Singapore must help malaysia if indonesia attacks

last SG · 2007-06-15T00:19:57+00:00

aussie? with their 50,000 strong standing army... by the time the aussie can muster sufficient military manpower for war against indonesia... i think the wa...

Idle_King SG

D'OH!!! Embarassed

zacklee SG

haha love the pic buddy. But elaborating further. 3 to 1 ratio doctrine is just merely a guideline for 'common sense'. In real terms if LETS SAY mere example China decides to go on a border expansion, what do you do? Instantly drop your arms and give up if China am the aggressor and moreover Japan defies the doctrine as well by a near success in invading China. Tho I must say this is a bad example. You got the gist.

In reality this doctrine hold much less weights (not no weight) then when it was actually written.

Its a good guideline but my own take in it (everyone is entitled to their own opinion) that this doctrine mainly applies to isolated engagement probably at best up to company level engagement in today's time. Rarely do you see anymore WWII like armies where you have hundreds of divisions. I mean really, if you have an army of millions like the soviets have - sending your army as marching minesweepers is another's day story - sorry keep bringing this up - just utterly shocking to know it actually happened[/b][/quote]

Separate issue, if we look closely at MAF deployments, it make good sense that a high concentration of force lies in the center of W Malaysia, nearer to Northern Thai border. This would provide speedy deployment to its Northern border (choke point anyway) in any scenario of Thais aggression. Singapore would be another story. The war would definitely no second doubt be on Malaysia soil. MAF would probably have no choice but to sacrifice Johor and part of Pahang while hold a defensive parameter along Pahang and Negeri sembilan. Not going to go there.

Back to the topic in case of TNI aggression and our geographical layout, it provides us with good and rapid deployment ability to secure both seafronts with little problem in logistical shifting of troops between the two land fronts.

Moreover looking into recent Malaysias purchases, along its vision statement (cant remember where I read it, something like 1992-1994 consolidate army then bla bla bla to 2020) there seems to be a thrust for better airlift and support elements. Cut this short, YES MAF is looking to boost security for E Malaysia.

Even many people have thier oppinion for the recent Aug to Carbine as a standard issue rifle, Yes i share all the same sentiments with most of you out there, for it be bad decision or the license issue.. but the only logical thing i can think of putting myself into their head (INITIAL INTENTIONS) is its use for jungle warfare. Shorter barrel to improve short range capabilities.............. cough...but how well the rifle will survive in MAF regular's hand is another story altogether not yet factoring in the environmental factors.

What I am going on and on is it unlikely E Malaysia is forgoten altogether.

chino65 SG

All your immediate neighbours have huge armed forces compared to MAF. OF course, I'm not complaining as this makes us sleep so much better at night. If ever we need a clear signal of whether MAF has any aggressive intent - its continued small size is the best reassurance.

Even when we leave potential opposing force out of the picture, for the land mass that make up Malaysia, MAF size is adequate only because Malaysia had been blessed with a (relatively) small and peaceful population. Unlike INDO.

Simply put, you guys do not have enough men or equipment to defend both E & W Malaysia. If push comes to shove, I do agree with your assessment that KL will give up E MY.

I maintain that it would be in SG's interest to help MY should its existence (W Malaysia) ever be threatened. "Better the devil you know" kind of thing...

I'm sure the INDO must have spent many nights wondering why Sabah/Sarawak isn't flying the red/white flag like the rest of Kalimantan.

Again, have to state that Malaysia had been very lucky to be given this territory for nothing. You guys get to administer a large tract of land that really hasn't got much to do with the real Malaysia. I read in reports that the KL government doesn't spend much money developing the place or caring for the people.

Nearly every Malaysian I have met in overseas countries are from W MY. They are the ones whom are well-educated, well-off and savvy. I've never met anyone from E MY overseas. They remain backwards and neglected thanks to KL.

And in return KL rake in money exploiting its rich natural resources. (Nothing to lose you say?)

As I understand, there is a huge chinese population and also lots of indigenous Ibans or Dayaks. And also a big ratio of the population are non-Muslims.

The people of E MY have made noise in the past about KL government but generally they are quite docile and understand that the alternative - being ruled by INDO - is even less desirable.

PS
In case you say I shouldn't talk about things I completely don't know - I have been to Sabah/Sarawak. But just a short trip and most of the time I spent trekking through jungle and riding boats along the huge rivers.

ferryman2393 SG

And in return KL rake in money exploiting its rich natural resources. (Nothing to lose you say?)

As I understand, there is a huge chinese population and also lots of indigenous Ibans or Dayaks. And also a big ratio of the population are non-Muslims.

The people of E MY have made noise in the past about KL government but generally they are quite docile and understand that the alternative - being ruled by INDO - is even less desirable.

PS
In case you say I shouldn't talk about things I completely don't know - I have been to Sabah/Sarawak. But just a short trip and most of the time I spent trekking through jungle and riding boats along the huge rivers.

don't u know that all natural resources in malaysia is govern by law by the respective state governments? the only natural resources available to the federal government are off shores EEZ. even then a percentage goes to the respective state governments deemed closer.

and do u know that West Malaysians entering East Malaysia need to furnish their international passports until a couple of years back? whilst the same thing does not apply to East Malaysians entering West Malaysia.

do u know West Malaysians cannot work in East Malaysia without prior consent of Sabah/Sarawak state governments? whilst the same thing does not apply to East Malaysians seeking work in West Malaysia. even those in federal government posts.

do u know that the only thing the federal government has a say in Sabah/Sarawak affairs are security and international relations? the rest are determined by Sabah/Sarawak themselves.

ever noticed there's no UMNO in Sabah/Sarawak?

no sir, u need more than a couple of trips to Sabah/Sarawak to learn this.

Idle_King SG

It would be prudent to boost security for E MY...
but on the Airlift part, the RMAF wants the EADS A-400 right? with a fiasco going on over at EADS ever since their Airbus A340-500 project, when can you expect it to turn up? might as well get more C130 instead...
And also, in order to "boost" security, wouldnt MAF need more troops not just hardware? is there any push to get more men?

Even many people have thier oppinion for the recent Aug to Carbine as a standard issue rifle, Yes i share all the same sentiments with most of you out there, for it be bad decision or the license issue.. but the only logical thing i can think of putting myself into their head (INITIAL INTENTIONS) is its use for jungle warfare. Shorter barrel to improve short range capabilities.............. cough...but how well the rifle will survive in MAF regular's hand is another story altogether not yet factoring in the environmental factors.

What I am going on and on is it unlikely E Malaysia is forgoten altogether.

truth be told, i prefer the M-16 and her variants over bull-pups Surprised

chino65 SG

I was stating that KL profits from Sabah and Sarawak. And losing East Malaysia is losing a big slice of income.

As this statement from this website shows:
http://malaysia-today.net/reports/2006_04_04_MT_reports_archive.htm

"Let us look at what they have planned for East Malaysia, the two states that contribute to 50% of Petronas RM59 billion petroleum revenue every year, and the two states that have been allocated the smallest share of the budget though the hardcore poverty in those states are the highest."

The personal views of the author aside, it said clearly that East Malaysia pays money to the KL government.

So are you stating that KL DOES NOT PROFIT FROM EAST MALAYSIA AT ALL?

No, sir, next time read carefully and check your facts before you shoot your mouth off.

zacklee SG

Well, Chino, I totally disagree with your accessment. I wrote up quite a long reply but an error erased everything, so ill make this short. Hope it convey everything else ill do so as your replies.

In terms of E Malaysia to W Malaysia, yes it had contributed alot and no doubt they have the smallest size for good reasons. There is no logic to develop E Malaysia!

W Malaysia and even taking into singapore in as illustration, the only way i can see how you justify money allocation or richness is by economical and financial richness in which with the same money spend on W Malaysia compared to E Malaysia for example road repairs makes no logic sense. NOT saying we shouldnt invest alright but in an adequate manner. You give the 2 state lets say 40% of the fiscal budget because they contribute 70% to the total renevue last year, do it make any economical sense?

but yes, there is certain unfairness to this whole sentiments but factoring in the complexity of cultures and aboriginals along with its vast forested lands, and head counts. It make no valid sense to build up just for the sake cause they contributed much. It simply economy sense - for the majority benefit.

I drawing a bias remark saying this but Singapore is small, certainly distribution of equality in terms of infrastructure is not an issue. But with a country that is vastly divided between a sea, its a totally another ballgame and your fundementals that you generate your views cannot apply in this case.

Bigger countries have problems with distribution simply because it is the way it is. It is ALWAYS for the majorities benefits' for whatever reasons political, common sense , economical whatever the reason is. Money distribution is never distributed by how much you contribute. YES too little money is given, but it should not be compared in a sense they gave X amount therefore they are entitled x% of it.

Awareness of E Malaysian needs is definately something to keep poking on since it is a blunder of conflicting needs, but saying that W Malaysia is canibalising E Malaysia and E Malaysia made the better bad choice (MAS not INDO) in joining the Malaysian Alliance is simply unjustified. Its a blunder that can be corrected and not a mistake made.

And they are richer then you think they are. there are large communities of E Malaysian in AU and UK. All doing very well and funded very well, but of course it is never a complete answer - there are always place for improvements.

Well you are generally not wrong in your views, but the way you generate your views are wrong in my oppinion.

Even if singapore controls E Malaysia, the development and robustness will never be on par for obvious reasons. Spending 50mil on road maintainance in E Malaysia could pay for Singapore for 2 years.

BUT yes being the least budgeted is definately something worth noting.

BTW if malaysian deforest vast area for development NGO and world green communities would heavily critisized the move. And they way they are is te best - generating profits. You dont go messing around with 5 star cash cows just because you think it can perform better being different right?

W Malaysia is definately profiting from E Malaysia, but it is simply the way it is. I don't get the big fuss out of it. Looking on a bigger picture, romania joining EU..who benefited? do give a few minutes on it.

chino65 SG

You are probably right, and the world is never fair anyway. Why should the idigenous people benefit, you are merely cutting down all the trees in his neighbourhood. Rolling Eyes

But you are right - the distribution of the wealth, is a Malaysian thing and I shouldn't know better.

The only point I wanted to stress is that E Malaysia and its resources contribute to the wealth of Malaysia as a whole - 50% of Petronas income for e.g. -, and that losing it will be losing a GREAT source of income.

Is that a fact that can be disputed? No.

zacklee SG

Well.......to be honest, MAF adhoc purchases are really Adhoc and one can wonder how decisions are made. I feel we should just stick to C130's - with its relatively good records. But dealing with US might have its drawback, anyone aware of any price issues? as far as i remembered India rejected a deal of 6 C130 due to price reasons.

No there is little push for men, in fact MAF is looking to reduce its forces. It was just time to upgrade those death traps inventories that we have and stay relevant to modern military. We are going frenzy - in mist buying MBTs, looking to change our heli fleet, upgraded air fleet, changed our SIRs, bought subs, bought artilleries, looking into APC and IFV, buying airlift, increasing our navy fleet ...cant think of anything else they did not do!

I rather them taking it slow in a countinuity sense rather then buy now and face obsoletion

Well M16 variants are one thing, equipping with M4 is another - AUG is generally a more acceptable rifle as SIRs compared to M4. I can't think of any military issuing M4 as SIR.

M4 needs high maintainance and it may just go kaput in the hands of any regulars. the only complains about MAF AUG is that it is unreliable and fogging BECAUSE of manufacturing defects (under license).

zacklee SG

nah you are right in many sense in the whole distribution part, but the fairness goes both ways if you get wat i mean, yes if by the dollar sign you are looking at this, yes W malaysia is definately all take no return. BUT if you look in terms of markets gateway and infrastructure, E Malaysia will be taking advantage of W Malaysia.

Its a symbiosis in a different manner, without W Malaysia, undoubtly E Malaysia would be thrown back at least 2-3 decade back in time with no market or techinical knowledge to enhance their potentials. You can look at it in a way W Malaysia is a aging specialist for a female charging premium price, but im sure the transaction benefited both parties. Money isnt the only variable here Smile

just that most people like to look at the figures because it is a tangible measure, unknowingly that intangibles are just as important holding equal weights.

Idle_King SG

C130s can't be all that expensive really... compared to the A400M or the C-17. Another point i like to add about the C130 is fleet commonality, iirc RMAF has what 15 C130s?? Like airlines, less diff of parts and instuments between aircraft the better.

No there is little push for men, in fact MAF is looking to reduce its forces. It was just time to upgrade those death traps inventories that we have and stay relevant to modern military. We are going frenzy - in mist buying MBTs, looking to change our heli fleet, upgraded air fleet, changed our SIRs, bought subs, bought artilleries, looking into APC and IFV, buying airlift, increasing our navy fleet ...cant think of anything else they did not do!

and the most basic but nonetheless very important piece of military hardware is still the standard infantryman Rolling Eyes

I rather them taking it slow in a countinuity sense rather then buy now and face obsoletion

so true...

M4 needs high maintainance and it may just go kaput in the hands of any regulars...

High maintenance? isnt the M4 just a shortened M16 albeit with new handguards...
If so, why not just stick to the trusty M16, pretty reliable, picatinny rails for close combat optics for added magnification, or just the carrying handle for grunts.
Plus it acts as a bona fide walking stick in the jungle Laughing

zacklee SG

[quote]Originally posted by Idle_King:

High maintenance? isnt the M4 just a shortened M16 albeit with new handguards...
If so, why not just stick to the trusty M16, pretty reliable, picatinny rails for close combat optics for added magnification, or just the carrying handle for grunts.
Plus it acts as a bona fide walking stick in the jungle [/quote

lol not knowledgable in small arms. Cant give any views here. My views on these are mere speculations..... if you still dont get my point, i am not sure MAF infantry men can maintain m16 cleaniless so well.. if you get what i mean Wink

[quote]Originally posted by Idle_King:

C130s can't be all that expensive really... compared to the A400M or the C-17. Another point i like to add about the C130 is fleet commonality, iirc RMAF has what 15 C130s?? Like airlines, less diff of parts and instuments between aircraft the better. [/quote

C-130H-30 10 + tanker

something i digged up for archive..well they are not all stupid

Malaysia Puts C-130 Upgrades on Hold

The Malaysian government has decided to put its supposedly high- priority C-130 modernization program on hold following intense lobbying by France to consider the purchase of new Airbus A400M military transports instead.

Malaysian government officials admitted that, due to pressure from some segments of the Royal Malaysian Air Force to acquire eight new Airbus A400Ms from France to meet long-term requirements, the government decided at the last minute to put the C-130 upgrade program on hold. A contract for the C-130 upgrade program was to have been awarded in April.

The 12 C-130 transport fleet is due for complete modernization enabling the fleet to remain operational for another 10 years. A senior Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) official said the freezing of the C-130 upgrade program will adversely affect the fleet's operational capabilities as not enough funds are earmarked for the service to meet its high-priority needs.

The Malaysian government is considering purchasing new A400M military transports (like the one seen here) from France, instead of going ahead with a planned upgrade of the Royal Malaysian Air Force's fleet of C-130 aircraft.

He further noted that as something of an experimental exercise, a contact was awarded in 2004 to local company Airod SDN BHD (Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia), which had teamed with L-3 Spar of Canada to install a new global-air-traffic-management (GATM) suite on one C- 130 aircraft. After trials of the new GATM suite, the Malaysian government had decided in principle to award a full contact to Airod to upgrade the C-130 fleet with new flight-management systems and inertial-navigation and autopilot systems, in addition to the standard GPS system.

The RMAF official said the government should rethink its decision, however, because the existing fleet of 12 C-130s recently went through a tanker-conversion program, from standard-sized C- 130H to the extended-fuselage C-130H-30 configuration. The conversion program was carried out by Airod, with technical support from Lockheed Martin (Marietta, GA). The conversion increases the available cargo space by 33%, and the aircraft's internal cargo- handling system was modified to cover the extension. Under the second part of the upgrade, Lockheed Martin provided Airod with modification kits to equip two C-130Hs with a self-contained air-to- air refueling system. This system is designed as roll-on/roll-off equipment, which allows for an air-to-air refueling capability while preserving the aircraft's ability to function as a transport. Modification of the first of two aircraft was completed in 2003.

Malaysian government officials argue that, for its long-term needs, the country's military should have an air-lifter that can conduct long-range missions and overseas deployments. However, the RMAF official noted that the existing C-130s are proven tankers and are more than adequate for the service's domestic needs. He pointed out the Royal Malaysian Air Force has not only considerable experience operating C-130 but also already possesses the tools, equipment, and trained personnel to support it. He further argued that by adding a new fleet of Airbus A400M military transports will entail immense costs associated with a new aircraft type - the hundreds of thousands of items that need to be stocked up, from spare (and expensive) engines right down to a simple circuit breaker, tools of every description, ground and air equipment, and training (which may mean the purchase of a simulator costing as much as an aircraft if not more) not just of aircrews but ground crews and other support staff. - Pulkit Singh

Copyright Horizon House Publications, Inc. Jul 2005

Source: Journal of Electronic Defense

Idle_King SG

However, the RMAF official noted that the existing C-130s are proven tankers and are more than adequate for the service's domestic needs. He pointed out the Royal Malaysian Air Force has not only considerable experience operating C-130 but also already possesses the tools, equipment, and trained personnel to support it. He further argued that by adding a new fleet of Airbus A400M military transports will entail immense costs associated with a new aircraft type - the hundreds of thousands of items that need to be stocked up, from spare (and expensive) engines right down to a simple circuit breaker, tools of every description, ground and air equipment, and training (which may mean the purchase of a simulator costing as much as an aircraft if not more) not just of aircrews but ground crews and other support staff.

Well at least some of the RMAF know what fleet commonality is and its importance, especially in the aviation industry....

SureRock SG

as u said bro.....50% of petronas income came from east Malaysia.....so in a way we can put that 25% sabah 25% sarawak right...and another 50% came from which state......as i know the only state that have an oil wealth is Terengganu.....and do u think Terengganu get a large chunk of the pie.....nope matey......if u put by how much does federal gave back to state.....u be surprised how much Sabah and Sarawak get compared to Terengganu..... anyway....i think Kuching and Kota Kinabalu is more developed then Kuala Terengganu........

so in saying that federal being buyers towards states in peninsular is lil bit unfair......just that as the east coast state of Peninsular as been mention by zacklee have no strategic meaning to be developed equally.....not just Sabah, Sarawak which u put religiously have less Muslim but also the east coast state which make up the bulk of Muslim population in the particularly peninsular and generally Malaysia as a whole....

I know is unfair.....yes but thats how it is....Alaska produced the highest petroleum products in United State but does she received the same amount of development as sayyy......New York or Miami......rite.......

chino65 SG

Bro, my WHOLE sentence said:

"The only point I wanted to stress is that E Malaysia and its resources contribute to the wealth of Malaysia as a whole - 50% of Petronas income for e.g. -, and that losing it will be losing a GREAT source of income."

My main point being that in red.

SureRock SG

opsss....soree matey...my bad...in that case i agree.....and MAF do need to do their up most to defend that region

Ionlytalknoaction SG

Wow

Now Singapore wants to defend malaysia if Indonesia attacks?

Government said this on what basis>???

Why engage in political warfare??

The only reason is the IDR investment in malaysia???

Why can't they use brain to settle this politically????

Why war?

We want peace.

zacklee SG

Yes i think we are actually looking into that.

zacklee SG

How do I want to answer you....

Read above!

Arthas79 SG

My whole point is discussion can do without the racist remarks and nation bashing. If it was about TNI and MAF then just compare that both - you dont go say bla bla bla... but you know, SAF still better then both. It is as if you are so insecure that you need to slip such statement in everytime to feed your ego. P.s i meant 'you' as in a general referance. not Typhoon in any way.

Lol. The forum reads SGforums. If the Sgreans feel proud about thier military or nation, there is nothing wrong with that. The only person who is insecure is you. Military comparisons would invariably bring in other countries(potential adversaries and such) and who is not nationalistic enough but feel proud about thier own accomplishments. You do that in your own forums. Now go and sit in one corner and think about it or enjoy the discussions.

At any rate, it is telling about the capability of the MAF that she has to rely on a potential enemy to help her out against the Indons. I have had a brief experience with the Indons. I think they are more organized and gutsy.

Anyway, it is a fact that Singapore is not obliged to help Malaysia and vice-versa. It is also likely that the Malaysians would be cheering all the way if Singapore is to fail as a state. Singapore would probably protect the vital sea-lanes. That would be about all. If it helps that peninsula Malaysia remains in `our' orbit. So be it. We can allow East Malaysia to fall into the hands of the Indons if it helps us. Anyway, we should/will do whatever is expedient for our own survival.

Like i`ve said before, being small has its advantages. Conversely, the Malaysians are in a more precarious position where loosing territory is concerned.

« Previous Page Next Page »