Health and Living

Graduating with student debts?

Opinions

How safe are our Facebook comments?

News

Vui Kong’s family pleads outside Istana

Opinions

On 14 year-old YOG athlete Clarence Chew

Written on October 18, 2009 by Kelvin Teo

Email Story Printable version

Print Story

Facebook it!

Cutting the corners for our defense spending

There are numerous ways to cut Singapore's defense budget.

(photo credits:cyberpioneer)

SINGAPORE – “The foreign diplomat’s nightmare begins with an increase in a nation’s defense spending” or so as the saying goes. Yet, there is some truth in that. Lewis Fry Richardson and Anatol Rapopot have mathematically demonstrated the implications of increased defense spending within a regional polity. Simply put, after one nation increases defense spending, its neighbors interprets this as an act of potential belligerence, and it too ups its defense spending.

Yet we cannot run away from the fact that there is some sort of an arms race going on within our ASEAN region as brought up in a previous article.

In November 2005, Singapore bought 2 Swedish A-17 Vastergotland submarines after Malaysia purchased 3 French submarines in June 2002. Not to be outdone, Indonesia has purchased 2 Russian Kilo-class submarines in 2007, with plans to buy 8 more!

If that is not enough, even the air force of the respective countries have been bustling with new purchases. Malaysia purchased 18 Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets in 2003, which will be delivered in 2007. Singapore joined the Joint Strike Fighter program’s System Design and Development phase, obviously with a view to purchase the future F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Meanwhile, it purchased 12 F-15SG Strike Eagles in September 2005. In the near future, the Singapore Air Force expects to operate a combination of F-35, F-15SG and F-16C/D fighters.

Thus, one thing for sure is that an over-sized defense expenditure may not be seen in a positive light by our neighbors. On the other hand, reducing our defense expenditure will go a long way towards enhancing our current diplomatic relations with our neighbors. The pertinent question is how can we cut the corners for our defense spending that will lead to the reduction of our over-sized budget?

One way to address this issue is to reduce expenditure on daily logistics. Thus, how can we go about doing it? Operational units on constant standby usually have personnel who will take turns rotating their standby duties. Usually, the numerical strength of the personnel on standby will be at company level, whereby a certain company will be on standby for a certain duration. At the end of the duration, another company will take over and be on standby. Of course, company-level standby may not necessarily be the standard practice across the board. Some units may practise platoon-level standby, which is much smaller than the company, but it is essentially a certain number of platoons taking turns to be on standby for a duration.

The expenditure on logistics can be reduced for the companies or platoons that are not on standby. A simple way to achieve this is to implement stay-out for those who are not on standby and operational duty. Stay-out refers to the practice of booking out and leaving the camp typically after office hours, and reporting to the camp the very next day in the morning. On the other hand, stay-in means that the personnel will be in camp from day to night, sleeping in the bunks. Personnel who are on operational standby will usually stay-in.

Currently, most SAF operational units are stay-in, but not all stay-in personnel are on operational standby. Thus, the suggestion will be to let operational unit personnel who are not on operational standby stay-out. What is the reasoning behind this? The standard practice for stay-in units is that breakfast, lunch and dinner are provided. A typical meal in SAF costs $5.50. The provision of all three meals means an expenditure of $16.50 per soldier. For a stay-out unit, only lunch is provided; there is no need to provide dinner and breakfast the following day, and the expenditure will be only $5.50 per soldier.

Thus, if stay-out is implemented in one such operational unit, $11 can be saved for every soldier who is not on operational standby. Thus, for instance, a unit has 6 companies, each containing a sum total of 100 soldiers. Two companies will always be on standby, whilst the other 4 will not be on standby. If the 400 soldiers in the 4 non-standby companies are given stay-out, a sum of $4400 per day is saved in terms of meal provisions. In one year, the unit will save up to $1.584 million dollars. Furthermore, expenditures on other forms of logistics provided to stay-in personnel such as bedding items, laundry and utilities (water and electricity) can be cut.

However, not all soldiers are in favor of a stay-out. They typically live in a location that is not really accessible from their units and they would have problems reporting to the camp by a certain stipulated timing. Hence, they rather stay-in. This thorny problem can be circumvented via revisions to the unit posting system, whereby soldiers who live in a location that can easily access the camp via public transport will be posted to the unit.

Thus far, a lot has been discussed about the cost-cutting benefits of implementing stay-out, but what other benefits are there? During my term in National Service, I actually observed the impact of stay-out on the mood and disposition of the servicemen. The general observation is that staying-out actually led to an improvement in morale and mood of personnel. This could perhaps be attributed to the fact that they have more opportunities to pursue their interests and spend more time in areas e.g. relationships, hobbies, etc, that mean a lot to them. One of the chief complaints that can often be heard from undergraduates with national service (NS) obligations is that they tend to forget whatever they previously learn during their intervening NS years because they didn’t have time to refresh their memories for one reason or another and this puts them at a disadvantage when compared to their female peers and foreign counterparts. Others feel that the in-camp environment isn’t conducive for self-study due to the countless amount of distractions. Indeed, I also made the observation that stay-out personnel tend to fare better in the area of educational pursuits, i.e. study effectively.

Thus, the implementation of stay-out across the board for non-standby servicemen within our military has wide-ranging benefits that goes beyond cutting costs. It can perhaps lead to a high-morale fighting force that is cheaper to maintain at the same time.

552418 Comments2009-10-17+20%3A51%3A06Kelvin+Teo on "Cutting the corners for our defense spending"

Rebecca Wu on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 4:34 am

just wondering, why can't all the countries ard the world come together and form a UN-like organization called "LDDFT" >>Let's Downgrade our Defense Facilities Togehter"

i mean, personally i think it is really rediculous for countries to stack up their defense forces given the current situation that, with whatever we r alr having now, any kind of war invovling our current technology, would result in complete destruction of a country..hence, if World War III ever going to happen, that would be the end of humankind!!!

of course, i still support National Service. I think it is the best education the singapore government could possibly give to our countrymen. besides the physical benefits of looking fitter, hotter and sexier, NS has certainly helped a guy to become more mature, more independent, show greater appreciation for the things they used to take for granted,, e.g. their mom. Most importantly, if one is fortunate enough, it transforms someone from a boy to a man, a girl to a strong lady =)

princessruby on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 4:41 am

rebecca, i agree!!! =) any contemporary war would certainly be a "lose-lose" situation..='(

quotes.addict on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 6:02 am

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

-Mahatma Gandhi, 'Satyagraha Leaflet No. 13,' May 3, 1919

Jackson Tan on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 8:51 am

I have no idea how the current unit posting system functions, but I think it has something to do with matching each abilities and talents to their vocation. This makes sense, and I did remember doing a very long quiz about half a year before I was enlisted. A location based one may lose the advantage of this system.

As for stay-out, even if distance can be reduced, there is still personal transportation costs and meal costs (because you're just shifting the numbers: now the servicemen have to pay it out of their own pockets), which makes it unfavourable to some people. I do know of people who would dislike staying-out for this particular reason (and it's so much a hassle to commute to camp everyday, as compared to staying-in). Furthermore, the reason why meals are so expensive is because they are, supposedly, measured to give the servicemen their proper balanced meal (though I must say I see my platoon mates inflating as the months pass by…), and staying-out may compromise this factor.

In any case, I don't really support the cutting of logistics. You have already introduced the article using rising purchases of "show-off" equipment. Why not cut on that? Are they that vital? Or is it some sort of chummy deal with the US so they can sell their products and we can gain their protection?

Kelvin Teo on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 9:39 am

Dear Jackson:

My introduction of rising purchases is to show some sort of arms race going on. As it is, I don' wish to spend my time speculating on the what and whys are we making such purchases. I am not that high up to know about such things, and if I do write about it, I wouldn't be living and breathing now..hahahaha!

Accessibility to the unit is actually an important factor in determining our units' readiness. What I notice in my unit (which practises activation drill once) is that those who lived in non-accessible places are usually among the last few to report in a activation/recall drill. BTW, my unit does Chemical, Biological, Radiological Defese stuff, so response time is of essence. If I could vaguely remember, when we were activated by our brigade commander, most of us who lived in the more accessible places made it before those who lived in the obscure areas. One was quite late, reporting +2.5 hours after activation. My place was considered quite obscure, and I made it just in under 2 hours taking public transport. Yeah, that was during my NSF days.

Kelvin Teo on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 9:39 am

Yes, there are some people who dislike stay-out, I too noticed that, and those are the few who usually live in non-accessible places. Howeve, it is safe to say that there are more servicemen who are in favor of stay-out as compared to stay-in. In my unit, the procedure to apply for stay-out is to get one's director superior to submit a signed memo of approval. In my company alone, I didn't find the astronomical number of personnel applying for stay-out that surprising. I would say majority would support stay-out.

Some servicemen hold an additional job like giving tuition, etc to earn spare cash. Thus, there could be an additional economic benefit in allowing stay-out, ie. economic productivity. And for those who stay-out, I do notice a positive change in their morale and disposition.

Sincerely yours

missrandom on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 11:02 am

"Thus, there could be an additional economic benefit in allowing stay-out, ie. economic productivity"
>>> very insightful!!!!!^O^

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 19 Oct 2009 on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 11:54 am

[...] Discourse – The Kent Ridge Common: Cutting the corners for our defense spending – Ravi Philemon: World Day Against the Death Penalty 2009 – A Singapore Forum – Feed Me To The [...]

Roy on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 4:11 am

Dear Rebecca Wu

Why dun you sign up for NS? You are aware that females can volunteer for the NS too? Its easy to say one support NS because it brings intangible benefits to those who went through them. How about walking the talk?

The last I check, the company's out there cares very little about how "more matured" Singaporean males are or how "fit" they are. Ceteris Paribus, they prefer to employ the younger foreign males.

Please stop regurgitating the "benefits" that our government propagandized and use your own digression when forming opinions. If you refuse to think with your own head and insist on being such a good sheep, please have the decency and the integrity to align your actions with your opinions and sign up for the great FOC education that is NS.

administrator on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 5:15 am

we encourage free expression of personal opinions without any intentional attack on your fellow commenters.

thanks & best regards.

lastICTtogo on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 11:49 am

NS is welfare from the Singaporean male to the government and citizens of Singapore. So much so that the Govt have a 'clutch mentality' with it. How is that even considered education?

contrarian on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 2:58 pm

"One of the chief complaints that can often be heard from undergraduates with national service (NS) obligations is that they tend to forget whatever they previously learn during their intervening NS years because they didn’t have time to refresh their memories for one reason or another and this puts them at a disadvantage when compared to their female peers and foreign counterparts."

It's amazing, the excuses people give to make up for their own deficiencies.
Others including myself have gone through NS to university. I never for once felt disadvantaged by taking two and a half years off (yes it was 2.5 years back then) before university. Because I was older and knew what I wanted, I was able to apply for a corporate scholarship during university on my university results, while those fresh from JC were not picked.

Kelvin_Teo on Mon, 19th Oct 2009 4:22 pm

contrarian, you have a point. There are people who made it without much of a difficulty. I managed dean's list in 3 of my semesters even though my time was 2 and a half years NS. However, I did notice that people who had to retake exams or study for tests didn't do that well, especially when they had to stay-in. At one point of time, I was assisting one chap, but the poor guy had to undergo so much distractions, from colleagues etc. He did worse when he retook A levels.

I guess that guy didn't have good concentration power, or he's just not made to study. He suffered a major accident which hindered his intellectual development to a certain extent though, but his chief problem is that he was easily distracted.

But I had met a lot of weird people too. I know one guy who gets distracted soo easily that he studies in among all places…the toilet at home!

Sincerely yours

CelluloidReality on Tue, 20th Oct 2009 5:44 am

Defence procurement is more than just purchasing equipment. It is also about strengthening defence diplomacy and over the long course of events, it adds up as a contribution towards interoperatibility of forces and doctrinal commonality.

The world is not going to be a less dangerous place, and most of the challenges we face are multilateral and outside of our immediate neighbourhood

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 43 on Sat, 24th Oct 2009 11:08 am

[...] Discourse – The Kent Ridge Common: Cutting the corners for our defense spending – Ravi Philemon: World Day Against the Death Penalty 2009 – A Singapore Forum – Feed Me To The [...]

raxip on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 4:28 am

Dear Kelvin,

The reason for defense spending increase is not so much so as the costs spent on stay-in personnels' logistics but due to the fact that the systems that we procure now are more expensive. It is a natural consequence of the increased technological complexity of the newer systems we procure. For example, the A4SU Skyhawks which we retired were replaced by the F15SGs which costs more per unit (even after factoring inflation and upgrades).

Also, to fight the modern-day war, we need good lines of communications for our 3G SAF to work (so we were told). Those equipments needed to maintain these communication lines don't come cheap either. Put it this way, we have simply lost the ability to fight war on the cheap with slightly inferior but much cheaper systems. That is a consequence of our need to gain that marginal advantage in the war vis-a-vis a 2G/2.5G army.

Peter on Sat, 22nd May 2010 1:05 pm

The best way to cut defence spending is cutting the pay of SAF regulars! They are overpaid as compared to the NSmen working in the private sector!

Krav Maga on Thu, 24th Jun 2010 6:35 am

Hi. this is kind of an irregular question , but have other visitors asked you how get the side panel to look like you've got it?

Other Reviews

Was NUS student really approached by ISD?
The Temasek Review recently ran an article from an anonymous ...

Flooding woes – the critical cause of poor soil quality
There is an old Geography adage that goes “earthquakes don’t ...

ST Forum: A Case of Blowing One’s Own Trumpet?
THE STRAITS TIMES recently reported on the full-team walkabout by ...

OTHER NEWS HEADLINE

Feature

Vui Kong’s family pleads outside Istana
by Christopher Ong