I heard recently there are calls for Singapore to reduce the Defence budget. Once such move do happen, it will be the sign of weakness!
http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=3206
Maintaining our Defence budget at 5% of GDP is a good model and should be continued.
Looking at China, "China’s defence budget to rise 12.7 percent, 2011"
China announced a double-digit increase in its secretive military budget yesterday but insisted the annual outlay of more than USD 90 billion posed no external threat, despite concern worldwide.
The defence budget will rise 12.7 percent in 2011 to 601.1 billion yuan (USD 91.7 billion), according to Li Zhaoxing, spokesman of the national parliament and a former foreign minister.
He said the figure was contained in a budgetary report submitted by the Communist Party to the National People’s Congress, which opens its annual 10-day session today.
“China has always paid attention to controlling the size of defence spending,” Li told reporters, describing spending as “relatively low” compared with the rest of the world.
Li, a former foreign minister, said the figure represented six percent of the total national budget in the world’s second-largest economy.
The number however represents a return to double-digit increases, which have alarmed the United States and several of China’s Asian neighbours. That trend had been broken last year when the defence budget rose 7.5 percent.
The People’s Liberation Army - the world’s largest - is hugely secretive about its defence programmes, but insists its modernisation is purely defensive in nature.
“This will not pose a threat to any country,” Li said.
For Willy Lam, a China analyst at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the published military budget - which he said was likely only one-third to one-half of total spending - will be poured into next-generation equipment.
“The return to this double-digit PLA budget reflects the growing power of the PLA,” Lam told AFP. “They are trying to close the gap with Russia and the United States.”
Experts say the spending hike also reflects a desire to keep the pressure on Washington, Tokyo and others in the region.
“The Chinese communist leadership needs to increase its military intimidation of the United States, Taiwan and neighbours like Japan and India,” said Rick Fisher at the International Assessment and Strategy Centre in the US.
“Spending increases advance this goal by ensuring that programmes entering their expensive procurement phase, like aircraft carriers and nuclear missile submarines, can proceed without delay,” Fisher told AFP.
While Singapore's Defence Budget - "Singapore raises defense budget by 5.4% for 2011"
Singapore, which has one of Asia's best-equipped militaries and ranks high internationally in per capita defense spending, raised its national defence budget by 5.4 percent, government data showed Friday.
In a recent interview, state founder Lee Kuan Yew justified the Singapore's defense spending.
Lee said the island state with its population of 5 million people had to spend 5 to 6 percent of its gross domestic product on defense to resist any possible pressures from larger neighbors Indonesia and Malaysia.
“Without a strong defense, there will be no Singapore,” Lee said.
Its a big risk to spend just for the sake of spending. UK has the 3rd largest defence budget in the world and in a few years will have a navy and air force smaller than Turkey with less stealth a/c. Spent $8+ BILLION on a MRA-4 aircraft and finally had zero-aircraft which ended up scrapped.
If Singapore spent $8 BILLION on nothing, it will have no deterrence.
The key is not just more spending but efficient spending. That means constantly re-examining sacred cows for effectiveness eg NS, big ticket purchases. Procurement needs to be transparent. Any leakages need to be plugged.
Lucky for SG, the current Government has had very many multi-$$$$$$$$$ projects which have been very well executed.
That includes:
(a) Formidable frigate - lower personnel to run same sized ships. Made in Singapore some more...
(b) F-15SG - highly effective 3rd gen a/c that unlike its other competitors can still be relevant into the next gen.
(c) G-550 replacement - introduced with minimal risk and cost unlike the highly problematic RAAF AEW program which was delayed with massive cost-overrun. They started their procurement earlier but we got ours earlier.
(d) S-70 helicopters. Australia had the massive S-2G cancellation again due to cost-overrun and manufacturing issues.
Other very cost-effective programmes with cheap 2nd hand capabilities include
(i) Submarines - 2nd hand hulls but upgraded with 1st hand weapons/electronics
(ii) Leopard 2 tanks - 2nd hand use but upgraded with 1st hand weapons/armour
(iii) KC-135s - cheap 2nd hand tankers
A lot of other examples. Some very cheap programmes but highly effective eg ACMS. All with a specific role that is highly calculated to meet specific and clear defence needs.
i thought the increment 5.4% was really inflation adjusted...to maintain the current program. I didn;t think that the Navy planned to replace some of the old vessel is factor in this budget.
most of the miltary spending goes to those garmen companies n not directly to the military
brilliant observation.....................
and i wonder which PAP top dogs are shareholders of these govt defence companies...............
''clean corruption''......................it's not corruption when it's legal..................
Originally posted by Ice kosong:most of the miltary spending goes to those garmen companies n not directly to the military
The money is spent for the military, don't have to be directly paid to the military.
The military don't make the equipments mentioned in weasel post,
Must be coming to elections soon with all the PAP dogs rhetoric. Reminds me of a certain Gopalan Nair. Only person I know who constantly uses that.
Nothing to hide. ST engineering is public info and anyone can buy shares in that company as its publicly listed and its shares are traded on SGX.
I'd rather we buy arms from Singaporean owned companies, where there's VFM. Its the new "in-phrase" today.
Can't run a military with zero $. That's a fact.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:The money is spent for the military, don't have to be directly paid to the military.
The military don't make the equipments mentioned in weasel post,
the military dun have to go thru 3rd or 4th party to get their equipment either
Originally posted by weasel1962:Must be coming to elections soon with all the PAP dogs rhetoric. Reminds me of a certain Gopalan Nair. Only person I know who constantly uses that.
Nothing to hide. ST engineering is public info and anyone can buy shares in that company as its publicly listed and its shares are traded on SGX.
I'd rather we buy arms from Singaporean owned companies, where there's VFM. Its the new "in-phrase" today.
Can't run a military with zero $. That's a fact.
any idea how much ST engg shares are owned by outsiders?
which singapore company is making weapons other than those small arms?
VFM = Vote For Me?
VFM = Vote For Me?
For countries with professional armed forces a sizable proportion of the budget goes to the pay and welfare of the soldiers.
Also, some countries allocate significant amount of budget to maintenance and training while others do not.
Some buy shiny new equipment which look good on the parade square , in the dockyard or on the runway. So just looking at the absolute numbers is deceiving.
For Singaporeans who have served NS, I think we will all agree that defence is a key consideration for Singapore's survival. Easy for big countries to criticise that we spend too much on defence. But one day when we are suddenlty threatened by a rogue nation or tyrant, you will be very glad that you have the F15SG , Formidable frigate, Archer submarine, Spyder SAM, Leo2, HIMARS etc and finally our NSman standing his ground with a SAR21A. Then you have more options.
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
any idea how much ST engg shares are owned by outsiders?which singapore company is making weapons other than those small arms?
Go look at the ST website.
The majority owner is Temasek which is owned by Ministry of Finance. Ultimately, it is still Government money.
There are a few resellers in Singapore but no other arms manufacturing company that I'm aware of. On the other hand, there are many contractors supplying to the SAF. More prominent is the food industry eg SFI. SFI is a subsidiary of SATs which is 45% owned by Temasek (and thus 55% public owned.)
You can't run SAF without food either.
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
the military dun have to go thru 3rd or 4th party to get their equipment either
It is the military who spend the money, they procure either directly from the manufacturers or through a 3rd or 4th or 5th party, it is their choice.
first thing first, do the equipments procured meet their needs?
secondly, is the money well spent, i.e. value for money?
thirdly, everything being the same, I would rather that they buy from a singapore company than a foreign manufacturer, 肥水��外人田。
Originally posted by sgdiehard:It is the military who spend the money, they procure either directly from the manufacturers or through a 3rd or 4th or 5th party, it is their choice.
first thing first, do the equipments procured meet their needs?
secondly, is the money well spent, i.e. value for money?
thirdly, everything being the same, I would rather that they buy from a singapore company than a foreign manufacturer, 肥水��外人田。
wat talkin u? is it not our money they r spending?
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
wat talkin u? is it not our money they r spending?
We as citizens have the right to know how they spend the money, to ensure credibility, accountability, not telling them how they should spend the money, as if those were our money.
Once your paid your tax, it is no longer your money.
Any way, how much tax did you pay? we don't want to have the rich to dictate how we should spend our money just because they paid higher tax.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
We as citizens have the right to know how they spend the money, to ensure credibility, accountability, not telling them how they should spend the money, as if those were our money.Once your paid your tax, it is no longer your money.
Any way, how much tax did you pay? we don't want to have the rich to dictate how we should spend our money just because they paid higher tax.
u mean those who r payin higher tax are in command of how our taxes are spend?
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
u mean those who r payin higher tax are in command of how our taxes are spend?
Smart people will seek better paying jobs = more taxes paid.
You mean you want dumb people to determine how our taxes are spent? Only the typical SDP voter.
Originally posted by Ice kosong:
u mean those who r payin higher tax are in command of how our taxes are spend?
read my post carefully, "we don't want to have the rich to dictate how we should spend our money just because they paid higher tax."
The cabinet, voted in by the majority of Singaporean, decide on the budget, after debating in the parliament. The respective ministry will decide how to allocate the money in details, how to spend, where to spend....these are civil servants paid to do the job, not the tax payers, no matter how much tax you pay.
Having said all that, those who pay high taxes surely can raise their voice louder than than those who pay little or don't pay at all. That's life mate!!
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Smart people will seek better paying jobs = more taxes paid.You mean you want dumb people to determine how our taxes are spent? Only the typical SDP voter.
wow SDP voters are dump?
u wan those shrewd people to lead your life?
I don't know about anyone leading anyone's life cos I lead my own.
Having said that, voting for hunger strikes and demonstrations is incredibly "intelligent". Seen the Arab world lately? Libya?
Stating that a 25% cut in defence spending is dumb is being nice. That's actually the basis of a fifth column. If you don't what fifth column is, go google.
UK SDSR saw a 8% cut and that had the ex-first sea lord (CNV equivalent) writing that the defence of the realm is at risk. Now a "genius" wants to cut the defence budget by 25%. Only a person who "loves" singapore very much and want to risk its safety would do so. You want to vote these people? Go ahead, if you're really Singaporean. For me, No thanks.
A spade's a spade. You can call it whatever, I call it dumb when I see dumb. I see dumb dumb dumb written all over the so called shadow budget. Add clueless about governance, unrealistic, politically opportunistic and militarily risky to that.
Why are you guys fighting? calling each other dumb or treasonable?
If you can find 10 friends who give a shit, good luck. You can't change anything, period, ever. Better off trying to change the alignment of the planets in the solar system.
Likewise calling the defence budget good or bad value. These projects stretch back to before 2000, the cost has been spread over at least 12 defence budgets. You think the customer pay upfront and get the item the next day? At least talk about the cost before you debate.
I agree with Alize here, I think we are not gonna change any of this..
If u cut down the ns to 12 to 15mth, u r cutting down expenses.
Originally posted by alize:Why are you guys fighting? calling each other dumb or treasonable?
If you can find 10 friends who give a shit, good luck. You can't change anything, period, ever. Better off trying to change the alignment of the planets in the solar system.
Likewise calling the defence budget good or bad value. These projects stretch back to before 2000, the cost has been spread over at least 12 defence budgets. You think the customer pay upfront and get the item the next day? At least talk about the cost before you debate.
Total defence is about psychological defence as well. Anything that saps the will of Singaporeans to defend the country should be resisted.
Ultimately may not change a single thing but rather than just give up, one should continue trying to do so.
CAF is right to state that any enemy only needs to succeed once. Defence needs to be constant.
Do you think relaxing the guard and allowing thoughts about lowering defences is consistent with the above?
Originally posted by likeyou:If u cut down the ns to 12 to 15mth, u r cutting down expenses.
The call to cut NS is more complex than that. Otherwise follow SDP line of thought, might as well cut the entire defence budget = cut down $12 billion in expenses.
Originally posted by weasel1962:I don't know about anyone leading anyone's life cos I lead my own.
Having said that, voting for hunger strikes and demonstrations is incredibly "intelligent". Seen the Arab world lately? Libya?
Stating that a 25% cut in defence spending is dumb is being nice. That's actually the basis of a fifth column. If you don't what fifth column is, go google.
UK SDSR saw a 8% cut and that had the ex-first sea lord (CNV equivalent) writing that the defence of the realm is at risk. Now a "genius" wants to cut the defence budget by 25%. Only a person who "loves" singapore very much and want to risk its safety would do so. You want to vote these people? Go ahead, if you're really Singaporean. For me, No thanks.
A spade's a spade. You can call it whatever, I call it dumb when I see dumb. I see dumb dumb dumb written all over the so called shadow budget. Add clueless about governance, unrealistic, politically opportunistic and militarily risky to that.
u r a dumb soldier thinkin tat havin better weapon can sure win a war