http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspe...RSIS0062010.pdf

for reference, the Utusan article is below
http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/special.as...es&pg=fe_01.htm

Its a well-written article replicated in 90c today.

Primarily SG's focus is way past MY and really into regional security without seeking air dominance.

Not many people will remember article V(1) & (2) of the independence of Singapore agreement 1965.

"The parties hereto will enter into a treaty on external defence and mutual assistance providing that: —

(1) the parties hereto will establish a joint defence council for purposes of external defence and mutual assistance;

(2) the Government of Malaysia will afford to the Government of Singapore such assistance as may be considered reasonable and adequate for external defence, and in consideration thereof, the Government of Singapore will contribute from its own armed forces such units thereof as may be considered reasonable and adequate for such defence;"

SG units may be used for external defence of both entities. Dun play play.

the joint defence council is already officially defunct.

The FPDA has a joint council though consultative.

Principally, I would highlight that the Act provides an avenue for the establishment of one, if needed.

singapore needs to maintain its independence in national defence.

a JDC with malaysia would pit us directly against indonesia, china, thailand and serve only malaysia's purpose at our expense.

the JDC is was gone way back in april 1966, less then a year after separation...

the disbandment of the JDC was seal with BLOOD, the blood of a singapore army officer...

It is laughable that the newspaper made the following claims:
"The capability of the SU-30 is better that the US-made sophisticated jet fighters like F-22 Raptor. In fact, other US-manufactured jet fighters like the F5, F15 and F16, like those owned by the Singapore Air Force, cannot beat the SU-30."

"The acquisition of the SAF defence assets , regardless the fighter jets, submarine or combat helicopters, normally does not take into account the cost involve, but only on one factor, which is strategic interest to ensure the country’s sovereignty."

They really don't know much do they?

SG can't afford to have an unstable MY. If MY's sovereignty is threatened, SG's sovereignty is likely at stake as well.

SG and MY were pitted against Indonesia during Kronfrontasi. No reason why that can't recur.

That's why SG places emphasis on FPDA. SG units will not be used if there is no self-interest. Don't forget SG units are increasingly deployed in overseas ops eg Afghanistan/Iraq already.

What the RSIS article correctly indicates is that SAF equipment is procured targeting any specific enemy, if identified, and if none, is still per operational requirement for regional stability. Definitely correct.

@ Joe Black. Trumpeting for internal consumption only. The author is unlikely to be that dumb to think the suk is better than the F-22. It does devalue the credibility of the article and author though.

As to the 2nd point, to be kind, I would read it as intended to state that Singapore is willing to pay a higher price to defend its sovereignty which was the crux of the debate during the time of the article. Malaysians were questioning at that time why $$$ can't be invested to maintain defence (eg Migs are being sold because no $$$ to maintain). It probably came out wrong in translation (poor editing).

Hey....this is odd...doesn't ring a bell...got a link that you can share.....or can you explain alittle more?

I was pretty aghast with the article when I first read it when it appeared in the 90c paper.

The writer wrote that "The capability of the SU-30 is better that the US-made sophisticated jet fighters like F-22 Raptor...", I was like wow! That's impressive given that the RMAF is just a recent operator of the Flanker and coming from the mouth of a non-aviator.

The author himself is overtly naming that the RMAF had the RSAF in its sights .." the F5, F15 and F16, like those owned by the Singapore Air Force, cannot beat the SU-30.". Who in the right mind will put the F-5 in the league of the Flanker? <_<

Anyone interested to have one of those Sukhoi Engines? You just need to pay for the transportation (shipping) and labour cost, logistic cost in getting the engines out of M'sia is Free. :P

Let wait and see... few years down the road the Sukhois will become Sukus or not..... kekekeke.....

Browsed through early parliament reports. There was no JDC set up as there was no defence treaty signed. Having said that, there was a defence and internal security council (with reps from colonial govt, my and sg) prior to independence that dealt with communist matters etc. MY set up a national security council in 1971 to take over the national security matters. SG set up the Ministry of Interior and Defence.

What I did find is that Utusan has been pretty consistent in its writings... Also find it interesting that falsely accusing people of using "dog" is a time-tested tactic.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

13 March 1967

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,
That Parliament do now adjourn.
Question proposed.

HUMILIATORY ARTICLES ON THE REPUBLIC IN THE UTUSAN MELAYU

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai)(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to humiliatory articles on the Republic published in the Utusan Melayu.

Because of the very lenient manner in which democracy is being enforced by the Singapore Government, the Utusan Melayu, a paper published in Malaya, recently had the temerity to outrage the sovereignty of our Republic by belittling
the names and personalities of the Ministers of the Government of Singapore and of the President of the Republic of Singapore, by publishing humiliatory articles purposely exaggerated and given undue prominence in order to cause political tension between Malaysia and Singapore. This is a mischievous and dangerous act on the part of Utusan Melayu against Singapore which has emerged as a free and sovereign nation. The Utusan Melayu always publishes news as facts which have been twisted by Ahmad Haji Taff to excite communal feelings between the Malays and the non-Malays. Clarifications made by the leaders of the Singapore Government are invariably ignored and receive scant coverage in the columns of Utusan Melayu, and if they are published at all, they are twisted about. This is done purposely by Utusan Melayu for specific purposes.

We, like the Utusan Melayu, know that Ahmad Haji Taff too acts as a spokesman of a foreign government and owes no allegiance to the State, for he cherishes the same objectives as those achieved by Dato Hamid Jumat and Tun Lim Yew Hock who have become Malaysian Ambassadors. Both of them were from Singapore and they were Singapore Ministers in the past, but they became frustrated with their political struggle in Singapore. Ahmad Haji Taff, too, is frustrated in the political arena in Singapore as a result of defeats in the general elections in the past - he was defeated twice in Tanglin and once in Geylang Serai in 1963; his colleagues too experienced severe defeat in that last election. The P.A.P. Government in Singapore took pity on him because of his defeats, and in order not to cause him further frustration, it appointed him as a Senator whilst Singapore was in Malaysia. It was only then that he had the privilege of sampling the cosiness of a chair in Dewan Negara. But, unfortunately, because of his own doings, the appointment of Senator enjoyed by Ahmad Haji Taff through the charity of the P.A.P. Government lasted for only two years, because Singapore became separated from Malaysia. And now there is no other alternative for him but to act as a spokesman of a foreign government in league with the Utusan Melayu and to twist and distort the speeches of the Ministers of the Singapore Government with the object and hope of obtaining a post like the posts obtained by Dato Hamid Jumat and Tun Lim Yew Hock. It is with this object in view that he, in collusion with Utusan Melayu, is going all out to instill in the Malays in Singapore a feeling of hatred towards the leaders of the Singapore Government through the columns of Utusan Melayu daily. On its part, the Utusan Melayu purposely exaggerates the news, all the more so if such news items can fan the flames of communalism.

I am sure that we have not yet forgotten the incidents which took place in 1964 as a result of the publications in Utusan Melayu which then became an instigator that fanned the flames of communalism, culminating in a number of disturbances whereby many lives were sacrificed.

When Singapore was separated from. Malaysia and became a free and sovereign nation, its position became more peaceful and prosperous. Be that as it may, the Utusan Melayu, which is published outside Singapore and allowed to circulate freely in Singapore, did not relent in its efforts to find ways and means to print news which can give rise to political tension between Malaysia and Singapore. For instance, in the issue of Utusan Melayu of the 13th of February, 1967, an article was published in big headlines and it was twisted by Ahmad Haji Taff. It set out the meaning and purpose of the speech of Inche Rahim Ishak, the Minister of State for Education in Singapore, in order to cause confusion among the Malays to the effect that Inche Rahim Ishak is a Malay leader of the P.A.P, who is anti-Malay and anti-Malay Rulers. Actually, the speech of Inche Rahim Ishak did not state that people of royal blood look on the Malays as dogs. etc. He mentioned the word "patek" which means "little dog". The Utusan Melayu has itself agreed that the word "patek" means "dog". In its issue of 31st December, 1966, the Utusan Melayu printed an article in bold headlines saying that the meaning of "patek" is "dog" and it was written by a language specialist in Malaysia. The heading of the article published by the Utusan Melayu clearly states that `patek" means "dog". If the Utusan Melayu itself agrees that "patek" means "dog", why then did it recently deny the meaning of that word, and why then did it and Ahmad Haji Taff kick up a fuss about the speech of Inche Rahim Ishak?

The Utusan Melayu of 15th February, 1967, published an item in big headlines criticising Inche Rahim Ishak and the President of Singapore, Inche Yusof Bin Ishak. Its object was that the President of the Republic of Singapore is not fit to be called "Paduka Yang Mulia" because he is not of royal blood. It is possible that the Utusan Melayu does not understand or purposely does not wish to understand the terms "Paduka Yang Mulia" and "Kebawah Duli Yang Mahamulia". With the term "Paduka Yang Mulia" for the President of the Republic of Singapore, that is the reason why Singapore does not use the word "patek". I do not understand why the name of the President of the Republic of Singapore was made the object of attack by Utusan Melayu. I have read an editorial column of Utusan Melayu which mentioned President Soekarno, using the term "Paduka Yang Mulia". Is it that of late this was purposely twisted by Utusan Melayu in a campaign so that the Malays of Singapore will not centre their loyalty on the President and the Ministers of the Singapore Government? This is a mischievous and dangerous act by Utusan Melayu towards Singapore which has become a free and sovereign nation. The Government of Singapore should take a serious view of this and take action on the publication of such news items. Similarly, action should be taken against Ahmad Haji Taff for, like the Utusan Melayu, he acts as a spokesman of a foreign government for the purpose of inciting political tension between Malaysia and Singapore. In the interest of peace, happiness and prosperity of the people of Singapore, I urge that the Government demand an apology from both Utusan Melayu and Ahmad Haji Taff for what they have done, and should they fail to do so, the Government should take necessary action against both of them.

The Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reply to the speech made by the Member for Geylang Serai in Malay.

(In Malay): At the outset, let me explain to this House that it is true that the Utusan Melayu deliberately twisted and perverted the speech made by Inche Rahim Ishak, the Minister of State for Education. It was designed to stir up hatred and enrage the Malays both outside and within Singapore against Inche Rahim Ishak in particular and the Singapore Government in general. The Utusan Melayu has once again attempted to denounce the Singapore Government as being anti-Malay and anti-Malay Sultans, as, in fact, it did when Singapore was a part of Malaysia. Under the circumstances, the Utusan Melayu deliberately reported Inche Rahim's speech Out of context and perverted it. However, we all know Inche Rahim's speech did not in the least offend the position nor the status of the Malay Rulers. What he said in full concerned the progress achieved by the Malays in Singapore in the field of education with the various forms of assistance given to them by the Singapore Government since the P.A.P. assumed office in 1959. If it was true that Inche Rahim's speech offended and denigrated the status of the Malay Rulers, we would certainly have received a strong protest from the Malaysian Government. However, to date we have not received any such protest officially. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, when challenged by Mr D. R. Seenivasagam in the Malaysian Parliament, stated that he did not wish to send a protest.

We are all aware about Ahmad Haji Taff's tactics. He is the head of U.M.N.O. Singapore, an appointment made in Kuala Lumpur. He was not elected by members of U.M.N.O. Singapore, as is the case with political parties that practise democracy, but he was appointed by forces outside Singapore. It naturally follows that he feels that he is under a certain obligation to his benefactor and, of course, he comes Out in support of and exaggerates whatever his master says.

Possibly there is some truth in what the Member for Geylang Serai has said - that Ahmad Haji Taff is aspiring to be an Ambassador, an ambition which his colleagues have realised, i.e., Hamid Jumat and Lim Yew Hock who have been given high appointments. Lim Yew Hock has suddenly become a poet recently. As the head appointed by outside forces, Ahmad Haji Taff is apprehensive that, when the day of judgment arrives, he will be ousted from UMNO. Singapore. So one way out of his dilemma is for him always to create a sense of uneasiness among the Malays in Singapore. In this way, by fishing in troubled waters, he hopes to cling to his position for as long as he can.

But the Malays in Singapore, who have never been under feudalistic rule since 150 years ago, are not narrow-minded. Therefore, they turned a deaf ear to Ahmad Haji Taff's speech and the articles in Utusan Melayu written under a nom de plume. I understand that those articles were not, in fact, written by members of the public but by the staff of Utusan Melayu itself. I further understand that at an U.M.N.O, meeting held in Singapore recently, Ahmad Haji Taff condemned Malay organisations in Singapore for remaining silent and for not supporting Utusan Melayu.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a democratic socialist country. We are an open society. If Utusan Melayu and Ahmad Haji Taff were to live in a neighbouring country, they would certainly have been languishing in prison by now, detained under the internal security laws. But we will not resort to the internal security laws. We only invoke the internal security laws against the Communists who cannot be convicted in an open court, as they threaten witnesses with bodily harm. We have certain laws under which action may be taken for such offences. I refer to the Sedition Ordinance contained in the Internal Security Act. We are constantly giving serious attention to the news items and articles carried in Utusan Melayu which affect Singapore. When this daily paper runs foul of the law, then the Government will not hesitate to take firm action.

A Utusan Melayu representative, in an interview with the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in September 1965, had already been provided with a copy of the Sedition Ordinance. Certainly this representative is not unaware that the provisions of the Sedition Ordinance are still in force in Singapore and can be enforced at any time if necessary. I wish to remind Utusan Melayu that in an interview with me on 30th September, 1965, in the Ministry of Culture, Singapore, its Managing Director; Dato Hussain Bin Noordin, gave an assurance to the Singapore Government to the effect that Utusan Melayu would not publish articles prejudicial to the peace and security of Singapore. He further said that Utusan Melayu would at all times make positive contributions by way of maintaining good relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. Dato Noordin also stated that he would accord his full co-Operation to bring about the successful creation of a just, prosperous, multi-racial and multi-religious society in Singapore. It is well and good for Utusan Melayu not to forget this undertaking.

Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Parliament do now adjourn.

The author of the piece is typical of some of the accademics in the country all masquerading as military/strategic experts with no knowledege at all. He used to write in the english language NST in the early 2000's but then stopped, maybe had to do with the letters (which NST printed) by me which pointed out he was talking rubbush :lol:

I heard there is some kind of defence arrangement or council etc during the Malayan Federation for the joint defence of both SG & MY...remebering reading those LKY Memoriars etc....but never heard that "the disbandment of the JDC was seal with BLOOD, the blood of a singapore army officer" :o

Based on what the author claim that if SAF do not factor in cost then we will end up buying B2 Stealth Bombers, nuclear aircraft carriers, SSBNs etc. We can also end up hiring 1 Division of Gurkhas :D

The capability of the SU-30 is better that the US-made sophisticated jet fighters like F-22 Raptor. In fact, other US-manufactured jet fighters like the F5, F15 and F16, like those owned by the Singapore Air Force, cannot beat the SU-30."

I think what the author is refering to those air combat exercises that USAF F16/F15 pit against Indian Air Force Su 30.

The acquisition of the SAF defence assets , regardless the fighter jets, submarine or combat helicopters, normally does not take into account the cost involve, but only on one factor, which is strategic interest to ensure the country’s sovereignty

I think what the author is trying to say is that SG can afford better quality hardware than other countries in the region. Compared to other countries, SG is more willing to pay a higher price for defence.

Anyway this is the best guess I am trying to get from the author's mind. :P

dont forget to pay RM200 to the JAGA "to look the other way"

the author clearly did not watch a youtube video of a red flag debrief about the F-22 vs the Su-30 :P

oh, and...

your humor is golden :lol:

I think the author will claim in his next article that RSAF based B2 bombers in Tengah, F22 in Paya Lebar, U2 in Changi East.

RSN based Ohio Class SSBNs in Tuas & Seawolf Class SSN in Changi. Or maybe based 1 Nimitiz Class at Sembawang Wharf.

Deploying ICBMs at Mount Faber & Bukit Timah. Also a big red button in Mindef that can launch missiles up North?? Perharps also have nuclear bombs in Tekong. :D

LOL!! What about Pedra Branca?? :lol:

Pedra Branca supposed to turn into a robot like what u see in Transformer in times of war?

Dun let the author knows our navy has the below capablity!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOlmClWyzk

The Jericho III ICBM was developed with funding provided by DSTA.
DSTA also funded Mitsubishi Industries Heavy Robotics development program. :P

This is what the author is most likely doing when he is writing the article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD0cYeVpkgI&NR=1

48 Red Beard nuclear bombs and a few squadrons of Avro Vulcons was deployed to Tengah during the Indonesian Confrontation in case the British decides to nuke the Indonesians.

I know SG maintains 3 ready to launched ICBMs hidden right under our nose. Can be found below.

So now is a war of words...SG author vs MY author. ;)

we should win cuz we got unlimited budget for the press :lol:

Wah law.........like that also can be professor. LOL
I am good enough to be a dean in a malaysian university.

I'm of the opinion that this all gives unnecessary publicity to the Malaysian author making him of more standing since RSIS and SG is taking his article seriously, the Straits Times probably shouldn't have bothered translating the article and printing it at all in the first place and too easy on the Malaysian side to dismiss it because the rebuttal is written from someone at a Singapore government linked think tank. Much better if they got someone independent or someone from Malaysia to criticise the professor.

But people like you shouldn't be wasting time on people like him. In fact, he never should have gotten print space on ST, since his views might lead some to think that the Singapore govt spends irresponsibly on defense. He wasted someone's time to reply to him in order to repair any damage he had done.

we should have waited for Dzirhan to hantam the prof lah :lol:

Anyone read the editorial in today's 90c paper?

Dzirhan gives the good professor a walloping :lol:

More interested in the retard(s) commenting about how the world trade center towers collapse was staged.

Was one of the last few visitors to the top of the towers. Only a retard would think 9/11 was staged by anyone other than the terrorists.

Thinking that the F-22 is lousier than the Su-30mkm can at least be justified from a patriotism stand-point. Put an 8 year old into the F-22 and there's always a chance that the Suk can shoot an F-22 down before it crashes first (assuming the 8 yr old can take it off the ground). Heck, in the same vein, some people would think a rsaf-piloted AMRAAM armed F-5S can be a match for a suk too.

Compared to that, making retarded remarks on 9/11 being artificially staged at an international conference really takes the prize. Did I mention that it was a "peace" conference? Senile is of course the other excuse.

Ex-PM of Malaysia:

Its comments like this that fully justify 6% of GDP expenditure on defence.

Can anyone scan the article here please??

I'm not in country today..

If you're referring to the article in Typhoon's post, the article is reproduced here.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.p...-william-choong

Thanks Weasel..

I was asked to give some comments some time back but did not want to say anything at the time in case my comments were not used though I did see that the paper chose to be tactful and not publish the part where I said what the professor wrote was rubbish :lol:

Thanks from the bottom of my heart.

I just want to point out that according to JDW, in 2009, our defence expenditure was 4.3 percent of GDP, an allocation of SGD11.4 billion (USD8.2 billion)... And we've never hit 6%, traditionally, IIRC, in the 4.5% to 4.9% range... plus some exceptions

We ONLY tell people that it is - 'will spend up to 6%'.... (i.e. NOT exceed) :)

Straits Times translation published on the 2nd January