So this blogpost is for the armchair generals (you know who you are!)
First a video:
The video describes how Singapore's military strategy evolved from "Poison Shrimp" to "Porcupine" and then to "Dolphin". It also covers how the Israelis helped Singapore set up our Military, and the nature of their help.
Now some facts from "Military Strengths of Nations, 2020".
From the table below, the first three are no surprise - US, Russia, China.
Though after Russia's performance in the invasion of Ukraine (ranked 27th), it is arguable if it should be ranked so high, if the 27th ranked Ukraine can defy it and fight it to a standstill (at least). Of course, it could be countered that Russia is not fighting Ukraine alone. Ukraine has the logistical support of NATO countries, and regular shipments of weapons and ammunition to resist Russia, so not a fair fight/fair comparison?
And don't forget, the US (ranked #1) failed to defeat Afghanistan (ranked 78).
But, there are indications that Russia had not seriously (or competently) planned and executed the invasion. They made serious strategic and tactical errors. And this suggests that while these rankings may be derived from statistics, the application of military power is more than a statistical exercise.
Note that Indonesia is ranked 16th, Vietnam and Thailand is ranked 22nd and 23rd (above Canada ranked 24th).
Malaysia is ranked 44th:
Higher than Philippines, ranked 48:
Singapore comes in at 51st:
So despite the video's assertion that Singapore is a military powerhouse, we are ranked lower than Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, and Philippines.
I take "comfort" in the video (at about 5:00) where Singapore's military budget in 2021 was cited as $11.5b (not clear if it is SGD or USD, or what), which was almost 3 times larger than Malaysia's and 25% larger than Indonesia.
It does not matter (in fact it is a good thing!) that Singapore is ranked lower than our neighbours. We are not trying to start an Arms Race. We do not mind being ranked lower (or lowest) amongst our immediate neighbours. Singapore is not trying to start a war. Our defence strategy is to prevent even the idea of a war in our neighbours. For example, in 1969, during our National Day Parade, 18 AMX-13/75 tanks were first presented to the public, and to representatives of our neighbours present at our NDP. At that time Malaysia did not have tanks of their own. And there were rumours (or "loose talk") across the causeway about "recovery" of Singapore back into the Federation. The AMX13/75 put paid to those talk. And the tanks "won a battle" or rather prevented one, "without having to fire a shot in anger".
Which is as it should be.
Of course, Singapore has a dilemma. We want to be perceived as being a strong adversary as a deterrent to military adventurism. But not so strong as to trigger an Arms Race, or resentment and national pride and the need to "put Singapore in its place". So in a sense, rankings like the above is helpful. It allows casual citizens of our neighbouring countries to look at the ranking and be reassured that Singapore is not threatening our neighbours. That despite all our vaunted military hardware, we are still only ranked 51st, compared to Malaysia (44th), Philippines (48th), and Indonesia (16th). This should mollify the masses.
But military advisers and analysts would (or should) know better. Mahathir, in 2019, noted what an achievement it has been that Singapore and Malaysia has not threatened to go to war over bilateral issues.
Which was a most intriguing statement for the then-PM of Malaysia to make. I have to admit to some personal bias towards Mahathir, and I can't help but read an implied threat in his "innocuous" observation.
Put another way, if Singapore were not militarily strong, would Malaysia have suggested more muscular means of resolving bilateral issues? If Singapore were seen to be too weak to stand for our rights, would Malaysia have suggested a more robust means of settling bilateral issues? Had Mahathir's military advisors assessed that Singapore would NOT be an easy target for military action which is why Malaysia has not suggested going to war to resolve bilateral issues?
But I must thank Mahathir for always making politically incorrect observations. He reminds us that threats still exists and we cannot take peace for granted.
But I must thank Mahathir for always making politically incorrect observations. He reminds us that threats still exists and we cannot take peace for granted.
si vis pacem para bellum
See also: Singapore A military powerhouse?
No comments:
Post a Comment