Quora Answer: Why is the Singapore Military Weaker than Her Neighbours Despite Having a Larger Budget?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why is the Singapore military weaker than Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia, despite having a bigger budget and cooler toys?”

In what way is the Singapore military weaker?  If your assumption is based on the various lists such as Global Power Index, these lists are essentially worthless in judging the capabilities of any military.  What they do, is give a list of the estimated manpower, the number of tanks, aircraft, and whatever else they choose to factor.  What they do not quantify is the quality, the performance, and the tactical integration of military units, and the quality of training.

For example, when we consider manpower, Singapore, due to its smaller population, is expected to have the smallest manpower base, but that it not how it works.  Due to conscription, and the reservist system, the Singapore Armed Forces has an effective manpower of just over 300,000, with a reserve pool of between 1.1 to 1.4 million men if it were in a state of total war.  This refers to the number of men who have basic military training, and can be deployed immediately to the front, with minimal training.

In contrast, Malaysia’s standing military is much smaller, which is also due to its smaller military budget.  There were abortive attempts to implement national service, but it was badly managed, and the system is not functional.  Furthermore, due to mismanagement and corruption, aside from select units, the vast majority of the Malaysian military are not trained in manoeuvre warfare, or even engage in active exercises at any unit level.

Indonesia has a massive military pool of more than a million active personnel, if we include the police and paramilitary personnel.  However, they are scattered across the archipelago engaged in what is essentially police action, and pacification.  The vast majority of them are not trained for s modern military conflict of a nation state level, and this can be seen in how they underperformed in Timor Leste, against what was essentially Australian and Singaporean units in an undeclared war for Timor Leste’s oil resources.  Indonesian generals utilise their men as a form of cheap labour, and not professional soldiers.

Thailand has a competent military, with a wealth of combat experience, stemming from fighting the Vietnam War, and in the various conflicts in Indochina thereafter, as well in undeclared military action on the Myanmar border.  Their Achilles’ heel is political interference, the rivalry with the police, and corruption.  They have struggled recently in pacifying the restive south.

Vietnam has a massive military, numbering well over a million active personnel, but they are in a demobilisation, and modernisation phase.  Just like Indonesia and Thailand, due to the size of the budget, the per capita spend per soldier is inadequate to ensure that they are fully equipped to fight a modern war.  This lack of funds also means that they do not have the means for military exercises of the scale and frequency required to bring many units to combat effectiveness.

In terms of aircraft, Singapore has, far and away, the largest modern air force in the region.  They also have the pool of pilots, and the logistics, to keep an air campaign going on for several weeks.  Thailand is the only other nation in the region with over the horizon interdiction.  Singapore is also the only air force in Southeast Asia with an established air-to-air refueling capability, extending the operational range of their combat aircraft.  The only regional nations that can do that is Australia.  Singapore’s real strength, however, is in its airborne early warning, and satellite targeting system.  Aside from this, Singapore is actively amassing a massive drone fleet.

In terms of naval power, whilst Singapore has a smaller number of surface vessels, and submarines, it has the most modern.  The RSN fields the only stealth frigates in the region, with the capability of providing a significant anti-aircraft envelope around the fleet, allowing for force projection beyond the horizon.  With the impending acquisition of the F-35 IIs, and the JMMS, Singapore has a carrier fleet in all but name.

In terms of overall military, Singapore has the most modern force, with a special emphasis on force multipliers, and team warfare, meaning that all branches of the military, and the civilian defence structure, function as an integrated unit.  The country has the money to invest in fighting the next war, and the R&D capability to develop the indigenous capability to support the military.  This is while its neighbours are still in an extended modernisation phase.

For example, Indonesia spent billions acquiring the old East German Navy, with little consideration for the fact that a surface fleet built for the Baltic and North Atlantic waters, is unsuitable for tropical waters.  The result is that while the numbers look impressive, these ships were floating scrap metal by the time they arrived.

For example, Vietnam had, at one time, over a thousand combat aircraft, on paper.  However, due to a lack of spare parts, maintenance personnel, pilots, and even a proper integrated command structure, most of them were not airworthy, let alone combat effective.

Another consideration is not just the numbers, but whether these countries have the ability to deploy their manpower and weapons in theatre.  Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam lack the lift capability, both air and sea, to bring their military to bear effectively.  Vietnam is a land-based military, with a lot of old tanks and APCs, but no adequate anti-air envelope.  Indonesia is based on an archipelago, but they do not have enough ships to move that massive number of men and supplies in a reasonable window to take decisive military action anywhere but at the Kalimantan border.  They do not even have the naval superiority to protect their convoys.

Strictly from a military perspective, none of these countries are a serious military threat to Singapore.  Such is the integrated nature of their economies, and the framework of ASEAN, no one has any reason to resort to war.  For countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia, they need a stronger military to project some sort of military presence to deter Chinese claims in the South China Sea.  At the moment, they are woefully outgunned, even collectively.

Quora Answer: What is Public Opinion in Singapore on Lee Hsien Loong’s Controversial Remarks about the Khmer Rouge?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How was public opinion in Singapore to Lee Hsien Loong’s controversial remarks about the Khmer Rouge?”

What the Prime Minister of Singapore has said is historical fact.  There is no controversy.  ASEAN’s diplomatic, and military, confrontation with Vietnam occurred in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.  It began in 1977, more than 40 years ago, and ended in 1991, almost 30 years ago.  The Singapore public does not care about it.

The remarks are an issue in Vietnam because the Vietnamese government has, over the years, recoloured the conflict as a liberation of the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge, which is not the whole truth.  This was a proxy war between the Soviet-sponsored Vietnamese, and the Chinese-sponsored Khmer Rouge, and an extension of the split in the Communist bloc.  The removal of the Khmer Rouge from power was a fortunate consequence, not the primary intent of the invasion.

They are an issue in Cambodia, because the current Cambodian government did not come to power by legitimate means.  Hun Sen, the current Prime Minister, was formerly with the Khmer Rouge before defecting.  He came to power, in a coup, in 1997, and ousted the democratically elected premier, Norodom Ranariddh.  Norodom Ranariddh was associated with the resistance that fought the Khmer Rouge, and spent time in prison for his politics.

Quora Answer: Why Does Singapore Say Vietnam Invaded Cambodia?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why does Singapore say that Vietnam invaded Cambodia?  How many countries support the Khmer Rouge?”

When the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, said that Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979, it is factually correct.  In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia, ostensibly to overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime.  ASEAN’s condemnation of Vietnam’s invasion should not be viewed as support for the Khmer Rouge regime, since those are two separate issues.

On one hand, we can say that ASEAN could have come out stronger against the Khmer Rouge regime, but that is a simplistic view of history.  The Khmer Rouge were a Chinese proxy, and ASEAN was not in a position to do so without risking antagonising China.  We forget, that in 1979, ASEAN was just over a decade old.  ASEAN’s first summit meeting was in 1976, in Bali.  It consisted of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.  The US had just pulled out of South Vietnam in defeat, in 1976, and there was a very real fear of Communist expansion.

The rise of the Khmer Rouge was at Chinese sponsorship.  This was at the height of the tripartite Cold War with three main belligerents: the US, the USSR and Communist China.  The Chinese, and Soviets, had just fought a border war a decade earlier.  Mao Zedong’s China was the belligerent, whereas Khrushchev had a policy of rapprochement with the West.  ASEAN, as the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, were in a difficult place.  The Khmer Rouge were involved in an internal conflict, killing their own people.  But Vietnam was an ascendant military power with Soviet backing, with the stated goal of expanding the Communist revolution throughout Southeast Asia.

Accordingly, ASEAN took the calculated risk of opposing Vietnam, and leading world condemnation of their invasion.  The fear was that Vietnam would not stop at Cambodia, but continue east.  We must also remember that the fight between Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge was a proxy war between the Soviets and the Chinese Communists, both nuclear powers.  Had China decided to intervene then, the USSR would have reignited the Sino-Soviet Border War.  There were almost 50 light divisions of the PLA confronting almost 40 full divisions of the Soviet military along the border still.  As early as 1969, the Nixon Administration took the unusual step of warning Khrushchev that a unilateral Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear facilities would lead to World War III.  So, even the American were wary of the split between the Communist bloc.

When Vietnam invaded, ASEAN was thrust into the forefront of the Cold War, and they realised that they were hilariously outgunned by the Vietnamese military.  Amid an American pullout, Thailand alone was in no position to confront the Vietnamese war machine, with its hundreds of thousands of war veterans, fresh from defeating a superpower.

Accordingly, ASEAN lead the diplomatic efforts to isolate Vietnam to strangle its trade and economy to starve that military.  ASEAN, particularly Singapore, poured millions into supporting any group fighting the Vietnamese to bog them down into the very stalemate they did with the Americans.  They had learned the lessons of the Vietnam War, and the shoe was on the other foot.  In the meantime, Singapore sought diplomatic relations with China, on behalf of ASEAN, so that they had another card to play should the Vietnamese still win.  This also reaped economic benefits under Deng Xiaoping later.

When seen in context, these were difficult decisions to make, but it underlines the practical diplomacy that Singapore undertook to preserve our sovereignty, and the safety of the region.  As a small nation, a new nation then, we did not have the military and economic strength then, so we had to make some sacrifices and play the long game.  This is a testament to the calibre of our policymakers and diplomatic corps, and we make no apologies for it.

Quora Answer: Why is Singapore Able to Manufacture Weapons While Its Neighbours Have to Import Them?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why is Singapore able to make its own weapons while its neighbours have to import them?”

This is not true.  ASEAN nations have always been cognisant of the fact that they have been too reliant on arms purchases.  During the Konfrontasi, Sweden’s Bofors AB halted deliveries of armaments.  This highlighted the vulnerability of depending on external suppliers for everything.  Currently, ASEAN nations are wary of Chinese claims in the South China Sea.  China has territorial disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.  This is the incentive for them to modernise, and build up an indigenous defence capability.

Indonesia has a wide variety of programmes, from an indigenous radar system, to new patrol craft, to a proposed transport aircraft better able to land and take-off on rough island airstrips.  Malaysia is collaborating with the French to develop and deploy coastal aircraft.  Thailand is looking to develop an indigenous naval air wing.  Vietnam is looking at upgrading their logistics and avionics capabilities.  Aside from Brunei, Cambodia, and Laos; every member of ASEAN is in some form of major military build-up, whether it is force modernisation, weapons upgrading, or systems development.  And they are all developing, or have developed, some indigenous weapons systems.

Singapore is slightly different in that it is not in a modernisation phase.  Its military is in a doctrine development and integration of next generation technologies.  That is what being wealthy affords us.  Singapore is one of the largest arms exporters in the world for small arms and small-ticket items.  On some reports, we are the fourth-largest weapons exporter in the world, which is no mean feat considering the size of every other country on that list.  Singapore does not primarily develop weapons because we are in need of them, being the most militarised state in the region.  Singapore develops weapons because it is an industry that is also geared for export.  It is a means to generate economic growth.  Comparing Singapore’s arms industry to Malaysia, for example, is as misleading as comparing Malaysia’s car industry to ours.  They choose to sell passenger cars.  We sell infantry fighting vehicles.  Different industry focus, different market.

Quora Answer: Why Did Singapore Support Cambodia against Vietnam’s Invasion in 1979?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why did Singapore support Cambodia against Vietnam’s invasion in 1979?”

ASEAN, not Singapore, did not set out to support Cambodia against Vietnam.  At the height of the Cold War, ASEAN reacted, or perhaps, overreacted, accordingly, and sought to limit what they saw as Vietnamese aggression, and the spread of Communism.  They considered the possibility that the Vietnamese would roll into Thailand, and there were border clashes at the height of the fighting.  As such, they adopted the strategy of bogging the Vietnamese war machine in Cambodia by arming and funding every group fighting the Vietnamese.  The old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” played out here, and that means they also funded the deposed Khmer Rouge.

The problem that commentators have now is that they are looking with the benefit of hindsight at events that occurred 40 years ago.  Things are a lot clearer now.  Also, we must never conflate political interest with morality.  There is no such thing.  Morality and humanitarian aid is the card governments play to gain popular support.  This is always about power and influence.

Quora Answer: If There is a Coalition War within Southeast Asia, Which Country Will Dominate the Region?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “How will the scenario be if there is a coalition war within Southeast Asia; which country will dominate the region?”

There is no viable scenario where there will be a coalition conflict within Southeast Asia.  Firstly, the nations in the region belong to vastly different cultures: from Buddhist traditions on the north to Muslim in the south, with Catholic in the northern part of the archipelago, to animist far to the east; from a western aligned Singapore and Philippines, to formerly Eastern bloc aligned Indochina, to socialist Indonesia; from constitutional monarchies, to city state, to federal governments.  There is no real unifying factor.

Secondly, whilst there are border tensions among all members, they are not significant enough to overcome the shared need for economic growth and trade.  The unifying factor of ASEAN itself is the recognition that these countries are stronger as a bloc than as individual nations.

Finally, in the event of such an unlikely conflict, most of these nations either do not have the necessary force projection, or militaries large enough to fight multi-front conflicts.  For example, Singapore has the most advanced military.  But a war with both Malaysia and Indonesia would close off both ends of the Singapore Straits, starving it of supplies.  Indonesia has a large army, but its navy and air force are inadequate to provide the lift to send those soldiers anywhere safely.  They also cannot establish naval and aerial superiority, which is necessary for an amphibious landing in force.  Malaysia is stuck between neighbours with stronger militaries.  It would quickly disintegrate as a political entity with military cohesion.  But its terrain is excellent for guerilla warfare and impossible to hold.  The Philippines would be a non-factor.  It cannot attack anywhere, and it is protected from direct attack, as an island chain nation.  Continental Southeast Asia would be a bloodbath, from Myanmar to Vietnam.  Thailand would be sandwiched in between, and squeezed south.

We have to remember that Southeast Asia straddles one of the most important trade routes in the world.  The last time Indonesia threatened to invade Malaysia, during the Konfrontasi, the US sent a carrier group to the north of the Malacca Straits, and shut that down.  The US, China, Japan and India are not going to sit quietly while the region goes mad.

Quora Answer: Do Governments Orchestrate Attacks to Give Them Cause to Wage War with Another Country?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Do governments orchestrate attacks to give them cause to go to war with another country?”

Yes.  An example would be the staged Gulf of Tonkin incident, which gave the US casus belli to attack North Vietnam directly, escalating the Vietnam War.  As long as there have been nations that would benefit from invading others, there has been a practice of creating casus belli to justify conflict.

The reasons for the conflict may vary, but the reasons for creating an excuse for conflict are relatively simple.  Wars are expensive, and the citizenry, even the ordinary soldiers, need a reason to fight so that they will believe in it.  Soldiers who are not motivated cannot win a war.  An extended conflict also creates fatigue within the populace, and that may lead to the overthrow of the belligerent government.  World War I is an example, where Russian soldiers overthrew the Tsar and murdered his entire family.

Quora Answer: If China Wages Total War on Vietnam, the Philippines, & Malaysia over the South China Sea, Should Indonesia, as a Non-Claimant Get Involved?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “If China wages total war with Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, over the South China Sea, should Indonesia, as a non-claimant, declare war on China?”

There are three assertions here, and all of them are incorrect.

Firstly, whilst Indonesia is not a direct claimant of any territory in the South China Sea, it is a claimant of an exclusive economic zone in an area it has renamed the North Natuna Sea.  These claims on an exclusive economic zone overlap with China’s.  This means Indonesia is a claimant.

Secondly, Indonesia, along with Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines, are all part of ASEAN.  Whilst ASEAN does not have a mutual defence treaty such as NATO does, an attack upon one member of ASEAN would drag the others in, including Singapore, the rest of Indochina, Myanmar, and Thailand.  The Philippines is a major part of the US sphere.  Malaysia is part of the FPDA which includes Singapore, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.  The US has a carrier refit base in Singapore.  Such a war will not be a regional war, but have consequences across the globe.

Finally, China does not have the ability to wage total war in the South China Sea.  Total war means that the entire economy is converted to military production.  China is a large country, with the second-largest economy in the world.  However, considering debt to GDP ratio at over 300%, they cannot afford total war.

China also does not have a surface navy large enough to wage war in the vast area of the South China Sea, and still deter potential belligerents, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in the East China Sea.  Having long borders and massive territorial claims means that even a military the size of the PLA cannot enforce them.  China’s military is also in a modernisation phase.  They do not have the force projection capability to fight a war on distant lands, across the sea.  China also does not have the lift capability to support an expeditionary force away from the Chinese mainland.

Quora Answer: Does the World Owe Vietnam an Apology for Saving Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge despite UN Embargo?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Does the world owe Vietnam an apology, since Vietnam fought bravely, and heroically to save the Cambodians from Khmer Rouge, while being unfairly condemned, and embargoed by the UN?”

The various countries acted in their national interest, as did Vietnam.  It was the national interest of ASEAN, then, to prevent the expansion of the Vietnamese sphere of influence, and Communism.  It was the national interest of China to prevent Vietnam turning Cambodia into a satellite state in the Russian sphere of influence.  It was the American interest to stymie Vietnam, which was a Soviet proxy then.  It was the Vietnamese interest to depose the Khmer Rouge once it became apparent that they were in the Sinosphere, and were hostile to Vietnamese influence.  It was the Soviet interest to occupy China far away from their mutual border.

Nobody owes Vietnam any apology.  It is naive for anyone to think that hurt feelings are more important than the national interest.  Decades from now, the conflict has been cast in Vietnam as an effort to depose a murderous regime to save Cambodians.  This is a vestige of Communist party propaganda.  Vietnam did not care for dead Cambodians.  At one time, they even hosted Pol Pot and called him a friend.  When he was a threat to their national interest, the genocide was an excellent pretext for the invasion.