Report: MÂ’sian Armed ForcesÂ’ Modernisation
-
Whether it is more economically taxing than M'sia is not the question. If our country is not secure, foreign investments won't come either. Singapore can then go back to the Orang Laut days. And in terms of security, u don't analyse it with Military strength vs Population size. You analyze it with the cost of maintaining the military (what ever the size) against the cost of your infra-structure, land, and investments.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
Calculating the military strength against the population is totally illogical.
Also, from what you posted, I can guess that you have not served your NS yet. Either that or you are not in a vocation that allows to to observe some of the very obvious points about the SAF. First, we will not be so foolish to send every available man for forward defense (as the m'sians like to call it). I need not provide you with the details as on who are those who will secure homeland, you can ask ur CO or any staff officer you come across.
Unlike America, we are not preparing to fight 2.5 wars a year. We are preparing to fight and win ANY war that breaks out in the region. America acts according to her interests, whether overseas or not. Most of the time, overseas, thats why it has to set aside enought budget for an estimated 2.5 wars. According to your numbers anyway. Singapore is small, we have no strategic depth whatsoever. We have to defend ourselves with a better offense. Not only that, we have NO room for failure. That is why we are throwing huge amounts of money into safeguarding our security.
The answer to your question.
We are living in volatile times, when anything can happen at anytime. Being placed by God at the southern tip of peninsular malaysia, we are cornered to the ocean with no room to run. Behind that ocean is another potentially dangerous country with a much bigger armed force. We cannot depend on military alliances to solve our defence problems. If being an crown colony of the British empire did not stop the Japanese from tearing down into Singapore, what makes you think that by being friends with the US will? What is there for the US to help when there is nothing left to defend?
The SAF has to be operationally READY to face the times ahead, and WE ARE READY. -
Hopefully you have read this before.........Originally posted by kenhor:Dear CX,
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?
Budget Contraints
Budget Constraints limit Singapore shopping list
Need for fighters and naval helicopters mean new trainers and C-130 upgrade must wait
Well you ask me how long suppose to wait for the upgrades and procurement plus replacement of trainers also?
cheers. -
dude..all your post tell me that u hate Singapore..stop lying thru your teeth..ur even siding with Msia..claiming Singapore is the bully?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.
dude..soviet union is stupid enough to catch up with US..when they know they dun have enuff money..duh..didnt know SIngapore is a communist state..
u still haven answer me..is 15K soldier enough to defend Singapore???
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 islandIf 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.
in that case y not give up having a defence force?
So which scenario are we planning for?
if u have some smart way to defend Singapore..pls tell us..we would like to hear..i guess your more smarter then those defence scientist eh?
wat is overkill? wat is not?
can u really tell?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
dude..u noe y US is able to go into action with a 3:1 force ratio?
look at their equipment...duh..
i guess u have forgotten that Singapore is just a small red dot...do u noe how hard izit to defend a small red dot? unless ur too stupid to think logically? -
Forgot to mention, its very easy to come to the conclusion that you did if you simply crunch numbers, but like almost everyone knows, statistics are easy to manipulate to get the conclusions that you want, which is exactly what you did. But like I've repeatedly said, you fail to take into account the defendability of our little island (by protecting it from harm), which is very difficult due to our small size if we decide to hunker down.
But then, you've repeated ignore the fact -
[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
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.
Ahhh...but herein lies the difference. Conventional wisdom (and your ideas) does not take into account that the 600sq km of land this defender is defending is EVERYTHING the defenders have. To you, its ok if we win the war or hold off the enemies even if Singapore is destroyed in the process and we suffer heavy casualties.
But to most of us here, we would rather fight the fight away from Singapore to try to limit the ability of the enemy to damage Singapore itself. Its one thing to defend Singapore from enemy aircraft approaching or enemy ships in the waters near Singapore, its another whole kettle of fish trying to find and hit mobile artillery and MRLs "shooting and scooting" less than 20 km from Singapore
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?
As Duotiga has pointed out, the NGF decision has been postponed over and over again. A whole lot of other procurement programs have been put on hold altogether. A new submarine? Thats at least 4-5 years off. What are you talking about?
See the whole picture and not only the parts you want to see mate. -
epf? only the msians use epf... we use cpf.... i wonder you are a msian in disguise...Originally posted by kenhor: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.
secondly, cutting the defence budget to put into some other area will not have any marginal contribution to the economy instead it is a cost..... imagine, by cutting the defence budget, the first to be affected would be the one trying to protect us..... spares would hard to come by, meaning they would be using unreliable equipment to protect us... we would be putting their lives at risk...... think for those who put their head on the chopping board so that all of us can sleep peacefully at night.
you also seems to forget to look at the big picture.... in the early 80s, when LKY, when to KL, there was acutally threats made to cut off the water supplies......... at that time, LKY said that if they really do it, then the SAF will be send in to secure the water supplies..... the msians knew that LKY meant it, that is why they can only thump their chest and do nothing else.
this is so since in the geopolitical arena in asia-pacific, the strength of the armed forces is the bargining chip of the state, the more bargining chip you have, the more noise you can make. investing in the defence is also an investment in our foreign policies. the armed forces play a vital role in our diplomacy........... to cut back on the defence budget will lead to a change in our foreign policies.... without any credible bargining chip, do you think other nations will think twice before talking?
your arguments about reducing the defence expediture like other opposition parties members and supporters are lamed and flawed. this is not only about economics..... it has some other intangible benefits which cannot be measure by $$$. like all policies, the increase and decrease of defence expenditure has both pros and cons... the nation would have more to lose than gain if the spending is reduced...... -
Dear Viper,
I wrote about Tripwire, not you in starting the flames of hatred. In that article he posted, the net result was the stirring of emotions and baiting of the forum members.
You have accused me of flogging a dead horse, I am accusing you of siding repeatedly with members who inflame passions. Hence you are not neutral.
Do your self a favour. Act like a moderator rather than a participant. -
To viper,
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.
What then is the whole picture? That the military threat is bigger than economic threat? That despite all the cuts and difficulties ordinary families are facing is nothing compared to the clear and present danger the military threat is looming?
Pray tell, tell me why do you consider the military threat so ominous that you are NOT willing to consider that other people's point is as valid as you and your military pals?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.
Everyone is using tiny bits of statistics in the forum to justify their arguments. They use range of missiles, range of aircraft, time for mission turn around, payload of the MLRS, weight of tank going into BUA, range of the SAW etc etc. Isn't that what everyone is doing?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.
Ok .. lay down what you are willing to discuss. The Bernama report has outlined the entire current modernization plan that we are going to face for the next few years. I do not see the need of us purchasing ANYTHING to meet what they have. I can see places in our economy that can do with a shot in the arm. So justify to me what you think should be used to "counter" the threat and why do you not consider what we have exessive. -
Dear Shotgun
Whether it is more economically taxing than M'sia is not the question. If our country is not secure, foreign investments won't come either.
Why isn't our country secure? And who says that our country is not secure? And is FDI not coming into Singapore because of security issues or is it because of China?And in terms of security, u don't analyse it with Military strength vs Population size. You analyze it with the cost of maintaining the military (what ever the size) against the cost of your infra-structure, land, and investments.
One other thing you also must remember, our economy is not doing well. Is the military taking cuts compared to the rest of the economy? If the whole economy is taking cuts, your statement above will justify cutting the military budget as well.Singapore is small, we have no strategic depth whatsoever. We have to defend ourselves with a better offense. Not only that, we have NO room for failure. That is why we are throwing huge amounts of money into safeguarding our security.
Having no strategic depth and going on the offensive to overcome it may be fine for you, but for how long can we sustain this? We now have economic turmoil, while our neighbours have natural resources to buy stuff. Do we still have the luxury of spending on the military at the expense of the economy? Thats what did the USSR in.We are living in volatile times, when anything can happen at anytime.
We have always been living in volatile times. Since independance we have communist, racial riots, cold war, and now terrorist. This has been the same since day one. So how can we use that as a justification for continual spending on military? We have to take each blow as it comes.If being an crown colony of the British empire did not stop the Japanese from tearing down into Singapore, what makes you think that by being friends with the US will? What is there for the US to help when there is nothing left to defend?
Firstly, the japanese were at war with the british, and by being the British hq, of course we are the main target. And secondly, if our economy worsens to the point where there is no reason for any USA presence in Singapore, the Americans will definately not bother helping. So economic prosperity is as important to Singapore's defense as military power. -
To Nathan,
dude..all your post tell me that u hate Singapore..stop lying thru your teeth..ur even siding with Msia..claiming Singapore is the bully?
I hate our government policies on FT, military spending, political freedom and economic policy. So since I hate that, you must agree with all of them right? So you must agree with FT coming to take over our jobs, you must agree with Gays being able to work in government service, you must agree with 70% of the population not being able to vote, you must agree with the fact that the people feel betrayed by the politicians but is unable to even voice it out. Yes, if you think I hate Singapore because I hate those actions, so be it.dude..soviet union is stupid enough to catch up with US..when they know they dun have enuff money..duh..didnt know SIngapore is a communist state..
Do we know if we have enough money? Even our ex-president don't know how much money we have.u still haven answer me..is 15K soldier enough to defend Singapore???
15k full time soldiers is sufficient .. after all, we have got plenty of NS people as well.dude..u noe y US is able to go into action with a 3:1 force ratio? look at their equipment...duh.. i guess u have forgotten that Singapore is just a small red dot...do u noe how hard izit to defend a small red dot? unless ur too stupid to think logically?
Its pretty simple to defend a small red dot, as you call Singapore, compared to launching an invasion to a country 7 times the population and 510 times the size, populated by people whose religion can guarantee a place in heaven for acting like a suicide bomber.
Being the defender has its advantages. Don't throw it away. -
Dear Viper
Ahhh...but herein lies the difference. Conventional wisdom (and your ideas) does not take into account that the 600sq km of land this defender is defending is EVERYTHING the defenders have. To you, its ok if we win the war or hold off the enemies even if Singapore is destroyed in the process and we suffer heavy casualties.
And you also forgot, that Johore is the heart of the UMNO movement. To you, sending our troops to die just to create a buffer zone makes sense. The Malaysian politicians will never surrender JohoreBut to most of us here, we would rather fight the fight away from Singapore to try to limit the ability of the enemy to damage Singapore itself. Its one thing to defend Singapore from enemy aircraft approaching or enemy ships in the waters near Singapore, its another whole kettle of fish trying to find and hit mobile artillery and MRLs "shooting and scooting" less than 20 km from Singapore
In the Malaysia to aquire MLRS thread, it has been debated that the firepower from that platform is not as capable as you are presenting.
And I am sure that the Malaysians will also definately prefer to be fighting in Johore compared to on our side. Their OrBat seems to suggest that its more suited for defensive operations. So if we want to go over, and they want us to come, shouldn't you be worried about WHY they want to fight a war on their turf?
And Malaysia does not have unlimited equipment to fight, but they have lots more manpower .. so fighting a guerilla war is definately more suitable to them than an invasion into a fortified BUA. -
cutting the defence budget to put into some other area will not have any marginal contribution to the economy instead it is a cost..... imagine, by cutting the defence budget, the first to be affected would be the one trying to protect us..... spares would hard to come by, meaning they would be using unreliable equipment to protect us... we would be putting their lives at risk...... think for those who put their head on the chopping board so that all of us can sleep peacefully at night.
And cutting the cpf did not affect everyone? .. you have to top for the housing loan out of your own pocket. Suicide rates will increase. Our kids will prostitute themselves for more money.
The scenario you paint is as possible as my scenario. Cutting the defense budget does not mean that every part of the military will be affected. In fact, a good military will be able to handle budget cuts. The USA military is still the best, despite lots of budget cuts during Clinton's presidency.you also seems to forget to look at the big picture.... in the early 80s, when LKY, when to KL, there was acutally threats made to cut off the water supplies......... at that time, LKY said that if they really do it, then the SAF will be send in to secure the water supplies..... the msians knew that LKY meant it, that is why they can only thump their chest and do nothing else.
And since then, they have found out that there is many ways to skin a cat (what Dr Mati said) .. are they exerting military pressure? No .. are they exerting political, economic and social pressure? Yes.this is so since in the geopolitical arena in asia-pacific, the strength of the armed forces is the bargining chip of the state, the more bargining chip you have, the more noise you can make.
The strength of the economy is the second bargaining chip. If you have a strong military but your economy sucks, people still wont respect you.investing in the defence is also an investment in our foreign policies. the armed forces play a vital role in our diplomacy...........
Economy plays a more important role in foreign policy than military might.to cut back on the defence budget will lead to a change in our foreign policies.... without any credible bargining chip, do you think other nations will think twice before talking?
If we cut back our troops, no one will notice. If we cut back our foreign investment, everyone will noticethis is not only about economics..... it has some other intangible benefits which cannot be measure by $$$.
This I agree with you .. having a strong military will ensure that the current government has all the guns and prevent any attempts by disatisfied citizens from protesting too strongly. This is an unbeatable strategy. Countries like Indonesia, North Korea, Namibia, Chad, Uganda, Chile, Bolivia all follow this strategy. Glad that we are in such good company. -
Sure enough 15K soldiers can "defend" singapore and I'm sure we have more then enough firepower to camp it out in our island and repel any invaders, but that is self-defeating in the end. This is because Singapore cannot function or survive for long if cut off from the rest of the world. Sure, we can make Singapore into Stalingrad, but at what cost? We simply have no space to let the rigors of war ravage our land.
Our "neighbours" might not have the firepower to take us on directly, but all they have to do is to cut off the lifeblood of our economy. Economically, our assets are far easier to damage without having to physically take our land.
That's why a static defence force has not been our objective, if anything we need a military that is constantly operationally to sieze the iniative and bring any military conflict to a swift conclusion that's far more suitable for our survival both as a nation and as an economic power.
To physically keep the enemy off our land and wait for uncle Sam is not a viable defence tatic. Even if we could and are sieged in, the enemy could heckle with the rest of the "concerned" world as much as they could and finally relent at the brink of foreign intervention (assuming they are interested at all), at that time, Singapore's economy would have been wrecked after weeks or even months of nonoperation.
If anything, it's already obvious why our military is always kept sharp and top on the list of our priorities for spending. And there's a reason so which goes beyond sheer numbers. This is to make any potential enemy think twice about even playing the military card, or much less even touching the harrasment card.
The truth is, we need a strong military to do some arm-twisting in the region. Given a weak military and taking the ability to wage damaging, MAD war out of a possibility in our deck of cards allows our regional neighbours to take us a lot more lightly and while unlikely to attack, will resort to plenty of arm-twisting and unnecessary international legal intrigue to tie up our economy and check our moves. -
In short, having an powerful military is a necessary evil in our region, and our government despite their gaffes when it comes to other more delicate issues, is certainly smart enough not to be war mongering about it.
And to the contray, the US Armed forces is not doing well on their funding cuts (just read around a little), the reason why they are the best in the world is because despite the cuts, they are still filthy rich and of course, have the advantage of geopolitical size and organization, something we have in dirth.
And of course, they also know that having a strong military is a very good stablizing factor in dealing with very emotional, irrational neighbours. Having a large stick makes sure the dog, despite snarling and snapping, behaves is a more predictable and favourable way. Even if our economy was powerhouse, but we had only a so-so military to defend our nation, there are plenty of ways for them to trip us up.
And I don't see why we need to finger our military buget as the cause or our economic ills or even as a cow that needs to be sacrificed to save us. I'm sure there are plenty more areas which the gar'men can change that will help far more in helping our immediate situtation simply then just channeling funds away from our security needs, which we need all the more considering recent events. Our defence is intergrated, it is highly simplistic to say that only our mata can jaga against terrorists. -
sigh... fortress mentality... and i thought most would've learnt from the lessons of WW 2...
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.
call it a difference in opinion, but i do not believe that it is viable to sit still and wait to beat back an aggressor. thats not the premises which forward defence is based on.By mobilizing 300k defenders, we can hold out even all the combine armies of ASEAN if we stick to our 600sq of land.
thats not how it works... if u sit in our 600 sq km, u'll end up being mauled, overrun and killed even if u have numerical and armed superiority. just ask the french in dien bien phu. u'll never survive a seige. -
its useless arguing with this guy..he is not a local..he hate SIngapore..he think Singapore a big bully...he prefer us to die together in a bundle...easy for the Msian to target(hey hey hey we call this cluster fuck in NS)..we must realize tat all his idea are favouring the Msian..its ok i'ii shoot them anyway if they think its ok to lay their hand on tis little red dot..
-
To Singapore Tyrannosaur,
When we were taught the principles of total defense way back in secondary school, we focused mainly on military, social, and civilian. That was because our economy was strong. And we were all very young.
In summary, the economic defense is about how to keep the economy strong and not break down during war.
The psychological defense is about having pride in our country, and to be loyal and committed.
The way I see it, all 5 pillars of the total defense policy is equally important. Having a capable military is pointless if deep racial divisions prevent the effectiveness.
Now, all I see is that the reluctance of all people in this forum to look at the economic defense. All just want to consider that military might is the most important. That is wrong.
We need a strong economy. Its taking a hit right now. Its not due to improve till end 2004, and also provided SARS do not make a comeback.
Our people are now demoralized, divided over certain issues and losing pride in past achievements. Civilian morale is as important as frontline morale.
Its time to take stock and rekindle the pride that citizens have in Singapore.To re-vitalize the economy .. i.e strengthen 2 other pillars of the total defense policy.
If the ONLY way to do that is to reduce the military by a little, my opinion is to do so. We strengthen 2 pillars at the cost of weakening one.
And if that damns me to be a traitor in your eyes, so be it.
If you all want to disagree with me on the state of the economy we can do so over in the politics section of the forum -
Originally posted by kenhor:
im sorry dude..but u are the one who come up with the thing abt economy in this post...so dont sound like as if we are the one who did it..
To Singapore Tyrannosaur,
When we were taught the principles of total defense way back in secondary school, we focused mainly on military, social, and civilian. That was because our economy was strong. And we were all very young.
In summary, the economic defense is about how to keep the economy strong and not break down during war.
The psychological defense is about having pride in our country, and to be loyal and committed.
The way I see it, all 5 pillars of the total defense policy is equally important. Having a capable military is pointless if deep racial divisions prevent the effectiveness.
Now, all I see is that the reluctance of all people in this forum to look at the economic defense. All just want to consider that military might is the most important. That is wrong.
We need a strong economy. Its taking a hit right now. Its not due to improve till end 2004, and also provided SARS do not make a comeback.
Our people are now demoralized, divided over certain issues and losing pride in past achievements. Civilian morale is as important as frontline morale.
Its time to take stock and rekindle the pride that citizens have in Singapore.To re-vitalize the economy .. i.e strengthen 2 other pillars of the total defense policy.
If the ONLY way to do that is to reduce the military by a little, my [b]opinion is to do so. We strengthen 2 pillars at the cost of weakening one.
And if that damns me to be a traitor in your eyes, so be it.
If you all want to disagree with me on the state of the economy we can do so over in the politics section of the forum[/b] -
Dear Nathan,
So you really believe that our economy is doing fine? That the best solution is to continue as before? -
kenhor,
To begin with, we have about 15000 regulars and about 40000 full-time NS men. 15000 regulars is also about 0.5% of our population (actually a bit less). The number of regulars is always limited by demand, rather than military expenditure. There just aren't that many people who want to be soldiers all their lives.
I understand your assertion that it might be better for the Total Defence of Singapore if military expenditure is cut back. It is true that the economic, psychological and social benefits of releasing some of the SAF's expenditure into the economy might outweigh the miliitary cost of doing so. However, in this case, I think you are mistaken.
By law, military spending in Singapore is capped at 5% of GDP. Even if we were to completely shut down the SAF, it would not make that much of a difference. It would only allow everyone to earn about 5% more in the long run (yes, I know that it is more complicated than that, but that's the approximate value). The loss in productivity from having our men undergo 2.5 years of full-time NS and 13 years of NSman training also needs to be taken into account, but it is only a small part of the total productivity of a male citizen over the span of of his lifetime. Again, only at most a 5% increase in economic output if NS were done away with.
You seem to have the impression that the SAF consumes vast resources. I do not think you realize how large the Singaporean economy is and what a shoestring budget the SAF runs on. The reason why the SAF is so much stronger than her counterparts in the region is because she is also very cost effective. Having numerous draftees that you pay almost nothing to and being very cautious with military procurement and development leads to this.
What does this mean? Even drastic cutbacks in SAF spending would make very little direct difference to the economy. Instead, the presence of the SAF gives us many tangible and intangible benefits that you seem to not appreciate. It is a unifying force socially, it inspires investor confidence and it is a source of national pride. It safeguards our interests in diplomacy and trade. It is also psychologically very important for Singapore to have a strong military, for unique cultural reasons. It is my belief that the money spent on the SAF could not be spent better in any other way.
Also, consider that military spending only bears fruit in the future. If a war breaks out 5 years from now, we cannot start spending money immediately and expect it to make a difference. It would have been the money we spent today that would spell victory or defeat. A strong military needs to be maintained, at great cost, through peacetime for it to be useful in war. Just because there is not a threat now, does not mean that there will not be one decades from now. It would be extremely shortsighted to cut the SAF's funding. Every dollar it loses today will need to be made up ten times over in the event of war.
Also, do not assume that our leaders are warmongers. You seem to have the idea that they do not understand that the money can be used elsewhere. Believe me, they do undestand and have considered all possibilities before deciding as they have. If you have not noticed, acquisition of new systems has slowed. The NGF was meant to have been selected a long time ago, and a replacement for the AMX13SM1 is still not forthcoming despite its obvious benefit. The SAF is already spending prudently.
You also do not seem to understand Singapore's strategic situation. You seem to be content with defending only within the borders of Singapore. That makes no sense for us. We will find ourselves destroyed from a distance by artillery and airstrikes. Our food, water and supplies will be cut off. Civilian casualties will be catastrophic. The 3:1 ratio of attackers to defenders that you cite only applies in conventional situations, and the defence of Singapore is not a conventional situation due to our small size. If we do not strike out, the ratio will be the reverse, if only due to starvation and dehydration.
In order to strike out to at least secure our food and water supplies, we need a certain minimum level of military strength. To defend against an opponent who insists on using standoff tactics (which is the correct approach for an entrenched, concentrated enemy like a new Fortress Singapore), we need even more military strength. To not merely defend ourselves, but have the possibility of victory, we need yet more strength. And that is the whole purpose of the SAF, to be strong enough that the enemy is faced with the possibility of defeat in attacking Singapore, thus preventing a war from starting in the first place. It's called deterrence, and you need to be strong enough for it to work. The strength of the SAF preserves peace. And peace is a lot cheaper and better for the economy than war.
I know I probably have not swayed your opinion. It seems to me that you have personally been affected very strongly by the recent economic downturn, or know people who have been. My sympathies if this is so. However, the SAF is not a waste of money and is not wasting money, and should not be the target of your distress. It is already spending prudently. It has many benefits. It does not even cost that much. But I know that's all hard to believe or accept if you or your loved ones have no job. Ever thought of joining the Army?
If you really want to improve the economy, I have bad news. You can't. The underlying source for our problems is that China and India have billions of people better than you who are willing to work for one-tenth your salary. They have untold millions of talented graduates happy to work for McDonald wages. There is no way for our local wages to escape the effect of globalization. It would be easier to defy gravity. Our wages and standard of living will definitely go down on average for the next decade, along with those in the rest of the developed world, while the developing world develops, though not everyone will feel it equally.
Think of it as long delayed justice for the developing world. We benefited from this ourselves over the last 40 years and it is unfortunately payback time. The old days are gone and just not coming back. Choosing scapegoats like the SAF makes no difference.
This will end only in one of three cases. The first is that all the money pouring into India, China and the rest of the developing world finally raises their standard of living to the point where it no longer threatens us. That will take a long time. The second is if flows of capital into or goods out of the developing world are disrupted, that is, if globalization is slowed by protectionism. This will only delay the coming storm. Protectionism is like patching a dam with superglue. The third is if China or India "get stupid" and have a revolution, go to war or something that gets the investors out of their countries. However, I don't see that happening for a while.
So sit tight. It's going to be a wild ride. We will definitely need the SAF when Malaysia starts feeling the pinch too... -
kenhor,
since you are very keen in economics, i will post some questions for you.
"How long can Singapore be pass over this recession? Can give us an range or number since you are very worried about the economics and you have great confidence in the stats and figures? How can you since an economist, can help this recession? Any methods, Porposals to the governemnt instead of just analyse these facts and figures?"
thanks. and appreciated. -
wtf!!! since when in my post tat i say tat the economy is fine?Originally posted by kenhor:Dear Nathan,
So you really believe that our economy is doing fine? That the best solution is to continue as before?
stop putting words into pple mouth!!! -
[quote]Originally posted by kenhor:
Dear Viper,
You have accused me of flogging a dead horse, I am accusing you of siding repeatedly with members who inflame passions. Hence you are not neutral.
Wow...just because I don't censor every post that says something bad about someone else, and I'm siding and agreeing with the poster? You've got a sick mind in there mate
I don't agree with the views Tripwire posted, nor the anti-Malaysian line taken by some posters. Does that give me the right to censor them? No! The moderators here have to strike a balance between keeping order and allowing for people their right to express their views,
If you expect me to censor Tripwires views just because you or me don't fully agree with them, dream on.
As for inflammatory, Malaysians here have posted more inflammatory remarks which I have not done anything about. And I've no qualms about censoring Singaporean posts that are inflammatory.
Thats your main problem Kenhor. Why you don't have any credibility here is because you criticise people for doing things you disagree with, but you'll turn around and do the same thing/expect it to be done if it suits you.
Do your self a favour. Act like a moderator rather than a participant.
I'm sorry...but I don't recall seeing any rules anywere on sgforums that prevent moderators from being participants in the forums. If anyone comes across such a rule, can they let me know?
Unlike you, I do not believe in taking potshots at the government and then turning around and use their tactics for my own ends. I don't criticise the government for being thin-skinned towards criticism and then censor anything on a whim just because I don't agree with it.
To me that is hypocritical, two-faced and cowardly.
Perhaps if its so unsuitable for you here, perhaps you can start "Kenhors Malaysia everything Number One and everything about Singapore sucks to the core but I still live there" forum, where the moderator (you) does not participate -
In short, I think kenhor is barking up the wrong tree.
Cutting costs for the SAF is prehaps one of the last things to do, and we have certainly not reached that point yet. If we want to kill that cow now, we'll only end up with a marginal increase in our economy and end up virtually defenceless.
Unfortunately a very strong military is something we have to maintain for the forseeable future. This is because while our neighbours are peaceful, there remains the possibility of future armed conflict, especially in our region where politics are run by emotion rather then logic, and our geopolitical location and size makes this all the more necessary. All the money in the world won't do you any good once the bullets start flying.
There are so many other areas where things can be changed before we cut costs for the military. Lower transport costs, cost of living, stuff like that which are far easier to implement. If the govt. ain't doing anything like that, they ain't gonna cut of military funding anytime soon, which should be a last resort.
Fingering military spending as the source of our economic ills, is to me, a very weak link. It's more of a case of "mortage our house to clear your debt" or "cut off your arm to set yourself free" then an actual sustainable solution.
In short, no we do not spend too much on our military. If anything, we could do with a lot more. -
oiii!! STUPID.. you think moving 125 million madman around is damn easy har?? the logistical support would simply collapse and those fanatics would simply ends up robbing the malaysians for food.... water and toilet paper....Originally posted by kenhor: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?