Report: Msian Armed Forces Modernisation

last SG · 2003-09-18T22:12:07+00:00

Sure enough 15K soldiers can "defend" singapore and I'm sure we have more then enough firepower to camp it out in our island and repel any invaders, but that...

nWo SG

Malaysian National News Agency : Bernama

September 15, 2003 19:33 PM

ATM's Modernisation Not Linked To Flashpoint Theory

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 15 (Bernama) -- The modernisation being undertaken by the Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM) is not in preparation for a possible outbreak of armed conflict in Southeast Asia, a region military analysts describe as a "time bomb".

The water supply and Pulau Batu Puteh issues between Malaysia and Singapore, the Jemaah Islamiah militant group, overlapping claims on Spratlys, the Philippines' claim on Sabah and political instability in Indonesia are considered potential flashpoints leading to war and intervention by foreign powers.

In the mid-90s, predictions of regional turmoil almost came true when two Vietnamese navy vessels sank after being shot by Chinese warships as a result of territorial dispute over the Spratlys, which are also claimed by Malaysia.

ATM's modernisation in the early 90s, which saw it acquiring the R-77 Beyond Visual Range (BVR) guided missile from Russia for its MiG-29N/UB, had led defence analysts to regard Malaysia as starting an arms race with Singapore and Thailand.

None of the other countries in the region had the BVR system, which allows an MiG-29 to fire at enemy aircraft from more than 60km by merely picking them up on the radar screen using a location detection device.

The United States Congress had initially refused to approve the sale of the American BVR system to friendly countries in the region but finally allowed the sale of the AIM-120 (a type of BVR) for use by the F-16 fighter jets of Singapore and Thailand.

Malaysian Armed Forces Chief Jen Tan Sri Mohd Zahidi Zainuddin dismissed the notion that tension was running high in the region and that Malaysia was involved in an arms race.

Five years ago, the situation was truly tense in the Spratly islands and many parties had predicted that the area would be a flashpoint of armed conflicts, he said.

"However, it did not happen and in fact the issue has abated, because we have military diplomacy preventing such a situation from happening," he said in a recent interview with journalists in conjunction with the 70th anniversary of ATM.

Furthermore, political and military leaders in the region practised "bilateral cooperation" to minimise such risks, he said.

He said ATM's modernisation was to attain Minimum Deterrent Capability (MDC) to defend the country from outside attacks because the ATM had just switched from counter-insurgency warfare to modern warfare.

The purchase of the Astros II multiple rocket launcher, Scorpene submarine and Sukhoi 30MKM aircraft was not meant to create threats to any country because Malaysia's defence budget was still low compared to those of neighbouring countries, he said.

"We need at least RM24 billion to meet our defence needs but the government approves only about RM7 billion a year, and this is far from achieving our MDC aspiration," he said.

ATM's present assets may be seen as modern and possibly stronger than those of their regional counterparts but Zahidi admitted that Malaysia still lagged behind in terms of electronic warfare because it lacked an Airborne Early Warning System.

He said ATM only wanted a fair fight if it was attacked by enemies.

He took pride in the fact that ATM had quickly transformed itself from an outfit primed for guerilla warfare to a conventional force which had successfully served under the United Nations banner.

ATM now has a strength of 118,000 personnel and this is small compared to Thailand (225,000 personnel), Indonesia (343,000) and Singapore (70,000 regulars and 250,000 reservists).

"Our current strength of 118,000 might be expanded according to our needs. The government previously wanted to reduce the number of personnel so that modernisation of assets can be implemented," he said.

The conclusion is, after going through two crises -- the emergency and confrontation -- ATM is undertaking modernisation in line with the country's development and this, according to Zahidi, has nothing to do with the concept of "bargaining power".

The ATM has never used its strength as a power projector to resolve issues with neighbouring countries, and instead it views diplomacy as a key weapon for maintaining the country's peace.

-- BERNAMA

nWo SG

The Star, Malaysia

Sunday September 14, 2003

One quick sequel after another

By DALILAH IBRAHIM

LIKE Hollywood movies, there is a sequel to stories that emerge from the Dewan Rakyat. However, unlike The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or The Matrix, you do not have to wait one year for this sequel.

While the leading roles have changed, the setting and theme remain almost the same two sides trying to inflict political wounds on one another.

The MPs were debating the Supplementary Supply Bill tabled by Second Finance Minister Datuk Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis when Kerk Kim Hock (DAP - Kota Melaka) came up with a tale about how the people in Malacca were offended by some National Day buntings and pamphlets.

These publications, besides having pictures of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and past prime ministers, also depicted one on Umnos founding fathers, Datuk Onn Jaafar, standing in front of a group of people with a banner that said Malaya for Malays.

People are offended with the words 'Malaya for Malays'. For those who do not understand history, they will say: We have achieved our independence for 46 years, why must there be such a phrase? Kerk said.

Kerk said that while such pictures were fit for use during Umnos events, they should not have been used on National Day when the Government was trying to promote racial unity.

As expected, Kerks remarks sparked strong response from backbenchers, especially those from Umno.

Prime Ministers Department parliamentary secretary Datuk Noh Omar said Kerk simply did not understand the message, and that Onns struggle against the Malayan Union was part of the countrys history.

Kerk defended his actions by saying that two ministers whom he approached outside the Dewan had agreed with his views.

Datuk Ruhanie Ahmad (BN - Parit Sulong) took to the floor and warned Kerk that it was his (Kerks) words that would do more damage to the unity of the country.

Bacul saya sebagai anak Melayu tidak bangun dan berani memperkatakan perkara yang benar, memang bacul (As a Malay, Ill be a coward if I do not get up to tell the truth, real coward), he said, to thumps of support from the backbenchers.

Chong Eng (DAP - Bukit Mertajam) defended Kerk, saying he had the basis in bringing up the topic.

We can debate here, we can say the reasons if what he said was wrong. But what we see here is an extremely emotional response, she said.

One backbencher said the opposition MPs were merely nitpicking and that it showed they were out of ideas.

Moving on to another tale, PAS MP Husam Musa told the Dewan that the price of a Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jet was sold 30% cheaper on the Internet compared to the price the Government had agreed to.

Husam said the Government would be paying RM1bil extra for the 18 Sukhoi Su-30MK fighters.

The price offered on the Internet for the international market is lower than what we are paying, he said when debating the Bill at committee stage.

Husam then suggested that perhaps the extra money was in exchange to train the first Malaysian astronaut to be sent to the moon.

Is this the price to pay to prove the slogan 'Malaysia Boleh'? he said.

In reply, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal said the purchase of the jets was based on a study done by military experts on the suitability and capability of the equipment.

The price we pay cannot be compared to the price on the Internet. That price did not take into account the detailed specifications and those of additional equipment that we purchase from other suppliers, he said.

Husam then insisted that Shafie reveal the amount paid for the specifications so that the people would know where the money went.

Shafie said it was not appropriate for the ministry to reveal details of its military equipment to the public as it involved the countrys security.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad had already tabled Budget 2004 on Friday.

There should be more interesting tales for weeks to come. Care for another sequel?

kenhor SG

This is interesting to note.

118k regulars out of a population of 22 million citizens = 0.5% of the population.

70k regulars out of a population of 3 million citizens = 2.3% of the population

I think we have diverted too much of the economy into the military.

Typhoon SG

Go home to Malaysia traitor.

kenhor SG

Sigh .. discuss facts also people get worked up.

tripwire SG

please forgive kenhor.... he got peanuts for a brain...

afterall... poor chap only can see numbers but not reality....

peanut brains just dont understand that being small means you need to invest more in defence to be able to match up against a bigger foe...

that is why in nature... the smallest organism carries the most toxic poison.... a single drop of which....can kill an entire town.....

tripwire SG

oooiiiii!!! stupid.....

the purpose of defence is to be able to defend yourself against your foes... NOT making figure comparison....

whats the point of matching percentage figures in defence if in the end you cant defend yourself?

now you see you are S T U P I D>? dont worry.... we know you are... Mr. Green

Viper52 SG

While Typhoon's response was uncalled for, I would like to point out that you, Kenhor, has seem to caught an affliction pervasive with this dear PAP government of ours, taking a small morsel of information or statistic, and use it to sell your ideas/opinions.

The use of the term "regulars" in the report is flawed in a Singaporean context. The number of 70,000 (more like 50-55000 according to sources more trustworthy IMO than Bernama, and no its not our own local media) includes real regulars as well as almost 40000 NSFs. The use of the term "full time soldiers" would be more accurate, but then like the PAP, why should Bernama let the truth and accurate terms get in the way of a good story?

I suppose in your enlightened opinion 15000 real regular soldiers (not in Bernama's context) is enough to defend Singapore?

And while our defence expenditure does seem high compared to our neighbours, we must also take into account the need to base significant forces overseas and unfortunately that costs money, which is a constraint we must work with due to our size. Hey, I don't like it either, but the way I see it, theres lots of areas where we can save money without cutting back on security.

kenhor SG

We can use the 50k figure .. and we will still arrive at 1.6% if the total number of citizens in Singapore. That is 3x the percentage of the next country.

In fact Malaysia probably has too high a percentage as well, as they have only 22 million people compared to 50 million Thais, 70 million Philippinos and 100 million Indonesians.

Of course, I am just picking on some statistic. But thats also what unemployment is right? A statistic, ... why bother when 5% of our people are unemployed (thats 150k citizens) and there are close to 1 million foreigners in Singapore .. after all thats statistics too.

And forget about economic growth .. so what if we are in recession, thats just a number as well. Who cares if we have 0.1% growth for the whole year .. its meaningless.

And the number of people who can actually vote in Singapore .. who cares if 70% live in walk over areas .. thats just a number. Its just a meaningless statistic.

Everything will boil down to meaningless statistics if we want it to be. But if you are concerned, you will use those statistics to plan.

Viper52 SG

Of course its all statistics, but thats not the point. I'm picking on the fact that you use a small part of the facts and figures to reinforce your point, like the dear government you like to criticise. But then, you're doing the exact same thing. You take the figure from Bernama and quote it to justify your opinion that too much is being spent on defence, WITHOUT looking at the whole big picture. Thats my point.

Of course we need to use statistics to plan and analyse info. But if everyone is like you, using tiny morsels of statistics to justify their arguments (or in you case, flog an old and tired one), then anyone who listens to these analysis are in trouble.

Which is why I say the PAP is like you in that sense, but thenm thats another topic for another forum.

All the other statistics are important to me too, but not in the context of this topic and what we're discussing now, which is the fact that you're selectively using some facts and figures to justify a (arguably flawed) argument, and ignoring all those facts and figures you don't like and doesn't agree with the point you're trying to prove.

Get it? Rolling Eyes

branzzz SG

Originally posted by nWo:
The Star, Malaysia

Sunday September 14, 2003

[b]One quick sequel after another

By DALILAH IBRAHIM

LIKE Hollywood movies, there is a sequel to stories that emerge from the Dewan Rakyat. However, unlike The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or The Matrix, you do not have to wait one year for this sequel.

While the leading roles have changed, the setting and theme remain almost the same two sides trying to inflict political wounds on one another.

The MPs were debating the Supplementary Supply Bill tabled by Second Finance Minister Datuk Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis when Kerk Kim Hock (DAP - Kota Melaka) came up with a tale about how the people in Malacca were offended by some National Day buntings and pamphlets.

These publications, besides having pictures of Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad and past prime ministers, also depicted one on Umnos founding fathers, Datuk Onn Jaafar, standing in front of a group of people with a banner that said Malaya for Malays.

People are offended with the words 'Malaya for Malays'. For those who do not understand history, they will say: We have achieved our independence for 46 years, why must there be such a phrase? Kerk said.

Kerk said that while such pictures were fit for use during Umnos events, they should not have been used on National Day when the Government was trying to promote racial unity.

As expected, Kerks remarks sparked strong response from backbenchers, especially those from Umno.

Prime Ministers Department parliamentary secretary Datuk Noh Omar said Kerk simply did not understand the message, and that Onns struggle against the Malayan Union was part of the countrys history.

Kerk defended his actions by saying that two ministers whom he approached outside the Dewan had agreed with his views.

Datuk Ruhanie Ahmad (BN - Parit Sulong) took to the floor and warned Kerk that it was his (Kerks) words that would do more damage to the unity of the country.

Bacul saya sebagai anak Melayu tidak bangun dan berani memperkatakan perkara yang benar, memang bacul (As a Malay, Ill be a coward if I do not get up to tell the truth, real coward), he said, to thumps of support from the backbenchers.

Chong Eng (DAP - Bukit Mertajam) defended Kerk, saying he had the basis in bringing up the topic.

We can debate here, we can say the reasons if what he said was wrong. But what we see here is an extremely emotional response, she said.

One backbencher said the opposition MPs were merely nitpicking and that it showed they were out of ideas.

Moving on to another tale, PAS MP Husam Musa told the Dewan that the price of a Russian-made Sukhoi fighter jet was sold 30% cheaper on the Internet compared to the price the Government had agreed to.

Husam said the Government would be paying RM1bil extra for the 18 Sukhoi Su-30MK fighters.

The price offered on the Internet for the international market is lower than what we are paying, he said when debating the Bill at committee stage.

Husam then suggested that perhaps the extra money was in exchange to train the first Malaysian astronaut to be sent to the moon.

Is this the price to pay to prove the slogan 'Malaysia Boleh'? he said.

In reply, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal said the purchase of the jets was based on a study done by military experts on the suitability and capability of the equipment.

The price we pay cannot be compared to the price on the Internet. That price did not take into account the detailed specifications and those of additional equipment that we purchase from other suppliers, he said.

Husam then insisted that Shafie reveal the amount paid for the specifications so that the people would know where the money went.

Shafie said it was not appropriate for the ministry to reveal details of its military equipment to the public as it involved the countrys security.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad had already tabled Budget 2004 on Friday.

There should be more interesting tales for weeks to come. Care for another sequel?
[/b]

LOL!!! SEND A MALAYSIAN COSMONAUT TO THE MOON!? LOL!!!! RUSSIA IS STRUGGLING TO KEEP ITS COMMITMENTS TO THE ISS AFLOAT AND IT WANTS TO SEND MALAYSIANS TO THE MOON? And since when was a sukhoi fighter ever available on the net? Even the biggest was a civilian huey on ebay. no way man. inviting terrorists. stupid dumb $%^&ess.

NathanG5 SG

u are out of point here dude..you are toking abt defence now..not unemployment..
someone ask u a question...is 15k soldier able to defend Singapore?
tell me..are we able to defend ourselve?
im not sure to laugh or to be sad...ive never seen anybody who dun use logic at all...

Viper52 SG

Thats how hes like, he believes that if you flog a old, tired and baseless line often enough, it becomes the truth eventually.

Pose questions which poke holes in his grand theories and he won't answer them.

Come up with facts which refute his arguments and he'll go off on tangents, what with unemployment, elections, blah blah. Theres another forum for that lah!

Pound him with the above 2 and after a while, he has "to go outstation on work" and disappear for a long time when everything is almost forgotten, and he'll come back to flog the dead horse again.

Quite convenient actually...

Joe Black SG

In my humble opinion, I think that Singapore cannot be defended, or should I rephrased it as, the actual real estate cannot be defended. To defend Singapore from an invasion, Singapore Armed Forces need to bring the battlefield far far away from its own terrority, thus, the need to project forces some 100 km radius beyond Singapore itself. Unlike any of the neighbouring country such as Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, you can throw a lot of unguided arty rounds across the border, and the chances of hitting something important is minimal. Throwing anything at Singapore, we immediately suffer major casualties. Even the land of Israel, which is at least 100 times larger than Singapore is considered very small and Israel could have been swallowed up in just 3 days during the 6 days war.

Thus, Singapore needs to spend proportionally higher to compensate for the lack of strategic depth and the penalty of being the choke point where all major regional or superpower are eyeing after.

The seeming high number of combat jets are to deter a naval blockade or an air strikes. The large reservist force is to ensure that should SAF deploy troops, it has sufficient troops to occupied enough enemies' terrorities for them to find it difficult to toss stuff across at Singapore.

I hope this simplistic reasoning will satisfy those who query about Singapore military spending and the rational behind it. In fact, I think the govt has so far been retraining from overspending. They are just spending prudent and yet, in my view, conservative amount.

kenhor SG

Dear Viper,

I did take the report from Bernama, but it was posted by a forum member, and for many hours, no one disputed those facts. Now that I bring up some "statistics" everyone is very defensive.

Also, tripwire has also posted some ST rubbish before like that article about Brunei where the Total drilling ship got chased off by the Malaysian navy. It was posted to bait the forum members, to fell sorry for the Bruneians and start a round of Malaysia bashing. I went to the web, got a neutral source, and showed that the ST left out the facts that the Brunei and Malaysian navies had a standoff for a few days.

That little article that he posted, using ST as a source (which is again, biased against anything Malaysian) managed to get the members to

a) denounce Malaysia as a bully,
b) see how Singapore can "help" Brunei
c) How Malaysia is attacking Brunei as a way to get at Singapore.

So please do not accuse the pot calling the kettle black.

If we want to debate, fine. Lets start with this. What is the number of full time regulars that Singapore really need to defend itself from a military threat. p.s terrorist threat are taken care by police. Lets just concentrate on a military threat, in light of our neighbouring countries modernization.

kenhor SG

Dear Joe Black,

You are right by saying that Singapore may need 100km buffer zone inorder to spare the infrastructure of Singapore from war damage. But what are we defending?

Suppose we mobilize every able man and all our regulars and do forward defense .. thats say 300k people .. do you think that Singapore now represents a nice target?

No, its that 10% of the population that is now in harms way that will be the nice target. Singapore is not our buildings .. its our people. We lose our people, we lose Singapore.

And secondly, what is the credible threat that we are trying to build an army to face? America plans for 2.5 wars .. that is 2 major conflicts and some peacekeeping mission at once. No more. What is our equation?

When our nation has 3-5x the number of aircraft and more trained troops that the potential adversary, not to mention military alliances with USA, do you think that they will use direct military to threaten us on our own soil?

So all I want to ask is, why do people here NOT consider our military force excessive, in light of what is facing us

foxtrout8 SG

Suppose we mobilize every able man and all our regulars and do forward defense .. thats say 300k people .. do you think that Singapore now represents a nice target?

If tomorrow some nut country got sick of our governmental policies and wanna invade us , do u having 1/3 of our population missing will make Singapore a less juicy target??Even if the whole city is 1/2 emptied , our enemy will still wanna invaded and destroy our political system , our way of life and our sovereignty.

Wat are we defending ?? Well there are many answers to that question. Some wanna defend their home , their family. Some wanna protect their beliefs , some jus cant bear to see their homeland being rape. So it all narrows down to one thing. Defending Singapore is defending our way of life!

And secondly, what is the credible threat that we are trying to build an army to face? America plans for 2.5 wars .. that is 2 major conflicts and some peacekeeping mission at once. No more. What is our equation

Singapore is small and vulnerable . In order for us to live our way of life in this region , inorder for us to be respected as a sovernreign country , we need to have some fists.

Look at how unreasonable our neighbour can be and let us jus ponder wat will be like if we do not have a strong and outstanding armed force during our dispute??

So all I want to ask is, why do people here NOT consider our military force excessive, in light of what is facing us

Our military is not excessive and for ur info , we are increasing our defense budget. We are facing alot of threats now , if u dunno abt it , jus look constantly at the newspaper.

NathanG5 SG

answer is simple..becos we love tis country..to us it is not excessive..its still not enuff when war break out...

another fact is tat u hate tis country..u hate the govt...u hate it to the core...u dun feel how we feel..

CX SG

Originally posted by kenhor:

If we want to debate, fine. Lets start with this. What is the number of full time regulars that Singapore really need to defend itself from a military threat.

how can anyone ever come to an accurate assessment of such figures?

to me, with regards to Sg, its not about numbers, its about quality, but its utterly stupid to say that one man can do the jobs of 10 with technology... u do need people to man the systems, the infrastructures and the logistics. anyway, its a known fact that the uniformed services is a big employer and nobody's complaining.

and i do think that the figures are flawed to begin with... 250 000 is the MAX number of reserves the system can expect to call upon... not full time soldiers who get paid for doing nothing. that's already a cost-saving way to run a nation's defences don't u think?

p.s terrorist threat are taken care by police. Lets just concentrate on a military threat, in light of our neighbouring countries modernization.

thats not how it works... with terrorism, the lines between the mujahedeen with an AK and a conventional enemy with tanks and missiles have blurred... thats why it requires an all rounded solution, not just police... everybody needs to pool resources and manpower to keep this threat in check.

i do agree that the danger is always there for the gov't to over-play this hand and use it to justify expensive purchases that do not enhance overall security, but that needs to be put in the correct context.

if u know of an incident like this, u should probably isolate it for discussion and we'll see if its a valid purchase or just another expensive red herring.

otherwise, its just not helpful to say "we spend too much money on defence"... the question is "too much money WHERE in defence?".

kenhor SG

Dear Nathan,

If I really hated Singapore, I won't even bother making any noise, I will let our economy go down the drain while those in the military sill have their funding.

Please go and look at how the soviet union over allocated funds into the military while their economy got worse. It ended up with the break up of the USSR.

At this moment, economically, we are at the LOWEST point in our history. Putting your head into the sand will not take away the problems. Already unemployment is 5% and rising. The workforce is demoralized. Competition is starting even from friendly countries like Thailand.

The employers epf cut will result in everyone having to top up housing loan payments from their own pockets.

Saving money in some previously untouched areas (like military) can be used to save many families from losing their homes.

So if you consider me a person who hates Singapore because of my insistance of cutting military budget in order to help the economy, fine. Just pray damn hard that I am the only one who thinks this way.