Debated in Parliament on 5 Mar 2014.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100."
The rise of China with a fast growing economy and the continuing modernisation of the Peoples' Liberation Army's capability and platforms have changed and challenged the current security arrangements in the Asia Pacific. Both China and the United States continue to play key roles in stabilising our region over here. The recent assertive stance over competing territorial claims in the South and East China Seas has raised tensions in both regions significantly. The posturing by China, Japan and the United States over the territorial disputes increases the risk of conflicts and threatens the peace in our region. The recent political turmoil in Ukraine is a good reminder what can happen when a nation is caught between interests of larger nations and does not have the ability to defend itself.
I had the opportunity to visit the European Parliament and the European Union in Brussels last year. Speaking to parliamentarians of the member states regarding security arrangements, many were of the opinion that the formation of the European Union has delivered peace to the European continent after centuries of war. While they are apprehensive and cautious about the growth of Russia as a military might, they are not willing to see the re-emergence of German military power as well. Japan, on the other hand, has openly announced that they are reviewing their defence arrangements and may change their constitution so that they can increase their defence in view of the heightened tension with China, and also the rising tension in the Korean Peninsula. How will Asian countries, including Singapore and Malaysia, who had suffered from Japanese occupation during Second World War react to a remilitarised Japan?
Can MINDEF give an assessment of the regional security situation and the challenges confronting the region? How does MINDEF see relations between the US and China as well as China and Japan impacting our the regional security arrangement?
The combined defence spending in Asia exceeded that of the West for the first time last year. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institution's Military Expenditure Database, China has increased defence expenditure from US$52 billion in 2002 to US$157 billion in 2012. This is a
Page: 153
whopping increase of 198% over the decade. Our immediate neighbours, Indonesia and Malaysia, have also increased their defence expenditure correspondingly over the past decade by 125% and 35% respectively. While comparing actual figures itself, Singapore has increased by about 16% over the past decade. Regional countries have been increasing their defence spending. What impact will this defence spending have on our regional security situation?
Regional countries have been increasing their defence spending. China leads the pack by increasing its defence budget by 12.2%, reflecting its military ambitions to play a more assertive role in Asia.
Tensions in this region have shot up in recent years over claims to disputed territories in the East and South China Seas. At the same time, nationalism has been on the rise, resulting in a more nationalistic approach to foreign and defence policy.
The danger then is that the nationalist sentiments that are feeding the desire to flex military muscles would lead to a test of wills between powers and, if there is a miscalculation, to conflict.
Closer to home, several ASEAN countries have also been spending more on defence. For example, Indonesia has posted an average annual increase of 8% over the last decade. What impact will these trends have on regional security and on Singapore's defence and strategic planning?
As a small state, it is crucial that Singapore maintains a strong and credible defence. The evolving geopolitics reinforces the need for continued and steady investments to ensure this.
We must never lose the ability to stand up for ourselves and to defend ourselves. Russia's invasion of Crimea in Ukraine is yet another reminder of that lesson.
The younger generation in Singapore, however, has known only peace. As a result, some may have been lulled into a false sense of security, as mentioned earlier, and this has led to calls for a reduction in NS and defence spending.
Page: 154
It is crucial that Singaporeans show an iron will to support a strong SAF and to show no weakness as a united nation when tested by any country. I would like to ask the Minister how MINDEF ensures that Singaporeans continue to remain committed to defence and a strong SAF.
Sir, there is a colloquial saying in Chinese that goes roughly like this: "There are people who will conduct business at the risk of losing their lives, but there is certainly no one that will conduct a business that will certainly result in a loss." In Chinese, it goes like "会丢了命的生意有人会做,不过没有人会做肯定亏钱的生意".
Drug trafficking is one such example. People will try and smuggle drugs knowing fully well that they may go to the gallows. But no one will sell you a plate of mee rebus for 50 cents when it costs $1.50 to produce that plate of mee rebus.
Sir, the same principle applies to wars. Wars are started for one reason and one reason only – someone thinks that a war can be won. Some may argue that wars can begin for many reasons. For example, some people think that World War I was started by accident when an Austrian royalty was assassinated. Many wars were also started out of religious differences or fervour. But if we distil the facts, we can almost always find that the party that started the war believed they could win, whether by sheer might or even aided by supernatural power. This belief needs only to be momentary before a nation passes the tipping point and starts a war.
In the history of mankind, city-states have not had a very good record of existence. Many have come and gone through the millennia. Can Singapore be different? Actually, everything about the survival of Singapore boils down to two things – our economy must grow and our armed forces must be equal to the mission of defending Singapore.
I know, critics will tell me that there is more to government than the economy and defence, such as education, health, looking after our elderly and poor, transport and so on. I also agree. But the key word here is "growing". Without a growing economy, we cannot possibly fund our education, social and health programmes in a sustainable and responsible way. We can argue how
Page: 155
fast should our economy grow, but no one should argue that our economy cannot shrink or stagnate – it needs to grow. As for defence, without an effective SAF, a would-be aggressor may start a war with Singapore because the aggressor thinks this war can be won.
As Sun Tzu said, the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. The hard truth of defending Singapore is that we have few strategic alternatives. Singapore cannot fight a protracted war. And the reasons are obvious.
Unlike Russia in World War II, we cannot trade space for time or hope for inhospitable climate before mounting an offensive. We live in the balmy tropics and we only have 710 square kilometres.
Unlike the Chinese in the Korean War, or the Vietnamese when they fought the Americans, we cannot absorb massive casualties and wear the enemy down. We only have 4 million to 5 million residents.
We have no natural terrain obstacles around us that can prevent or even slow an attack. While we may think of the seas around us affording us some comfort, the waters around us are no obstacles to air warfare and modern long-range weapons, especially in a built-up city like ours.
That means we are left with the strategic option of securing a quick, decisive and crippling defeat of our enemies once war starts. And while we want to only have friends in this world, we should leave no doubt in any potential aggressor's mind that the SAF is trained and equipped to do just that.
I, therefore, fully support the efforts of the Minister for Defence to keep the SAF the best trained and equipped armed forces in the region. This is by no means an easy task. The defence of a physically small country like Singapore is also limited by both the size of our population and the size of our defence budget. Larger countries can afford larger armies and larger budgets, especially when their economies grow. We are seeing this phenomenon of rapid growth in some defence budgets around us. I think this is natural. While we need not fear this, we should also be sensitive to this and recognise that both the rules of the game and the game itself are changing.
The SAF cannot lie idle while such developments take place. We have always placed about a quarter to a third of our Government Budget or about 4% to 5% of our GDP on defence expenditure. This has always been the biggest
Page: 156
ticket item in the Budget. We should remain committed to these expenditure levels. We should also resist calls for National Service to be shortened to only a year, as suggested recently by Mr Tan Kin Lian.
As recent events have taught us, we cannot rely on people, be it others or even ourselves, remembering history to keep the peace. The best way to achieve peace and security for Singapore is for everyone to know that they cannot possibly win a war with Singapore and that starting a war will exact a terrible and unacceptable price for the aggressor. This message has to be repeatedly, if not continually, communicated to all Singaporeans and others beyond our shores. Not just to this generation, but for the generations to come. Most importantly, this message needs to be backed by the commitment and sacrifice of all Singaporeans, especially our SAF regulars and NSmen. We will do so as sensitively as possible but, when the going gets rough, we will also respond appropriately.
The other plank of our defence philosophy is that Singapore must remain relevant to the world and it is in the interests of the world's major and regional powers that Singapore remains an independent, sovereign state. That is why Singapore must remain plugged into the world community and our little country punches above our weight in the diplomatic world. A small state tucked away, forgotten by the world, is also a state ripe for the picking by aggressors.
Sir, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other founding fathers have said on more than one occasion in the past that no one owes us a living. Actually, I think it is more elemental than that. No one even owes us an existence.
Mr Nicholas Fang. Not present.
The international media have reported that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) was demonstrated to the SAF late last year in the US. At the last COS, the Defence Minister stated that MINDEF was in the final stages of evaluating the Joint Strike Fighter although the Minister did state that there were a number of caveats in assessing to complete this purchase. Separately, towards the end of last year, it was confirmed that Indonesia had purchased advanced Apache attack helicopters and the Leopard 2 Main Double Tank platforms that were purchased by Singapore not too long ago.
Page: 157
In evaluating the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, how does MINDEF consider the impact of the introduction of such new defence technologies by the SAF into the region? How does MINDEF assess that its purchases do not alter the strategic dynamic such that it does not overly widen the capability gap beyond that required by the SAF to protect Singapore, and paradoxically generate insecurity in our neighbourhood or encourage tit-for-tat purchases?
Chairman, there has been much media attention on territorial disputes in the South China Sea, in no small measure due to the number of countries involved. Additionally, there is also concern over the presence of pirates. It does not seem likely that these concerns would diminish in a short time. As such, Singapore is clearly vulnerable because we are an island nation. We have been careful in forging meaningful diplomatic ties and strategic relationships in our efforts to ensure homeland security. I would like MINDEF to provide an update on how the SAF is contributing to homeland security efforts, particularly the protection of our maritime waters.
Mr Chairman, MINDEF and MOE take up the top two spots of Government expenditure annually and this year's Budget is no exception.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute military expenditure database, Singapore has consistently been spending about the same amount annually on defence from 2002 to 2012 with a 16% increase over the 10 years. Just like what the Finance Minister has mentioned in the House in his speech today, the country that spends the most on healthcare per capita does not necessary mean that the citizens enjoy the highest standard or best healthcare. The healthcare standard outcomes do not necessarily relate directly to the amount of healthcare expenditure. Likewise, I am sure it does not mean that the higher we spend on defence, we will get better defence.
Can MINDEF provide an update on its approach in managing the defence budget? How does MINDEF ensure that it obtains the best value from our defence spending and that our spending enables MINDEF to remain capable and effective and become a capable force?
In a small nation like Singapore, resources, like land, are clearly in short supply. We are excited to hear about possible new developments coming up
Page: 158
after the moving of Paya Lebar Airbase. There are also still large stretches of land that are occupied by military camps or designated military training areas.
Will there be further changes to the land that is currently managed by MINDEF? Can MINDEF give an update on how it ensures that it uses national resources like land prudently and efficiently?
Each year, MINDEF takes up the largest share of the Budget among all Ministries. This year, the defence budget is $12.6 billion – more than a fifth of total expenditure.
Singapore has the highest defence spending in South East Asia by far. According to the latest data from the Stockholm International Peace Institute, we spend 42% more than the next highest spender in the region, and 80% more than the third highest spender.
I fully appreciate the need for us to maintain a strong and credible defence force and to remain ahead of potential adversaries.
However, in deciding on its expenditure and choosing cutting edge defence technology, does MINDEF consider that if we leap too far ahead, there is a risk of spurring an arms race, as countries in our region may feel under pressure to keep up with us? This could lead to even greater spending in the future, which may be unsustainable.
It has been several years since MINDEF started the practice of outsourcing certain functions to the private sector or third parties. These include catering, cleaning contracts in army camps, operation of rifle ranges, repairs and maintenance, various types of training, running of IPPT and remedial training courses and so on.
I would like to ask the Minister what is the extent of the outsourcing practice and what other programmes, functions and services are outsourced to the private sector or to third parties.
The reasons for outsourcing would presumably include declining number of enlistees and cost-effectiveness. While these reasons are quite
Page: 159
understandable, I would like to know what measures are taken to ensure security is safeguarded. Also, on the performance of the service providers themselves, how does MINDEF track the effects of outsourcing, and what Key Performance Indicators does MINDEF apply to ensure that the service providers meet the security and performance standards expected of them?
My grassroots leaders shared with me their observations about how National Service (NS) is now regarded as a distinctive part of the Singapore identity and an integral part of the change from Ah Boy to Man. The proactive efforts of the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS) to engage Singaporeans are commendable. To many young boys, NS is regarded as a rite of passage to adulthood, an important part of their obligation and duty to the nation. At the same time, more Singaporeans are eager to share their ideas on how to make NS more meaningful. What are some of the findings of the CSNS' efforts to engage Singaporeans so far? Are these findings made available to students, especially the "O" level students who offer Social Studies?
Mr Chairman, one key area of interest for many Singaporeans, when it comes to defence, has to do with that key institution of NS. It was, therefore, timely that at last year's COS, the Minister for Defence announced the formation of the Committee to Strengthen National Service. The two working groups looking at support for NS as well as recognition of benefits for National Servicemen have held a number of townhall consultations over the last one year and they have gained many proposals on how to further strengthen the key institutions.
The suggestions have been varied and I am quite certain that a good many may not be possible to be introduced. However, I am heartened that the Committee has adopted an open mind on views and ideas throughout the consultation process. The key thing spelt out by the Minister last year was to strengthen Singapore, strengthen NS and the SAF and serve all Singaporeans in that order.
After a long period of consultations as well as fruitful visits overseas, I hope that the CSNS is now ready with its formal proposals to be presented to Singaporeans. I do hope that some of the suggestions will look into further enhancing the contributions of our Servicemen as well as volunteers in areas
Page: 160
where they can excel and that their efforts will also be well recognised.
The strengthening of NS is, in itself, important but the positive side effects of also engendering a strong and more united Singapore cannot be ignored.
In Budget 2013, the Minister for Defence announced that he would chair a Committee to Strengthen National Service. Can the Minister give an update on the work of the Committee and the areas of focus? What measures does the Committee recommend to strengthen NS as the critical institution for Singapore's continued survival and success? Will the Committee engage in any public consultations to listen to feedback from the public and take in different views and perspectives?
I signed up last year to attend one session of the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS) in the second half of the year. The session I attended as an NSman was facilitated by Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Mr Masagos. Like many of the NSmen in my group, I found the feedback process open and helpful in terms of soliciting feedback from NSmen on how to strengthen NS.
In fact, one of the more commendable things the Committee did after the feedback session was to publicise the summary of the consultation on the CSNS website. It may not have been possible to accommodate everyone's inputs as I heard them but the process itself I understand was appreciated, with many of the exchanges quite robust, frank and open. My own interactions with a handful of NSmen found that in spite of the occasional disruptions associated with NS duties with their civilian jobs, for many of them, there was a general appreciation for the institution of NS and its importance.
I would like to ask the Minister if the Committee to Strengthen the National Service could look into supporting NSmen beyond financial measures, such as the civilian utility of skills picked up in the military domain, for example, easier and more facilitative conversion standards from military to civilian licences and equipment with direct civilian applications.
Separately, last year, I raised the prospect of new citizens performing some form of NS. Can the Minister update the House on the plans for the SAF
Page: 161
Volunteer Corps announced last year?
For most NSmen, annual in-camp training (ICT) involves long hours away from work and family. There is often a lot of waiting time in between the action, hence, the adage, "hurry up and wait!"
Commanders, however, are much busier throughout the ICT because they are often engaged in planning while the men wait. Yet, for the sake of equity, units usually issue call-ups to all involved NSmen for the full duration of the exercise. This incurs a huge cost in terms of the NSmen's time and Make-up Pay – which is based on the NSmen's civilian salary.
To better utilise NSmen resources, could non-commanders be recalled for a shorter ICT duration or even fewer ICTs? To address the inequality, key appointment holders and commanders could be rewarded with extra pay or benefits to compensate them for the additional sacrifices they make for our nation.
Chairman, more of the NSmen now have post-Secondary educational qualifications and would have had some form of work experience during internships or work attachments during their respective courses of study where a lot more hands-on approaches to problem solving would have been done. As the educational levels of our NSmen rise, they are likely to have higher aspirations and also want to contribute more meaningfully to the SAF, such as sharing their views and ideas on existing processes and policies. How is MINDEF looking to engage our NSmen more effectively, maximise their contributions and help fulfil their aspirations? Will there be more platforms to elicit these views and ideas from our NSmen and will MINDEF be able to support the test bed for ideas for pilot projects done by our NSmen with regard to defence and security?
Ms Ellen Lee, you can take your two cuts together.
Thank you, Chairman. On defence relationship with major powers, the occurrence of a number of events has contributed to the increasing
Page: 162
tension in our region. The spat between the major powers over China's declaration of its Air Identification Zone, the Japanese premier's controversial visit to Yasukuni shrine, the unresolved territorial disputes in the South China Sea and North Korea's threats to declare war if provoked are among the events that warrant serious reflection on how the security of the region is being affected.
Singapore has consistently pursued its policy of harmonious coexistence with our neighbours and friendly nations beyond the region. What is MINDEF's assessment of our situation in the wake of these recent events that have attracted attention across the globe? Has MINDEF's review of its current defence relationships with major powers affected plans to advance our defence relationships?
On overseas training defence ties, a very significant part of SAF's training is conducted overseas. Over the years, we have been carefully cultivating suitable partners to ensure the effectiveness of our training programmes. It is common knowledge that we have many partners, which include the USA, France, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and others. I would like to request MINDEF to provide an update on our defence ties with key partner countries, especially those with which we have training arrangements. Have the partnerships affected in any way the different aspects of our training programmes, such as the length of training and the impact on SAF officers?
Minister for Defence, Dr Ng.
PAPERCUTS