You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress
-
You'd be mad to test the Singapore fortress
By Anthony Paul
SINGAPORE has a poorly kept military secret, if the city's taxi drivers, who often double as driving-seat generals, are to be believed. A visitor taking a taxi from Changi Airport will sometimes be told the inside story.
About three minutes past the 'Welcome to Singapore' sign and tree cover, the road suddenly becomes a perfectly straight stretch of several kilometres. In the median strip to your right, low shrubs in large pots have replaced the trees.
If war threatens, you're told, Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel will descend and drag those pots clear.
The squads will simultaneously topple palm trees lining the road and dismantle a parallel line of lamp-posts. Within minutes, Changi will have an additional runway for SAF jets.
Foreign Policy magazine's annual globalisation index recently named Singapore Asia's most globalised country - the most open to visitors, trade and capital flow. But this openness obscures another of the city-state's distinctions - Singapore is one of the world's best-prepared fortresses.
Defence spending per capita compares with such places as Israel and Kuwait. Sudden mobilisations periodically prove Singapore's claim that at the press of a button, the SAF can field more than a quarter of a million men within hours. As British defence specialist Tim Huxley has written in Defending The Lion City, Singapore is 'probably the most densely defended state in the world'.
Why so much defence for such a small state?
One obvious response is the island's strategic position, on the main route for vast East Asia-Europe sea traffic.
But another compelling reason is this unusual state's ambition.
Within 10 years, says Asian Demographics, a marketing consultancy, the republic can expect to be Asia's second-richest nation, with a gross domestic product per capita of US$35,020 (S$58,900). (Other forecasts for year 2013: Japan, US$38,987; Hong Kong, US$29,902; Australia, US$22,961; Malaysia, US$5,394.)
To sustain the growth rate needed, Singapore must continue attracting investment and skilled immigrants. Unfortunately, Singapore is 'a fine place in a lousy neighbourhood', said a former DBS Bank economist. 'Though there are no immediate threats, being seen to be able to defend ourselves against any bully is important to investors.'
Threat perceptions in Singapore include Malaysia, Indonesia and, lately, terrorists. Further complicating defence issues are those two larger neighbours' Chinese minorities. They tend to look upon predominantly Chinese Singapore as an ultimate refuge.
When mobs began rampaging through Indonesia's Chinese communities in 1998, Singapore feared it might become the destination for literally hundreds of thousands of Sino-Indonesians. The threat failed to materialise, but not before the SAF began extensive preparations to ward off any unacceptably large influx.
Meantime, Singapore continues its up-and-down relationship with Malaysia, which supplies close to half the island's water. Singapore's resultant sensitivity about water security is evident in a passage in From Third World To First, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs.
In a blunt conversation with then Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, Mr Lee noted that Malaysia had guaranteed Singapore's water supply. But if that guarantee were ever breached in 'a random act of madness', he told Dr Mahathir, 'we would have to go in, forcibly if need be, to restore the water flow'.
Prospects of such an armed conflict are extremely remote. But this past weekend, war caught my attention - dramatic TV reports from Iraq and a Sunday Times article on Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean's concept of 'the new type of soldier needed by the 'third-generation SAF' '.
Later in the morning, I visited the Fort Canning bunker. In the fort commander's conference room, I watched wax images of British generals re-enacting Singapore's 1942 surrender to the Japanese as the island ran out of water and fuel.
I asked myself: For all Singapore's chutzpah, what really would be the SAF's chances if war came?
Though clearly impressed by the SAF, author Huxley judges it to be largely a citizen force, 'dependent for its personnel on essentially acquiescent rather than enthusiastic conscripts and reservists'. The fact that they have never been battle-tested, says Mr Huxley, leaves us with the question: Are SAF personnel really warriors - or just bureaucrats in uniform?
We won't really know until there really is a war.
But as a former war correspondent (Indochina, the Soviet-Afghan war), I take note of what may already be observed:
# Motivation in combat: The slogan of the US Military Academy at West Point is 'Duty, Honour, Country'. The word sequence, with 'duty' first, wasn't chosen idly. Surveys during the Vietnam war showed the main source of battlefield courage was not so much the official propaganda ('save the world from communism') or even patriotism. It was duty to closest comrades, beginning with the squad and platoon.
SAF reserve units are more tightly bonded than any I have seen. I know of one Beach Road IT company whose ethnically mixed staff were in the same university sports team and are today the core of their reserve unit.
What I saw in Vietnam leaves me with no doubt that duty to comrades who are also their close friends will make their unit more than formidable under fire.
# Combat history: Happily brief. But it may be worth noting in the SAF's only combat to date - the storming of a hijacked airliner at Changi in 1991 - its well-trained commandos shot dead all four Pakistani terrorists within 30 seconds of entering the passenger cabin.
If I were someone looking for a serious fight with Singapore, I'd ponder the two points above. The SAF gives the impression that it would indeed be madness to test its preparedness.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,246074,00.html -
A truly good read, thank you cavsg for the above article.
-
The article is harping the official line.
Yes, the SAF is not "tested". But if you want to test us. Go ahead but be prepared for the consequences. -
but the word fortress.. well.. during WWII the brits also thought singapore was a fortress.
-
The british commander was a weakling.....and a useless fool.....should have let Brigadier Simpson take over....Originally posted by wuming78:but the word fortress.. well.. during WWII the brits also thought singapore was a fortress. -
i read it this morning and it literally screamed propaganda.
i didn't really like this conclusion though, i don't think the changi incident is a good enough gauge of what our forces is like. what it does is give the idea that if we are bitten we will bite back. -
i agree. it is certainly not representative although it shows our resolve.Originally posted by nismoS132:i didn't really like this conclusion though, i don't think the changi incident is a good enough gauge of what our forces is like. what it does is give the idea that if we are bitten we will bite back. -
I think it is only normal to fight when one is being attacked.
I mean, who doesn't?
This kind of thing doesn't need to be tested. It's instinct and common sense. -
the question is with how much firepower do we fight back?Originally posted by Parka: I think it is only normal to fight when one is being attacked.
I mean, who doesn't?
This kind of thing doesn't need to be tested. It's instinct and common sense.
-
I think what they mean by battle tested is like, how the senior command staff will react under real war conditions. Aircons may be out, and no chauffeurs necessarily available. How the junior officers are able to lead under stress and perform mission impossibles. How fast or slow the specs get killed before they can utter their FCOs and whether the men can identify the sound of artillery incoming before they get blasted to hell.
-
havent u noticed tt there r ppl in this forum who believe that we should simply surrender when attacked?Originally posted by Parka: I think it is only normal to fight when one is being attacked.
I mean, who doesn't?
This kind of thing doesn't need to be tested. It's instinct and common sense.
-
BG Simpson? Who's that? I think Percival did fairly well given the circumstances, taking into account his character, his lack of experience at Army command level, the polyglot of foces under his command, the general inertia of British Forces prior to the commencement of hostilites, the inadequate level of training, indiffernt quality of his men, total lack of armour support, an air force that was few in number and old in plane age, his officers still fighting the last war when they executied their op plans, having his hands tied because of political hemming and hawing (read Matador delayed due to poitical sensitivities), it's a wonder they Singapore wasn't taken faster, heck the Japanese slowed down cos they outran their supply lines at several points in the campaign otherwise it would have really been humiliating. Percie was just the unfortunate scapegoat everyone hung the blame on for the simple fact he was the one holding the ball when the shit hit the fan. Don't believe everything you read.Originally posted by |-|05|:The british commander was a weakling.....and a useless fool.....should have let Brigadier Simpson take over.... -
Its all about deterrence...a state has to be able to display a strong deterrent capability. Therefore, the SAF have to demonstrate that they possess the military capability and more importantly, a conventional second-strike capability..Typical neo-realist assumptions....
-
While still in NUS doing history, my class did a project role playing a "commission of inquiry" into the fall of Singapore. My team played Percival and a ton of research to get into the role. We went into the role full of Simpson's book ("Too Little, Too Late" ) but came out convinced that Percy definitely did about as well as anyone could.Originally posted by |-|05|:The british commander was a weakling.....and a useless fool.....should have let Brigadier Simpson take over....
That is: Singapore would probably have lasted for a few more days and go down with a louder bang if someone more kick-ass was in charge. But really, Singapore was lost when Churchill gave the Home, African and Mediterranean fronts (and supplying the Soviets) more priority than the Far East... Before the war, Percy was involved in drawing up an elaborate estimation of just what it would take to defend Malaya and Singapore. London actually agreed with the estimations, but told him that the required number of planes, tanks, etc., won't be available. As far as I am concerned, Singapore was lost from White Hall.
But there is one genuine failing of Percival--he was of an extremely analytical sort. Thought through all the contingencies and "what ifs"--when, in a way, the defense of the Empire in the Far East would probably have been better served by a more gung-ho spirit. (If the Commonwealth troops had falled flags flying and all, or generally putting up a better show anyway, the colonials wouldn't have lost faith in the Empire as fast as they did after the war). In a sense, the lesson of Percival is: he was too much of a scholar-general. A great staff officer. But sometimes, something more is needed. And herein may be contained a warning for modern Singapore.
My Two Cents
-Theory -
haha... brian farrell's always finding new ways to mark less essays...Originally posted by Theory:While still in NUS doing history, my class did a project role playing a "commission of inquiry" into the fall of Singapore. My team played Percival and a ton of research to get into the role. We went into the role full of Simpson's book ("Too Little, Too Late" ) but came out convinced that Percy definitely did about as well as anyone could. love that guy... u potentially learn more from an exercise like that than writing a bunch of boring essays...
sigh... seems so long ago... -
One missle assult , like the one China treaten taiwan , we gone case liao lah , still defend ........Some one really come from IMH man .
runway ? too short and too damaged already ,
UAV ? look wat US do to Iraq during the gulf war , the first plane out the is a EP-3 , electronic jamming plane with little self defence . -
I feel the writer is correct about this point which is most important of the whole entire article. I share the same thoughts too, I have a strong distaste for the SAF, I seldom come across an officer whom I really respect but if I had to fight, I fight becos of the people whom I've know since my NSF days and whom I still see every in camp and those who have become close friends. These are the ones who are going to look after my back and trust that I look after them too in combat. Its the politicans that decides if we were to go to war, whether I agree or not, I shall not abandon a brother who his willing to shed his blood for me.Originally posted by cavsg:# Motivation in combat: The slogan of the US Military Academy at West Point is 'Duty, Honour, Country'. The word sequence, with 'duty' first, wasn't chosen idly. Surveys during the Vietnam war showed the main source of battlefield courage was not so much the official propaganda ('save the world from communism') or even patriotism. It was duty to closest comrades, beginning with the squad and platoon.
SAF reserve units are more tightly bonded than any I have seen. I know of one Beach Road IT company whose ethnically mixed staff were in the same university sports team and are today the core of their reserve unit.
What I saw in Vietnam leaves me with no doubt that duty to comrades who are also their close friends will make their unit more than formidable under fire.
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother;
Henry V - William Shakespeare -
Originally posted by B29:
who got missiles around here??? and taiwan is still defending aren't they? should they just throw towel as well since china got missiles?
One missle assult , like the one China treaten taiwan , we gone case liao lah , still defend ........Some one really come from IMH man .runway ? too short and too damaged already ,
Sg very small... but only got ONE runway meh?
damaged liao cannot patch meh? does it take very long to patch a pot-holed runway? it depends... don't assume.UAV ? look wat US do to Iraq during the gulf war , the first plane out the is a EP-3 , electronic jamming plane with little self defence .
what's your point??? -
dun think he knows wat he is toking abt...just like the usual kids here..who keep coming n say "one bomb all die liao"Originally posted by CX:what's your point???
there are always idiot out there... -
Well the fall of Singapore in such a short time was a big blow the british morale in this reigon. General Wavell(i think that's how it's spelt) asked that Singapore be defended most stoutly and was shocked that Singapore's northern coast was not properly fortified before the Japanese got too close.He ordered it to be done according to Simpson's plan but Percival delayed on it.By the time he ordered it the manpower that could be used for it was no longer available.I believe that should Johore be held for 1week longer and Singapore's coast held for 3weeks longer the Japanese supply and number weakness would have been more evident and who knows the British might even have a chance of counter attacking and maybe even hold them off in a series of battles for say another 2-5 months.However i do not believe Singapore could have held out for much more then that since Churchill did not send planes and tanks over prefering to make Africa the main battle field againest the wishes of the British commandersOriginally posted by Theory:While still in NUS doing history, my class did a project role playing a "commission of inquiry" into the fall of Singapore. My team played Percival and a ton of research to get into the role. We went into the role full of Simpson's book ("Too Little, Too Late" ) but came out convinced that Percy definitely did about as well as anyone could.
That is: Singapore would probably have lasted for a few more days and go down with a louder bang if someone more kick-ass was in charge. But really, Singapore was lost when Churchill gave the Home, African and Mediterranean fronts (and supplying the Soviets) more priority than the Far East... Before the war, Percy was involved in drawing up an elaborate estimation of just what it would take to defend Malaya and Singapore. London actually agreed with the estimations, but told him that the required number of planes, tanks, etc., won't be available. As far as I am concerned, Singapore was lost from White Hall.
But there is one genuine failing of Percival--he was of an extremely analytical sort. Thought through all the contingencies and "what ifs"--when, in a way, the defense of the Empire in the Far East would probably have been better served by a more gung-ho spirit. (If the Commonwealth troops had falled flags flying and all, or generally putting up a better show anyway, the colonials wouldn't have lost faith in the Empire as fast as they did after the war). In a sense, the lesson of Percival is: he was too much of a scholar-general. A great staff officer. But sometimes, something more is needed. And herein may be contained a warning for modern Singapore.
My Two Cents
-Theory -
I have yet to see a missile assault that have caused the collapse of an entire nation but I am sure you will be able to substantiate a claim don't you...Originally posted by B29:One missle assult , like the one China treaten taiwan , we gone case liao lah , still defend ........Some one really come from IMH man .
runway ? too short and too damaged already ,
UAV ? look wat US do to Iraq during the gulf war , the first plane out the is a EP-3 , electronic jamming plane with little self defence .
Even in China's case, the reason why they are increasing the numbers of missiles at a rate of 75 a year is to give the US a warning not to interfere and to completely take out Taiwanese military installations because that is impossible to accomplish. Furthermore, there are defences for missile assaults and the ONLY reason we don't have it as of now is there is no use for it!
And by the way, which runway are you referring to? There are numerous runways scattered through Singapore, both emergency and regular RSAF ones. For an aggressor to completely take out all these runways means that the country is as good as lost, especially given the efforts taken in the past few years to harden our command structures against pre-emptive strikes and improve our damage control capabilities. Furthermore, even a typical Singaporean doesn't know where all the emergency runways are! Let alone our enemies! -
Hi all, I'm curious as to what the typical Singaporean thinks of an Indonesia that is "managed" by Wiranto.
My curioisity stems from the fact that some of the wargamed scenarios I've dealt with here include a scenario where a martial law managed Indonesia revives Konfrontassi.
Do Singaporeans factor in a rogue Indonesia? -
Yea i believe the SAF does have plans to deal with indonasiaOriginally posted by gf0012-aust:Hi all, I'm curious as to what the typical Singaporean thinks of an Indonesia that is "managed" by Wiranto.
My curioisity stems from the fact that some of the wargamed scenarios I've dealt with here include a scenario where a martial law managed Indonesia revives Konfrontassi.
Do Singaporeans factor in a rogue Indonesia? -
i believe sing gov would prefer ibu to stay in power. after spending so much effort to bring up the friendship,at the executive level, between singapore and RI, to do it over agin wif wiranto would be very mah fang.
but then again the strength of their Kompasus and kostrad enough to cover singapore from tuas to changi and from woodland to sentosa.Originally posted by gf0012-aust:Hi all, I'm curious as to what the typical Singaporean thinks of an Indonesia that is "managed" by Wiranto.
My curioisity stems from the fact that some of the wargamed scenarios I've dealt with here include a scenario where a martial law managed Indonesia revives Konfrontassi.
Do Singaporeans factor in a rogue Indonesia? -
Actually, I believe it's possible to take out entire nations with missile attacks. Countries that are densly populated where most of the land is used (like Singapore) are particularly vulnerable. Nukes for one. If say, US goes nuts and launches 50 nukes at us. If just one nuke gets through, Singapore is gone.
Also possible is launching hundreds of long ranged missile attacks after sending in tons of bombers to take out major air-defence installations. Once the air is saturated with missiles, conventional ADA or anti-missile methods won't work anymore.
For that to happen, you must REALLY piss off some powerful country.
But the thing is, no country wants to bear to blame of genocide. Also, launching such a massive missile attack would empty their own arsenal and leave themselves vunerable.