Originally posted by skythewood:

how you know these people never believed in social welfare?

the rest of the stuff is debatable, like CSJ has the power to give LHL cancer, but let's just debate on that point for now.

"In Singapore, a society barely above the poverty line, welfarism would have broken and impoverished us….. Since I was first saddled with responsibility…. I have developed a deep aversion to welfarism and social security, because I have seen it sap the dynamism of people to work their best. What we have attempted in Singapore is asset enhancement, not subsidies. We have attempted to give each person enough chips to be able to play at the table of life. This has kept the people self-reliant, keen and strong…. Most have hoarded their growing wealth and have lived better on the interests and dividends they earn."         - Lee Kuan Yew, 1970s.

 

“We have treated welfare as a dirty word. The opposition, I think the Workers’ Party, has called for a ‘permanent unconditional needs-based welfare system’. I think that is an even dirtier five words,”  - PM Lee Hsien Loong in a speech on Nov. 13, 2006

 

Now do you know if they believe in Social Welfarism ? 

 

If you know something about Singapore Politics, you should know that Lee Hsien Loong had suffered from cancer - reported to be lymphoma - and the report had indicated that although he has recovered from an 8-in-10 chance of a cure, he still remains within the 20 per cent group who will get a relapse. It also stated that "even if he does not get a relapse in the first three years, it does not mean that the cancer will definitely never return. BG Lee will have to live with this uncertainty for the rest of his life".

Stress was never determined to be a contributing factor to having cancer, even when Chinese Specialists in Cancer had determined this. 

A Malaysian Lawyer writing to LHL had also informed that after being being cured from cancer and allowed to work by the doctors, the Lawyer felt he was getting worse. The medical condition improved when the Lawyer gave up his practise for a less stressful life. [See reference below]

Do you know that PM LHL has the largest number of Ministers-without-Portfolio in the PM's Office ?

By now you must understand the reasons for MM LKY to hang around and demolish any possible signs of serious threats of disturbance during his son's term as PM ?

Looking back at LKY's efforts in leading the demonish charge to "fix" the Workers' Party candidates JBJ, Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong after the 1997 Elections - based on the flimsiest reason even at the risk of his reputation being ridiculed. [Read reference below : Singapore Vulnerable Democracy]

The reason was quite obvious, as LHL was about to become the next PM, after recovering from cancer.

CSJ may not have the power to give LHL the cancer, but CSJ will surely have the power to give LHL alot of stress that will result in the return of cancer to LHL.

 

‘Lee Hsien Loong and his battle with Cancer’  

‘Singapore vulnerable Democracy’  

 

Originally posted by Shotgun:

At this point, I can only say we can only agree to disagree.  

Both of us has seen the same piece of information from a different perspective.

What I saw to manpower limitations towards operations in Iraq, you saw it as poor strategy from Rumsfeld instead.  Its fair that Rumsfeld was to blame for not providing more than 2 divisions, however, the way I see it is that, it was only natural for circumstance that followed because 2 Divisions just weren't simply enough.  Rumsfeld did not provide sufficient manpower to manage contingencies.

I am viewing "fault" from a technical operational perspective that there wasn't sufficient manpower, while you view it from a blame-perspective that it was Rumsfeld that was to blame for sending insufficient troops. 

Israel's experience was definitely a surprise for the world. However, there is little that I really know about the actual circumstances.  I have not seen books that were published about it, nor any formal discussion by the IDF. What I saw in it was that, guided anti-armor missiles were deadly in the hands of people who knew how to use them.  

Technology in this case played both teams, emphasizing that SDP's point that technology alone as a force multiplyer supports reducing NSF liabilities to be flawed.  Hence I cannot agree with them.

I think I was misunderstood at this point. The surge involved additional troops to conduct more comprehensive operations as a part of a major offensive to stem insurgency.  I do not thing I mentioned them to be attrition-replacements.

Attrition replacements are more commonly seen in lengthy conflicts where weary frontline units require rotation or reinforcements.   As I mentioned in my first post, conflicts that involved Singapore, were both major wars.  In the first WW, the Emden sailed around Singapore instead of takine a direct route through possibly due to Singapore's rather formidable coastal defense in that period. The 2nd WW was a different story as we all know.

Hence, Singapore has to be prepared to get sucked into a major global conflict, whether we like it or not.  And we will need manpower when we get involved for indefinite periods of time. 

As for the principle of redundancy, I can only again say that, its objective is to keep the army fight-capable by ensuring losses taken can be replaced, and losses taken will not cripple its operational capability.  There is really little more that I can say or argue.  It is a universally accepted principle.  The only question is "how much redundancy?"

The US Subprime situation, and the recent collapse of several major financial institutions, saw both Bush and McCain give the same message that was pretty questionable, "The fundementals of our economy is strong..."  Somebody didn't tell people that the subprime mortgages were gonna blow up in their faces.  If the government didn't know, somebody else did.

I guess what I am saying in conclusion is that, we should not commit Singapore to a course of action that might reduce the manpower available to the SAF.  Manpower is perhaps the hardest component to replace in conflict, and being able to have a good number in reserve is a necessity.   

Your reply is gratefully acknowledged, and there is little that we differ that require us to "agree to disagree" as I see that we have convergence of views on most issues - except perhaps we may have interpreted the printed words differently given our different experiences and knowledge to the events mentioned.

For instance, you and I agree to the "manpower limitation" as a fact based on the limits imposed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on the Two U.S. Division allowed to invade and occupy Iraq. Whether Rumsfeld is to be blamed or not, this "manpower limitation" exist according to both of our views.

Where we differed is the interpretation to the events in Iraq - which you saw as a "smaller group of insurgents tying down a larger and more superior US forces", when I saw the situation as the insurgents outnumbering the US Occupying Force of Two Divisions. The supposedly "small group of insurgents" consisted of the Arab Jihadist infiltrating into Iraq and from the dismantled Iraqi Military Force of over 300,000 men.

This combined force - of 300,000+ insurgents and Jihadist - harassed the Two Division of U.S. troops that numbered no more then 50,000 men with support personnels, and were given the impossible task to pacify a war torn Iraq.

The "fault" lies with the wrong strategies of the U.S. High Command given the artificially imposed "manpower limitation" - which the Commanders on the ground must be complemented for their creativity in constantly adapting their tactics and strategies given their handicap. This resulted in the remarkably low casualties encountered compared to their experience suffered in Vietnam during the 1960s.

In the example of Israel's experience, I agree with your stand that it is a nightmare when non-conventional warfare can create frontline situation almost anywhere, and very suddenly at any time.

During the 2006 Lebanon War, the only sophisticated weapon that the Hezbollah guerillas used was the guided missile that severely damaged an Israeli warship and sank a freighter. The Hezbollah guerillas generally relied on roadside IEDs, and crude unguided rockets to bombard Israeli townships in their determined stand-off against the Israelis. 

There was little that Israeli standard doctrine and trainiing could do against these determined non-conventional fighters.

The follow-up analysis of Israeli invasion of Lebanon concluded that poor intelligence, lack of preparation, and the late use of definitive force had resulted in the invasion not accomplishing the objective of neutralsing the Hezbollah. [See references below]

In this instance, the size of the Manpower available is not the answer - even as the Israelis are not lacking in the sophistication of their technology available.

This brings us to the discussion on "the Principle of Redundancy" - which I am also in agreement with you on the need of any Military Force to maintain its fighting capability so as to be able to accomplish its goals.

As was stated in both of my previous posts, there are limitations to any military on this matter, as the number of lives lost in any conflict is always a sensitive issue - even for nations with large populations at the personal and political levels; and even more so for small nations like Switzerland, Israel and Singapore.

Should we ask ourselves the question - "How much is the redundancy ?" - or should we not be asking - "How long can a conflict be sustained by our Military ?" 

In any conflict, manpower alone is not the determining factor in sustaining the Military efforts, as the manpower is also needed to keep the economy running in order to sustain the "military stamina".

Based on the FPDA arrangement, I do not foresee Singapore being sucked into any regional or global conflicts where the SAF will commit our main body of NSF to any UN sanctioned front-line missions.

At best, we may send a token force of some Medical Teams, or a few Naval or Air assets - without depleting our own Defense needs, and with volunteers from the NSF and Regular Service Personnels.

This token force will be done with the objective to give limited exposure to the "real world" scenario within a "safe zone" - as in our deployment of "combat personnel" to support the UN mission in Timor Leste.

While I am in agreement with your concluding concern - that "we should not commit Singapore to a course of action that might reduce the manpower available to the SAF" - this will need to be considered in the present predicament that Singapore is faced with the present manpower limitations and the demands placed on it.

There will need to be a balance between the demands placed by the economy for manpower, as much as there is a need to have a sufficient trained force of manpower for our defense.

This approach has also been recognised in a Rand Publication on the US Military - and in particular for the US Navy's recruitment problems that necessitated them to modify their approach. [See reference below, in particular Page 35 of 54]

As was stated in my last post, whether it is 3-Years, 2-and-a-Half Years, or 25 months of Full Time National Service, it does not make anyone of us a Professional Soldier - that make an NSF comparable to the personnels from the Best Units of Regulars in the "Professional Armies" of other nations such as the USA, UK, Germany, France, India, Korea, Thailand and others.

While our NSF Battalions, Brigades and Divisions are not lacking in sophistication in training, equipment, and organisational skills, tactics and strategies - the "Proficiency Levels" of our NSF Personnel can only be sharpened and developed further during the course of annual Reservist Training.

It is my belief that high levels of proficiency - in maintaning the high military standards in the various trained skills, motivation, pride, commitment to learn and ability to adapt experiences to new situations - will finally determine if the person or the unit has attained "Professional Status".

This can be achieved when the NSF Personnels are motivated with the right dose of inspiration from the NSF leadership developing a trained and keenly mature sense of human management intuition, empathy, fairness and clear decisiveness in execution and planning.

Such a trained manpower base in Singapore is also needed for the Economy.

There is little disagreement between our positons that every man able to bear arms will be required to have military training for the defense of Singapore, and that we cannot depend entirely on a Military based on Regular Career Soldiers given our limited population size.

Unfortunately - as recognised by you and I - there is the present situation of declining birth rates that is made worst by an increasing ageing population. This will place a further pressure in the conflicting demands imposed on the limited Manpower for the needs of the SAF and the Economy.

Surely, the Government is aware and is in an unstated predicament, and has already begun the process of reducing the length of the NS Full Time service to 25 months. 

The NS Full Time period maybe further shortened if their other plan to boost the population with new immigrants create political resentment from those who have made the NS sacrifices end up facing higher competition after their NS period.

The present situation faced by Singapore is also felt globally, as shown in the list of countries cited as examples by SDP / CSJ, and their Report has appropriately brought up this subject to the attention of Singaporeans even as the Government aka the PAP has been reluctant to address this matter publicly.

 

‘The Israel-Lebanon/Hezbollah War in July 2006’  

‘How Israel bungled the Second Lebanon War - 2006’  

‘Hizbullah: Has Israel Met Its Match ?’  

‘Military Professionalism’  

‘Defense Economics: Core Issues and Concerns’  

‘Military Manpower : 1990-1994’  

 

 

The profits from the sale of the book will surely be managed by the Official Assignee - as CSJ is still a bankrupt.

The Official Assignee will ensure that major part of the money will be used to pay the judgement debt to those who have sued him in the Singapore Courts, and the remaining portions will go to support his family.

Those who have successfully sued CSJ included MM, SM and PM - and as had happened with JBJ, all of them were too shy to pocket the money they had won from JBJ - and had donated JBJ's payment to charity of their choosing.

Thanks to JBJ - those charities had received the attention from MM, SM and PM - who never believed in social welfare to support these charities anyway.

The same will apply to CSJ's debt repayment, as MM, SM and PM have all taken too much from Singaporeans in terms of their FAT annual wages, and they will not want to be seen to benefit from CJS's payment.

Their objective is to distract CSJ's efforts to get into Parliament, and buy time for the Ruling Political Party to continue to monopolise Parliament. It is time that is also needed to give PM LHL an easier period without a hard nosed CSJ causing LHL's cancer to recurr due to the heavy politics that must surely surface in any clash with CSJ in Parliament.

 

 

JBJ  has moved on despite having his two middle-aged sons helping him to clear his bankruptcy debts of S$200,000+ that allowed JBJ to return to politics.

It was unfortunate that JBJ's heart gave up on him at the age of 82 years, when the debt was finally cleared.

It is now left to another Singapore maverick - a wild card - to torment the Ruling Party, and prick their conscience with publicly exposed embarrassment - that would otherwise have lie hidden in the closet of bureaucracy or marked as State Secrets.

CSJ has children that are too young to help him, and he does not have the good fortune that JBJ had with two successful sons who had been able to bail JBJ out.

Singaporeans - who believe that we need a "wild card maverick" in CSJ to prick the Ruling Party - can support CSJ by buying his book.

Those who do not know CSJ at all, will do well to buy the book and learn something about him and not depend on the twisted propaganda that painted CSJ in the worst colors possible.

If the sale of books can get CSJ off the bankruptcy hook, it will be even better for Singapore to have him in Parliament to be a more incisive voice than the mild and accomodating voices of LTK {WP} and CST {SPP}.

 

 

Why didn't Minister Mah consider locating the foreign workers in some empty building owned by the HDB or JTC in the Holland Road area ?

The large ground of the old MINDEF opposite the Botancial Gardens would have been ideal.

Better still, why not park them at a disused school next to Fifth Avenue - off Bukit Timah Road - where SM GCT live ?

Maybe just alongside Killiney Road behind MM LKY would be great, afterall he has a contingent of Gurkhas that will keep the neighborhood peace.

Why didn't Minister Mah think of puncturing the astronomical prices of the 6-figure properties in Orchard Road, Holland Road or Bukit Timah areas ?

Why pick on the hapless middle-class Serangoon Garden where retirees have generally sunk in their monies over the years ?

This is typical of the PAP in picking a fight with the hard pressed Middle Class, and not daring to lift a finger to poke at the Upper Class of the high wage earners.

Typical Republican George Bush policy of favoring the Rich.

 

 

ChannelnewsAsia already planning to feature a program about "mini-bonds" - and have been promoting this up-coming program in their publicity, by using some local Singaporeans fretting about their surprise with "mini-bonds"

"I would think that mini-bonds are no different from bonds, if these are no longer as safe as other investments, what else can be safer" lamented a Singaporean lady in the advertisement.

Originally posted by Shotgun:

 

Sorry I couldn't quote the whole post as its really quite long. You really don't have to quote me in future unless I forget that I've said something. =)

Now, I don't see how what you've said has actually served as a counter argument to what I've reasoned to be AGAINST the reduction of national service terms and NS reservists liabilities.  And its fine that you say that I'm not "open to ideas", because I'm really trying to look at this from a very practical and realistic angle in context of what we've seen the last couple of years. 

I'll just try to go through your counter points one at a time so I don't get too confused from the myriad of quotings and rebuttals. 

Before I actually move on, someone asked if the SAF's manpower indeed will reduce due to shortening of service terms in Full Time NS and of Reservist liabilities. In theory, I'm speculating, it won't if we have high birth rates.  But the current situation is that we don't, and we do have  a problem with ageing population.

Firstly, Yes.  Bush was indeed distracted by the Iraq war.  It was perhaps one of the most questionable decision to invade Iraq without first concluding Afghanistan. What it shows as well in your argument, is that when you don't focus resources into one area of operations, and instead take resources or divert them else where, your troops can't get the job done.  Similarly, SAF may not be able to carry out its role in successfully defending Singapore if it doesn't have enough manpower.

Secondly, the surge of 2007 introduce and did increase the number of combat troops in Iraq.  Again, insurgency levels dropped because they finally had the manpower and resources to deal with gaping holes in their plans.  I think its fair to say, due to the largely urban terrain, even greater numbers need to be deployed in order to seal-off an area to prevent insurgents from escaping.  Perhaps to paraphrase yourself, OUR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP will fail us if they allow a term reduction, limiting SAF's deployable manpower.  

To ask why they failed their job was not the point to which I brought it up, but that a smaller insurgent force DID tie up a larger technologically superior force, EMPHASIZING that TECHNOLOGY is not that all powerful.  It is a force multiplier, yes. Yet so is the manner in which the insurgents waging their war.  Its hidden nature is a force multiplier working for the insurgents as well.  Hence, there is still an undeniable quality to Quantity. This is the point to which you have to argue to convince me: No, Technology makes up for everything, a proposition implied by SDP's paper. 

 

Thirdly, the principle of redundancy, in which you argue that given our limited population pool, resource, whether we can or should practice it.  I don't understand how that tied in with human wave tactics by PLA.  Perhaps maybe you ought to find out more about this before commenting on it.  

Redudancy doesn't mean that I practice I throw away all my resources wave after wave to achieve my objective.  Its keeping resources in reserve to commit when I need them too.  One example of redundancy is when I talk about attrition replacements, suppose one of our SAR Battalions take 2 companies of losses in men and equipment in battle.  Does that mean I have to thus disband this battalion because its no longer effective?  No, I pull out reserve equipment and men, and essentially "reinforce" this battalion again.   

Every military on earth knows that there will be situations in war which they will have to do this.  And this is definitely NOT human wave tactics.   Redundancy can be having sufficient resources in reserve, it can be having people cross trained such that he can double up as another man's job, so that when losses are taken, crucial combat components wont be lost. 

Redundancy is to ensure that losing one link, doesn't destroy the whole chain. 

Its like why people keep savings and not spend every single cent of their salary.  Its an exercises of building up slowly, some level of financial reserves to use it when its needed. 

However, I concede that the only arguabe point of "How much", is something I am not qualified to suggest. 

Fourth, you are correct that Switzerland is not part of EU, my mistake.  Turkey is part of NATO, not EU.  My bad for not clarifying.  However, my point was that a lot of the examplers brought up in the paper are have some form of collective security agreements, and not necessarily mirrorings Singapore's strategic situation.  That is the point to refute.

Fifth, it does matter whether Russia's actions were a landgrab or not.  What matters is that, quite suddenly, Europe's strategic situation changed again, with not much forewarning.  Countries like Germany were happily selling their MBT reserves to "streamline" their military in an "era of peace" suddenly woke up to see a major security challenge right at their doorstep.  So the point to refute here is: "Strategic situations can change quickly and suddenly."

Well, I admit I am harsh to say that "conscientious ojectors" ought to be shot but thats just my own opinion towards these people. Fortunately, they are just get direct mono-intake to the detention barracks. I feel that the law has been fair to them as to us who have served our NS liabilities to in whatever capacity that we have. The law would have been unjust, if they allowed conscientious objectors to avoid NS without consequences.

Again, we need the manpower, based on what I mentioned above.  But its a good point that you've brought up about some people not being called up.  Honestly, that is a very good point in criticising SAF's administrative inefficiencies, and thats putting it mildly. 

On my point on the nature of modern day conflicts, you've missed my point completely and thought that I was refering to redundancy.  My point was that modern conflicts, in conventional ones, rear-line troops are NOT as safe as the SDP think.  Technology has given lethality a long reach, and rear-echelon troops are consider of high value simply because they are soft (meaning less defended) but are vital in supporting front line troops.  In non-conventional warfare, we have seen Iraqi insurgents targeting soft maintenance units rather than front line combat units that are packed with firepower.  It was not a point on redundancy;  the point to refute is that, Today's warfare, frontline and rearline distinction has been blurred, rebutt that, and I concede my point. 

On what I agreed with SDP was the level of openness and compensations review. I really don't understand your following paragraphs relations to it.  What was your point?  I simply said, soldiers need to know that should anything happen, SAF will compensate and take care of their families.  At the same time, these soldiers have to be motivated to perform their duty. I pretty much didn't argue anything here, and I don't know what led you to make such "passionate" replies that led to Singapore's political system.  What are you trying to say about openness and compensations with SAF again?  Are you saying that Singapore's political system is what causes SAF's lack of accountability?  Hahaha, I fully agree and thats a moot point. 

Finally, this is really OUTSIDE what I've argued earlier.  You can't really compare Singapore's political system to that of the US.  The US has a Presidential system with a bicameral legislature seperated from the executive arm, seperated from the judiciary.  Seperation of powers is a very huge characteristic that is different from ours.  That is something that the US has intentionally incorporated in their system to prevent too much power being consolidated in one person.  

When we examined Presidential systems like the US, we see that majority of countries that try to emulate it fail, resulting in civil war and "revolts", OR that a single President that becomes too power, essentially becoming a dictator.  Their system, has a large potential to become the opposite of what its trying to avoid.

Singapore's system is more akin to UK's parliamentary system, no surprise there.  If there is ever a comparison of openness, it is best to compare against UK's.  However, even the UK doesn't have a good track record for that. 

Funny thing though, US's "openness" has pretty much fallen on its face when all the dangers of the Subprime blowing up in their face was essentially covered up for so long. Perhaps we can really consider that "Openness" to have very little in relation to the type of system.  Just something to think about. 

Thanks for a very detailed reply made in a moderate tone, compared to your earlier knee jerk reaction towards SDP - and CSJ in particular. 

Responding to the summarised points of your reply - firstly, concerning your view in comparing Bush's moving of resources from Afghanistan to Iraq  and undermining the hunt for Osama, it is quite far fetch in linking this analogy to the SAF not having enough troops to defend Singapore - in the manner that you have described.

The point mentioned in reducing the length of NS training is not about reducing troop strength for the SAF, which is already facing a shortage due to the shrinking pool of MANpower in Singapore.

You have mentioned the shortage of human resource is due to the declining birth rates, and this has also placed a challenge to the Economy, that will eventually have an impact on the politics of Singapore.

As matters stand, the Singapore Political Leadership is facing resentment from Singaporeans to the open door policies to Foreign Talents, even as there is a need to increase the population size to allow for population growth and to provide the replacement in human resources for both the economy and the SAF.

Given a shortage of manpower, and continuing the length of National Service inflexibly will ultimately affect the other dimensions of the FIVE Prong Defense Policy promoted by MINDEF - of which a strong economy is one.

You must remember that when NS was first introduced in 1967, it had two objectives - firstly to quickly create a large pool of Singaporeans able to defend Singapore against military aggression; and secondly - to absorb the annual release of a large pool of tens of thousands of young Singaporeans from secondary schools, colleges and university. This was at a time when the government was sweating to find a solution to create jobs as the British Military Pull-out from Singapore was throwing thousands of adults out of job.

In the beginning, National Service was 3 Full Years - and the time was a buffer for the government to solve the problems of the economy and jobs.

At this stage, Singapore is not facing the same crisis, but a totally different one now that require a revision of the NSF period which has seen a reduction to two-and-a-half year, and now to about twenty-five months.

Many Singaporeans have the misplaced notion that two-and-a-half years of Full Time National Service will make one a Professional Soldier. This is a false gung-ho self-deluding, morale boosting image fed to the young minds of the 18 and 19 year olds.

The two-and-a-half years of Full Time National Service - even when cut down by a full year - is to be backed up by the very intensive Reserve Training that are now taking place overseas, and with higher training objectives to be achieved as each year progresses for the unit.

As the years pass in the Reserve, the young 18 year old NSF will mature in mind, physique and intellegence - {i.e. cunning, survival instinct, daring, and ruthlessness}.

The individual skills training is reinforced with higher echelon and combined arms training, and is reflected in the Singapore Military Budget that has exploded over the years as these overseas training are conducted at a very high tempo.

With a limited pool of human resource, what is the troop strength needed to defend Singapore ?

My previous example given with the Israeli experience - in facing the Palestinian Intifadah, and the Israeli horror experience with their last invasion of Lebanon - had shown that no matter how much resources - {manpower or equipment} - the Israelis can throw into the fight, it still need a superior strategy to make use of their limited resources within a time frame to defang the oppoinent.

It is simply useless for Israel to conduct a war of attrition - and the same will apply for Singapore irregardless of the size of the SAF, which stand at 300,000+ mobilised. [See below: Tim Huxley]

 

This bring us to your second point concerning the plugging of the gaps with increase in resources by the US in Iraq.

It was not that a small pool of insurgents had tied down a large force of US military in Iraq. The opposite is true, when the dismantled Iraq Military of 300,000+ men had turned insurgents, it simply overwhelmed the two US Divisions that Rumsfeld sent to invade Iraq, and caused more casualties to the US Military during the Occupation then during the invasion.

The fact that the two US Divisiion suffered the limited - although mounting - number of casualties during the occupation, should be considered remarkable, and largely due to their superior training, equipment and strategy of combined arms support.

The surge in 2007 was not merely to plug the gaps at their rear, as the two Divisions that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had insisted on limiting - was simply causing the military to be stretched to the point that US troops were being kidnapped.

In any case, the surge was not enough to plug the gaps in the manner that you had envisioned - as the surge was not the addition of another few more divisions to swamp the whole of Iraq with US troops; but only adding two or three Brigades in rotation in order not to exceed Rumsfeld limits to the troops deployed.

This allowed a reinforced 2 Div+ of combat troops to conduct a wider and simultaneous operations across several hot areas, when previously the insurgents were able to filter from the combat zone into another region. None of the US Troops in the surge were used to protect the rear supply lines, or replace the fallen in the manner you suggested previously.

The US was simply under manned to occupy Iraq. in the failed Rumsfeld policy for Iraq. 

Here again, the US also had their limits in suffering casualties in a "War of Attrition" with the local insurgents, and had recognised in time that the short-sightedness of their political and military strategy in dismantiling the Iraqi military - instead of retaining their service in the manner that the returning UK forces had used Japanese Troops in maintaining law and order in the liberated British Colonies during WW2.

Thirdly, with regards to the "Principle of Redundancy" - my description of the pre-Desert Storm PLA 'human wave' strategy was to show you that the Chinese appreciated that their 'Human Wave' strategy is no longer feasibile nor valid when they reviewed US Military Strategies in Desert Storm and the Afghan war against the Talibans. [see references below]

The Chinese PLA "Human Wave" approach was simply to swamp their enemy's position by literally a "tidal wave" of men that flowed wave after wave, based on the redundancy principle that you have in mind - and not in your present form of 'cross-training' of personnel.

Have you forgotten that it was during the Korean War, when the UN forces under US Military Leadership were swept into full retreat - from the Yalu River to the southern most corner of the Korean Peninsular - by the Chinese PLA Human Wave assaults ? [see references below].

 

Fourth and Fifth, in the SDP list of EU countries - they had all come to realise that they are facing declining birth rates - as is happening for Singapore - and their combined military strength in NATO allow each participating countries to maintain a force level that is sufficient for their NATO effort to face their perceived global threats.

As matters stand, Russia today is not perceived as a threat to EU since the dismantling of the Communist System of Government.

Russians who are down and out of luck in facing the competition of an open market economy, may have the inkling to return to the good old days of Socialism, but those Russians who have tasted and grown accustomed to the open market economy will hardly want to return to the Communist ways.

The European Think Tanks are keeping watch on the pulse of their neighbors and the global affairs, and will be in a far better position then ourselves to comment on their region, or the sutiability of their decision concerning their defense. 

Suffice to say that their combined economic strength is much bigger then Singapore, and yet - if they will collectively feel that they cannot afford to have a bigger military force without destroying themselves economically - should we not be asking if we are about to destroy ourselves in the manner that we are spending on our military budget, and at the same time our reserves are being knocked around in failed overseas financial adventures by GIC and Temasek - while Singaporeans are continuously milked dry to seemingly replenish the Treasury ?

Considering that Singapore's manpower is dwindling due to low birth rates, and that the demands of the economy for manpower has also to be considered, it is not wrong for the SDP to put up a paper for discussion - with the list of EU countries as references to be looked at.

With regards to comparing the political system of Singapore and the US - or to that of UK - it is not merely about the executive role or power of the Singapore President compared to the US President, or the forms of government.

My comparison is about the openess of the Political Life in the USA - or even UK - where the Citizens' Rights are respected, and given the space for each Citizen's to voice their concern through their Political Representative in Congress - who in turn are not dictated by Party Politics to vote along Party lines and instructions.

Our Members of Parliament - the majority of whom are from walk-over constituencies - are locked into PAP policies rulings even as their conscience tell them that their own constituents are against those policies.

It is the quality of Life that provides the motivational factor for the Citizens to bear arms and defend what they value, it is not merely material or financial rewards or compensation that motivate Citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Seriously, the Sub-Prime problem has nothing to do with any cover up from the open US Political System. The Sub-Prime problem has as much to do with failed Executive Policies, as it has to do with "Pork Barrel" politics. The sub-prime issues will soon generate alot of 20-20 hindsight reports, which will soon reveal the failures of the Bush Administration in coming out with early guidelines to have prevented this disaster, when some Congressmen had warned of this event at least 1 to 2 years earlier.

In Singapore, we have sacrificed the best part of our youthful life to delay our tertiary education, and serve Singapore - and we deserve better treatment then what this government has dished out to us.

Compensation for NSF ?

The amount payable - for those Singaporean men and women who were injured or dead - is less then satisfactory, considering that some are not even NSF but contracted service.

Under such circumstances - where there is no political motivation or cause for NSF to be committed - the motivation of NS soldiers requires imagination, courage and leadership - as much as it requires empathy, fairness and intuition.

In the paper submitted, CSJ and SDP have made valid points for consideration, and it is worrisome that a person of your stature will take a jaundiced stance in so sweepingly dismiss CSJ and the SDP to be rabid, and went out of points in several instances to link their studies with the situation that the US Military encountered in Iraq.

With the passing of JBJ, Singapore need as many dedicated and committed voices willing to be in the Alternative Parties, and it is simply disheartening that no one attempt to reach out to CSJ to inform him of his wrong directions but will cruxify him based on some distorted emotional hang-ups based on a scarred memory.

People change - so do you and I.

I believe CSJ has changed since his first baptism under fire - when first entering politics on the side of the Alternative Parties, and having to make the ultimate sacrifice repeatedly. His skillful confrontation with MM LKY and PM LHL in their recent confrontation in the High Court showed his maturity compared to his first confrontation with then PM GCT - which was capitalised by the PAP to deface CSJ as a political gangster.

If ever there is a political gangster that exist in Singapore, it is the one person who has publicly boasted that he is a hatchet man, and will not hesistate to use a knuckle-duster to meet his opponent in a cul-de-sac. It is all bluster, as he will not dirty his own hands with the use of the knuckle-duster, but will instruct his hatchet men to do so.

 

 

"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society." - SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997

 

 

‘Tim Huxley – Defending the Lion City ’  

‘US Military Manpower in Iraq ’  

‘Operation Desert Storm – Ten Years After : How China’s PLA has responded to the lessons of Desert Storm ’  

‘China’s views of Future Warfare’  

‘China’s new game’  

‘Desert Storm changed China’s Human Wave Strategy’  

 

*** By the way, the SAF was not being inefficient in not recalling some people for Reservist Training, the budget maybe large, but the places are limited as only so many thousands can be sent overseas in a year; then the important units will need to be kept sharp annually.

 

Originally posted by Shotgun:

I don't know if money spent on education was wasted on certain people.  Certain parts of NE isn't propaganda.  The fact is that Singapore lacks strategic depth to mount any sort of defence. The British got poked in the ass when they were the colonial masters of this island, and now people are talking about potential changes in NS policy that will jeopardise the credibility of our defence. 

Their argument, that

1. Technology makes up for Quantity.

Sure enough, technology is a force multiplier.  But at the same time, there is a limit to how much effectiveness technology can make up for.  Look at the US's frantic search in Afghanistan for OBL from 2001 until 2008.  They've got the best military technology and firepower out there, but how effective were they in finding Osama? 

Look at US Operations in Iraq.  A small rag tag force of insurgents that strike out of the shadow is able to tie down a LARGER AND TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR FORCE.  Defence gaps are so huge that MORE troops are required to go into Iraq. I wouldn't say SDP is short sighted. They are BLIND.

And if that doesn't make sense, the principle of "redundancy" should.  The turns in war is seldom predictable, and we can't always say that being "sufficient" is enough.  We need to take into account for attrition losses that cannot be avoided, to cover up for any defense gaps that maybe caused.  Strategic situations change faster than we can predict and react, hence a system that can be dynamically altered to adapt to changes need to be in place.  Reducing our manpower does NOT help us to adapt to change. 

Finally, any conflict in Singapore, is unlikely to be just a regional tussle.  In the last few examples in history, Singapore was dragged into a larger world conflict, WW1 and WW2.  Chances are, if fighting ever hits our region, we will need every man available, and all the training he has learnt to defend this country. 

 

The kind of "evidence" they've brought up is more than laughable.  

1.Austria (6 months)
4.Denmark (4-12 months)
5.Estonia (8-11 months)
6.Finland (6-12 months)
7.Germany (9 months)
8.Greece (12 months)
15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks)
18.Turkey (12 months)

Are part of the European Union and have some form security arrangement as part of the European Union Battlegroup. If not, there is always NATO.  

After Russia's little adventure into Georgia, every one those countries have woken up to smell the coffee.  Don't be surprised if the EU suddenly militarized and service lengths increased. 

Personally, conscientious objectors who are medically and physically fit OUGHT TO BE SHOT.  Thats what people do in war to deserters.  Allowing "some" people to simply skip national service would be the epitome of unequal application of the law. 

Reservist training needs to be revised.  Yes, but not drastically reduced as proposed.  Reservist above the age of 30 need to be well taken care of such that their training does not harm their physical health and well being.  However, reducing service age to 30 is a step too far.  WE NEED the manpower.  

And again, some genius at their party spouts off as though they know exactly what "frontlines" are.  Look again at today's conflicts.  Weapons capability and technology (which they claim to be the ultimate force mutliplier) can bring high-explosive suffering and death to greater distances and effectivness. Fighting on the "frontlines" might be safer than you think if they enemy is careful to avoid blasting his own people back to Kingdom come.  BY THE WAY, they do know that most military strategem involve INTENTIONAL targeting of "rear-line" support elements... right?

However, I do agree that more openness and compensations require review.  Soldiers need to feel motivated to do their duty.  They also need to have the assurance that their family members and themselves will be taken care of should any mishaps occur in the line of duty.  The only thing I see eye to eye in their latest round of BS. 

Strategic Myopia.   

When you made your first reply to this thread on 29 September, I decline to reply to your personal views that displayed little depth of thinking, except the typical knee-jerk reaction towards SDP and CSJ.

However, with this reply, I feel your views are with more thought although somewhat too sweeping in the conclusions made that bear little relations to reality.

"Look at the US's frantic search in Afghanistan for OBL from 2001 until 2008.  They've got the best military technology and firepower out there, but how effective were they in finding Osama? "

Seriously, now that so many years have passed, surely you must have heard the retribution that George W. Bush must have endured - that he was distracted from his hunt of OBL, by moving the bulk of the US Military efforts to finished off Sadam Hussein on behalf of his father George H.W. Bush ?

OBL was already cornered in the Tora Bora Caves in South-eastern Afghanistan, and with an under manned US Military in Afghanistan - that was less then the two divisions sent into Iraq - OBL managed to escape through the porous mountainous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. (See reference below)

 

"Look at US Operations in Iraq.  A small rag tag force of insurgents that strike out of the shadow is able to tie down a LARGER AND TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR FORCE.  Defence gaps are so huge that MORE troops are required to go into Iraq. I wouldn't say SDP is short sighted. They are BLIND."

The US Military maybe larger and technologically superior - but surely you must be more honest with your reading of the facts that US Defense Secretary D. Rumsfield resisted all the attempts of his Generals to increase the invading and occupation force that was a mere TWO DIVISIONS in Iraq ?

Did you forget that they had to increase the military personnel repeatedly with a final surge in mid-2007 that eventually managed to stem the insurgency, and then only with the recognition of their failed policy of dismantling the Iraqi Military completely and allowing these Iraqis to join the insurgents from the different religious sects - to kill each other, the foreign contract workers, and the US Troops ?

It was only by recruiting these dismissed military personnel into newly formed "Sons of Iraq" contingents, and restoring their national pride that helped the US Military to regain lost territorities to foreign insurgents and Al Qaeda fighting in Iraq.

It was not Technology nor the Well-Trained Superior US Military Force that failed in Iraq, but the US CIVILIAN POLITICAL LEADERSHIP that failed in Iraq by invading Iraq without any Post-Invasion Plans as to how to govern Iraq and then extricate itself.

It was the US Civilian Political Leadership that needlessly caused the wasted lives of so many young Americans in Iraq.

 

"And if that doesn't make sense, the principle of "redundancy" should.  The turns in war is seldom predictable, and we can't always say that being "sufficient" is enough.  We need to take into account for attrition losses that cannot be avoided, to cover up for any defense gaps that maybe caused.  Strategic situations change faster than we can predict and react, hence a system that can be dynamically altered to adapt to changes need to be in place.  Reducing our manpower does NOT help us to adapt to change." 

Any country that is rich enough can surely practise the 'Principle of "Redundancy" ' - more so with equipment, but can any country afford to follow such a policy in terms of manpower ?

After the "shock and awe" of Desert Storm 1, even China decided that its reliance on the People's Liberation Army to win war on its long held "Human Wave" Strategies had to be revised in this day and age. It began to pare down its million man military, and upgraded its techonology, modernised its equipments, and revised its military organisation, tactics and manoevre plans.

With smaller nations such as Israel, Switzerland and Singapore, can we afford to have a big pool of military to practise the kind of 'Principle of "Redundancy" ' that you have in mind ?

Recent history has shown that Israel could not hold out even a protracted occupation of Palestinian land and subdue the civil disobedience 'Intifadah" campaigns that bled Israeli manpower and resources.

Israel was at her best with quick, sharp, and forceful attacks to defang her opponents, and make them militarily impotent to negotiate on "equal terms" - a larger population with a reduced size stick vs a smaller population with a bigger stick.

Singapore's "poison shrimp" defense posture is no different from the Israelis - towards any aggressor that dare to threaten us - mark the word "threaten" that will activate the entire process of defense, which does not necessarily mean 'static defense' in wait for actual attack - as you have yourself recognised the lack of defense depth.

Can Singapore ever contribute any combat troops to be part of any larger multi-national task force to participate in any regional defense outside of the FPDA arrangement ?

At best, we can only send an LST and an aerial refuelling tanker to support the US military in Iraq and without any SAF troops to be in any direct combat.

However, we may have sent our top secret Special Forces unit into combat without any glory or publicity, even as their existence is immersed into the Commando Orbat.

 

"1.Austria (6 months)
4.Denmark (4-12 months)
5.Estonia (8-11 months)
6.Finland (6-12 months)
7.Germany (9 months)
8.Greece (12 months)
15.Switzerland (18-21 weeks)
18.Turkey (12 months)

Are part of the European Union and have some form security arrangement as part of the European Union Battlegroup. If not, there is always NATO.  

After Russia's little adventure into Georgia, every one those countries have woken up to smell the coffee.  Don't be surprised if the EU suddenly militarized and service lengths increased." 

To the best of my knowledge, from the list above, Switzerland is not even part of the European Union, nor is it a member of NATO - and Turkey maybe in NATO but its application to join the EU is placed on hold - unless your source is the latest.

NATO itself is the European Union Battlegroup - although there is a separate attempt in creating a Rapid Reaction Force to tackle international or external contribution outside of NATO ambit, but as an European national political policy.

As long as Russia remains out of its Communists domination behavior of the past, the EU will work with and compete with Russia - as much as it is dependent on Russia for natural gas and oil, as Russia is dependent on European funds and trade.

Russia's "little adventure" into Georgia was not exactly a land grab, but more about the festering sore that erupted when Georgia rubbed her nose at the Russia by turning themselves over to the West. The "little adventure" was a "tit-for-tat" gesture towards the EU for ignoring the Russian position with regards to an Albanian enclave  breaking away from Yugoslavia.

 

"Personally, conscientious objectors who are medically and physically fit OUGHT TO BE SHOT.  Thats what people do in war to deserters.  Allowing "some" people to simply skip national service would be the epitome of unequal application of the law. "

Conscientious objectors are not 'deserters' - as they are not prepared to be in the military to do harm to anyone. However, stupid as it is - they are prepared to serve the same NS period in jail and suffer the same regime as in the NS. It is no holiday boot camp for them in jail either.

The law is applied to them in another form, with them having to bear the stain of a conviction in their civilian record.

 

"Reservist training needs to be revised.  Yes, but not drastically reduced as proposed.  Reservist above the age of 30 need to be well taken care of such that their training does not harm their physical health and well being.  However, reducing service age to 30 is a step too far.  WE NEED the manpower. " 

Seriously, I am not sure which echelon of the SAF you are serving to make such a strong and emphatic statement that "WE NEED the manpower." 

Or is this only a 'shock and awe' effort ?

If the manpower is so sorely needed, I am surprised to have experienced only two cycles of 5 In-camp training with a lull period in between, and have been in Cold Storage since then.

During the interim, I see others who have been discharged from full time NS, and have not been recalled for the last six years - except for the regular IPPT.

 

"And again, some genius at their party spouts off as though they know exactly what "frontlines" are.  Look again at today's conflicts.  Weapons capability and technology (which they claim to be the ultimate force mutliplier) can bring high-explosive suffering and death to greater distances and effectivness. Fighting on the "frontlines" might be safer than you think if they enemy is careful to avoid blasting his own people back to Kingdom come.  BY THE WAY, they do know that most military strategem involve INTENTIONAL targeting of "rear-line" support elements... right?"

Conventional Warfare has not changed much if it is conducted in the "traditional military ways" as seen in the US invasion of Iraq, and Russia's "little adventure" into Georgia.

However, it is the unconventional warfare experienced by the US Military in Iraq and the Israelis in the Occupied Territories and their last invasion into Lebanon that have challenged military thinkers to think of new tactics to fight an unconventional war that can create "front line situation" anywhere and so suddenly.

Can 100 per cent Troop Redundancy meet such a challenge, or will it take intelligent use of manpower, training, equipment, tactics and strategies to overcome such challenges ?

 

"However, I do agree that more openness and compensations require review.  Soldiers need to feel motivated to do their duty.  They also need to have the assurance that their family members and themselves will be taken care of should any mishaps occur in the line of duty.  The only thing I see eye to eye in their latest round of BS. "

The motivation of soldiers has always been a challenge to any Military Commander, and more so for the Civilian Political Leadership to convince a population to take up arms for their own defense and even to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Can monetary compensation alone motivate the civilian population to be committed to National Service ?

Or should there be a higher goal that is worthy for one to make the ultimate sacrifice ?

Why are the American more "red neck" in volunteering to join the military in defense of their POLITICS and THEIR WAY OF LIFE ?

Is it not obvious considering the stark difference in the open politics practised in the USA, and compared to the closed selfish and monopolistic politics of the PAP Singapore ?

Are Singaporean voices ever heard, when our Citizens' Rights - guaranteed in the  clearly made statements in the Singapore Constitution - are all but neutered by the selfish politics of self-preservation by LKY and his PAP, in the manner of repeated legislative changes that have bastardised the Singapore Constitution into a worthless piece of Colonial irrelevance ?

Sadly, after more then 51 years under the leadership of LKY - since Self-Rule in 1957, the deeper essense of a Singapore spirit does not exist in the Younger Generatino today; while the pride of being a Singaporean is nothing more then the superficial hurrah pride that is skin deep, displayed at best during the National Day parade; and will evaporate when shove comes to push in facing any life-and-death situation.

National Education has failed, as the emphasis has been twisted to glorify the LKY personality and that of the PAP, instead of a more general and realistic contribution of several generations of migrants turned Singaporean during the 1950s through the 1960s.

Many have been turned off by the NE efforts as much as the attempts have been made to promote a single line of thinking instead of documenting events as had historically occurred.

Motivation towards a country is a result of values that comes from a way of life - has the Singapore way of life instill such motivation, considering that life itself covers the entire spectrum of Politics, Culture, Economics, Commerce, and Industry ?

 

"Strategic Myopia."  

 Sadly, it is not "Strategic Myopia" - but simply unwillingness on your part to be open minded to consider alternative views.

Hamstrung muscles in the eyeballs are also causes for "myopia" - as much as it causes knee jerk reactions to the legs.

 

‘How Bin Laden got away’

’US conclude Osama escaped from Tora Bora fight…’  

‘How Osama has survived for six years’  

 

The wisdom of LKY:-

" Repression, Sir, is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love - it is always easier the second time!

The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack.

All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies.

Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface.

Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."

- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member during 1956 speaking to David Marshall

Originally posted by reyes:

we dont have a media that dare to voice the concern of the ppl. to  question the authority more.

With a situation like this - and having tame Members of Parliament from the Alternative Parties, and Backbenchers controlled by the Parliamentary Whip from the Ruling Party - we need wild card maverick politicians like CSJ even more, now that JBJ has moved on to prepare the ground for his next encounter with LKY.

 

 

Is there any logic for a 21% increase to the Electrical Rates, at a time when global oil prices have been sliding for the last three months, and going lower in the light of the U.S. financial crisis ?

Is this 21% increase part of the deal not told to Singaporeans when Temasek sold Senoko Power to a Japanese Consortium for S$4 Billion  in September 2008 ?

Has Singapore been short changed again in the corporate dealings of Temasek Holdings ?

Will the S$4 Billion picked up by Temasek Holding see its return to the State Treasury, or will it be used for Temasek's overseas financial adventures ?

 

Originally posted by eagle:

since 2008 - 08 - 08 has passed

the next choice might be 2018 - 18 - 08

Why wait ten years ?

The next auspicious date will be 2009-09-09