TR EMERITUS

In 2008, the SDP wrote their policy paper on National Service and suggested reducing NS from 2 years to 12 months and the span of a serviceman’s reservist training should not go beyond 30 years of age. In an interview with TOC on 20^th Jan 2010, Tony Tan of Reform Party also highlighted that “in the long run, the SAF will have to rely on Navy, Airforce and selected Army troops, while focusing the bulk of NSmen for defense. When that happens, there would be significantly fewer operational skills for NS men to be trained and honed. The duration of full-time NS can be reduced to 12 months. Duration of in-camp training may be over the weekends with minimum or no disruption to their jobs”. Are these alternative policies proposed by the opposition parties feasible alternatives, since PAP has always claimed that the opposition parties cannot provide any alternative policy?

Based on information obtained from Wikipedia, in recent years, much has been made about the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs”. The advent of precision technology has enabled targets to be hit by ships, aircraft and artillery with greater accuracy and lethality, thereby reducing collateral damage to civilian properties. Such technologies have been provened in the first Gulf War. Precision attacks against the Iraqi air force destroyed it in its hangars, and precipitated an attempted mass exodus of aircraft to Iran. Key precision weapon attacks against bridges also served to “channelize” the movement of Iraqi forces and create fatal bottlenecks, and many Iraqis, in frustration, simply abandoned their vehicles and walked away. Nor was the Gulf War an isolated example. From August 30 through September 14, 1995, for the first time in its history, NATO forces engaged in combat operations, against Bosnian Serbian forces in the former Yugoslavia. A total of 293 aircraft based at fifteen European locations and operating from three aircraft carriers flew 3,515 sorties in Operation Deliberate Force, to deter Serbian aggression. Somewhat less than 700 of these sorties targeted command and control, supporting lines of communication, direct and essential targets, fielded forces, and integrated air defenses. A total of 67 percent of all such targets engaged were destroyed; 14 percent experienced moderate to severe damage, 16 percent light damage, and only 3 percent were judged to have experienced no damage.

Hence, history has showed that it is possible that by leveraging on the new technologies, Singapore’s national interests can still be protected by shifting from the reliance on land maneuvering forces to its air and naval power, a strong artillery forces and a small land forces to deter, detect, delay or deny any external military attack on Singapore, even with a reduction of NS and defence budget. The advantages of shifting from the reliance on land maneuvering forces to air, naval and artillery forces to defend Singapore are as follows:

1. Airforce, navy and artillery forces are less manpower intensive. Hence, defence spending and the period of national service can be reduced since less manpower are required.

      2.   Able to prevent the conflict from escalating into an all-out total war.

 By relying on airforce, navy and artillery to destroy the adversary’s air, naval, artillery and armour support, command and control centres, and other key assets at the onset of war, the government of Singapore will be able to “force” the adversary into negotiation to protect its national interests even without launching the land maneuvering forces in the event of war.

1. Able to withstand a longer war without straining the economy.

 Since the conflict will be fought using the assets of the SAF, and lesser reliance on its manpower with the reliance on airforce and navy, less manpower will be required to be pulled out from the labour force for military service in the event of war. Moreover, with a strong airforce and navy, the trade routes of Singapore can be protected during wartime. Hence, this will serve to sustain the functioning of the economy during wartime.

1. Enable SAF to fight a two front war.

 Without the need to launch land offensive operations that require large manpower, tanks, armours, etc., and concentrating its manpower resources and assets on the airforce, navy and artillery, the SAF will be able to deter and deny any sea or airborne landing of hostile foreign troops in Singapore, even in the scenario of a two front war. Even if small units of hostile foreign troops managed to sneak into Singapore to conduct sabotage activities, the small army of the SAF maintained for homeland defence will be sufficient to deal with the small units of the adversaries.

5.    Strengthen Singaporeans commitment to defend Singapore in the event of war. A defensive posture would also place Singapore in moral high ground in the opinions of the international community to solicit international support to defend the territorial integrity of Singapore.

With the reliance on strong land maneuvering forces as deterrence, the SAF has been organized to launch a preemptive strike. This requires the SAF soldiers, with more than 90% of its troops comprising of NSFs and NSmen, stand up, leave the homeland and charge against the adversary’s forces. As an attack on the adversary’s forces will pose greater risk to the lives of the SAF soldiers, there exists the risk that the SAF soldiers will be unwilling to risk their lives to attack the adversary in times of war. If large numbers of SAF soldiers refused to stand up, leave the homeland and charge against the adversary’s forces in times of war, the reliance on strong land maneuvering forces by the SAF to achieve a swift and decisive victory will fail.

With a small army focus on home defence and train mainly on defensive battles, it will reduce the risk posed to the lives of the SAF soldiers in defending Singapore, since they can be shield from the bombs and bullets in trenches, bunkers and buildings. Hence, this will encourage the SAF soldiers to defend Singapore, as the territorial integrity of Singapore and their homes are now threatened and there is no other way out but to fight for their own survival and the survival of their family. Moreover, a defensive posture of the army would place Singapore in moral high ground in the opinions of the populace and the international community and enable the Singapore government to solicit domestic and international support to defend the territorial integrity of Singapore. Furthermore, without a large land maneuvering forces to conquer territories, it removes the risk of Singapore going to war with our neighbours because of the personal ambition of any politician, groups of politicians or generals, in the name of defending the country, and motivate the political and military elites to love our neighbours as ourselves. As Sun Tzu said, “War is a matter of life and death. A road to prosperity or to ruin. It should on no account be trifle with.” Moreover, Sun Tzu also said that “To fight and conquer is not supreme excellence. Supreme Excellence means to conquer your enemy without fighting.” Ultimately, “War is not about who is right, but who is left.”

       With a shift of emphasis on a strong land maneuvering forces to a strong airforce, navy and artillery forces as a deterrent force, less manpower will be required for the military defence of Singapore, as the latters are less manpower intensive compared to land maneuvering forces. With a reduction in manpower requirement in the SAF, the defence budget and the period of national service in Singapore can also be reduced, as less time and money will be required to train the national servicemen in defensive battles and in sending the SAF troops overseas for training because of the shortage of training area to conduct large-scale land maneuvering exercises. With more manpower released back to the economy, it also reduces the need of the economy for foreign talents, and hence, reduce the risk of reducing Singapore citizens to become slaves in the homeland they had been called to defend. Hence, contrary to what PAP has always claimed that the opposition parties are unable to provide good alternative policy, the SDP and Reform Party do provide good alternatives by proposing to reduce NS to 12- months. By reducing the period of NS, the defence spending can also be reduce since less manpower will be required, and more funds channeled to subsidize the costs of other public services like housing, education and healthcare. With the manpower that are required to defend the country release back to the economy, less foreign talents also will be required.

For years, due to the incompetency of the PAP, Singaporeans had been misled by the regular scholar generals and colonels in the SAF of the need for high defence spending and the need for Singaporeans to serve 2 years of national service and 10 ICTs to defend Singapore. Hence, it is time for Singaporeans to re-examine these assumptions by voting for the oppositions!

.

Voice of A Citizen Soldier

20 Responses to “Do the opposition parties have any alternative in ensuring Singapore’s survival, peace and prosperity?”