BF, I'm not trying to defend sunnyamy, but her references to malaysian bloggers is relevant.
To be completely honest, studying the perspective behind common citizens can/will help understand its leadership's ideology and culture. Because by and large, its people are influenced by their leadership.
This is in fact one of the methods of research, particularly in studying demographics, strategic intelligence, etc.
Let me read the rest and reply slowly...its a lot to digest.
gf0012-aust, i agree with your observation. However, China and Russia remains a very potent force, though with dubious technology, the sheer number and secrecy of their development can bring many surprises.
In any case, although sub operations is a science, it is also an art. Its in another 'realm' altogether if I can put it that way. The winner is never clear.
Last edited by melvinchen; 25 Dec 08, at 11:15.
I agree with BF on one point. That is overreacting on Singapore's side can cause unnecessary tension and escalate an otherwise less critical situation.
However, you have to understand that Singapore has to err on the safe side. They simply couldn't risk being caught off guard, even for once.
Then again, I wouldn't call it overreacting really. Nowadays mobilisations are usually done silently without any media coverage, just in case the other side mis-read it as provocation. Rather, it is really for operational preparedness, not to be caught unprepared.
I do not think that the F-15SG and Leo2s are to fulfil the fantasies of army generals. The fact of the matter is, every equipment procurement had been specifically designed to counter or fulfil an operational requirement. Many branches, departments, strategic, tactical and the actual users have been consulted. Its not the idea of a few individuals, it has been carefully studied.
My guess is that the idea behind the MBTs is to engage both MBTs and other armoured vehicles, such as the growing mechanised force of potential threats. With the MBT, we do not need to use the M113 or Bionix to engage APCs at the same level. We can use a weapon "one level up" to increase the probability of kill and dominate the battlefield.
You can think of it as assymetrical warfare, but in reverse. Not what you would think as using lower level platforms to engage a higher level with geurilla tactics, but use something at a higher level to totally dominate anything below it.
Basically, if they identify a threat, they want to really overkill and make sure they have multiple solutions to deal with it and dominate. So even if one platform is not as ideal as imagined in actual combat, there're many other possibilities. That explains Apaches, and everything. The planners are not naive to think they have one perfect solution.
As described by the SAF, it needs a decisive victory.
Last edited by melvinchen; 25 Dec 08, at 11:31.
Singapore's uses diplomatic efforts first and the use of armed force is always the last choice. Hence, we have not had war between the two countries.Originally Posted by Bigfella
Please note: Who is doing the threatening? Could it be Malaysia?
Yes, BF, self-sufficiency in water supplies is a national goal since 1965. Once it is achieved, a threat of water cut-off will no longer be a cause for war.
Singapore is not self sufficient in water today and will not be till 2011. Therefore, a deliberate cut of in water supply (before 2011) would still be a cause of war.
One of the four initiatives for water self-sufficiency is the production of NewWater. When you come to Singapore, the water from our taps is recycled from our drains and water catchment areas and treated to drinkable standards (which is branded NewWater). There is a cost to this. It's energy. We need to import more energy to convert sea water, via desalination (which is a second initiative for water self-sufficiency) and to convert drain water into drinkable water.
Perhaps it may be useful to question why your own country has not done this? Have you asked yourself why? Has it got something to do with cost?
Water is literally a precious resource for Singapore.
Is Singapore or Malaysia located in the desert? Then why is water an issue?
It's an issue because Malaysia makes it one. The article I have provided you with also tells you that Malaysia wants to greatly increase the cost of raw water they supply to Singapore, such that, even the production of NewWater would be cheaper. Further, they want to make the price increase retrospective (so as to enable the Malaysian government to obtain a multi-million dollar windfall gain from the water supply agreement).
Disingenuously, Malaysia denies that the water agreements bring NO benefits to them, when it is not true. Under the terms of the water agreements, Singapore is required to treat and supply treated water at subsidized prices to Johor.
The second water agreement expires in 2061. Why would Singapore want to pay more to treat drain and sea water, if we could be assured of supply from Johor?
If we achieve self sufficiency in water, we do not have to supply water to Johor at subsidized prices. Which would be great for the Singapore and Malaysian governments but bad for the Malaysian citizens living in Johor.
You are engaging in the same process of selectively picking the data presented to support your arguments, that you are accusing me of. It is pointless trying to engage in this discussion with you.
Hence, I can only say that you are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
Last edited by sunnyamy; 25 Dec 08, at 12:10.
I think the malaysian side wants to portray Singapore as an ungrateful little brother.
They had benefitted from the water agreement, selling us water which they got for free anyway (the water happened to be there, they didn't create it), while they get to buy subsidised processed water, all cleaned up for them.
Yet, they say we're ungrateful, taking advantage of them and paying them too little for this precious commodity. Then they demanded a price increase, contrary to the agreement. While Singapore "gave them face" and offered to sit down and review it as a package with other issues, they didn't want to.
Then they came up with more ridiculous things, like trying to create legislation that would void all previous agreements that leaders of past generations had agreed. Who would trust signing anything with them again?
I think the water issue, to Singapore is a matter of sovereignity. As pointed out by Singapore ministers before, the water agreement is part of the Singapore independence package. To void the water agreement or make unilateral ammendments is to disregard Singapore's sovereignity and treat Singapore as subjected to them.
Therefore, it could still potentially be a cause for war, even if we may not need the water for survival, after we find alternative solutions.
Last edited by melvinchen; 25 Dec 08, at 11:41.
Likewisesunnyamy
BF, before I reply, I would like to wish you a Merry X'mas too.
That is actually 2 questions, and the answer to the first is yes. You have repeatedly paraphreased things that I have said in posts directed to third parties. This has not just been in one or two posts, it is a pattern and it is extremely unfair to me. If you wish to paraphrase my arguments then address the post to me. if you wish to represent my arguments to a third party then quote them in full context.The question is: Am I misrepresenting what you have said? Or are you misrepresenting what MT and I have said?
If you misunderstand my posts then so be it. I am happy to deal with that if it happens. I am not happy to have you repeatedly pass off your interpretation of my opinion as fact to another person. It allows you to set me up as a straw man & then knock me down again.I often hear that accusation from your posts. I pretty sure that some of the differences (which you call misrepresentations) are differences in opinion or differences in interpretation. So then, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we have different opinions? Please reflect on that.
So I am not only required to be correct, but to be correct in an approved manner? This sounds a bit like a double standard. MT has a lifetime of practice at framing criticism of Singapore in a way that might sound acceptable, I don't. If you plan to hold me to that standard then we are both wasting our time.I believe MT was speaking in defence of your argument. The manner he framed the argument would not be objectionable to the parties who have posted in this thread. Hence, no criticism.
Amy, if you can honestly tell me that this is not a personal attack then I have serious questions about your perceptive skills:I have kept the discussion at the level where I attack the argument and not the person (if I have offended you with what is seen as a personal attack, please accept my apologies). Please don't take the disagreements as personal in nature. We are engaging in an intellectual debate.
I have not set out to attack you personally and if you have interpreted what I have written in such a way than that is unfortunate.BF:
"The world is my oyster - I am confident and I can speak my mind because I am from the lucky country and I am studying for my Phd. Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. Let me teach you poor ignorant masses of the world - that you should listen to me."
I am not the one making this personal. I am not the one getting all upset. If you read the two threads on Singapore you will find me the subject of a good deal more personal invective than I am using.
What I find interesting is that I have taken less offence at people attacking my person than most of the Singaporeans here have taken at my disagreeing with PAP policy. If you feel the need to counsel people about their attitude I suggest you start with the people who are agreeing with you.
Amy, I am direct. It saves time. I don't dress up personal attacks in pretty language and I have no interest in trying to convince others that I am 'reasonable' by doing so. As it happens I am personally polite & considerate. That doesn't mean that I need to express myself that way on all occasions.Have you ever wondered how your tone comes across to a reader?
I am not here to 'win' arguments or convince people that I am right. I present my opinion as I see it & defend it if I choose to. What people think is up to them. Obviously I would prefer people to understand me properly. it is even nice to be agreed with, but what strangers think of me doesn't matter that much. The people who have taken the time to get to know me are the ones whose opinion is important.
LikewiseAt this stage, I'll just say you are entitled to your opinion. I'm sure the other forum members will make up their own minds.
I'm just posting food for thought (whether you agree or not, is another matter). I hope you have an enjoyable holiday and may peace be with you.
Kind regards
Amy
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Melvin,
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it applies in this context. Bloggers, especially on defence issues, represent a tiny percentage of a given population & tend to be heavily skewed toward the '16-24 male' demographic. Prime fanboi territory.
Having once been in this demographic & having had most of my friends there at some point I would suggest that it is an extremely poor basis for an examination of the opinions of the broder society. it will tend to emphasis more excitable & aggressive tendencies over more thoughtful ones.
I really don't think that pasting in these opinions tells us much about anything but the opinion of a few malaysian bloggers.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Agreed
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
There is a difference between brainwashed and the lack of critical thinking. To me, brainwashed means that the citizens are totally taken in by the propaganda and only parrot the party line; the lack of critical thinking means that they are unable to see things beyond the surface.
As mentioned before, the citizens are not entirely supportive of the government, especially when they see things "on the ground" to be different from the official line. If Singaporeans are brainwashed, then why do people vote for the opposition, especially when the economy is doing bad?
In contrast, I can see quite a bit of blame laying without much thinking. A proportion of the people will in fact blame the government even though the blame doesn't necessarily lie there.
There are a lot of government policies that the locals are not happy about. Terms like "foreign talent", "scholars", "white horse" is enough to elicit a wide range of responses, positive to negative, depending on who you talk to.
This isn't North Korea where the reflex action (at least out loud) of the people is to blame the Americans when something goes wrong instead of questioning how they got into their current circumstances in the first place.
I am not trying to frame the argument in anyway. I am merely pointing out the difference.
Correct, but that is the logical thinking with economic analysis. However, decisions to go to war are not always based on such rational thinking. Compound this with the geopolitical situation of a small country with a population majority that is ethnically different from that of its surrounding larger neighbours.BINGO. Singapore has nothing worth invading for because its great resource is its people. Attacking Singapore would essentially be an act of punishment, and its potential military, economic & political consequences (note all 3) for the aggressor make it utterly pointless.
Finally, those consequences to the attacker only matter if there are other powers who are willing to stand on our side. We don't have time-tested and battle-tested allies to date.
The only reason I can think of for the Leopards is the purchase of T72 derivatives by the northern neighbour. If there is any other rationale behind it, I have no idea. How the army leadership intends them to be integrated into the existing force is also unknown to me. At least, the purchase is only 1 battalion worth of vehicles. It would seriously raise questions with everyone if they buy enough to reequip the entire armoured forces.Thus my point about unnecessary capacity. Army Generals love to fantisize about massive armoured strikes into enemy territory, but does Singapore really need this capability? Are there armoured vehicles that might better suit Singapore's requirements? MBTs designed to face the Warsaw Pact seem a little out of place facing north across the causeway (as do their equivalent facing sth).
By the way, majority of the Singapore Army is infantry with (some) trucks for transport, making up 2/3 of combat personnel.
BF, i find it strange that you have chosen to ignore the rise of new media and its subsequent effects on politics, locally and on an international level. If you have indeed read the papers of the two countries as you said you have, you would be aware then that the UMNO government is trying to use blogging as one of their PR tools to reach out to the public.
Of interest would also be the fact that Jeff Ooi, a famous Malaysian blogger, decided to participate in politics after much persuasion from the blogging community. DrM also has a personal blog which he kept after he left office upon which he uses to attack the current administration.
With the rise of new media, it is no longer apt to say that the opinions of bloggers or Malaysian bloggers for that matter, do not matter because it does. My personal view on such is that people crave sensationalism and sensationalism is the hook to catch an audience.
In the case of "Defending the Lion City", this story published by the Malay Mail, was used by Jeff Ooi to generate interest and gain recognition for himself. I provide a link to this specific instance and evidently, a former Malay Mail editor noted that even the warmongering Malay politicians were not happy with this form of sensationalism as it exposed the weaknesses of the Malaysian Armed Forces.
Halim,
I'm not denying that 'new media' have their place, especially in societies where legacy media are compromised by existing political forces. My point is simply that by focussing on them one focusses on a highly unrepresentitive element of the society & political culture.
As you have pointed out, there is a tendency toward sensationalism & extremism. I would argue that the anonimity of the net permits people to be less reasonable than they would be under other circumstances. This does not mean that the net exposes their 'true' opinion, but simply a less polite persona.
I would also suggest that the interest of governments in the net has to do with 2 tendencies of government and/or political parties. The first is the desire to reach as broad an audience as possible - especially some younger people who may not be as easily reached by traditional methods. The second is the desire to control the message, no matter where it is. The fact that they are interested does not mean that the individual opinions of particular bloggers on a given forum necessarily reflect broader opinion. As I said before, I think that focussing on these opinions runs the risk of exaggerating their broader significance
New media cannot be ignored, but neither should the importance of the opinions of bloggers be overstated.
I should also point out that in the context of this board I'm not sure how helpful it is to reproduce the online opinions of people who cannot answer for themselves.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
MT,
My comments indicate my frustration. Reading the response to my posts you might be led to believe that I had dismissed Singaporeans as a bunch of brainwashed automatons. In fact, the only people to have used the term 'brainwashed' are Singaporeans. This has continued despite the fact that I have made clear that this is not my opinion. I will leave it to you & others to ponder as to why this might be so.
My point about Singapore is that several generations of PAP rule & PAP micromanagement of so many aspects of life has made it much easier for the PAP to place conceptual limits on how Singaporeans imagine their society. Opinions on specific policies really don't matter all that much in a system where there is no meaningful way to challenge the position of the governing party. The ruling party may choose to respond, and is wise to do so, but there is no meanigful consequence for failing to respond.
When I see all the familiar arguments about 'Asian Values', 'stupid' opposition politicians, 'different freedoms' and so forth then I don't really think the opinion of individual PAP policies matters - these arguments implicitly accept a political system in which only one party can ever govern. I see this as profoundly unhealthy for Singapore's long term future
I agree that decisions to go to war are not always rational, but there is generally a sense that something will be gained, and usually that something is more than will be lost. There is literally nothning to be gained from attacking Singapore except hurting Singapore. Even the craziest of dictators rarely launch wars on such a thin basis.Correct, but that is the logical thinking with economic analysis. However, decisions to go to war are not always based on such rational thinking. Compound this with the geopolitical situation of a small country with a population majority that is ethnically different from that of its surrounding larger neighbours.
As I pointed out in a speculative post eariler in this thread (which Amy has been passing off as some sort of definitive opinion) I can't see Malaysia taking the massive step from adolescent politics to warfare under the current political system. Too much to lose.
I don't get your point here. Singapore can cause quite a bit of economic & even material damage to Malaysia all by itself. That matters. Other powers will push for peace no matter their affection for either nation - on one wants a war in such a sensitive spot.Finally, those consequences to the attacker only matter if there are other powers who are willing to stand on our side. We don't have time-tested and battle-tested allies to date.
I'm also not sure quite what your point about Allies is about. Singapore has never fought a war as an independent nation, so I'm not sure how you could have 'battle tested' allies or what having them would mean. Australia has a closer relationship with Singapore than Malaysia, yet we have had much closer military relations with Malaysia.
Thanks. Interesting.The only reason I can think of for the Leopards is the purchase of T72 derivatives by the northern neighbour. If there is any other rationale behind it, I have no idea. How the army leadership intends them to be integrated into the existing force is also unknown to me. At least, the purchase is only 1 battalion worth of vehicles. It would seriously raise questions with everyone if they buy enough to reequip the entire armoured forces.
By the way, majority of the Singapore Army is infantry with (some) trucks for transport, making up 2/3 of combat personnel.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Early in this thread, there was some discussion on an aggressor's ability to bomb Singapore's runways, so as to negate Singapore's air superiority viz. a viz. an an aggressor. I'm posting the video here regardless of its merit to the discussion because it's a nice video and a good change from our otherwise serious tone.
Please find below a excellent HD YouTube video of the exercise posted by "pirate" from another forum and of course a special thanks to David Boey for making it possible for the Milnuts in Singapore to attend. :P
The editing of this video is really a labour of love by "pirate", who has put music to it (and I just love looking at planes). Many, Many thanks.
The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) conducted an Alternate Runway Exercise on 30 November 2008. The sixth in the series since 1986, the Alternate Runway Exercise hones the RSAF’s readiness and ability to deliver uninterrupted air power at all times.
For this exercise, Lim Chu Kang Road was converted into an alternate runway for the launch and recovery of more than 10 RSAF aircraft, consisting of F-5S/T Tigers, F-16C/D Fighting Falcons, F-16D Block 52+ Fighting Falcons and E-2C airborne early warning aircraft. The aircraft will be executing a series of take-offs and landings along a stretch of Lim Chu Kang Road, measuring 2500m long and 24m wide.
Last edited by sunnyamy; 27 Dec 08, at 01:53.
Sunnyamy, nice video, thanks for posting it. Those touch-and-gos by the F-16s and F-5 Tigers (I think, I can't tell them apart) are impressive. Anyway threat perception seems to be a "hot-button" issue; I will only add that "threat perception" isn't really up to us on this board, it is up to the policymakers to determine-rightly or wrongly.
My own country (USA) as you know went to war with Iraq, a country I did not (and still don't) perceive as threatening to the US, though I have been told this is a wrong assumption on my part by many, many people (including major policymakers like POTUS, etc.). So my point being that policymakers have their agenda, even in the most democratic countries that may not align always with the common man's interests.
Now on to one more issue that sunnyamy brought up: the Changi Naval Base, http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../singapore.htm Singapore I would argue is an important asset for the US, not necessarily an ally. I say that because I am not sure that the US (policymakers) really care who controls Singapore as long as it: a.) does not fall into overtly hostile hands, b.) Does not disrupt shipping lanes c.) provides a harbor/logistics for US Naval Fleet(s) in the region.
That is to say don't expect a "Liberate Singapore" fanfare similar to the Iraq/Kuwait situation from the US if Malaysia invades. Which may be the reason for the China/Singapore "defense pact"-notice how it caused barely a ripple in the US.
I think though in the short-term Singapore will be fine. Its air superiority is enough to dissuade any aggression by Malaysia. And it is in the interests of the regional powers (India, China) to have some stability there.
Long-term though, there is no guarantee of anything, there are no permanent allies only permanent interests as Palmerston once said, and there could well be a shift in the balance of power in the Straits of Malacca region.
On a side note sunnyamy you impress me with the breadth and depth of your knowledge of these issues, MT and melvin as well, though they have served in the Armed Forces. You don't work for the MOD do you?)
If you didn't notice, Amy, there's no place for the fuel trucks and tool sheds, let alone spare parts and bomb storage. In actual combat conditions, the planes can land but they ain't going take off again.
Compare that to actual Swiss and Swedish prep work where they do have mountain side depots and maintenance shacks.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: