The Singaporean opposition and defence

Even as Singapore's election season nears its end this Friday, defence has not been discussed much - perhaps a bit strange for a sector that takes up a significant proportion of government spending, and one that many Singaporeans are involved in via National Service.

Not many Singaporean political parties have paid heed to defence issues in their manifestos and campaigning. The incumbent PAP's stance and policy on the military defence of Singapore can be taken as given, with no shifts - but the opposition's proposals have been notable in their absence.

The Workers' Party manifesto is the only one to deal at length with the issue of defence and diplomacy, which it astutely examines together. In fact, at first blush, I thought I was reading a collection of civil service working papers, with suggestions such as continued work towards establishing a South China Sea Code of Conduct and managing cyber-security are grounded in real global developments. Threats to our island are immutable, after all, no matter the governing party. (That said, there was a line advocating that Singapore sign the Ottawa treaty banning the use of landmines and cluster munitions. If we truly kept to the letter of that, it would seem to sacrifice much for a measly return.)

The traditional Singaporean opposition approach towards defence has been the theme of 'cuts' - reducing NS time served and the defence budget.

In the spirit of free discussion, these are in all honesty not too far-fetched - it is possible that a reappraisal of Singapore's possible military objectives might lead to an adjustment of capabilities required. More heli- and water- borne light infantry, for instance, instead of heavy armoured units. NS time served has been cut to just about the minimum considered effective for necessary training, but with capability shifts this might change in future decades.

Unfortunately, the Opposition's criticisms often do not come from sound, sober consideration. The defence budget sometimes treated as merely a candy store to be raided. Ultimately, other domestic concerns dominate the debate at present, and defence is dealt with only lightly. This certainly has something to do with a general incompetence regarding military issues, as showcased by Dr Tambyah of the Singapore Democratic Party recently.

Put MOH under the defence ministry: SDP's Tambyah
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)'s Dr Paul Tambyah suggests parking the health ministry under MINDEF after PAP criticised the party's proposal to trim the defence budget by 40%. "Every day more Singaporeans die of heart disease than were killed during Konfrontasi. Every year, more Singaporeans die of cancer than die during the Japanese Occupation. We need to defend our citizens against threats both external to the body and internal." http://bit.ly/1QmpCjB #GE2015
Posted by Channel NewsAsia Singapore on Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Direct link if video does not work.

On the other hand, it does speak to our defence apparatus' relative efficiency and strength as well as the peace prevailing in Southeast Asia that the election campaigns have been more concerned about other domestic issues.

The fact is that defence is not in the news much, if at all - there is perhaps some media reticence on reporting on defence, and its closed nature prevents otherwise interesting stories from breaking.

More comprehensive defence budget reporting, and the continual expanding of defence discussion and debate in Singapore will hopefully address this in future.

The British Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, was not too long ago quoted as saying that there are "no votes in defence". However, even if you are not interested in defence, defence is interested in you, especially if there's not enough of it to go around.