Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
limlim:
A fair statement. :goodpost:
But how do you know that it is not already the minimum?Mdm Koh:
So I wonder why we are still spending so much...
I guess none of us here is expert in military to judge on that. -
JannettLee:
Have it occurred to you what is the population of those countries you mentioned and what is the size of their armed forces?
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:
They could be having large numbers and hence maybe afford to spend less to get the same \"effectiveness\"(subjective)..
Because SG is small, that's why maybe need to invest more in technology to make up for the numbers.
I believe the $$ spend/invest on each SG soldier is more than what the countries you mentioned do. Hence.. the much higher per capita spending..
Also, what is the absolute spending? do we spend more than them?
Talking about an effective force, you cannot say $100 spend by a 1000 population is as effective as $1000 spend by 10,000 population right? The smaller 1000 population probably needs to spend $500 or more to be effective.. That is 5 times the per capita spending, but not a lot on absolute basis for an \"effective\"(subjective) force.
The 5 times per capita could be the minimum as decided by our govt. the same per capita spending is probably not enough, simply bcoz of the very small absolute numbers.. -
This article by Adam Khoo ... is a nice read that states about
eventually 'Expats will rule Singapore \" if we as Singaporeans don't change our ways!
I have a prediction. My prediction is that in a couple of years, the expatriates (from China, India, US etc…) will rule Singapore. They will increasing take on more leadership roles of CEOs, directors, heads of organizations, award winners etc… If you observe closely, it is already happening now. This year’s top PSLE (Primary School Leaving Exam) student is a China National. Most of the deans list students and first class honours students in the local universities are foreigners and more and more CEOs, even that of government link corporations are expats. The top players in our National teams are expats.
As a Singaporean, I am not complaining. I think that in a meritocratic society like Singapore, it is only fair that the very best get rewarded, no matter their race, religion or nationality. Like Lee Kwan Yew said, I rather these talented and driven people be on our team contributing to our nation than against us from their home country. The question I have been asking is, ‘why are the expats beating the crap out of Singaporeans?’ What I noticed is that these expats have a very important quality that many Singaporeans (especially the new Y generation lack). It is a quality that our grandfathers and great-grandfathers (who came from distant lands) had that turned Singapore from a fishing village to the third richest country in the world (according to GDP per capita). Unfortunately, I fear this quality is soon disappearing from the new generation of Singaporeans. This youth development quality is the HUNGER FOR SUCCESS and the FIGHTING SPIRIT!!!
Expats who come here today have the same tremendous HUNGER for success that our grandfathers had. They are willing to sacrifice, work hard and pay the price to succeed. They also believe that no one owes them a living and they have to work hard for themselves. They also bring with them the humility and willingness to learn. Take the case of Qui Biqing, the girl from Qifa Primary school who topped the whole of Singapore in last year’s PSLE with a score of 290. When she came to Singapore 3 years ago from China, she could hardly speak a word of English and didn’t even understand what a thermometer was. Although she was 10 years old, MOE recommended she start at Primary 2 because of her lack of English proficiency. After appealing, she managed to start in Primary 3. While most Singaporeans have a head start of learning English at pre-school at the age of 3-4 years old, she only started at age 10. Despite this handicapped, she had the drive to read continuously and practice her speaking and writing skills, eventually scoring an A-star in English!
This hunger and drive can also be seen in the workforce. I hate to say this but in a way, I sometimes think expats create more value than locals. Expats are willing to work long hours, go the extra mile, are fiercely loyal to you and don’t complain so much. They also come alot more qualified and do not ask the moon for the remuneration. Recently, I placed an ad for a marketing executive. Out of 100+ resumes, more than 60% came from expats. While locals fresh grads are asking for $2,500+ per month, I have expats with masters degrees from good universities willing to get less than $2,000! They know that if they can come in and learn and work hard, they will eventually climb up and earn alot more. They are willing to invest in themselves, pay the price for future rewards. Sometimes I wonder how some of the locals are going to compete with this. Of course, this is just a generalization. There ARE definitely some Singaporeans who create lots of value and show fighting spirit.
Unfortunately, I have found that more and more young Singaporeans lack this hunger for success. Instead, they like to complain, blame circumstances and wait for others to push them. Some hold on to the attitude that the world owes them a living. I shake my head when I see local kids nowadays complain that they don’t have the latest handphones, branded clothes and games. While I acknowledge that the kids of today are much smarter and well informed than I was at their age (my 4 year old daughter can use my Macbook computer and my iphone), I find that they lack the resilience and tenacity they need to survive in the new economy. Some kids nowadays tend to give up easily once they find that things get tough and demand instant gratification. When they have to work first to get rewards later, many tend to lack the patience to follow through.
So, how did this happen? Why is our nation of hardworking, hungry fighters slowly becoming a nation of complaining softies? I think the problem is that life in Singapore has been too good and comfortable. Kids today have never seen hunger, poverty, war and disasters. What makes it worse is that parents nowadays give kids everything they want and over protect them from hardship and failure. Parents often ask me why their kids lack the motivation to study and excel. My answer to them is because they already have everything! Giving someone everything they want is the best way to kill their motivation. What reason is there for them to fight to become the best when they are already given the best from their parents without having to earn it? It reminds me of the cartoon movie MADAGASCAR where Alex the Lion and his animal friends were born and raised in the Central Park Zoo. They were well taken care of and provided with processed food and an artificial jungle. When they escaped to Africa, they found that they could barely survive in the wild with the other animals because they had lots their instincts to fight and hunt for food. They could only dance and sing.
I see the same thing in the hundreds of youth activity, seminars, training programmes and youth programs I conduct. I see increasing more and more expats attending my Wealth Academy and Patterns of Excellence programme in Singapore. Not surprisingly, they are always the first to grab the microphone to answer and ask questions. While many of the locals come in late and sit at the back. The expats (especially those from India and China) always sit at the front, take notes ferociously and stay back way after the programme is over to ask questions. I feel ashamed sometimes when I ask for volunteers to ask questions, and the Singaporeans keep quiet, while the foreigners fight for the opportunity. For my “I Am Gifted, So Are You!’ programme for students, I have the privileged to travel and conduct it in seven countries (Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia etc…) and see all students from all over. Is there a big difference in their attitude and behaviour? You bet!
Again, I feel really sad that in Singapore, most students who come are usually forced by their parents to come and improve themselves, Some parents even bribe them with computer games and new handphones to attend. During the course, some adopt the ‘I know everything’ attitude and lack the interest to succeed until I kick their butts. It is so different when I go to Malaysia, Indonesia and once in India. The kids there ask their parents to send them to my programme. They clap and cheer enthusiastically when the teachers enter the room and participate so willingly when lessons are on. I still scratch my head and wonder what happened to my fellow Singaporeans to this day.
So mark my words, unless the new generation of Singaporeans wake up and get out of their happy over protected bubble and start fighting for their future, the expats (like our great grandfathers) will soon be the rulers of the country. At the rate at which talented and hungry expats are climbing up , our future prime minister may be an Indian or China PR or may even an Ang Moh! -
limlim:
I doubt it is because like someone mentioned, even South Korea, faced with the perpetual threat of North Korea, spends a lower portion of their GDP on defence. I think that we should look at other small nations to see how they maintain sovereignty without having to invest billions in defence.
But how do you know that it is not already the minimum?Mdm Koh:
So I wonder why we are still spending so much...
I guess none of us here is expert in military to judge on that.
I am very pro-NS, but I have my reservations about how the money is being spent. Hopefully the ministries can be more accountable to the public. Spending that does not help our defense goals should be cut.
I am surprised that so many of us still have virtually blind faith in our defence after Mas Selamat escaped from a toilet window and could not be found for months. We have always spent a lot of defence but a crippled guy managed to get away. So don't fault me for being skeptical about the latest increase in military spending.
And anyone who doubts that a country that does not have billions of dollars at its disposal cannot win a war should read about the Vietnam War.
In short, warfare and national security is not always about spending loads of money. If it were, there would be no 9/11. -
Mdm Koh:
I doubt it is because like someone mentioned, even South Korea, faced with the perpetual threat of North Korea, spends a lower portion of their GDP on defence. I think that we should look at other small nations to see how they maintain sovereignty without having to invest billions in defence.
But how do you know that it is not already the minimum?limlim:
[quote=\"Mdm Koh\"]
So I wonder why we are still spending so much...
I guess none of us here is expert in military to judge on that.
I am very pro-NS, but I have my reservations about how the money is being spent. Hopefully the ministries can be more accountable to the public. Spending that does not help our defense goals should be cut.
I am surprised that so many of us still have virtually blind faith in our defence after Mas Selamat escaped from a toilet window and could not be found for months. We have always spent a lot of defence but a crippled guy managed to get away. So don't fault me for being skeptical about the latest increase in military spending.
And anyone who doubts that a country that does not have billions of dollars at its disposal cannot win a war should read about the Vietnam War.
In short, warfare and national security is not always about spending loads of money. If it were, there would be no 9/11.[/quote]I do not think looking at % in relation to GDP is accurate. For example Brunei our close neighbour spends more than 6% of its GDP on defence, a higher % than Singapore and Brunei is smaller in size. But does that mean Brunei has a larger military or more weapons etc. than Singapore or needs more protection than S. Korea?
So ask yourself the question, why would a fellow ASEAN member smaller than Singapore spend a higher % of its GDP on defence :?
I am surprised you are mentioning Mas Selamat in the same breath as defence. Mas Selamat escaped because the prison officers were careless and the security lax. The GURKHA guards were disciplined. Completely irrelevant to our defence. You cannot seriously be making a case based on a terrorist escaping from prison :yikes:
Defence today does not just involve large scale war as in Vietnam but also anti-terrorism operations, cyber-warfare operations, peace-keeping operations, mobilization and training of soldiers for protection of key installations in Singapore, all of which were never part of the original idea of a standing military force. The military of today has to deal with multiple threats, multiple scenarios, unseen enemies (terrorists, cyber warfare).
9/11 is a perfect example of lack of co-operation between U.S. agencies because their laws prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information. There was also inter-agency rivalries over budgets. FBI was to deal with internal threats and the CIA with external threats, the U.S. military was never involved and so their defence budget is irrelevant to the 9/11 issue. The U.S. has other agencies to deal with terrorism and cyber warfare because they have large resources. For Singapore the military is expected to deal with all threats to national security with the police and other agencies playing a support role. The Total Defence doctrine identifies various aspects but the military carries the heaviest burden. -
Mdm Koh:
Different department leh..
I am surprised that so many of us still have virtually blind faith in our defence after Mas Selamat escaped from a toilet window and could not be found for months. We have always spent a lot of defence but a crippled guy managed to get away. So don't fault me for being skeptical about the latest increase in military spending.
MS is under MHA ya?
Actually, I have doubts on how he go away..
But not for discussion.. -
Mdm Koh:
I doubt it is because like someone mentioned, even South Korea, faced with the perpetual threat of North Korea, spends a lower portion of their GDP on defence. I think that we should look at other small nations to see how they maintain sovereignty without having to invest billions in defence.
But how do you know that it is not already the minimum?limlim:
[quote=\"Mdm Koh\"]
So I wonder why we are still spending so much...
I guess none of us here is expert in military to judge on that.
I am very pro-NS, but I have my reservations about how the money is being spent. Hopefully the ministries can be more accountable to the public. Spending that does not help our defense goals should be cut.
I am surprised that so many of us still have virtually blind faith in our defence after Mas Selamat escaped from a toilet window and could not be found for months. We have always spent a lot of defence but a crippled guy managed to get away. So don't fault me for being skeptical about the latest increase in military spending.
And anyone who doubts that a country that does not have billions of dollars at its disposal cannot win a war should read about the Vietnam War.
In short, warfare and national security is not always about spending loads of money. If it were, there would be no 9/11.[/quote]Mdm Koh, let me try in my broken English.
First, it depends on the GDP size of the country. lesser in percentage of GDP does not mean lesser in dollar term.
Then, like Limlim said, the size of the military/army, the smaller the pool the higher needs of advance technologies. When in needs, the sheer size of the male citizens of South Korea and China that can be mobilized is nothing SG can compare. Our surrounding nations all are with much bigger population than us, while we are waiting for our ah boys to grow into men,
Maybe now we know the alliance of SG with Brunei.
Then, the \"threat\", the spending of defense much rely on how much our \"threats\" are spending, it's relative; like what Hilary Clinton mentioned 2weeks before her retirement.
As for the accountability issue, national defense is top classified, it can never be done like an open book for audit, much of the part of the spending that civilian like us to know it's already quite open, 3Boys and a few others had posted the links here. -
Harlequin:
Mdm Koh, let me try in my broken English.
I doubt it is because like someone mentioned, even South Korea, faced with the perpetual threat of North Korea, spends a lower portion of their GDP on defence. I think that we should look at other small nations to see how they maintain sovereignty without having to invest billions in defence.Mdm Koh:
[quote=\"limlim\"]
But how do you know that it is not already the minimum?
I guess none of us here is expert in military to judge on that.
I am very pro-NS, but I have my reservations about how the money is being spent. Hopefully the ministries can be more accountable to the public. Spending that does not help our defense goals should be cut.
I am surprised that so many of us still have virtually blind faith in our defence after Mas Selamat escaped from a toilet window and could not be found for months. We have always spent a lot of defence but a crippled guy managed to get away. So don't fault me for being skeptical about the latest increase in military spending.
And anyone who doubts that a country that does not have billions of dollars at its disposal cannot win a war should read about the Vietnam War.
In short, warfare and national security is not always about spending loads of money. If it were, there would be no 9/11.
First, it depends on the GDP size of the country. lesser in percentage of GDP does not mean lesser in dollar term.
Then, like Limlim said, the size of the military/army, the smaller the pool the higher needs of advance technologies. When in needs, the sheer size of the male citizens of South Korea and China that can be mobilized is nothing SG can compare. Our surrounding nations all are with much bigger population than us, while we are waiting for our ah boys to grow into men,
Maybe now we know the alliance of SG with Brunei.
Then, the \"threat\", the spending of defense much rely on how much our \"threats\" are spending, it's relative; like what Hilary Clinton mentioned 2weeks before her retirement.
As for the accountability issue, national defense is top classified, it can never be done like an open book for audit, much of the part of the spending that civilian like us to know it's already quite open, 3Boys and a few others had posted the links here.[/quote]Let me provide some data/number to give you some perspectives:
2012 SIPRI military expenditure database
China \t$129,272,000,000 (Spending)\t2.1% (% of GDP)
Taiwan \t$8,888,000,000(spending) \t2.1% (% of GDP)
Now look at Singapore and neighbors' 2012 defence spending
Singapore \t$8,302,000,000 (spending) 3.7%(% of GDP)
Indonesia \t$5,220,000,000 (spending) 0.7% (% of GDP)\t
Philippines $1,486,000,000 (spending) 0.8% (% of GDP)\t
Malaysia \t$3,259,000,000 (spending) 2.0% (% of GDP)\t
By looking at these figures, I know we are not spending the minimum.\t
Now you tell me, is it necessary to spend so much when all our neighbors are spending so much lesser?
Please don't forget that our neighbors have much much much bigger coaster areas to defense versus a tiny red dot! -
Just relax:
I do not think looking at % in relation to GDP is accurate. For example Brunei our close neighbour spends more than 6% of its GDP on defence, a higher % than Singapore and Brunei is smaller in size. But does that mean Brunei has a larger military or more weapons etc. than Singapore or needs more protection than S. Korea?
I doubt it is because like someone mentioned, even South Korea, faced with the perpetual threat of North Korea, spends a lower portion of their GDP on defence. I think that we should look at other small nations to see how they maintain sovereignty without having to invest billions in defence.Mdm Koh:
[quote=\"limlim\"]
But how do you know that it is not already the minimum?
I guess none of us here is expert in military to judge on that.
I am very pro-NS, but I have my reservations about how the money is being spent. Hopefully the ministries can be more accountable to the public. Spending that does not help our defense goals should be cut.
I am surprised that so many of us still have virtually blind faith in our defence after Mas Selamat escaped from a toilet window and could not be found for months. We have always spent a lot of defence but a crippled guy managed to get away. So don't fault me for being skeptical about the latest increase in military spending.
And anyone who doubts that a country that does not have billions of dollars at its disposal cannot win a war should read about the Vietnam War.
In short, warfare and national security is not always about spending loads of money. If it were, there would be no 9/11.
So ask yourself the question, why would a fellow ASEAN member smaller than Singapore spend a higher % of its GDP on defence :?
I am surprised you are mentioning Mas Selamat in the same breath as defence. Mas Selamat escaped because the prison officers were careless and the security lax. The GURKHA guards were disciplined. Completely irrelevant to our defence. You cannot seriously be making a case based on a terrorist escaping from prison :yikes:
Defence today does not just involve large scale war as in Vietnam but also anti-terrorism operations, cyber-warfare operations, peace-keeping operations, mobilization and training of soldiers for protection of key installations in Singapore, all of which were never part of the original idea of a standing military force. The military of today has to deal with multiple threats, multiple scenarios, unseen enemies (terrorists, cyber warfare).
9/11 is a perfect example of lack of co-operation between U.S. agencies because their laws prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information. There was also inter-agency rivalries over budgets. FBI was to deal with internal threats and the CIA with external threats, the U.S. military was never involved and so their defence budget is irrelevant to the 9/11 issue. The U.S. has other agencies to deal with terrorism and cyber warfare because they have large resources. For Singapore the military is expected to deal with all threats to national security with the police and other agencies playing a support role. The Total Defence doctrine identifies various aspects but the military carries the heaviest burden.[/quote]Your Brunei figure is wrong. 3.1% is the % of Brunei GDP is lesser than Singapore
-
In 2010 Brunei with a population of 405,000 had 3.2% of GDP, Singapore with a population 10x Brunei had 3.7% in 2010. That is why % of GDP is inaccurate. A small country like Brunei living in the same part of the world spends proportionately more than Singapore. There must be a reason. Deterrence.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login