Arms unused? Money well-spent on deterrence

The Straits Times, February 12, 2007


I REFER to the letters by Mr Koo Zhi Xuan ('Not slaughtering sacred cow but taking away some food'; ST, Feb 8) and Mr Quek Soo Beng ('Examine the old sacred cow of defence spending'; ST, Jan 27), which advocate a decrease in defence spending.

Mr Koo put forth the view that other countries will act rationally and we will be safe from any possibility of invasion.

While I would like to share his belief in human rationality, examples abound that prove otherwise. A suicide bomber's rationale is hard to fathom. We must accept that not everyone subscribes to our definition of 'rational behaviour'. It is also not impossible for conditions to evolve such that military aggression against Singapore may be considered a rational choice of action by leaders of other nations.

Can we afford to gamble our security on the continued rationality of others?

History has shown that Singapore's relations with its neighbours can be strained at times. Outstanding territorial disputes and resources upon which Singapore is critically dependent have been just some of the issues that have brought about such friction.

Mr Quek implies that the military equipment which the Singapore Armed Forces bought, in not having seen real combat, have not served their purpose, and that the resources spent on them could have been better used to improve social welfare.

I beg to differ. In not having been used, they have served their purpose of deterrence. In effect, our armed forces have taken away aggression as a viable option of political intercourse with Singapore.

With respect to 'rational behaviour', our capable armed forces ensure that military aggression against Singapore or actions which harm our national interests are not rational options in most conceivable circumstances.

That said, in the event that such action against Singapore is taken, its investment in defence will work towards ensuring that its national interests are safeguarded.

Singapore's small size is also another strong factor in the need for a strong defence. One cannot not come to the conclusion that a subservient attitude is sometimes expected of Singapore by its neighbours. Having a capable defence force means its leaders can sit at the negotiating table and expect a fair negotiation session, instead of having conditions dictated to them by their counterparts.

In other words, Singapore's military is not there to coerce, but to prevent coercion.

Finally, just because war is not imminent does not mean that Singapore can afford a 'procurement holiday' in defence spending.

Military capabilities, once sacrificed as a result of funding cuts, can take an inordinate amount of time to restore.

One cannot expect to have a capable military on call when one does not continually invest in its capabilities.

Attempting to substitute investment in our defence through 'international and bilateral diplomacy' is not practical. Diplomacy is but another means in ensuring Singapore's security. It is in no way a substitute for a capable military.

Lu Junwen
ST Forum