Singapore must help malaysia if indonesia attacks
-
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.Originally posted by zacklee: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!
Well you are generally not wrong in your views, but the way you generate your views are wrong in my oppinion.
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. -
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.Originally posted by Idle_King: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?
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.Originally posted by Idle_King:truth be told, i prefer the M-16 and her variants over bull-pups
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). -
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.Originally posted by chino65:You are probably right, and the world is never fair anyway.
But the main point I wanted to stress was that E Malaysia and its resources does contribute to the wealth of Malaysia as a whole, and that losing it will be losing a source of income.
I think, tha in itselft, is a fact that cannot be disputed.
As to the distribution of the wealth, that's a Malaysian thing and you are right, I shouldn't know better.
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
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. -
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.Originally posted by zacklee: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!
and the most basic but nonetheless very important piece of military hardware is still the standard infantrymanI 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
-
[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
[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 -
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.... -
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........Originally posted by chino65: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.
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.
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....... -
Bro, my WHOLE sentence said:Originally posted by SureRock:as u said bro.....50% of petronas income came from east Malaysia.....etc etc.....nope matey......etc etc
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.......
"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. -
opsss....soree matey...my bad...in that case i agree.....and MAF do need to do their up most to defend that regionOriginally posted by chino65: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. -
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. -
Yes i think we are actually looking into that.Originally posted by SureRock:opsss....soree matey...my bad...in that case i agree.....and MAF do need to do their up most to defend that region -
How do I want to answer you....Originally posted by Ionlytalknoaction: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.
Read above! -
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. -
yea..singapore will offer help..their our neighbour...
-
Malaysia is simply the lesser of 2 evils.
They are less agressive than the INDOs.
They have a smaller army. (No matter what happens at first in the end the outcome will be that MAF will be very badly mauled in a war with SG.)
And so far record shows they treat their Chinese much better than the INDOs even though the same racial tensions exists.
Most Malaysian Chinese I meet are actually quite proud that they are Malaysians. (How do Indonesian Chinese feel about being Indonesian? Anyone know?)
It may look like we are closer to INDO than MY but I think our friendship with TNI is simply a case of "keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer." -
what about in one hundred years?Originally posted by chino65:Malaysia is simply the lesser of 2 evils.
They are less agressive than the INDOs.
They have a smaller army. (No matter what happens at first in the end the outcome will be that MAF will be very badly mauled in a war with SG.)
And so far record shows they treat their Chinese much better than the INDOs even though the same racial tensions exists.
Most Malaysian Chinese I meet are actually quite proud that they are Malaysians. (How do Indonesian Chinese feel about being Indonesian? Anyone know?)
It may look like we are closer to INDO than MY but I think our friendship with TNI is simply a case of "keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer."
where will singapore stand among the 3? are we gonna naviely believe that our immediate neighbour would forever be awed by our military and economic power?
how much longer would it take before the singapore govt realise that unless we do something about our physical limitations... singapore may become what brunei is today?
as our neighbour continue to catch up with us, in military and economic fields.. given our disparity in physical size.. we will have to devote even more resources to balance the rising imbalance....
with an ageing population and limited size to grow... what is singapore's long term option to ensure our sovereignty and continue to hold the respect of others within and beyond our region?
and how would singapore's "fall behind" impact on our society? as we loose our pride and respects as the top dog in this region? -
when would MINDEF wake up? has the constant rotation of CDF and various Chiefs affected MINDEF's ability to think of the long distant strategic concerns of singapore?
time is running short... as our population begins to age rapidly.... MINDEF could end up failing our PM if they dont put some serious effort into thinking hard for the future of singapore. -
Maybe that's why we are trying to accelerate ASEAN integration and trying to stamp our leadership all over it, with respect to the Charter et al.
I feel that in a hundred years, a federated ASEAN is the only hope of survival for all these nations. -
100 years ago, in 1907, Singapore was a colony, ruled by British. Most of our ancestors, whether Chinese, Indian or Malay, were shoeless and illiterate. Nothing more than a bunch of stinking peasant farmers, coolies and convict labourers.
100 years later, we are independent and flying world class combat airplanes.
The Singapore of 1907 and 2007 might as well have been different planets.
A Singaporean if he travelled back in time to 1907 will have to first learn how to kowtow to the white sahibs as they drink Singapore Sling at the Raffles Long Bar - which he cannot enter except as a waiter.
The next 100 years later will also see HUGE change as technology will speed change MUCH MUCH faster than the last 100 years did.
What will Singapore 2107 be?
Will there still be an ASEAN?
Will there still be Singapore as an independent country?
Or maybe Global warming, climate change etc forces great hardships and as a result, result in even more wars etc.
Will our country have eternal stability like other established nations like US, UK etc? Even huge, once powerful nations suffered occupations and colonisation like China, France etcc some time in their history.
Who can say that Singapore's centuries of mostly peaceful existence? We don't even have the size to absorb changes. -
The unfortunate truth is that small and weak nations exist only to be bullied by the great powers.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Maybe that's why we are trying to accelerate ASEAN integration and trying to stamp our leadership all over it, with respect to the Charter et al.
I feel that in a hundred years, a federated ASEAN is the only hope of survival for all these nations.
The only option is for small nations to band together in some fashion.
And realistically, even the economic growth of this city state has its limits. -
So in the end.. its all about the $$$ like i said in the earlier post. $$$ can buy you military protection. And whoever has more superior military can afford to defend those that need help. And who give money in Malaysia at the East ?.. I am not trying to get into any tenchnical reasons cause its too long.. and i just cant be bothered to type it properly.. Malaysia has to act accordingly do anything to protect , and also SG to help too.
I leave the racial political issues out.
And those talking about distribution of wealth , fair enough.. to develop those than return. But it can be distributed quite evenly for ALL to proper. So then it comes down to politicians.. how they can make or break the states.
And question about SG going where ? Any developed country or developing country as long as they want to go , having powerful military and state of the art technology will make you more impressive and so able to be technologically MORE advanced n may become the area's reckoned power.
Then if u really look in to a bigger.. further scale , wider of things , all nations will have to be united to be a combined superpower.
There will never be world peace.. unless..
I hope you guys understand what i am trying to say .
-
It all boils down to national interests and self preservation. Will it be in Singapore`s interest to intervene? And to what extent? There are repercussions either way. That will be determined by the politics of the day. It is pointless to say that it is a given fact Singapore will help. Similarly, if Singapore is to be over-run by Indonesia, will it be in Malaysia`s interest to intervene? Might or might not be the case. If it is in Singapore`s interest that Malaysia be cut up like a melon because the invading powers will be better buddies with us and enrich us in more ways than as compared presently, there is no need for us to help.
Look at the current rump states which used to be Yugoslavia. How long did it take the West to intervene as compared to Kuwait after the latter was annexed by Saddam`s Iraq ? Reality at the nation state level is insidious and downright dirty. Nation states act according to thier own interests.
And really, humanitarian aid is one thing. Military intervention is another thing that will cost lives. If it serves our interest to see Malaysia dissolve and we have delivered humanitarian aid to the civilian population, we would have already done a great service.
You can`t say that Singapore will definitely intervene to help Malaysia. Singapore is not controlled by Malaysia and vice-versa. That is why it is unwise for the armed forces of respective countries to be built on the premise that another nation will definitely help. If the MAF is unable to defend West Malaysia upon a large invasion, they only have themselves to be blamed. -
And realistically, even the economic growth of this city state has its limits.
Lateral expansion of course is determined by size. However, economic growth is not determined by the latter alone as all countries would reach thier respective spatial limits some time in the future.
What we have been doing is jumping the ladder in investing and cultivating newer industries as they come and off-loading non-productive ones to niegbouring countries. So long as we jump faster and move faster, there is no need for worry. It can be construed that we are constantly growing because we keep starting and cultivating newer industries.
Realistically, technology and industries are constantly evolving. We might never know we might return to manufacturing as a core sector because other countries do not have the acumen yet to manufacture the goods of the future. For the lay-person or worker on the street, it is a case of life-long employability and not employment. You will have to move around but still have jobs. Not so much different than in the West if you think. -
you still haven't response to my questions on your contradicting views.Originally posted by tripwire:what about in one hundred years?
where will singapore stand among the 3? are we gonna naviely believe that our immediate neighbour would forever be awed by our military and economic power?
how much longer would it take before the singapore govt realise that unless we do something about our physical limitations... singapore may become what brunei is today?
as our neighbour continue to catch up with us, in military and economic fields.. given our disparity in physical size.. we will have to devote even more resources to balance the rising imbalance....
with an ageing population and limited size to grow... what is singapore's long term option to ensure our sovereignty and continue to hold the respect of others within and beyond our region?
and how would singapore's "fall behind" impact on our society? as we loose our pride and respects as the top dog in this region? -
you know. I am too tired now to response, but I don't really think i need to anyway.Originally posted by Arthas79:It all boils down to national interests and self preservation. Will it be in Singapore`s interest to intervene? And to what extent? There are repercussions either way. That will be determined by the politics of the day. It is pointless to say that it is a given fact Singapore will help. Similarly, if Singapore is to be over-run by Indonesia, will it be in Malaysia`s interest to intervene? Might or might not be the case. If it is in Singapore`s interest that Malaysia be cut up like a melon because the invading powers will be better buddies with us and enrich us in more ways than as compared presently, there is no need for us to help.
Look at the current rump states which used to be Yugoslavia. How long did it take the West to intervene as compared to Kuwait after the latter was annexed by Saddam`s Iraq ? Reality at the nation state level is insidious and downright dirty. Nation states act according to thier own interests.
And really, humanitarian aid is one thing. Military intervention is another thing that will cost lives. If it serves our interest to see Malaysia dissolve and we have delivered humanitarian aid to the civilian population, we would have already done a great service.
You can`t say that Singapore will definitely intervene to help Malaysia. Singapore is not controlled by Malaysia and vice-versa. That is why it is unwise for the armed forces of respective countries to be built on the premise that another nation will definitely help. If the MAF is unable to defend West Malaysia upon a large invasion, they only have themselves to be blamed.
You're argument of Yugoslavia compared to Kuwait is plainly weak. There are much more then just a 'mere' comparison to be made. Probably you forgot the importance of oil and other regional importance, but hey - as long you're happy hey go for it. And of course if you are going to to use the term nationstate, you should also know that the nationstate contruct bears more external then internal influences right? my suggestion to you would be start reading a little deeper on the writings of more popular ones like samuel huntington, Francis Fukuyama and Edward Said.
No. obviously Singapore is not obligated in anyway to assist and I don't think anyone in the forum did say that singapore will definitely assist blindly. IN whichever way that both for and against avocated their views surely reflects a differing view point on the issue.
However by saying Singapore is anything but stupid but to assist or somewhat similar in between those lines really questions to what extent your sophistication of language actually truly reflects your analysis. Obviously there is no one true right or wrong, but by saying it is definitely wrong surely reflects something more. Your reasoning are uncalled for, egoistic, bias, and anything less then objective. I would not even think it is nationalistic. Maybe some Malaysian stepped on your toes before I recon. Who knows.
Arthas79, fine 'realistically' Singapore might return to manufacturing, I would keep an open mind to this suggestion of yours but please do enlighten me with your reasonings, well offhead agaist popular understanding of 'the 3rd world' labour and of course China. Dumbdown your sophistication of language and please elaborate further "If it serves our interest to see Malaysia dissolve and we have delivered humanitarian aid to the civilian population, we would have already done a great service." Justify your claims.
It is always good to say "You can`t say that Singapore will definitely intervene to help Malaysia. Singapore is not controlled by Malaysia and vice-versa." Sounds REALLY nuetral. Yea its true no doubt, which let me affirm again no one did say that.
What benefit would singapore get with the dissolve of Malaysia?You have such strong believes that it would be at Singapore's interest, so please do explain WHY
p.s: It was on purpose that I am not polite and it is simply because you was not polite. You are of course entitled to your views. Strong words, strong language, large ego with little substance.