Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[sleepy]

4,000 turn up at Speakers' Corner for population White Paper protest

From yahoo newsroom 3 hours ago http://sg.news.yahoo.com/huge-turnout-at-speakers--corner-for-population-white-paper-protest-101051153.html

[lim72]

It was more than 4k!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upYDD8im5W0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[3Boys]

limlim:

JannettLee:

I learnt new thing today! I didn't know that we can defense Nuclear Weapon from Russia and China. :yikes: I always thought that they don't even need to come out 一兵一卒can already 轻而易举拿下 those countries which do not have any nuclear weapon. They have Nuclear Weapon but still are not considered to have ability to project forces ? :skeptical:

So the powerful countries throw a nuke and destroy everything?

And they gained NOTHING in return but a mess of radioactive wasteland and still have to dig into the pocket for the cost of a nuclear bomb too..

Indeed. History channel has a series of shows on fall of Singapore this weekend. Bombings of downtown Singapore, Penang, people dying, British defeat. Lets see if we be so chin-chye about our defence.

[sleepy]

Just realized today's turn up at hong lim is fewer than pink dot event

http://pinkdot.sg/more-than-15000-singaporeans-at-pink-dot-2012/

[WeiHan]

sleepy:

Just realized today's turn up at hong lim is fewer than pink dot event

http://pinkdot.sg/more-than-15000-singaporeans-at-pink-dot-2012/

Pink dot is probably 15,000.

[iFirefly]

ChiefKiasu:

I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record... but some OOT posts were embargoed since my last announcement of moderation action...

Chief.. You very busy this CNY hor.. :siam:

[Mdm Koh]

3Boys:

Mdm Koh:

I think we cannot assume that the money we spend on defense is on weapons and technology that will benefit Singapore in the event of an actual attack. First, Singapore invests a lot in intelligence. Apart from hunting down terrorists, this is also used to monitor us, Singaporeans.


Second, what's the proportion of the budget that is going into the salaries of the ministries' directors?

Until we have a rough spending breakdown from the ministries involved in defence and security, I will refrain from assuming that the billions of dollars are being used to upgrade our weapons.

http://www.questia.com/library/98854885/defending-the-lion-city-the-armed-forces-of-singapore

F-15 and Apache attack helicopter squadrons don't appear by magic, they must be bought and paid for. Landing ship tanks and submarines don't come out of the water by themselves. Docks must be built, crews trained.

I think we can safely assume a huge amount of spend goes into hardware and training. Don't take my word for it, go read the book yourself.

Knowledge is power.

I hope you are not expecting that Mindef provides a breakdown of spend, in the form you desire, or that a failure to do so results removes their right to spend. Why give away proprietary information to our rivals?

But we cannot just trust them blindly, right? Tim Huxley's book was written more than 10 years ago.

I found some recent info from early 2012 on Mindef's page regarding import of weapons, aircraft, etc.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:A7dufEraj0sJ:www.mindef.gov.sg/content/imindef/publications/pointer/journals/2012/v38n1/feature2/_jcr_content/imindefPars/0003/file.res/013-031_MAJ%2520Ooi%2520Tjin%2520Kai.pdf+&hl=en&gl=sg&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjXEsp_1dck03Qv6Aw-APiyRGL-k0vP_6W-eyFSroyUkT6obSd3gzWDLKj2bX_qwFsbwfoTRw-LXxkTQvRqdDjdhxRvmoz6iHD_lJFyhmX7bD0GRLg2jSOiirkmbuaUTJu8N7Wq&sig=AHIEtbT9xqdfa2dAYlvTldhnLqEWGwXl6g

On page 26, bottom right, the military man who wrote the article stated clearly that we need to adjust our defence policy. We cannot rely on deterrence in the long run as with development in neighbouring countries, their investments in defence will go up. We will not be able to match their spending and will not be able to effectively deter them. Hence, there is a need to shift the policy towards diplomacy.

That's what I understand from the article. By publishing the article, I assume that Mindef agrees that high expenditure on purchasing equipment to deter enemies is unsustainable. Diplomacy is more crucial.

So I wonder why we are still spending so much...

[pirate]

Often the person who does better is not smarter, quicker or stronger. He/she is just more committed. That applies to defence. It also applies to business, work and school.


We should try to remember that while we navel gaze on what level of economic growth we think is "enough", as well as what level of defence spending is "enough".

[Moonsun55]

You said \"in the region\" in Singapore's context is \"SEA + Oceania + proximate parts of the Indian Ocean\".  

Harlequin said \"in the region\" refers to \"SEA only\".

So it become obvious that there isn't any fixed concrete definition of \"in the region\" in Singapore's context right? (otherwise either 1 of your definition must have been wrong!  So 3Boy wrong or Harlequin wrong?).  I remember a Minister once said Singaporeans should focus on reaching out to our immediate regions within 8 hours flight from Singapore?  That will include part of China, Russia as well.  I am using that a very loose definition that encompasses that meaning and there is nothign wrong with that since there is no fixed definition.  Otherwise please tell me which dictionary you use that give you that definition?  

3Boys:

First time I heard that Russia is considered regional power in the context of Singapore defence. Alright, so I make it more precise, region as in our immediate region, i.e SEA + Oceania + proximate parts of the Indian Ocean. Anyone with an understanding of how defence is discussed in the Singapore context would have understood that, but I guess you did not.

Moonsun55:

Please see below what you said: \"Right now, there is no one in the region that can come in and beat us, NO ONE.\". Because of what you said, I am asking you that since China & Russia is considered in Asia region of which Singapore is in, you are saying China & Russia can't beat us? I believe you statement is not correct & breeds arrogant & contentment since this is far from the truth. 
Now that you say below \"Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US\", so you admit your previous statement about no one can beat Singapore in army is wrong? Is this why you appear so hostile in your reply to me? 

3Boys:

We all know? Who is we?

I suggest you speak for yourself.

Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US. In any case, of the 3, only the Us at this time has any ability to project forces so far, should they choose to do so. So your example is just a big red Herring. 

So we scale our forces to deal with the proximate and realistic threats,  we don't roll over an play dead.

Harlequin:

\"In the region\" = SEA (South East Asia)

I am sure you are wise enough to know who should SG defend itself from, right?

Russia, China and USA are not interested to put their military threat here lah. Can even safely say Korea and Japan are not interested too.

(Burp! Shang Palace's YuShen indigestion! excuse moi...)

Moonsun55:

No country in the region?  why you talk of region like China, Russia not in Asia region? Furthermore, If any country want to invade, they can come from anywhere. We all know the singapore's military is wayang, it can never stop a big powerful country from taking it down, & that is a fact that even if Singapore spend >20% of GDP on defense, it will not make much difference. I rather we minimize defense budget to focus on efficiency & transfer this money to healthcare in view of aging population needs. 

[JannettLee]

3Boys:

JannettLee:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]

We all know? Who is we?

I suggest you speak for yourself.

Nobody says we can fight China or Russia or the US. In any case, of the 3, only the Us at this time has any ability to project forces so far, should they choose to do so. So your example is just a big red Herring.

So we scale our forces to deal with the proximate and realistic threats, we don't roll over an play dead.

I learnt new thing today! I didn't know that we can defense Nuclear Weapon from Russia and China. :yikes: I always thought that they don't even need to come out 一兵一卒can already 轻而易举拿下 those countries which do not have any nuclear weapon. They have Nuclear Weapon but still are not considered to have ability to have project forces ? :skeptical:

By your logic, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea should also give up and also spend minimum on defence. If intercontinental missile capability were the only criteria to become an enemy, then the UK and France are also our enemies.

Your reasoning has no logic whatsoever. Worse, it reveals utter ignorance about how the big powers use nuclear arms. Despite testy relationships and shootouts between the Japanese and Chinese navies/merchant marine, China has never waved the nuclear card at Japan.

Russia and the USA are not the threats to Singapore security, not in the direct military way. China may be an issue in the future around the South China Sea, and that will be a naval issue, not a nuclear one. Your example is typically uninformed and a classic example of a straw man argument.

One scales one's defence to deal with the proximate and realistic threats. Japan would scale it's defence to deal with threats from N.Korea and China, Brazil would not. Sudan would be concerned about Eqypt and Libya, not Iceland or Indonesia.

Singapore is vulnerable by dint of it's small size. We can be (and have been) bullied before by our neighbours. In the period immediately after separation from Malaysia, you did not think that the Malaysians tried several times t bring us to our knees via threats to airspace and water supplies? Have you forgotten the confrontation?

Therefore, we need a defence force commensurate with our strategic needs.

1) Defend our homeland

2) Protect our interests (waterways, airspace, resource supply)

Defence as a deterrent. We may not be able to win every fight with every opponent, but we have to calibrate our defence to deal with the realistic threats. China and Russia have no interest in invading Singapore, they are too far away and they don't have the means to mount such an attack. It also serves nothing for them to drop a nuclear bomb on us. For what? So those are threats we can discount.

Then we come close to home. Indonesia and Malaysia are friendly to us today, BUT, it is a friendship forged by STRENGTH. They did not always treat us as friends. Hence, because of our small size and vulnerability, a strong defence force is ESSENTIAL for parity of relationship with our neighbours. NEVER forget that!

And our defence forces today, are more than capable of winning a short conflict with our immediate regional neighbours. I have never claimed anything more than that I never said we can beat China in a straight military fight, there are maybe 7-10 nations in the world who have a chance in doing that. But China and Russia are not the threat. Just because we can't beat them does not mean we lie on our backs, open up and let everyone else in.

In any case, I do not write to try and convince you, since you are fixed in your view, but other fair minded readers. I only hope to present what feel is a fair perspective and expose your posits as false and illogical.

Last, I do not argue that our armed forces are the most efficient in the use of resources. There is definitely wastage and inefficiencies, and finding ways to lower spending to shorten NS is a GOOD thing.

But not to minimum.[/quote]Again! my note had been taken out of context by you and you have this tendency of doing it all the time. you said \"In any case, of the 3, only the Us at this time has any ability to project forces so far, should they choose to do so\" I questioned why China and Russia at this time do not have ability to project force and I believed they have the ability should they choose to do so.

Indeed, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea spend minimun on their defence (all in the range of $400 per capital versus Singapore of about $1600 per capital) It is about 3-4 time of spending per capital versus Taiwan, Japan & South Korea. This is what I called to spend minimum. I need to stress one more time. I didn't ask to give up defence but ask to cut defence to minimum level (like Taiwan's, Japan's & South Korea's). Taiwan, Japan and South Korea should also give up defence' is not my logic but rather the logic you put it to me! Worst still, you started to get agitated and hostile with your wrong misunderstanding and perception. :siao:

Hmm, I think you are contradicting with your own argument. By your logic (Just because we can't beat them does not mean we lie on our backs, open up and let everyone else in), we need defence force for parity of relationship with our neighbors but we don't need defence force for parity of relationship with China and Russia since they are not the threat now. Are you saying we can lie on our backs, open up and let them in now????

Taiwan, Japan & South Korea do not spend huge budget on their defence and choose to spend minimum because they know that there is no way they can defence those big brothers should those big brother chose to project force.