Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The ever increasing defence budget
For once, I actually agree with Singapore Election Watch. They cheekily asked whether Singapore is intending to go to war with Malaysia with an increased budget for defence. In 2005, the defense budget was only $9.25 billion. Then it increased to $10 billion in 2006. Now, it’s $10.6 billion. Why is there a need to increase the defence budget?
I think people can accept (although grudgingly) that competition with other economies in the world will mean that we have to lower corporate tax and then increase GST to make up for the loss of income. In itself, the move isn’t illogical. However, could we have exterminated the need to increase the GST by cutting down on something like defense? After all, the government has said that 2% increase GST is expected to bring in $1.5 billion revenue. If we cut that amount from the defence budget, we’ll be down to $9.1 billion in defence spending, which is still around 2005′s budget. Are we any less safe now compared to 2005? I seriously don’t think so.
I would like to see more transparency in how money going into defence is spent. It accounts for more than a quarter of Singapore’s annual budget, and therefore it is in the public’s interest to see how the money is spent. There has already been some disquiet in the ST forum some weeks back over this issue, and I think that more calls for more transparency in defence should be made in the light of the increase in defence budget. What is the justification? While I understand that in the interests of national security, some information cannot be revealed, but I think we can do alot better than the current situation where everything is shrouded in secrecy.
It is my belief that the defence budget can be trimmed down without affecting operational effectiveness. I’ve seen for myself how defence manages its budget, and I pretty darn sure saving $1.5 billion dollars across the entire defence ministry is very very very very very possible. After all, they were living with $1.5 billion less in budget just only 2 years ago?
Notes
The figures have been revised thanks to Andrew who pointed out that the original figures were inaccurate. The points are still valid, though.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 20/02/2007 at 1:12 pm, and is filed under Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 6 years ago
Hi Aaron,
I believe that the govt has said that the xtra 2% will bring in an extra $1.5 billion in GST annually. The current 5% brought in about $5 billion last year.
The last 3 years’ defence budget comes to something like $30 billion.
That is the same amount spent on last year’s budget in total.
This year’s $10.6 billion for defence is almost one-third of the total budget of $35.1 billion.
So yes, you are right. There needs to be an account for this increase.
By the way, SEW took the ‘are we going to war with Malaysia” thingy from a post in Sammyboy forum.
about 6 years ago
Hey andrew,
I remembered PM Lee saying that the 2% drop in corporate tax will cause the government to lose $800 million, and the GST will somewhat make that up with another addition $500 million in income with the 2% increase. I need to dig those figures out.
I think you might want to try an article exploring the nature of defense spending. I think we are increasing our defense spending at a rate that’s pretty alarming, considering that we are intending to go to war.
about 6 years ago
Ok, I’ve checked out the figures. My mistake. It’s indeed $1.5 billion. I’ve made the revisions accordingly.
about 6 years ago
I agree. Having just left the army last november, i really feel that SAF is wasting tax payers money. However, because of the nature of the SAF, it will be difficult to have them be more transparent as they can always fall back on the national security argument.
about 6 years ago
Yes…it ‘compromises national security.’ The best excuse for any organisation because it is used in the USA, UK and all around the world a lot too.
Considering how our generals and admirals like to keep getting new toys (F-15SG, Leopard 2), and so on, and so forth, no wonder budget must go up!
But one has to ask: For what? Maybe we are going to war with Indon over sand soon…and also need to use an SAF exercise as a cover to topple the Thai military junta…hahaha!
Like that win already…soon ASEAN will be unified…
about 6 years ago
Many are unhappy over the rise in our defence budget, but we have to look at it in a macro point of view.
The threat to the South East Asian region is increasing daily. Non-military threats to our security are quite common, with that clown Sonthi shooting his mouth off, not to mention the sand issue with Indonesia. If our HADR deployment to Aceh did not subtly prod them of our strength enough, what makes anyone think that lowering or maintaining our budget is enough to sustain the current balance of power in ASEAN?
Secondly, while the above might be a common line of argument to counter the usual complaint about our defense budget, there is more to why it has increased.
Singapore is and has been participating in more multilateral security institutional frameworks and training programmes, e.g PSI, Nato Flying School, Red Flag and OIF for the last 3 years. We regularly host and take part in counter-CBRE exercises with the ADF and all these extensions of military diplomacy and operations do not come cheap.
We are a small state, and we can’t afford to shed too much of our realist thinking because we cannot afford to have any dispute escalate to war. Therefore it is quite inevitable that we have to remain at least 1 generation ahead of our fellow ASEAN states which may have elements unsavoury to our interest, and might pose a thorn if they come to power. Military power is the only predominant form of security language that is understood, and consequently, will enhance the stability of this region and allow for a more optimistic push towards ASEAN integration on the terms of equality and not the subtle archipelago political discourse of “abang-adek”
I may be a liberal at heart, but the concept of military power still forms one of the major components of Singapore’s security needs, regardless of what others might say. After all, not even our other political parties want to oppose the things that the MIW have done for our military dimension, although there is quite a lot to be desired in the realm of personnel administration in the SAF.
about 6 years ago
Hi Celluloid Reality(s),
Thanks for dropping by, and I thoroughly enjoy your response. Nothing is better than a nicely thought out and worded response. I will humbly attempt to respond to the best of my ability.
I am not sure how far can your argument about our HADR deployment to Aceh be casually linked to a “warning” of our military strength. Secondly, I get the impression that there’s some fixed definition of balance of power, which I think would be inaccurate. A moving target would be a more apt description. And, since it’s a moving target, depending on the situation, military spending will go up and down. Therefore. the question is, who defines the situation, and on what basis do we decide when to increase and decrease military spending? It is perhaps agreeable that non-military threats are increasing (the usual water problem with Malaysia, now the sand problem with Indonesia and the Shin Corp problem with Thailand). However, does the increase in non-military threats mean an equal increase in military threats, so much so that we have to ramp up military spending so quickly?
As for the multi-lateral security institutional frameworks, I agree that these are expensive business. The question is, how expensive are these? Is it so expensive that the defence budget has to increase to the tune of $1.35 billion over 2 years? I don’t have the figures, but it seems that $1.35 billion is an awful lot of money to spend on bilateral military exercises.
I agree that we are a small state and we cannot afford not to be realist. You say that we have to remain at least 1 generation ahead. My question now is that are we 1 generation ahead, or multiple generations ahead? While we should not rest on our laurels, we have to carefully consider if we are actually spending unnecessarily. Further, defence is not restricted to the military. There are non-military forms of defence as well. The internationalisation of Singaporean population is a good example. Before someone in the region decides to launch a barrage of missiles at Singapore, they would have to calculate the probability of accidentally killing innocent people from other nations. Once mistake could mean incurring the wrath of USA, European Union and China. Assuming that our neighbours are rational actors, such a prospect is pretty scary.
I am for military power, but it is my belief that we have to carefully decide how much to spend. The MIW has indeed done a good job militarily, but that doesn’t mean that defence is immune to critical inquiry. As a country with little natural resources, every cent counts, so nothing should escape the critical eye.
I look forward to a reply so that we can continue to have a fruitful discussion.
about 6 years ago
Dear Aaron,
This is only my opinion. I believe that the defence budget is not purely used on the hardware of the SAF. Some of the money could be indirectly channelled into the defence R&D done by those ultra-secretive defence organisations. For example, it takes a lot of money to come out with another version of the 155mm howitzer gun and also, a different mechanical missile catch on the supersonic jet fighters. 3G soldiers do not come cheap and we want to be first world in that area too. Of course, all these R&D money spent is supposed to translate “commercial successes” and our economy would become another prime reason for this huge budget.
Due to the lack of critical inquiry, we would not know how the money is spent.
about 6 years ago
Retired Reservist,
Your point is well taken on R&D. The nature of R&D is that it’s capital intensive, so perhaps there’s a case for an increase in military spending. It would be good if there’s more elaboration though. There’s no need to go into specifics (because of the sensitive nature) of the information, but perhaps information on how the defence money is spent generally would be a good idea.
about 6 years ago
I seem to recall that the defense budget is set at a fixed percentage (4.5%?) of GDP so if GDP goes up, the defense budget will increase proportionately. An advantage of this policy is that we cannot be accused by our neighbors of ramping up our military spending whenever bilateral relations take a dip for the worse.
about 6 years ago
I don’t think that all the money spent on defense will be used for weapons or R&D. For example, we have to spend to help out neighbors when natural disasters strike them…
In addition, organizations like the National Cadet Corps eat up lots of money too, etc, etc…
about 6 years ago
Yun,
Is that so? I would like to know where’s that policy, and whether is it fixed at 4.5% or is it up to 4.5%.
about 6 years ago
Hi Michael,
I’m not sure where the funds for natural disaster aid comes from. Well, we can only guess.
about 6 years ago
Isn’t these questions questions of transparency? Minus security considerations of course.
about 6 years ago
Ben,
In essence, it’s a question of transparency in general. With slighter greater transparency, we can appreciate better why money is spent in a certain fashion, and of course, we can try and see if money can be used more efficiently. As I mentioned, defence spending is shrouded in great secrecy, but I think we can increase the transparency a little by discussing generally the distribution of defence funds without going into details (I wouldn’t want our neighbours to know exactly what’s going on with our procurement. The element of surprise is still important).
about 6 years ago
The PM once mentioned in a rally speech that the SAF erected an air control tower or something in a very very very (wah!) short time to help rescue efforts during the aftermath of the Indonesian tsumani… so maybe part of the SAF’s money is used for disaster recovery.
maybe only
about 6 years ago
Dear Aaron,
Thanks on your comments. The question of transparency is a little tricky for military affairs. Spy planes will not be called spy planes, if everyone know it is there. As you said, the element of surprise is still important. How the defence pie is being cut offers clues of capabilities and weaknesses, in a broad sense. The question we should ask is the sanity of the decision of having such budget, with respect to our regional relationship climate. People see things differently, some see it as defensive, some see it as offensive.
For example, a country sees its own nuclear energy plant is used to “light up bulbs” but his neighbours see the plant as a nuclear weapon.
about 6 years ago
retired reservist,
Spy planes are called spy planes and everyone knows they exist, and everyone knows that if you have a spy plane, you will use it to spy – let’s take the US for example. They have spy planes which actively spy – the only thing they clam up on is the breadth of their operations. Thus, there is still little transparency.
As for our defence budget raise with respect to the regional climate, well – i too question the sanity of such a decision. We all agree that arms are important – but there are differing arguments…
1. That since our armed forces are only for self-defence (with the added dimension of deterrence), they should be small, but well-equipped and have crack troops.
2. That since our neighbours are always threatening us, we will need increased deterrence in terms of better weapons and more upgrades to our firepower.
The first is pacifist and may well be effective, although the true effectiveness of it is questionable. The second, while considered to be a sign that despite having ASEAN, the member nations are still in a lowered ‘state of nature’ towards each other – just like all nations are in a ‘state of nature’ towards each other.
Human nature on a global scale? Personally, we can question the sanity of the defence budget. We can even question the sanity of other nations’ defence budgets. But what will it come to? Governments who analyse the defense budgets of other countries will probably adjust their own defence budgets to meet that of other countries.
about 6 years ago
I can’t seem to find the actual policy paper but this was extracted from a statement made by Minister Teo Chee Hean at the Committe of Supply debate in 2005:
“Sir, the Government has been unwavering in giving defence expenditure the highest priority. We have given our commitment that MINDEF can spend up to 6% of our GDP each year on defence. We have been spending between 4.5% and 5% over the past few years. ”
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2005/mar/04mar05_nr.html#transform
So to correct myself, our defense budget is set up to 6% of our GDP each year. But it remains that as our GDP grows, more often than not, the nominal amount allocated to defense grows proportionately.
about 6 years ago
Well, I guess I was right to ask if it was up to, or a must to hit a certain proportion of the GDP. So, there’s the freedom to spend less. However, it seems like there’s a need to spend more (the way the government sees it). Are there things about regional security that we don’t know about? Hmmm..
about 6 years ago
I think if HDB can have an wastage of $10m on stationary and misc stuff. I think SAF can do the same saving. I heard from ROD personnels that A mobile operation threatre was bought at a price of $5m or $10m(Can’t really remember) few yrs back. Then it wasn’t fully utilize because research wasn’t being done becos the threatre though can fit into our LST but once put on board, no other things can be on board. When I was in the SAF i saw wastage on papers and stationaries. I think a lot of area could be saved. Sorry for my bad english and if anything that are wrong pls fault me. Thank you. I really glad that there are still singaporeans who are concern our country.
about 6 years ago
Raymond
Your English is fine. Not Pulitzer standard but definitely understandable. You are one of the many Singaporeans who care about our country so please do not hold back from airing your views and sharing your experiences because of misgivings about your English.
about 6 years ago
Hi Raymond,
Don’t worry about English. Intention is more important. I think we can all agree somewhat that there’re quite some wastage that we can cut down on in government expenditure. Raising the budget isn’t always the way to go.
about 6 years ago
A convenient (but plausible) reason could be the enlistment of 1988 Dragon-year babies after their ‘A’ levels.
It remains to be seen if the defence budget will remain this high when the last of them completes their full-time liability in 3 to 4 years’ time (because of polytechnic graduates).
about 3 years ago
I definitely agreed with the RP that defence spending should be cut. If the defence spending is cut, the GST, income tax and corporate tax may also be cut as well. Thus, bringing more income and purchasing power to Singaporeans and businesses. With more purchasing power in the hands of Singaporeans, it can lead to more demands for goods and services and thus, better business to the companies.
With a reduction in corporate tax rate, it can also boost business profits in Singapore and attract more foreign investments into the country and create more jobs for Singaporeans.
Why should the welfare of 1 big money wasting machine (not war fighting machine) come at the expense of Singaporeans? Does a huge defence spending lead a strong SAF? With a huge army based on a forward defence strategy, with its offensive weapons such as attack helicopters, MBTs, Chinooks, it also generate the risks that a war with our neighbours can be sparked off in times of crisis due to military necessity, instead of resolving through diplomacy.
Moreover, by launching a 1st strike becos of military necessity in times of crisis with our neighbours, Singapore will become the aggressor in the eyes of international community. Hence, Singapore may be condemned by UN instead.
Well, terrorism is an internal threat and comes under the purview of the Home Affairs. Does a few terrorists need such a big army to fight? Moreover, while the PAP is calling Singaporeans to defend their home, they are at the same times bringing in more foreign talents to take away the jobs and HDB flats of Singaporeans. Hence, Singaporeans had been called to serve 2 years of NS and 10-ICT cycle to defend the jobs and homes of the foreigners living in Singapore. Statistics of Singapore revealed that 34% of the population are PRs/foreigners.
With the influx of foreigners into Singapore, Singapore has already been colonised by foreigners through economic means, not military means. Hence, the threat of national security and defence of our nation is no longer at the military front. Hence, defence spending should be cut and foreign talents restricted in Singapore. This is what the government should be focus on in terms of national security. The PAP is focusing on defending Singapore in the wrong front and the RP is right that defence spending be cut and foreign workers restricted in Singapore.