the whole year .. its meaningless.
And the number of people who can actually vote in Singapore .. who cares if 70% live in walk over areas .. thats just a number. Its just a meaningless statistic.
Everything will boil down to meaningless statistics if we want it to be. But if you are concerned, you will use those statistics to plan.
someone ask u a question...is 15k soldier able to defend Singapore?
tell me..are we able to defend ourselve?
im not sure to laugh or to be sad...ive never seen anybody who dun use logic at all... -
Thats how hes like, he believes that if you flog a old, tired and baseless line often enough, it becomes the truth eventually.Originally posted by NathanG5:u are out of point here dude..you are toking abt defence now..not unemployment..
someone ask u a question...is 15k soldier able to defend Singapore?
tell me..are we able to defend ourselve?
im not sure to laugh or to be sad...ive never seen anybody who dun use logic at all...
Pose questions which poke holes in his grand theories and he won't answer them.
Come up with facts which refute his arguments and he'll go off on tangents, what with unemployment, elections, blah blah. Theres another forum for that lah!
Pound him with the above 2 and after a while, he has "to go outstation on work" and disappear for a long time when everything is almost forgotten, and he'll come back to flog the dead horse again.
Quite convenient actually... -
In my humble opinion, I think that Singapore cannot be defended, or should I rephrased it as, the actual real estate cannot be defended. To defend Singapore from an invasion, Singapore Armed Forces need to bring the battlefield far far away from its own terrority, thus, the need to project forces some 100 km radius beyond Singapore itself. Unlike any of the neighbouring country such as Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, you can throw a lot of unguided arty rounds across the border, and the chances of hitting something important is minimal. Throwing anything at Singapore, we immediately suffer major casualties. Even the land of Israel, which is at least 100 times larger than Singapore is considered very small and Israel could have been swallowed up in just 3 days during the 6 days war.
Thus, Singapore needs to spend proportionally higher to compensate for the lack of strategic depth and the penalty of being the choke point where all major regional or superpower are eyeing after.
The seeming high number of combat jets are to deter a naval blockade or an air strikes. The large reservist force is to ensure that should SAF deploy troops, it has sufficient troops to occupied enough enemies' terrorities for them to find it difficult to toss stuff across at Singapore.
I hope this simplistic reasoning will satisfy those who query about Singapore military spending and the rational behind it. In fact, I think the govt has so far been retraining from overspending. They are just spending prudent and yet, in my view, conservative amount. -
Dear Viper,
I did take the report from Bernama, but it was posted by a forum member, and for many hours, no one disputed those facts. Now that I bring up some "statistics" everyone is very defensive.
Also, tripwire has also posted some ST rubbish before like that article about Brunei where the Total drilling ship got chased off by the Malaysian navy. It was posted to bait the forum members, to fell sorry for the Bruneians and start a round of Malaysia bashing. I went to the web, got a neutral source, and showed that the ST left out the facts that the Brunei and Malaysian navies had a standoff for a few days.
That little article that he posted, using ST as a source (which is again, biased against anything Malaysian) managed to get the members to
a) denounce Malaysia as a bully,
b) see how Singapore can "help" Brunei
c) How Malaysia is attacking Brunei as a way to get at Singapore.
So please do not accuse the pot calling the kettle black.
If we want to debate, fine. Lets start with this. What is the number of full time regulars that Singapore really need to defend itself from a military threat. p.s terrorist threat are taken care by police. Lets just concentrate on a military threat, in light of our neighbouring countries modernization. -
Dear Joe Black,
You are right by saying that Singapore may need 100km buffer zone inorder to spare the infrastructure of Singapore from war damage. But what are we defending?
Suppose we mobilize every able man and all our regulars and do forward defense .. thats say 300k people .. do you think that Singapore now represents a nice target?
No, its that 10% of the population that is now in harms way that will be the nice target. Singapore is not our buildings .. its our people. We lose our people, we lose Singapore.
And secondly, what is the credible threat that we are trying to build an army to face? America plans for 2.5 wars .. that is 2 major conflicts and some peacekeeping mission at once. No more. What is our equation?
When our nation has 3-5x the number of aircraft and more trained troops that the potential adversary, not to mention military alliances with USA, do you think that they will use direct military to threaten us on our own soil?
So all I want to ask is, why do people here NOT consider our military force excessive, in light of what is facing us -
Suppose we mobilize every able man and all our regulars and do forward defense .. thats say 300k people .. do you think that Singapore now represents a nice target?
If tomorrow some nut country got sick of our governmental policies and wanna invade us , do u having 1/3 of our population missing will make Singapore a less juicy target??Even if the whole city is 1/2 emptied , our enemy will still wanna invaded and destroy our political system , our way of life and our sovereignty.
Wat are we defending ?? Well there are many answers to that question. Some wanna defend their home , their family. Some wanna protect their beliefs , some jus cant bear to see their homeland being rape. So it all narrows down to one thing. Defending Singapore is defending our way of life!And secondly, what is the credible threat that we are trying to build an army to face? America plans for 2.5 wars .. that is 2 major conflicts and some peacekeeping mission at once. No more. What is our equation
Singapore is small and vulnerable . In order for us to live our way of life in this region , inorder for us to be respected as a sovernreign country , we need to have some fists.
Look at how unreasonable our neighbour can be and let us jus ponder wat will be like if we do not have a strong and outstanding armed force during our dispute??So all I want to ask is, why do people here NOT consider our military force excessive, in light of what is facing us
Our military is not excessive and for ur info , we are increasing our defense budget. We are facing alot of threats now , if u dunno abt it , jus look constantly at the newspaper. -
answer is simple..becos we love tis country..to us it is not excessive..its still not enuff when war break out...Originally posted by kenhor:Dear Joe Black,
You are right by saying that Singapore may need 100km buffer zone inorder to spare the infrastructure of Singapore from war damage. But what are we defending?
Suppose we mobilize every able man and all our regulars and do forward defense .. thats say 300k people .. do you think that Singapore now represents a nice target?
No, its that 10% of the population that is now in harms way that will be the nice target. Singapore is not our buildings .. its our people. We lose our people, we lose Singapore.
And secondly, what is the credible threat that we are trying to build an army to face? America plans for 2.5 wars .. that is 2 major conflicts and some peacekeeping mission at once. No more. What is our equation?
When our nation has 3-5x the number of aircraft and more trained troops that the potential adversary, not to mention military alliances with USA, do you think that they will use direct military to threaten us on our own soil?
So all I want to ask is, why do people here NOT consider our military force excessive, in light of what is facing us
another fact is tat u hate tis country..u hate the govt...u hate it to the core...u dun feel how we feel.. -
Originally posted by kenhor:
how can anyone ever come to an accurate assessment of such figures?
If we want to debate, fine. Lets start with this. What is the number of full time regulars that Singapore really need to defend itself from a military threat.
to me, with regards to Sg, its not about numbers, its about quality, but its utterly stupid to say that one man can do the jobs of 10 with technology... u do need people to man the systems, the infrastructures and the logistics. anyway, its a known fact that the uniformed services is a big employer and nobody's complaining.
and i do think that the figures are flawed to begin with... 250 000 is the MAX number of reserves the system can expect to call upon... not full time soldiers who get paid for doing nothing. that's already a cost-saving way to run a nation's defences don't u think?p.s terrorist threat are taken care by police. Lets just concentrate on a military threat, in light of our neighbouring countries modernization.
thats not how it works... with terrorism, the lines between the mujahedeen with an AK and a conventional enemy with tanks and missiles have blurred... thats why it requires an all rounded solution, not just police... everybody needs to pool resources and manpower to keep this threat in check.
i do agree that the danger is always there for the gov't to over-play this hand and use it to justify expensive purchases that do not enhance overall security, but that needs to be put in the correct context.
if u know of an incident like this, u should probably isolate it for discussion and we'll see if its a valid purchase or just another expensive red herring.
otherwise, its just not helpful to say "we spend too much money on defence"... the question is "too much money WHERE in defence?". -
Dear Nathan,
If I really hated Singapore, I won't even bother making any noise, I will let our economy go down the drain while those in the military sill have their funding.
Please go and look at how the soviet union over allocated funds into the military while their economy got worse. It ended up with the break up of the USSR.
At this moment, economically, we are at the LOWEST point in our history. Putting your head into the sand will not take away the problems. Already unemployment is 5% and rising. The workforce is demoralized. Competition is starting even from friendly countries like Thailand.
The employers epf cut will result in everyone having to top up housing loan payments from their own pockets.
Saving money in some previously untouched areas (like military) can be used to save many families from losing their homes.
So if you consider me a person who hates Singapore because of my insistance of cutting military budget in order to help the economy, fine. Just pray damn hard that I am the only one who thinks this way. -
Dear Foxtrout
If tomorrow some nut country got sick of our governmental policies and wanna invade us , do u having 1/3 of our population missing will make Singapore a less juicy target??Even if the whole city is 1/2 emptied , our enemy will still wanna invaded and destroy our political system , our way of life and our sovereignty.
If tommorrow as in 20/9/03 some nut country tries to invade, our military is sufficient to beat them back, even without the neccessity of leaving the island
If tommorrow as in some future scenario where possibly islamic radicals surround us with 125 million fanatics willing to die for their religion, sending our army to create a buffer zone will still fail.
So which scenario are we planning for?Wat are we defending ?? Well there are many answers to that question. Some wanna defend their home , their family. Some wanna protect their beliefs , some jus cant bear to see their homeland being rape. So it all narrows down to one thing. Defending Singapore is defending our way of life!
Defending Singapore is not the same as INVADING the offending country to prempt them from invading Singapore. All those reasons that you gave are exactly the same reason as will be used by the people of the country we are invading.Singapore is small and vulnerable . In order for us to live our way of life in this region , inorder for us to be respected as a sovernreign country , we need to have some fists.
I agree that we need to have SOME fists .. I am now thinking that we have not only fists, we have overkill.Look at how unreasonable our neighbour can be and let us jus ponder wat will be like if we do not have a strong and outstanding armed force during our dispute??
Assume that our military is even half as capable, do you really think that the enemy will consider military action? USA went into Iraq with a 3 to 1 force ratio. Even with our military hypothetically halved, does the potential enemy have that kind of ratio? -
argh! STFU. NO SINGAPORE, NO JOBS FOR EVERYONE! get it? So i say, we should may a bigger defence budget. Bring in the ssn-21 Seawolfs, the block 60 F-16s, the F-35As and some lovely tanks! O, how about a aircraft carrier for our F-35s?Originally posted by kenhor:Dear Nathan,
If I really hated Singapore, I won't even bother making any noise, I will let our economy go down the drain while those in the military sill have their funding.
Please go and look at how the soviet union over allocated funds into the military while their economy got worse. It ended up with the break up of the USSR.
At this moment, economically, we are at the LOWEST point in our history. Putting your head into the sand will not take away the problems. Already unemployment is 5% and rising. The workforce is demoralized. Competition is starting even from friendly countries like Thailand.
The employers epf cut will result in everyone having to top up housing loan payments from their own pockets.
Saving money in some previously untouched areas (like military) can be used to save many families from losing their homes.
So if you consider me a person who hates Singapore because of my insistance of cutting military budget in order to help the economy, fine. Just pray damn hard that I am the only one who
thinks this way.
-
Kenhor, the original post was at 1620 hours, and barely at 1842 you highlighted the figures. Slightly over 2 hours hardly consitutes as "many" hours, considering many are at (or returning from from) work or school, and having dinner at these times. Note that the most active time for this forum at least is 2000-0100 hours. Is it surprising no-one responded in these 142 minutes?Originally posted by kenhor:Dear Viper,
I did take the report from Bernama, but it was posted by a forum member, and for many hours, no one disputed those facts. Now that I bring up some "statistics" everyone is very defensive.
Also, tripwire has also posted some ST rubbish before like that article about Brunei where the Total drilling ship got chased off by the Malaysian navy. It was posted to bait the forum members, to fell sorry for the Bruneians and start a round of Malaysia bashing. I went to the web, got a neutral source, and showed that the ST left out the facts that the Brunei and Malaysian navies had a standoff for a few days.
That little article that he posted, using ST as a source (which is again, biased against anything Malaysian) managed to get the members to
a) denounce Malaysia as a bully,
b) see how Singapore can "help" Brunei
c) How Malaysia is attacking Brunei as a way to get at Singapore.
So please do not accuse the pot calling the kettle black.
If we want to debate, fine. Lets start with this. What is the number of full time regulars that Singapore really need to defend itself from a military threat. p.s terrorist threat are taken care by police. Lets just concentrate on a military threat, in light of our neighbouring countries modernization.
Me? The Pot calling kettle black? My friend, do take a good look at the M'sia/Brunei thread, I posted nothing on that thread, much less anything about (your words in italics)
a) denounce Malaysia as a bully,
b) see how Singapore can "help" Brunei
c) How Malaysia is attacking Brunei as a way to get at Singapore
Quoting out of context, putting words in other's mouth and accusing them of saying/doing things they did not, another favourite PAP trick which seems to have rubbed off on you.
To answer your question, more than 15000.
Now how about you answering the question I posed to you in the last page of this thread which you never answered before disappearing on another of your convenient "business trips"? About likely 3rd-party invasion strategies on Singapore which will nullify the "Forward Defense" theory? -
Dear CX,
how can anyone ever come to an accurate assessment of such figures?
Why not? Conventional wisdom shows that an invasion force should be 3x the defenders if it needs any chance of success. If the defenders are in a ready, fortified position, you can hold out maybe even 5x. At this moment, the threat axis from the north has 118k people, so IF they managed to mass all 118k people to within 5km of JB, having a defending force of 40k is considered sufficient to repel the invasion. And we have numerical superority in arty, air and sea.
By mobilizing 300k defenders, we can hold out even all the combine armies of ASEAN if we stick to our 600sq of land.anyway, its a known fact that the uniformed services is a big employer and nobody's complaining.
Of course no one in the military is complaining. thats the only sacred cow left untouched.thats not how it works... with terrorism, the lines between the mujahedeen with an AK and a conventional enemy with tanks and missiles have blurred... thats why it requires an all rounded solution, not just police... everybody needs to pool resources and manpower to keep this threat in check.
The chances of meeting a mujaheedin with an AK is remote. Finding a small motor boat packed full of plastic explosives blowing up tankers parked off jurong island is more credible. Are we improving our coast guard with our military aquisitions?i do agree that the danger is always there for the gov't to over-play this hand and use it to justify expensive purchases that do not enhance overall security, but that needs to be put in the correct context.
Ok .. lets see .. how about the new submarines and new NGF ? Can we not postpone the aquisition until a latter date, say when our GDP growth rate touches at least 3% consistantly for 4 successive quarters?
if u know of an incident like this, u should probably isolate it for discussion and we'll see if its a valid purchase or just another expensive red herring.
otherwise, its just not helpful to say "we spend too much money on defence"... the question is "too much money WHERE in defence?". -
Originally posted by kenhor:
Dear Joe Black,
You are right by saying that Singapore may need 100km buffer zone inorder to spare the infrastructure of Singapore from war damage. But what are we defending?
Suppose we mobilize every able man and all our regulars and do forward defense .. thats say 300k people .. do you think that Singapore now represents a nice target?
No, because the army would be blocking the land route in, the Air force will be watching the skies and the navy will be patrolling the seas.
No, its that 10% of the population that is now in harms way that will be the nice target. Singapore is not our buildings .. its our people. We lose our people, we lose Singapore.
We sit tight in Singapore and wait for enemy to conduct a land invasion, or hold a siege on us, we lose people AND infrastructure. Not to mention it lets the enemy choose when exactly he wants to start his invasion from our doorstep,
We lose our people, we lose Singapore. But if we sit and let the enemy take Singapore, and the people become slaves to the occupier, whats the use of Singaporeans having their lives?
And secondly, what is the credible threat that we are trying to build an army to face? America plans for 2.5 wars .. that is 2 major conflicts and some peacekeeping mission at once. No more. What is our equation?
Like I asked in the RMAF AEW thread, do you want to wait for a credible threat to emerge before planning a counter-stroke?
So all I want to ask is, why do people here NOT consider our military force excessive, in light of what is facing us
Because you or me do not know what will likely be facing us in the medium to long term, and if we wait for a new, bigger threat to emerge before preparing for it, it might be too late.
Again, this has a point I've already brought up in the RMAF AEW thread.