Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[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.

[JannettLee]

So, could you please tell us:

1) How many families are better off with GST implementation and top-tier income tax reduction from 25% to 20%? The way you say is like only a minority is worse off while the majority is better off? I doubt so, and I have shown that majority is worse off. May be you want to show your figure to prove what you are trying to argue?

2) If tax revenue is not enough that is why GST has been implemented so that income tax need not be raised as you mentioned, why there is a need to reduce top-tier income tax from 25% to 20%? So that GST needs to be raised further? So tell us, who and how many people benefits the most from these 2 changes?

There are people who argue for the sake of arguing just to try to prove that they are always right (when they are in fact wrong) to the extend of taking people's words out of context and rephrasing part of other people's writing and try to interpret in another distorted way to support his argument and against the other's argument.

3Boys:

For the record. Not that'll change anything....

One should note, there is agreement even in this fractious forum, that the lowest quintile of families get back more in rebates than what they pay in GSTs. That being the case, it is inevitable that as you head up the ladder, some families will flip from a positive balance to a negative balance. It's plain mathematics. Are some families worse off in this current construct than say, before 2005? I am sure there are. They question is, how many, and by how much. My back of the envelope calculation of the 60k income family, is that given the worse case, where they did not benefit from an income tax reduction, was that they may be worse off by $95 a month. Yes, there is also consideration about retirement, but if one has built up a CPF nest egg (accumulated tax free), then one should not be completely destitute. Further, it was already stated when a consumption tax was promulgated, that part of the reason is that we may have a shrinking workforce and we need to expand taxation beyond just working adults. Yes, that's you, Mr Retiree, Mrs SAHM, Ms Uni student. There is no magic about it, GST types taxes are used worldwide precisely to avoid overtaxing only income earners.

Yeah, there are many many little populist things you can do, exempt basic goods, exempt medical, blah blah. Every single one creates another loophole and another layer of bureaucracy, which then causes leakage and sucks up costs to administer, instead of saving those dollars and giving them back to the needy. It's not just the taxes that need to be kept lean, the administration of taxes should also be lean. People ignore this concept. Further, if you lose tax revenue on such items, and have a shortfall in revenue, then what do you do? Raise taxes on other items? Extend the reach of income tax into the middle class? Everybody likes to propose airy fairy ideas but no one considers the trade offs.

If taxes are raised, do people expect to come out behind? Well, generally, that is the intent! Raising taxes is a way for the government to raise revenue from its people. If everyone expects to get back more in rebates than they pay in raised taxes, what's the point of raising taxes in the first place? It should not be the expectation that one immediately gets back in rebates enough to completely offset the GST increase. People who argue so are standing its argument on its head.

You know about the only certainty in life being death and taxes.....

The only other certainty I feel right now is that I am going to regret even posting this.........

3Boys:

JannettLee:

The way you are telling us is that those people paid Millions of $ of salary to implement policies did not look at it from all sides of the picture because they are just unable to articulate and convince all of us why there is a need to implement GST and yet reduce income tax from 25% to 20%. Most of us can only see that what they are doing only benefits the few % of the really rich. Worst still, there are still a minority that don't even know about this fact and can argue that GST implementation and cutting top-tier income tax benefits the majority of Singaporeans! What a pitiful soul... They are living in their own world or what? :slapshead:

Since neither you or I are a tax expert or a Nobel Laureate economist, then I suggest one be circumspect about one's expertise in the field. I detect a distinct lack of circumspection since you deem yourself to be superior in intellect and motivation to our ministers, and feel qualified to instruct our ministers in constructing a tax code.

I did not say the GST benefits the majority of Singaporeans directly. From time to time, governments change or modify their tax rates to keep the country competitive. And in a competitive economy, we are therefore able to generate high value jobs for Singaporeans. And if government revenues are kept up, they have greater degrees of freedom to disburse help to the most needy. So the payoff is indirect.

Does the tax code benefit the MAJORITY of Singaporeans?

I believe the tax code is crafted to benefit SINGAPORE, and in doing so, benefits SINGAPOREANS in general, either directly or indirectly.

By the way, you will know from reading my other posts, that I support an INCREASE in income taxes (and retaining GST).

Life is not as simple as you make it.

[dorisp]

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\".

Well said.

[dorisp]

好了好了，大家和和气气的讨论。和气生财，身体健康！


:rahrah:

[3Boys]

Phew!


I think fair minded people know exactly what's going on.......

Janette/moonsun, be you the same or different people, I have already written my broad themes on GST and defence, with reasonable backing of numbers. I'm not getting drawn into prolonged debate over your nitpicking of details. E.g. Moonsun, your continued tirade on my use of 'regional' is just hilarious and beyond the pale, you had one thought on how that was used and I had a different thought, and you try to use that semantic to undermine the discussion on whether Singapore can stand up to 'regional' forces? I think one can easily see who is the argumentative one here. Janette, you clearly do not read my posts, your last question on GST , my viewpoint is there already, it's not necessary for the majority to benefit, if by benefit you mean that they should be getting back more in rebates than they pay in taxes. That completely defeats the purpose of raising taxes. One of the objectives in introducing/raising GST was to rebalance the proportion of taxes drawn from income and consumption, this is clearly stated, and in many countries the top income tax rate sand GST rate are fairly comparable, whereas in Singapore it's still tilted in favor of income tax by the ratio of nearly 3:1.

You might want to consider who you are calling argumentative or blinkered. It's worth taking a look in the mirror(s).

[Just relax]

Washington think-tank Centre for Strategic Studies issued a report sometime in Oct/Nov? 2012, that defence spending for China, Japan, India, Taiwan and South Korea doubled in the last decade to 224 billion, with China of course leading the way. So as I have mentioned earlier in another post in another thread, we are now in the Asian century, and it is just at the beginning of the century.


The defence spending of Asian countries will go up for a variety of reasons. I had mentioned not only hostile military action but also terrorism. I however forgot to mention cyber warfare. Many countries military are expanding their electronic warfare capabilities to deal with cyber warfare and it appears that it is the military in the various countries that are tasked with the defence against cyber warfare. Protection of the electronic networks of airports, television and radio stations, power stations, MRT, ports, banks, etc. require the expertise and involvement of the military.

Electronic warfare is also not cheap but many militaries also do not mention it as psychologically do not want to scare citizens in their country.