Our bloated defence budget: What is the perceived threat?
By Gunslinger, Guest Columnist
While many prominent Singapore bloggers have written about the top civil servant who splurged on a cooking class in Paris and about the inadequacies of the 2009 budget in aiding the needy, none has complained about the 6% dollar increase in the 2009 defense budget to $11.447 billion, which is about 4.7% of 2007’s GDP of S$243.2 billion. The 2008 defence budget of S$10.8 billion is 4.4% of 2007 GDP, and with a nearly flat GDP growth for 2008, Singapore is actually committing more to defence.
| GDP Growth | Defence Budget (S$ BN) | Budget Growth | Remarks | |
| FY 2000 | 10.06% | 7.42 | -% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2001 | -2.44% | 7.82 | 5.35% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2002 | 4.18% | 8.2 | 4.91% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2003 | 3.50% | 8.24 | 0.39% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2004 | 8.99% | 8.62 | 4.66% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2005 | 7.30% | 9.25 | 7.31% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2006 | 8.17% | 9.63 | 4.11% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2007 | 7.72% | 10.01 | 3.95% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2008 | 3.98% | 10.8 | 7.89% | Approved Budget |
| FY 2009 | -???% | 11.45 | 6.02% | Approved Budget |
Why the increase in the defence budget?
To put things in perspective, let’s take a look at how much others spend on defence relative to their GDP. The US spends 4.06% of her GDP on defence but does not include the current war expenses in Afghanistan or Iraq. France spends 2.6% and most other western nations spend 2% or less. Singapore is ranked 20th with 4.5% (2005). It is interesting to note that the top 19 countries are mostly developing nations in trouble spots such as the middle east and Africa. India is a distant #66 with 2.5%. This does not imply that Singapore should follow “western standards” in planning defence budgetary layouts. It only indicates that the government of Singapore must perceive a threat in order to commit such a large proportion to defence in the midst of her worst economic crisis.
Thus, what is the perceived threat? Terrorism is the first obvious answer that comes to mind. The last known “terrorist attack” in Singapore occurred in 1991 with the hijack of Singapore Flight 117 that ended abruptly and violently for the hijackers. A few years ago, Singapore was also threatened with 9/11 style aircraft attacks and embassy bombings. In contrast, some European nations have suffered actual attacks, which includes the 2004 Madrid train bombings and 2005 London bombings. The most recent attack of significance took place in Mumbai claiming the first Singaporean casualty to international terrorism. With the exception of India where the jury is still out, there has been no increase in the following year’s defense budgets of the scale that we now see in Singapore.
In the official publication “Fight Against Terror”, the government claims that while “terrorism does not threaten the existence of Singapore as an independent nation, it has the capacity to inflict serious shocks on our economy and society, causing not only material and human damage, but also psychological injury. It also has the potential to pit different communities against each other, weakening multi-racial, multi-religious character of Singapore that is vital to our success.” (Pg 59). While prevention is the best cure, it must be noted however that there has been no historical precedence showing that foreign investment will flee a country without considering the national capacity to handle the crisis that might ensue. Neither is the strain on the social fabric a uniquely Singaporean phenomenon. On the contrary, many societies, even divided ones have historically shown resilience and cohesion against a common external threat. The nationalistic American rally post 9/11 is an example. Nearer to Singapore, the peace accord between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Rebels after the 2004 Tsunami provides further cause for optimism.
Although the SAF is a key player in counter terrorism, she is not the only player. Her counter terrorist efforts can also be described as incidental. Today, conscripts guard key civilian installations such as Jurong Island without imposing on the budget. The security of air and maritime lanes of communications is a daily job that preoccupies most air and naval forces regardless of terrorism activities although the level of activities and vigilance is possibly higher. Yet, these activities should have been accounted for in the years following the 9/11 attacks. It is also widely recognized that while military forces are important, police forces, national intelligence and non security organizations play equally if not greater roles in attack prevention and post attack rehabilitation. Yet, no similar increase in budgets is noted in other Singaporean ministries in the 2009 budget.
Thus, we can safely conclude that the terrorism is not the dominant factor in augmenting the defense budget in the midst of an economic crisis. The perceived threat has to be external.
What is the perceived threat?
The stated mission of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is for deterrence. And if deterrence is to fail, its mission is to achieve a swift and decisive victory.
The question that one should ask is, deterrence against who and achieve a swift and decisive victory against who? This may be an open secret but let’s go back to basic geopolitics to see which state actor could pose a threat to the security of Singapore.
At the global level, there are currently few countries that have the capability to project their forces to threaten Singapore. In this aspect, the US military is unparalleled. If the US wanted to, the SAF would be of little consequence. The fact that Singapore has extremely close military ties with the US and that all her fighter aircraft are American practically rules out this possibility.
China, while a military giant in her own right, does not have power projection capabilities yet. While she is planning to build her own aircraft carrier(s), her strategy is clearly aimed at containing the US. Her main territorial interest is still Taiwan and keeping the country intact, and preventing the secessionist states of Xinjiang and Tibet from breaking away. Without air support and with long communications line, it is not inconceivable for her to be defeated at sea. Furthermore, any seaborne invading force that approaches narrow straits of Malacca or the narrow waters east of Singapore is exposed to air, sea and land attack. Another option is for China to approach via the land route. In all the described scenarios, an attack by China on Singapore is tantamount to starting World War III. This would not happen without intervention from at least the US. Finally, there is no motive for China to attack the tiny island state thousands of kilometres away.
Russia while trying to re-assert her influence on her borders, is but a pale shadow of her former self, the great Soviet Union. Even at the height of her power, she did not have the capability of projection like the US. Today, she has neither the will, the desire nor the capacity to threaten Singapore.
If you look into India’s strategic outlook, you will find that her priorities are firstly to keep the country together and secondly to contain Pakistan and China. Although she is nuclear and has a formidable conventional force and a somewhat “blue water navy”, she faces immense challenges on any military adventure in south east asia.
Today’s Japan is pacifist, and her forces are not configured for force projection nor for offensive operations. Merely supplying the US forces with a single supply ship had to be debated in Parliament, which eventually led to the cancellation of the said mission.
With regards to the other regional states, most can be ruled out for reasons of distance, lack of military capacity, natural obstacles, or internal problems.
With that, we have only Indonesia and Malaysia, the two closest neighbours to Singapore. Indonesia, the largest Muslim democracy in the world today, is extremely weak militarily relative to her size. Her equipment is old and obsolete with the exception of a few recently bought Sukhois. To highlight the state of derelict, the four Sukhois that were bought in 2003 are inactive, did not have compatible communication systems, and lacked weapons. Furthermore, the Indonesian military is still configured for counter-insurgency and non-conventional operations rather than conventional major combat operations and reforms continue to be extremely slow.
Finally, we come to Malaysia. Separated by a narrow strait, Malaysia is a hot destination for Singaporeans looking for cheap food, thrills and beaches. The Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) has an impressive order of battle. These include Sukhoi-30MKMs, MiG-29s, F-18s, PT-91 main battle tanks from Poland, Astros MLRS, Scorpene submarines, Leiku class frigates and so on and so forth. Furthermore, relations has not always been good between the two countries. Disagreements between the leaders of both countries with regards to the “Bumiputra” policies led to the ejection of Singapore from the Federation of Malaya in 1965 and several disputes have soured relations in more recent years although relations are currently good. Nonetheless, of all the countries mentioned, Malaysia represents the most likely threat perceived by Singapore leaders.
(Read part 2 of this article “A swift decisive victory” tomorrow)
Loading ...
john tan on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 7:44 am
i suppose the writer advocates dismantling our armed forces and letting anyone do as they please with our country since he implies there is no real threat but only a perceived one???
GROW UP dude!
Justathought on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 8:51 am
Hi, your article is quite uncalled for. We need defence and we have left its management to the government. Well, it does not matter if there is a perceived threat. We need it. Kuwait will be what of us if we do not maintain it. Btw, have you served your NS? Understand NS and you will know its importance.
infp on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 9:56 am
john tan,
the author is merely questioning the proportion of the defence budget in regards to the perceived threat. nothing like what you compliantly infer- probably unconscious, since i believe you are more than able to think. i am not kidding, due to the totalitarian swipe, there is this undercurrent of compliance in the majority of singaporean minds which inhibits proper thinking.
gunslinger,
pretty informative i must say. i look forward to part 2 and to more contributions by you.
curse of the orchid on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 10:48 am
Do a survey with our NS men/Reservists and we should have a better perspective of the perceived threat.
I am a semi-retired ordinary citizen who is discharged from reservist obligation, so I assume that I am not up to date with how our young men feel.
My personal take on the perceived threat is the mindset of our people when it is crunch time. How many of our men feel they are defending the politicians and the wealthy instead of the country ? All the wonderful state-of-the-art weapons count for little if the soldiers do not believe in a common cause.
I am also inclined to think our politicians would have taken the first flight out and I believe I am not alone on this.
Rather than speculating on the possible external threat, we should focus on the way we train and manage our own soldiers who are first and foremost, citizens of the country.
ght on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 11:05 am
Sin is nothing interm of size but a samll red dot.
our threat is all over or none till the enemies show up.
so i think it is money wise spend !
Enron on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 11:21 am
I don’t think so. I believe the writer is merely questioning why the defence budget has ballooned so greatly in the past year, considering that the country is not doing well in terms of economic growth. He did not advocate the dismantling of the entire armed forces at all.
cowboy on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 11:44 am
HAHAHAHAHA. No wonder we need the scholar system to keep the real idiots out of policymaking. Thank goodness you’re not in MINDEF.
ErniesUrn on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 11:54 am
John Tan,
I think thats your own conclusion.
Lachlan on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 1:00 pm
Good analysis.
Desoh87 on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 1:24 pm
Hes not trying to dismantle the SAF, he knows that we need a army to defend us.
I agree him …. majority of our Armed forces are actually NSmen and NSF… do we really need that much of a defence budget?
Panzer on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 1:46 pm
John Tan
Perhaps you should be the one doing the “growing up”.
I too question why we are spending so much on defence. Note I question “too much” and do not advocate a total dismantling of our defence force.
People like you like are overly simplistic. Being critical of how much we spend on defence doesn’t mean we are unpatriotic and wish to adopt a 100% pacifist stance in having a military force. Being critical of how much we spend on defence doesn’t mean we must adopt a position that the defence force is unnecessary.
I’ve spend 10 years of reservist including 2 tours of duty carrying live rounds protecting Singapore. But I too ask questions in my blog why are we spending so much relative to other aspects of our economy.
As concerned citizens and taxpayers, it’s reasonable for such questions to be asked.
John Tan – are you a taxpayer? HAve you served NS in a combat capacity? What gives you the right to tell others to grow up when you show your lack of maturity rather eloquently through your comment above.
Majullah Singapura.
Panzer on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 1:50 pm
Just to add, I’ve seen many posts by NSmen in hardwarezone who vehemently tell others off who even dare to raise the relevance of conscription as an issue.
Again, people are sometimes confused. To be against conscription doesn’t mean one is unpatriotic. I have served ALL my national service obligations faithfully within a single case of deferrment and I question the relevance of conscription.
Pls note that the navy and air force are mostly professional regulars. It’s the army that sucks up NSFs and NSmen for cannon fodder.
I cannot understand how we hold on to a conscription model when even Taiwan who faces more imminent threats than us are moving towards a fully volunteer armed forces.
Panzer on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 1:51 pm
Slightly typo above, it should be,
I have served ALL my national service obligations faithfully [without] a single case of deferrment and I question the relevance of conscription.
Have a great day.
move along please on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 2:12 pm
A swift decisive victory. And then – what?
Would the 20m population of a defeated Malaysia cower in terror, lick their wounds and meekly obey their new masters in the approved Singaporean way?
Or, far more likely, would they begin a guerilla war of attrition which the little red dot, pop 4.5m, could not possibly win in a 1000 years?
This ‘perceived threat’ is bogus. It has little to do with an external foe and everything to do with keeping the local kiasi sheep toeing the political line.
reader on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 4:22 pm
To john tan:
The writer has simply pointed out how our military budget is growing, and that our military budget is high relative to many other countries.
He is thus attempting to analyze whether these policies are advisable or justifiable.
Nowhere in his article has he recommended dismantling our army. More likely, he is going to argue that our military budget should be reduced, so taxpayers’ monies can be spent on other more needed matters.
By launching a personal attack on the writer BEFORE you can even read and evaluate his completed analysis, you have just shown everybody who is the one that really needs to GROW UP.
mouse on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 5:02 pm
John Tan:
No, all it says is:
cut the military budget
Lim Chin Siong 2009 on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 6:01 pm
I disagree that “The perceived threat has to be external”
Possible theories (all internal):
1. Internal domestic civil unrest caused by the lost of confidence in the totalitarian regime.
“… if there is a freak (elections) result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”
- MM Lee, 2006
2. Internal distraction stratagem to fool the regime’s own people.
When regimes want to hog on to power, they will fool the people in to thinking that there is an external threat. The regime will then fix it (with force).
e.g. Nazi’s conspiracy theory of Jews to win popular support in elections. The IRAQ War where the Bush administration fooled its own people (and the UN) that there were weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ.
3. Internal show of power to inspire confidence (or fear).
e.g. North Korea’s show of their military might even in times of poor economic & diplomatic conditions. Singapore’s National Day Parade…
4. Internal illusion of a terrorist. (scapegoat)
The regime will tell the people that there is a famed terrorist. New laws will then be passed to tighten the regime’s control of the people in the pretext of improving security.
e.g. Till today, there is actually no concrete evidence that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for Sep 11th. Yet, the Patriot Act was passed in congress during the Bush era. Mas Selamat, ISD, ISA, Operation Cold Store, Operation Spectrum and Lee Kuan Yew’s political purges.
randommindlessness on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 9:10 pm
He’s just mentioning the budget is overboard, Grown Up Dude john tan. He never said anything about dismantling our armed forces….sigh….dudes nowadays.
And I do agree the budget’s a little over the top. The amount spent can actually be lesser during reccession. The estimated Budget growth for this year seems dumb in the midst of crisis. And the sheer amount of incompetent personnel who’re there just for their salaries disgusts me anyways.
And don’t you dare say I’m condemning everyone in the SAF, there’re the good ones, but also alot more bad ones within.
cy on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 9:21 pm
eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex. We are seeing this in singapore. Conscription also is a significant factor in increased budget as they are getting better pay,food,weapons, training,etc. Lastly, the regulars need to be “fed well” too.
observer on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 10:14 pm
To John:
Are you stupid? Which part of the article implies that the write advocates dismantling the army? He is merely questioning why there is a need to increase the defence budget over so many consecutive periods. You sound like a regular.
Anyway, I still wonder why the govt keeps increasing the defence budget, but still pay NSFs allowance which is half the salary of a bangla worker.
Ah Meng on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 10:31 pm
If one is on guard all the time, then there may be no threats from anyone, near or far. But when one is totally careless, off-guard and defence-less, then probably the real threats will arise, from both near and far.
Bullies are always looking out for those who they think they can easily bully. So, all the academic and theoretical analysis and assessments are just that – academic and theoretical.
The famous saying, “If you want peace, be prepared for war” must not be taken lightly.
When is the best time to prepare for war? Of course, when there is no war yet. Nobody should wait until war is imminent then start to pray to the Buddha.
Therefore, no matter how much is spent on the defence preparations, I think we should not grudge about it, because though the expenditure may not be for this generation, it may be useful for the next or future generation.
Who can foresee what will happen 20 years down the road?
Better be prepared and than to regret later.
Ah Meng on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 10:58 pm
Correction for the last sentence:
“Better be prepared and safe than to regret later”
joe on Sat, 11th Apr 2009 11:42 pm
How sure are we that all of the defence budget is used up by the SAF?
SAF does not publish annual reports, right?
anti-conscript on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 12:06 am
ah meng ah meng what the writer is questioning is actually
- numbers needed to prepare for defence force (no mentioning of not preparing)
- money used up with no substantial ROI, with the amount of money spent yet conscripts isn’t even insured by mindef doesn’t cut it at all.
- please do away with all these simplistic arguments give us facts and figures, all carelessness offguards thingy mean nothing when you cannot justify for it with numbers (learning from old man keke)
all in all 3G army 1G regulars
yuiop on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 12:06 am
1. DB & National Service – many responses seemed to be confused with the increased Defence Budget & need for National Service. On one hand, they suggested doing away with conscription, while on the other, they demanded to lower DB. However, the very desire for the former, i.e. to regularise a sizeable & effective Army, will instead balloon the DB significantly. Must be clear that our DB is kept stable due to NS.
2. Investment in Defence – I have no issue in optimising the value of defence. If the article has good ideas to stretch our defence dollars, pse give more specific inputs. To make broad comparisons using info from wiki with simplistic conclusion that DB is “bloated”?! (Next time, pse use more credible source like Jane Defense.) Btw, there are no prizes for coming in second in the business of defence.
3. Threat – History has shown that small states are always under threat (conventional or otherwise), even amidst seemingly prolong peace. Remeber the Chinese saying – there is no permanent friends, only permanent “Self” interest. The article’s discussion on perceived threat seems to suggest that threat is just an illusion. This may be overly simplistic & myopic.
Well, there are my views. Cheers.
anti-conscript on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 4:15 am
yuiop,
1. DB & National Service
Please give us clear indication of the amount needed to have a professional army as opposed to having conscriptiion. You have not shown us how it would be more expensive to have a full time professional army. you and your prestige jane defense may be able to shed some light here. If not you’re just like us. ‘ i.e. to regularise a sizeable & effective Army, will instead balloon the DB significantly.’ Why and how will it balloon the defense budget? Cause the number of regulars needed? Ah but what would the actual number of soldiers we actually need?
You’ve got it the other way round, with such a bloated defence budget the very fact that we still need conscripts reveals an even glaring question, who then is currently paying for it? the conscripts? hence the general feeling of a bloated defence budget.
2. So where’s your suggestions? One simple suggestion would be reduce reservist period to just age 28 after ORD, that would cut the cost. And it is actually more efficient as NS men would not at a period of their life where they have alot of commitments, also with the younger age they would have less issues passing IPPT.
3. Threats? Can’t you see we have already been overrun by foreigners? (ok this was meant as a joke)
Cheers
dragonkid on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 5:40 am
1}Size of Singapore 689 sq.km surrounded by sea
2}Population 4.5mil
3}Reckon 70% of built up area consists of high rise buildings
4}Centeral area containing financial and commercial
districts,with several high rise buildings.
5}Several housing estates, housing NS men and Reservists
6}Operational fighter airbases-3 X airbases
7}International airport – 1 X airport, with high capacity
8}Outstation airbases – unknown, with exception of US airbase
for RSAF aircrafts. (as mentioned in ST news)
9}Rest I leave to your creative imagination????
10}Don’t forget NEW YORK, World Trade Centre, 9-11, and the Somali Pirates with the US Merchant Captain in a Little DINGHY, anchored beside a MIGHTY US WARSHIP??? THINK CREATIVELY, READERS!!!!
dragonkid on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 5:54 am
Dear YUIOP, that may be the Chinese saying which is Communist in thought and practice.
Howerever in Democratic thought and in a GOD fearing nation, SELF INTEREST are put aside and charity with a choice is practised with no self interest.
john tan on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 7:25 am
my god, i’m 16, have not done NS, yet i can see tru all the bull shit of the article. counterstike has honed my mind beyond what you can imagine. serve 10 years of reservist big deal? you go there as storeman? driver? or you go there as HR consultant DYS1?
Gunslinger’s article is all form, no substance. put a bunch of figures and make incongruent comparisons to countries with totally different geopolitical interests from us.
Panzer, no need to assume moral highground with me. you can sling all you want. i promise my feelings won’t get hurt, unlike yours.
Gunslinger is naive to believe that indonesia will never be taken over by a renegade general or have a crackpot general attack us with us private army. yes, private army. same goes for the crackpot sultans up north. all that in-breeding will produce an autistic savant who might invade coz our flag is the wrong colour.
the threat, my friends, is NOT perceived.
reduce our budget? sure, and our pilots will have 10 hours flight time a year like our southern neighbours. live firing, maybe shoot 2 rounds a year.
penny wise, pound foolish.
john tan on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 7:32 am
if Gunslinger was truly concerned about our defence rather than scoring cheap populist points, then he should learn from the lessons of Georgia…
not that we need an ‘invincible’ army to stand up to the might of the north/south, but rather, we need leaders with cool heads who will not be baited into provoking an encounter with our neighbours.
do we really think that any confrontation will be against one front only?? will the south/north stand idly by while we attack the north/south? guarantee 100% the religious extremists will unite and demand action against christian s’pore (that’s how they’ll spin it)
JT.
*i’m still growing up*
infp on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 7:35 am
perceived or not perceived? hmmm…
whether something is a threat or not is up to how someone, or some party, perceives it. for example, a hardcore paranoid person will probably perceive everything as a threat, even the sky.
my point is, a threat is a perceived thing. there is no inherent attribute called ‘threat’ in the thing itself, whether be it a country, person, animal, sky, stone, etc.
Sylvester Lim on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 1:53 pm
The fact is that there is little accountability of how the money is spent. How much of it goes to Singapore Technologies given that this year is not going to be a good year for exports and their books need to reflect positive numbers? After all, the directors of these companies have to produce results. Where the money comes from does not matter even if it is from the taxpayers. This money could have been better spent on Education and Singaporeans welfare such as Job Training etc
yuiop on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 4:35 pm
Dear anti-conscript & like-minded people,
1. DB & National Service
Sorry, cannot give detailed answer, cos saya not Defence Minister. But my pri 1 calculation tells me that based on a same size military, regular > expensive than conscript. Last I checked, a sizeable military is still needed for an effective land campaign (unless you live in fantasy LALA land & believe in the hi-tech bulls**t where “a few rambos will do the job”). If you still don’t understand, don’t worry, your P1 teacher will teach you next year.
2. Saya only critic… no smart suggestions. But I dislike people act-smart, publish super long article but no substance.
Your idea of reduction of ORNS period reminds me of a scene in “Something abt Mary”, where the hitch-hiker says that his super-idea of “6-min Abs” is much better than “7-min Abs”. Why don’t you straight away propose total reduction of ORNS to zero. That way, your imaginery soldiers can take IPPT when they are sleeping, and replace sit-ups with 6-min… no 1-min Abs workouts.
3. Hmmm… ok joke… can pass.
Cheers.
randommindlessness on Sun, 12th Apr 2009 5:20 pm
Dear Kid John Tan,
If counter-strike can hone your skills, then I suggest you play Call of Duty as it’d probably teach you more about guns and war policies more than that silly red crosshair and what you think camping is about.
Also, for a guy who has not been into NS to see how incompetant foolish human beings work in there, your thought about 10 hours flight time for our pilots will be for naught.
I’m quite sure our air force receive a significant portion of the budget, and I’m also quite confident in it’s abilities as our pilots are fine picked and selected properly.
But for everything else from wasting food and water due to stupidity and eating buffets in outfields due to ego, I see no reason to respect a part of our armed forces.
And you think the author is naive and shouldn’t compare us with other countries of different geopolitical interest. Then tell me what is the base we should use for comparison, or rather, if you prefer, not compare at all and pride ourselves in what our armed forces is all about.
Looking at you makes me think you’ve been fed propoganda since young, but you’re with a good track mind to know that it’s good to expect the unexpected. But dissing someone else’s article due to personal opinion is plain rude, and if you’re serious about being 16 and not serving NS. I suggest you look forward to it, and hope you do good within the system, and change the many atrocities within it.
Also, I suggest the next time you think someone else’s article is bull shit, I suggest you go through and understand what the article’s trying to say before making silly assumtions of the writer. He still hasn’t mentioned anything of reducing NS period or dismantling of the army.
Oh and one final thing, please try not to bring games into such conversations…it makes me think that you’re the type who will put tactical knowledge from Command and Conquer into such conversations.
wholuvsg on Mon, 13th Apr 2009 9:03 am
aiyah, it’s clear that no matter how much ppl dun like the amt of $ spent on it, strong defence is a must. all SAF needs is to cut short the NS timing….which was cut from 2 1/2 to 2…, and ICT timing also….3 weeks, ppl sure defer….2 weeks already so long liao….
bacteria on Mon, 13th Apr 2009 3:45 pm
Indonesia and Malaysia are both moderate countries.
Plus we are their bankers and therefore not in their self interest to attack us. Now, if Malaysia/Indonesia ever become extremist (which you know is really unlikely if u have actually lived there) … religious nuts will attack even if we double our defence budget (as pointed out by Dragonkid).
how much is enough? Even if we halve our DB, we still outspend our neighbours. History has shown that smaller motivated professional armies *always* beat\thrash larger armies of unwillingly conscripts. and it was the professional north viet regulars who defeated the better equipped American conscripts in Nam.
I too have completed all my obligations. In a combat unit. Best unit too. But to be homest, didn’t think we would be much use in actual battle (esp as reservists). So kids who are passionate about our security, please petition to have a all volunteer professional army and professional generals (and not those waiting to join a stat board\GLC). And save urself from wasting 2++ (incl reservists) years of your prime.
anti-conscript on Tue, 14th Apr 2009 2:27 am
yuiop,
haha cheers, guess we can nvr speak on the same wavelength, anyway I’ve got my solution already. (already out of my ex country)
gunfighter on Sun, 19th Apr 2009 10:09 pm
@all, this is only one part so pls be patient. I assure all that I have done more than my fair share of NS. I do not advocate the dismantling of the SAF. That is like leaving your newest laptop on your car seat in a public car park. Dont tempt others.
There are several points that I want to make:(1) Misguided mission for the SAF, at least the publicly stated ones (2) Bloated budget ($11.45bn). How much is enough and how much is too much? (3) Exposing ppl unnecessarily to inherent risk involved with prolonged NS and military training.
I use easily accessible public domain publications that may not be the most accurate or updated, but permit a logical comparison anyway.
In defense planning, there must be a threat, whether perceived or real. Without one, the planning would come to naught. Preparing for war is not only about building up our military against another military. There are many historic examples where the smaller “weaker” nations have won against larger more powerful ones. If half of us don’t believe in NS, can we win in a war?
@Lim Chin Siong, I concede your point on the internal strife theory. History has proven you absolutely right esp in SE Asia. However, the build up of our air force and the navy is not justified by this reason. I agree though on inculcating the siege mentality in Singaporeans.
@John Tan, Georgia was a massive miscalculation by the Georgians (and the Americans) and even if they have doubled their defense budgets over the last 10 years, they would not have been able to stand up to the might of the Russians, assuming the latter had the will to do it.
@yuiop, define effective land campaign. Something along the line of Vietnam, Operation Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom? Win the battles but lose the war? I pass. High tech weapons? I think the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war is extremely illuminating.
@Bacteria, you have a very good point which I will allude to later. This may not however be a good long term national strategy.
James Chong on Mon, 20th Apr 2009 4:57 pm
A very interesting article but in reality, I do not think that Singapore’s defence budget is “bloated”. In fact, I feel more should be done to maintain your country’s “superiority” vis-a-vis the only real “threat” to its survival, Malaysia.
It is true that relations between the two neighbours have been good since 1965. Even during the “stormy” years when Mahathir Mohamad was still PM of Malaysia, relations never degenerated to levels where force of arms may have been used.
But one can never be sure about how things might pan out in future. A far right, extremist, Islamist government might take power in Malaysia one day and it will be too late to do anything as long range rockets and bombs start falling on Jurong. Let us hope that will not happen since I am Malaysian also.
However, whenever I read things written about Singapore’s defence in blogs by her people, they range from “being able to defeat Malaysia in days” to a defeatist ” why bother fighting”.
To me, the extreme views on both ends of the spectrum are silly.
As for the superiority and confidence of the Singapore Armed Forces, I think the policy makers in your country would know that Malaysia has been closing the gap significantly over the years, especially in the realm of airpower.
One of the most significant purchases made by the Malaysian government in recent years are the Sukhoi-30 MKM jet fighters from Russia.
Let us look at the first, the Sukhoi 30 MKMs. These are VERY capable air superiority fighters. There has been a big debate about how Singapore’s late model F16C/Ds will match up against them. Well, here is some news for Singaporeans. During the Sindex air exercises in 2007 (or is it 2006, my memory fails me), Republic of Singapore Airforce (RSAF) F16C/Ds were pitted against Indian Airforce Sukhoi 30s, and RSAF F16s were quite badly beaten. The Indian press which covered the event said India can now rest a bit easier now since the Pakistan Airforce flies older and less advanced versions of the F16, the A models.
I do not know if this has set alarm bells ringing within the Singapore defence establishment but it might have been one of the reasons the RSAF is now going for larger orders of the F15 Strike Eagle (originally 12, now opting for 24). On top of that, the RSAF has also made known its intention to have at least 100 JSF F35s as part of its long-term force levels. These might seem excessive but given the potential threat and the need to maintain the islands republic’s superiority gap, they are necessary.
The Malaysian airforce are taking delivery of 18 Sukhoi 30 MKMs. That is not a very large number but let us not forget the other two also lethal factors in the Malaysian arsenal – the Mig 29s and F/A18s. (17 of the former and 8 of the latter). These are backed up by a dozen or so British-made Hawk 200s. If a war were to break out today (assuming the F15SGs the RSAF ordered are not in Singapore yet) and if Singapore cannot take out these Sukhoi 30s in pre-emptive strikes (ala Israel’s 6-Day War of 1967), the republic’s air force will NOT be able to gain air superiority over her Malaysian enemy. In fact, I feel that the Malaysian airforce might MORE than hold her own.
As for the “why bother fighting” school of thought, well, history has not been kind to defeated peoples.
gunfighter on Tue, 21st Apr 2009 4:09 am
@James Chong, thanks for your comments. You have made very valid observations with regards to the capability of the RMAF and their new acquisitions. Also very valid is the closing of the gap. I personally see this mini arms race as one that Sg will eventually lose out. Thus a different and more robust strategy is called for. As for the news about SINDEX, I think you should not pay too much attention to the Indian media. They played up the same hype when they trained against USAF F-15Cs a few years ago. In both exercises, there were indian propaganda. And for the USAF, they were then trying very hard to justify for their F-22s. Except between allies and close friends, no Air Force will compromise their full capabilities.
It is also not aircraft vs aircraft but how one wages the air campaign that really counts.