Defence spending will amount to US$11.4bn (6% of GDP) in 09
-
http://www.pr-inside.com/singapore-defence-report-defence-spending-r1449934.htm
PR-Inside.com, 24 Aug 2009
Singapore Defence report: defence spending will amount to US$11.4bn, or 6% of GDP, in 2009
Singapore, with its small population base, has concentrated spending on sophisticated and superior weapons systems. As a consequence, it has one of the largest defence budgets in the Asia Pacific region – over 4% of GDP. It has maintained high levels of spending despite being the first Asian economy to slip into recession, which is expected to worsen over 2009. The principal recent development affecting the future of Singapore’s defence spending is the recent rapid deterioration in economic conditions.
Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Teo Chee Hean has previously announced that defence spending will amount to US$11.4bn, or 6% of GDP, in 2009. As a percentage of GDP, this amounts to one of the biggest defence budgets in recent history. Teo stressed the importance of maintaining military spending, noting that threats do not diminish but, rather, often emerge during testing economic times, owing to increased social and political frictions. He noted several factors that had enabled Singapore to build up its defence capability over time: careful spending; sourcing and upgrading second-hand equipment; an ongoing maintenance regime; and investment into research and development.
In February 2009, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) announced it will participate in a US-led task force in the Gulf of Aden designed to target pirates operating in the Gulf and adjacent waterways. Singapore will supply a landing ship tank, two helicopters and two-hundred personnel. Joining an international flotilla comprising some forty-five warships from Europe, China and Malaysia, the SAF deployment will help to escort vessels traversing the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, Red Sea and the Gulf.
Teo said on June 3 2009 that Singapore was prepared to deploy a weapon locating radar (WLR) team to central Afghanistan, according to local media. The WLR team will be deployed to Tarin Kowt in Oruzgan province in Afghanistan, and will provide early warning of rocket attacks and enhance force protection measures of the International Security Assistance Force personnel deployed in the base there.
Teo said this was in view of increased rocket attacks in Afghanistan, adding that multinational peace support initiatives will continue to be an important aspect of the SAF operations.
Speaking at an overseas medal presentation ceremony, he said that if the deployment of the radar is considered useful, the WLR detachment can be deployed for between nine and 12 months from the latter part of this year, according to the report.
Singapore hosted the annual Asia Security Summit, organised by the London International Institute for Strategic Studies from May 29-31, bringing together about 22 ministerial-level guests, along with parliamentarians, military leaders and security experts from more than 27 countries and regions for discussions on regional security issues and defence cooperation.
Teo told the forum that military transparency plays a crucial role in avoiding misunderstandings and increasing trust and confidence for the Asia-Pacific. Military transparency, he said, ‘is not an end in itself but a means to peace and stability’, adding it needs to operate at three levels, namely disclosure armaments and arsenals, statements of strategic intent, cooperative and inclusive action.
Singapore and Australia signed the new Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) at the summit. The new MOA allows the SAF to continue training at the SWBTA until 2019. The vast and challenging terrain at the SWBTA enables the SAF to ensure its operational readiness through tough and realistic training.
This quarter, we have introduced a significant new aspect to BMI´s Defence reports, which is the City Terrorism Rating (CTR). This assesses the risk of a terrorist attack. The CTR takes into account the overall BMI Terrorism Rating for the country in question. It also incorporates the ‘prevalence’ of terrorism, which recognises the frequency of attacks, and whether the city is a target for terrorists. The CTR also recognises the ‘threat’ of terrorism in terms of the likely numbers of victims and the ability of groups to launch sustained campaigns.
These City-Specific Ratings are created via an integration of the state-wide threat, with an evaluation of the city-specific characteristics and level of activity.
-----------------------------------
Latest on Singapore News Alternative:
1. Singapore demand and phony contracts sustain booming Mekong sand exports
2. Thai Shin says Temasek stake sale depends on market
3. No 'three Strikes' Law Planned for Singapore, Agency Says
4. Singapore Defence report: defence spending will amount to US$11.4bn, or 6% of GDP, in 2009
5. Singapore electricity generation is forecast to increase by 38.5% during the period 2008 to 2018
6. Indonesia police dismiss Obama plot report
7. Singapore Consumer Prices Fall Fourth Month in a Row
8. Temasek Sold Off Stakes In Vical and Equinix
9. Singapore Tourism Market in decline
10. Indonesia falling prey to Singapore's tactical strategy
. -
too much? too little?
TS your point is?
-
It is time that our leaders reduce the spending on defence as Sg is already superior in quantity and quality of weapons as compared to its immediate neighbours. Leaders should now improve the quality of life of all their citizens especially the bottom 20% of the population. I would to see more funds be channelled to education, health and social matters. Keep buying expensive weapons will enrich the weapons exporting country like US and in addition fast moving technology will render the weapons obsolete in matter of years. Remember the patriot missiles system, promoted by US after first Gulf War in 1991. Sg was one of the countries that purchased the system.
-
Originally posted by BJK:
It is time that our leaders reduce the spending on defence as Sg is already superior in quantity and quality of weapons as compared to its immediate neighbours. Leaders should now improve the quality of life of all their citizens especially the bottom 20% of the population. I would to see more funds be channelled to education, health and social matters.
Keep buying expensive weapons will enrich the weapons exporting country like US and in addition fast moving technology will render the weapons obsolete in matter of years.
Remember the patriot missiles system, promoted by US after first Gulf War in 1991. Sg was one of the countries that purchased the system.we have patriot missiles ? ....
damm ! ... I thought we only bought those gundams and transformers ....
-
how much are our neighbours like Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand spent on defense?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
we have patriot missiles ? ....
damm ! ... I thought we only bought those gundams and transformers ....
why not get a few of drone of hell fire fame, no pilot needed and remote control from control centre
-
why are people so naive?
Just because u spend more on people ( poor citizens ) do u think that it'll make their lives better?It is true that the disadvantaged/poor needs to be helped, but the government CANNOT and SHOULD NOT just throw money at them hoping that they would benefit. If u give them too much then theres even lesser marginal advantage ( for the poor ) to seek better employment. Then every1 might as well just take unemployment benefits since its actually comparable to an average's worker's pay.
On the other hand, what if Singapore got invaded / terrorists made a successful attack one day?
Sure got people like TS kp-kb-ing away about why singapore so rich but cant even afford proper defence systems
-
most of the money will be channel bak to some temasik companies
tats how gahmen always has healthy economy
-
Armies, navies and air forces are not there to protect the people, but to preserve an establishment.
On another note, just like how the money spent during WWII could have housed, clothed and fed every single person in the world, eradicating poverty and suffering, there is no reason why there are people starving, wasting away due to a lack of education, housing etc.
If billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people can be involved in creating weapons of mass destruction, why cant that same amount of effort be channelled into creating 'weapons' of mass creation?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Armies, navies and air forces are not there to protect the people, but to preserve an establishment.
On another note, just like how the money spent during WWII could have housed, clothed and fed every single person in the world, eradicating poverty and suffering, there is no reason why there are people starving, wasting away due to a lack of education, housing etc.
If billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people can be involved in creating weapons of mass destruction, why cant that same amount of effort be channelled into creating 'weapons' of mass creation?
sigh, if only hitler or tojo or even saddam shared your views eh ?
just because you think so, doesn't mean others who covet what you have, or wish to do you harm, would heed your thinking. to use your WWII example, so when the japanese came knocking in china, the chinese should have just bent over and let their backsides get shafted ? .....when hitler came storming through europe, the brits, frogs, poles, etc, should have just brush up on their nazi salutes and start speaking kraut ? When Saddam came storming into kuwait, the kuwaitis should have just turned over their billions, their women and their oil over to the republican guard eh ?
Freedom doesn't exist in an ivory tower, boy, it only exists when you are able to protect it.
-
keep that in mind the next time u report sick or book MA at govt hospitals
-
keep that in mind the next time u report sick or book MA at govt hospitals
-
Originally posted by vito_corleone:
keep that in mind the next time u report sick or book MA at govt hospitals
And who came up with conscription?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
sigh, if only hitler or tojo or even saddam shared your views eh ?
just because you think so, doesn't mean others who covet what you have, or wish to do you harm, would heed your thinking. to use your WWII example, so when the japanese came knocking in china, the chinese should have just bent over and let their backsides get shafted ? .....when hitler came storming through europe, the brits, frogs, poles, etc, should have just brush up on their nazi salutes and start speaking kraut ? When Saddam came storming into kuwait, the kuwaitis should have just turned over their billions, their women and their oil over to the republican guard eh ?
Freedom doesn't exist in an ivory tower, boy, it only exists when you are able to protect it.
What do you mean by freedom?
Do wars break out because of the actions of the ordinary citizenry or because of the actions and decisions of the elites?
Using your examples, the Allies didnt resist the Nazis because they wanted to protect their citizens from harm, they did so to preserve their own positions of power, which naturally came first. Protecting the citizenry just happened to coincide with their own interests. War is not only the ultimate failure of nations to bridge their differences, but it is a threat to elites by other elites.
In my context of the preservation of an establishment, I'm referring to the fact that:
"No revolution can succeed in a modern country unless it has the support of at least a considerable section of the armed forces."
- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
What do you mean by freedom?
Do wars break out because of the actions of the ordinary citizenry or because of the actions and decisions of the elites?
Using your examples, the Allies didnt resist the Nazis because they wanted to protect their citizens from harm, they did so to preserve their own positions of power, which naturally came first. Protecting the citizenry just happened to coincide with their own interests. War is not only the ultimate failure of nations to bridge their differences, but it is a threat to elites by other elites.
In my context of the preservation of an establishment, I'm referring to the fact that:
"No revolution can succeed in a modern country unless it has the support of at least a considerable section of the armed forces."
- Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society
what preservation of an establishment or whatever gadabladash you're talking about ? Revolution ? ... dude ... you really shouldn't anyhow humtum quotations off those internet cool quotations sites just like that ....people talk chicken, you talk duck.
Okie, let's try another track, so, perhaps you were trying to be cool brandishing some leftist liberal half baked ideas after reading a few books and the internet.
read my last sentence again .... Freedom doesn't exist in an ivory tower, boy, it only exists when you are able to protect it.
Have you actually thought about what war and conflict really means ? what threat of elites against other elites, preservation of the establishment etc etc .... When you are caught up in a war, an armed conflict, you think such theories really matter to the survival of you and your loved ones ? ... You are going to go hands in the air to the enemy grunts and tell them "comrades ! ... screw this shit ! ... your elites are just making use of you to get rich and protect their own asses, c'mon, why are you taking my things and my women ?!!?" ... Are you going to think "woohoo ! this is great, I hate the powers-that-be and the elites in my own country" .... now some other country's come along and fark them over and kill them all, yay !?" ....
If you were a kuwaiti chap caught up in the gulf war, you think it matters a flying fark whether the war happened cos one chap in another country wanted your country's oil ... or that your country's royals' been siphoning most of the oil wealth for themselves ? .... If you were a georgian chap caught up in the last russian offensive, you think it matters a flying fark whether it's the russians wanting half of your country or your president trying to shore up his own power by providing the russians an excuse to bomb your house to rubble and turn you into a refugee ? ....
Since from your posts you seem to like to appear cool and liberal and stuff, try naming me one liberal democracy that does not have an armed force. Sure, war is stupid, and the money for the armed forces can be used to much good elsewhere, but just because you think it is so, doesn't mean war and conflict would not happen to you. You can spout all those silly theories all you want, but at the end of the day, war and conflict still happen, and will continue to.Just because the fellows in one country doesn't like the powers-that-be of that country, doesn't make the geo-political realities of the country's neighbourhood go away. And if you are unable to defend what is yours and precious to you, then be prepared to get farked over.
Lastly, the real world is not a book nor a set of abstract ideas, don't believe everything you read from books and the internet yah ... especially those prescribed by those freshmen political science 101 classes ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
what preservation of an establishment or whatever gadabladash you're talking about ? Revolution ? ... dude ... you really shouldn't anyhow humtum quotations off those internet cool quotations sites just like that ....people talk chicken, you talk duck.
Okie, let's try another track, so, perhaps you were trying to be cool brandishing some leftist liberal half baked ideas after reading a few books and the internet.
read my last sentence again .... Freedom doesn't exist in an ivory tower, boy, it only exists when you are able to protect it.
Have you actually thought about what war and conflict really means ? what threat of elites against other elites, preservation of the establishment etc etc .... When you are caught up in a war, an armed conflict, you think such theories really matter to the survival of you and your loved ones ? ... You are going to go hands in the air to the enemy grunts and tell them "comrades ! ... screw this shit ! ... your elites are just making use of you to get rich and protect their own asses, c'mon, why are you taking my things and my women ?!!?" ... Are you going to think "woohoo ! this is great, I hate the powers-that-be and the elites in my own country" .... now some other country's come along and fark them over and kill them all, yay !?" ....
If you were a kuwaiti chap caught up in the gulf war, you think it matters a flying fark whether the war happened cos one chap in another country wanted your country's oil ... or that your country's royals' been siphoning most of the oil wealth for themselves ? .... If you were a georgian chap caught up in the last russian offensive, you think it matters a flying fark whether it's the russians wanting half of your country or your president trying to shore up his own power by providing the russians an excuse to bomb your house to rubble and turn you into a refugee ? ....
Since from your posts you seem to like to appear cool and liberal and stuff, try naming me one liberal democracy that does not have an armed force. Sure, war is stupid, and the money for the armed forces can be used to much good elsewhere, but just because you think it is so, doesn't mean war and conflict would not happen to you. You can spout all those silly theories all you want, but at the end of the day, war and conflict still happen, and will continue to.Just because the fellows in one country doesn't like the powers-that-be of that country, doesn't make the geo-political realities of the country's neighbourhood go away. And if you are unable to defend what is yours and precious to you, then be prepared to get farked over.
Lastly, the real world is not a book nor a set of abstract ideas, don't believe everything you read from books and the internet yah ... especially those prescribed by those freshmen political science 101 classes ....
To begin with, I dont understand what you mean by freedom.
Adding to that, you're using another vague term "liberal". Its not that I dont want to use the dictionary definitions of those terms. Because of the vagueness of those words, people tend to have their own definitions and associations for them. So if I dont know what you mean, I cant respond to your post.
Other than that, I agree with you. If a country goes to war, their soldiers wouldnt think about the elites that they're ultimately protecting. People in society dont usually think about how they are the ones maintaining the positions of the elites by consenting to being governed.
If people had an intelligent up-bringing, there would be no way a society would go to war because there are so many other ways to solve problems other than killing people.
-
Here is for those who are confused:
Political Terminology – Liberal and Conservative
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Here is for those who are confused:
Political Terminology – Liberal and Conservative
This is exactly why I said that using such words cloud communication. While one person might have 1 definition for a word, another person may have a different understanding of it. If both dont know what the other is referring to, how can both of them communicate?
Words like "freedom", "democracy", "liberty", "communism" all mean differently to different people who have different associations for those words as well. Ultimately, when these labels, which used to refer to situations in the past are used presently (under different circumstances), word and meaning dont match.
So instead of using meaningless labels to judge someone, why not discuss based on concrete terms?