by Ajax Copperwater
In May 2010, I wrote about Costa Rica, a country that has maintained its sovereignty without a military since the beginning of the Cold War. However, Costa Rica is not a model for Singapore. The latter needs a military presence as it is situated beside the world’s most important waterway for world trade and thus, it has a vital duty of protecting the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.
As the population of Singapore is greying and more prone to illness, government health care spending increases as this trend continues. However, not enough public money, with only about 3% of GDP, is poured into the health sector. To increase more of the money for health care, the government can either raise taxes, cut spending from other programmes or both. Since raising taxes can worsen the living standards of the people, especially its bottom 20%, cutting spending is therefore the more sensible approach. Hence, I have always advocated the transition from conscription to an all-volunteer service, as this approach save taxpayers’ money, boosting a leaner and more professional military and provide better health care to especially those who struggle with their bills.
There are many countries in the world that gave up conscription so as to provide more support to its population from their national budget. New Zealand is one good example of such a country that maintained a professional military since 1972 and practises universal health care.
Why did I choose to showcase New Zealand? Before elaborating further in the article, the table below shows the difference between Singapore and New Zealand in terms of population size, land area, GDP and expenditure. This table might give you a preview of what this article is about.
Defence
New Zealand Defence Force has a total headcount of 14,843 as of 1 April 2010, including regulars, reserve and civilians. Its defence expenditure for 2009/2010 was about NZ$2.3 billion whereas Singapore’s defence expenditure for 2010 is estimated to be S$11.46 billion.
Though its military is small, New Zealand has sent troops to Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, Egypt, Middle East, Iraq, Solomon Islands, South Korea and Sudan, totalling 404 personnel as of 13 December 2010. Its troops have been active participants in peacekeeping missions.
New Zealand is part of a free association with Niue and Cook Islands. This means that New Zealand acts on behalf of these states on matters of foreign affairs and defence, only with the advices and consents of the latter. Do note that citizens of Niue and Cook Islands are also citizens of New Zealand, which means having New Zealand citizens’ privilege and usage of its passports , but not vice versa
The New Zealand Army is infantry-heavy, and consists of light armoured vehicles and artilleries. The Royal New Zealand Air Force demobilized its air combat capabilities in 2001. That left the air force with transport planes and patrol helicopters. The Royal New Zealand Navy has two Anzac class frigates, three support vessels, six patrol vessels and a surveillance vessel.
New Zealand bars the entry of nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered warships into its water and airspace. Its laws prohibit the procession, purchase or manufacture of nuclear explosive device by any New Zealand citizen or resident.
Health Care
Health care in New Zealand is largely funded by public money, though services are provided by both private and public providers. Public hospitals provide free treatments, including x-rays and accident & emergency treatments. Under certain conditions, visits to General Practitioners (GPs) and specialists are subsided. So are some prescription items and some medicine. Under public health, maternity care is provided free.
The District Health Boards(DHBs) fund and provide the provision of health and disability services in each geographical regions of New Zealand. One of the objectives of DHB is to promote health improvement and reduce health disparity among all population groups. Each DHB receive public funding based on the demography the population within the region. 7 of 11 DHB board members are elected by the public during local government elections, whilst other members are appointed by the Minister of Health. Board members oversee the financial responsibility and governance of each DHB, but do not have executive roles in the DHB.
The main pillar of New Zealand’s public health care is the Accidental Compensation Corporation (ACC). This agency provides support to New Zealanders suffering from injuries be they from leisure, work, abuse or medical error. It also covers recently-injured residents returning from overseas and visitors who wounded themselves while in New Zealand. If sufferers were unable to work due to injuries, ACC may provide up to 80% of pre-tax weekly income during the sufferers’ recovery period. If a sufferer becomes permanently physically disabled, he or she will receive a lump sum payment.
However, it must be noted that benefactors of ACC are barred from suing anyone for compensatory damages. Beside injuries claims, ACC is involved in injuries prevention by working closely with governmental agencies, businesses and community services.
What can Singapore learn from New Zealand?
I’m not suggesting Singapore should adopt New Zealand’s example completely for New Zealand’s defence needs is different from ours. New Zealand has an ally in its neighbour, Australia, and is not situated in a heavily-militarized region as Singapore does.
Nevertheless, if New Zealand can meet its defence needs with less than 15,000 personnel, surely Singapore can do with less than 100,000? I believe it can do even lesser than this number. Many would disagree with me. They might feel every soldier is critical to an army’s defence. That is true to a certain extent. Having a large army is counter-effective as the North Korea has shown. What good is an impressive army when its people have to shoulder the burden of military expenditure with poverty and poor health?
A huge army might be a good deterrent against an imaginary invasion, but there are more credible threat threatening Singapore: diseases. The less well-off would skip medical attention, believing they can get well on their own, to avoid the cost for treatment. That is a very dangerous act that could lead to death. According to MOH, pneumonia is third leading cause of death, 15.3% of case, in Singapore as of 2009. Early treatment in some cases of pneumonia can prevent death.
I feel Singapore can implement a system similar to New Zealand’s District Health Boards. Though Singapore is a city-state and does not have land area the size of New Zealand, its population size is larger. Each region of Singapore are different demographically and better needs of its residents can be met if overseen by a health board. A regional health board can provide a transparency in health expenditure and services dispensed. If the health board members are also members of Parliament or members of the public, perhaps the people can have a larger say in decision making and the health services they want.
As the climate changes for the worse, cases of new contagious and virulent diseases will rise. Is Singapore more prepared for something as deadly as SARS? Perhaps, but won’t it be better if Singapore spend more money on health care, more than 3.1% of its GDP, to safeguard better the health of Singaporeans? What’s stopping Singapore from at least providing free health care service to our youngest, our oldest and our most vulnerable? Won’t you rather have granny access to free health care whenever she needs it and whatever her affliction?
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The man who write this siow ah?
How can Singapore have no NS leh? Later nobody want to join army how?
Malaysia suka suka want us to pay more money for water bill or ask us give back key to lighhouse, we bo pian liow. Wah piang!
What talking him? Got thinking or not?
By the way I read this I also laughing. why got people here so kia si leh? You see New Zealand people big size you scared ah? Big size = Big target. Where got problem?
Like my Encik saying, own time own target, carry on.
By the ways,
I Lao Jiao go Army 1980s one. Before one time my Rservist kenah call up National Day is becos Malaysia sukasuka have exercise Pukul Habis in Johor… damm serious one.
I tell you nowsadays NS like go camping leh? Before my time rice got ants one.
Somebody is wanting Gukas to fighting for Singapore?
My time my unit I got catch Guka one. My encik is commando, the india type damm kilat. We catch 3 of them. But unluckily I also kenah caught later becos washing my underwear in river lah.
Nowsadays our soldier not so kilat but more crever. More Air level one.
So make cents govment have more the kilat weapon.
Maybe somedays our weapon more the kilat don’t need so much soldiers than no more NS lah.
But now bo pian leh.
Is seems like many people got problem wash the uniform, no problem, uncle wash for you. civilan is call outsaucing.
Besides nowsadays uniform no need to iron one not like before Temasek time. Now more senang more comfort.
One important reason why we should not folow the NZ model:
They’ve never won a war. The Israelis on the onther hand won one in a couple of days.
Go for the winning model.
MoalessonsFor U, 11 January 2011
thanks for your reply.
if you compare UK’s land mass, it makes sense they spend more to defend a larger turf. nothing conclusive will come out of such comparison.
come on, dun laugh at their Chinooks lah, S’pore spend millions if not billions to max the water reseve but yet still buys water from Malaysia… does laughing at a mistake of others make you feel that good? if Malaysia turn off the tap you will be laughing anot?
yeah, the lack of fitness is quite humourous, the whole fitness test & keeping fit thing must be a joke on our men. your humour like salt on wound. hahaa, lol…
is there any concrete evidence to suggest that citizen soldiers “our soldiers pick up great maturity from working in the professional workplace”? so what does 1 make of career soldiers? Rambo wannabes? G.I. Joe fanboys?
any examples of creativity in a strictly hierarchical organisation like the armed forces where rank & following orders is the norm? pardon my memory, but i dun remember reading about it on papers.
hmmm, NSR being NSR may have gotten the required training to operate, they may have the needed ability, but do they have the required proficiency? like scoring a test, passing can be from 50%-100%. proficiency levels can be that wide.
i agree that few country really rely on the international community for national security, but posters like me are in the end discussing what S’pore’s defence is lacking. when serious money is spent, it irks people who are concerned that any negative feedback is shot down to make establishment look good.
talk creativity to “dnumb skullz”? :D
MoaLessonsForU, 11 January 2011
lol, when did i imply that S’pore should rely on foreign help on national security? i here say i do not hold such a view, fyi.
but its true that most of our military hardware is from USA, so in a sense S’pore does lean on “Uncle Sam” for security- as a wealthy customer?
again, where did i compare the size of local soldiers to that of New Zealanders? lol… i think this topic really got to your head…
at least New Zealand does not have a large number of PRs who are fretting over the need to serve NS (or govt making a compromise, NS compromise? to attract foreigners?), that certainly undermines the morale of an army whatever the numbers.
@mice
1) With regards UK vs Singapore Landmass
I am not aware of any practise that considers landmass or head count as the premise for a defense budget. :D
Singapore sits on a Strategic Sea Lane of Communication between the Oil rich Gulf and the Fast growth East Asia Region. That in alone is reason for us not to be complacent about our place.
2)Water issues. I don’t quite follow you… Desalinization (complete self sufficiency is the goal) was precisely embarked upon so we are not coerced into a hostage situation manufactured by the intricacies of Malaysian politics( which you have correctly recognise as a potential threat to us)
Conversely because we have a sufficient deterant in a strong military, it is far less likely for Malaysia to use military action as an option to resolve discussions about water.
If we are able to remove this as a possible threat to peace by a desalanization programm, then why not?
3)with regards NSR ‘maturity’, what I was trying to explain to you was that NSFsare not the finish article.
Our NSR are our frontline and having spent some years in the real world, they are able to leverage on their skills in civilian life to contribute to that of the military.
Conversely, as you have mentioned, military mentality tend toward the institutionalised. By having citizen soldiers, we are able to avoid this pit fall better.
4) Examples of highly organised and heirachical societies which are also creative and technological leaders would include Germany and Japan. Your point being?
The Singapore military itself has shown some igenious solutions to our specific military needs.
As an example, we developed a larger more powerful Bronco Armoured Track Carrier from the Swedes, and it has recently been selected by the UK for service with their forces in Afghanistan (By implication , the UK’s own industry were unable to meet their own needs)
5) With regards NSR proficiency, we invest heavily into training our NSR. Coming from a combat unit, I distinctly remembered my NSR training as being far more difficult than my NSF (and that’s not because of a lack of fitness since I am an IPPT goldmember;)
It is a common mistake to believe that ‘conscripted armies are far less proficient than professional ones. Case in point Israel.
What is important is the level of training invested.
I can atest to many regional countries who have ‘professional’ armies but who are less proficient than our NSR because of their lack of training (or weapon systems)
So the author’s assumptions are facile to say the least.
6) whether our soldiers have the motivation is a diff thing. Our soldiers are not the most motivated but I think the situation is different if we were in a situation “with our backs against the wall”.
7) This is in fact one of the beauties of the current system in that we are a Militia Army and therefore made of the people. Our motivation to fight is key.
It makes it far more difficult for a government to misuse the military.
Point in case is the tentative anad careful nature in which we approach ‘overseas deployments’. It is a sensitive subject purely because of the potential backlash any government will suffer through improper usage of our force.
The same can be said of professional armies too but their tolerance level is far greater than ours. Note UK’s use of their forces IN COMBAT in Iraq/Afghanistan which was hugely unpopular back in England.
7) Whenever was I defending the establishment? I have my own gripes and issues with many Government policies but I tend to feel that our current military system is well worked out and the best suited for us given our environment, demographics and geography.
8) With regards ‘talking”creativity’, well surely that would be a bit of an oxymoron no? ;)
@mice
You should know by now that Singapore is Kiasu.
If we can have US security through berthing rights for their fleet, why not? After all we get paid for it.:D
Besides, we have an intricate web of defense relations with Australia, Brunei and Thailand (more recently India) for a reason. Who is Thailand North of? Who is Australia just south of?
Geopolitics.
With regards the size of a Kiwi soldier, oooh I wouldn’t know that. I’m not sure where I gave you the idea that Kiwi soldiers are bigger.
Someone mentioned it. I simply said the Kiwis in the pic provided seem to come unarmed and intent on souting people to death with their Haka. In which case I’d gladly stick to my SAR21 thankyou very much (again someone-else mentioned wimpy pampered Singaporean soldiers and I thought I make the point that the rifle is a particularly good equaliser against any physical disparities..see Viet Cong vs USMC)
Finally with regards PR, yes that would be a problem but that is certainly a different issue altogether.
Stick to the core issue. Can we provide sufficient deterent against an aggresor with a small professional army? I think not.
@ahbeng….Normally Singapore embarks on 3 day exercise. What on earth were you doing washing underwear? Don’t you know you can wear underwear for 4 days (front, back, turn inside out, front back again) :D
MoaLessonsForU, 11 January 2011
landmass isn’t directly proportionate to defense spending, but it plays a part deciding how much is needed to protect 1′s turf. how that money is spent differs from country to country.
dun quite follow me on water issues? water is a basic need, you moocked about UK pouring $$$ on Chinooks blowing their budget skyhigh, so i cite S’pore spending millions if no billions & decades after still not 100% independant.
you saying German & Japanese are creative, that does not mean S’pore’s armed forces oso as creative. piecemeal examples isn’t going to make the odds better, its good only for papers. anyway S’pore doesn’t create & make all military hardware, so why mock UK over 1 example?
whether our soldiers have the motivation isn’t “a different thing”, if people are unwilling to defend the country, your impressive hardware, training will just go to waste.
from the past few posts, you are “speaking” from your POV, thoughts & at times not too objective. when doubts linger, it isn’t reassuring leh… i just rest a little easier that S’pore isn’t Israel, Taiwan or S. Korea.
@mice…
1) Landmass. Again no. It depends on the threat you face. Why else would large countries like Australia or Canada have 100 fighter aircraft each whilst small countries like Israel or Korea upwards of 400++?
2)Water and helicopters are seperate issues.
The UK helicopter fiasco serves to illustrate that Professional Armed forces can still be poorly run.
Water dependancy is an issue which Singapore has recognised as a basic problem from its inception.
Desalanization implementation will take time preciely because it is expensive. Meanwhile our number one guarantor that we get drinking water is guess what? Our military. ;)
Which goes to the point I was asserting to that we need a useful detterent (ie capability+ sufficient numbers) NOT a small professional force.
3) You seemed very much obsessed by paper.
I would suggest to you to look at the real world. The size of our armed forces and it’s capabilities are NOT imaginary issues.
Yes we haven’t been in a war but that does not preclude that we are not able to fight a war.
Israel had neither experience as a state or as a military when they gained independance in 47. They have fought countless successful wars since.
4) YOu asked for an example of ordered/heirachical societies which are creative. I gave you Japan and Germany. I might add Switzerland and Sweden and indeed Israel, all of which have close to similar demographics to us.
In the case of the Swiss and Swedes, they also operated a ‘conscription’ system similar to us and ISrael for many decades. They are now winding down only because Europe is stable.
None of those countries suffer from any intellectual/creative issues. why should singapore?
5) Well many Singaporeans will not have the luxury to jump ship and when push comes to shove, they will defend the country. They simply don’t have a choice.
The investments in training and superior hardware will then pay dividends.
Put it this way, better to have had the training and hardware when you finally decided to fight rather than not have those capabilities at hands when you want to.
7) Are you not talking from your own POV or are you the self appointed voice of Singapore:)
You tend to confuse and meander your arguments and response. Stick to the core issues.
Cheers
BTW mice…as an example of paper force…prior to the Gulf War there were a lot of remarks made int he mainstream press about the US army being a paper force because it had not been in a major conflict since Vietnam (which was a disaster for them as you remember)
The same so called experts remarked that Saadam Hussein’s Iraqi Army had real experience fighting for over 10 years in the Iran and Iraq War.
Well we know what happned.
Just because a military has not embarked in a war does not necessarily mean it is not capable. This is one of the biggest assumptions and mistakes made during war.
With regards our neighbourhood, a lot has been made of how our neighbours have had war experience weher as we are a theoretical force.
Well here’s news, the generation of (for example) Malaysian soldiers that have had direct experience in confrontation are fast fading.
Moreover it would be a mistake to believe that these same soldiers will have the necessary attributes to fight in the modern battlefield if their military has not made the necessary investments in training and equipment.
(This would be akin to the mistake the UK and France made with Germany in WW2)
Therefore all things being equal, that both NZ and Singapore have had no direct full scale war experience of late, I would venture to argue that for our geopolitical climate, our current system is the only coice we have in mantaining sufficient weight of numbers to act as a counter deterrent against possible use of force against us (However slim at the moment)
You simply can’t ascertain the effectiveness of a military if you don’t even begin to understand how it works or why we have the numbers and equipment on hand.
Unless of course you are Ajax Copperwasher. :D
We all know that the current NS policy sucks and no longer make sense. We get our arms ready and yet we cannot protect anything, when in trouble. We rely too much of foreign investment and foreign work force. Seriously, how many of us holds a non-red passport now? It make more sense shrink the current defense force and concentrate on tackle terrorism.
MoaLessonsForU, 12 January 2011
keke, looks obvious we will never see eye-to-eye on this issue for various reasons. i just have to accept this fact. also, thanks for the conversation thus far, i guess i am here just to exercise my brain? :p
yeah, i dun understand how army works, neither do most women. so just have to pray S’pore dun rub our close neighbours the wrong way.
fyi, i am not Ajax Copperwasher. ^.^
@mice, no problem. I realise you don’t understand how the army works or its full capabilities…and thank goodness you are not copperwasher.:)
@Melvin,
What can’t we protect?
We have a terrorism response and are continuously upgrading it.
Do you not remember SQ117?
I think the more relevant question is not whether we should get rid of NS (I don’t think it’s practical) BUT :
1)can we function with reduce manpower (thereby cutting down NSR commitment)without impactting our force structure?
and
2)can we utillize some of our less military grade manpower to other means?
3)If we are more efficient with training, we may also be able to cut NSF down to a year and a half.
Well…that was really 3 questions….or one question in 3 parts. :D
MoalessonForU – I admire and appreciate your faith in our reservist forces….;)
I still wouldn’t let them go up against the Kiwis or any professional army……but then again, I could merely be cynical
What an utterly, absolutely idiotic article. Your stupidity is unbelievable.
It’s a staggering lack of common sense to compare New Zealand – a very sparsely populated, out of the way, and militarily completely unimportant target (to anyone except perhaps sheep farmers perhaps) to Singapore, which is a financial, trading & industrial hub, strategically located near important shipping lanes and surrounded by neighbours that have a tense, envious relationship with it. Singapore has been recognised as a key location to control by military strategists from medieaval times to British empire days to the times of the Japanese occupation. No one has every bothered to attack New Zeland because it’s of zero interest to anyone.
The New Zeland model indeed! I am glad you’re just some stupid writer talking through your hat and not responsible for this country’s defence.
Stefan, 25 January 2011
you never heard that whoever join us (S’poreans) is 1 of us? so if any country or non state “actors” wants to destroy S’pore just us them to join us lah.
it would be similiar to wad MM has always repeated about fighting Communists when he was younger oni to help Communist China grow economically later. unless you are implying that MM is stupid… hmmm, why MM help China har?
first
NZ is located at the remote part of the world that did not had any strategic interest
second
NZ is still big compared to this tiny, not-enough-land Singapore
third
majority of Singaporean are chinese and in the chinese culture there is an old saying “good son should not be soldier”
think about it
Every true blue Singaporeans must and have to defend Singapore if and when it is under threat. How else could we call ourselves Singaporeans? May I suggest that females, if they so volunteer, be taught how to handle the M16S1?
As a New Zealand politics student this article intrigued me. I would like to suggest that this article is not as idiotic as some are professing it to be. To clarify, by looking at the NZ model by no means suggests it to be entirely satisfactory or translatable to the Singaporean context. For example the NZ white paper states itself it ‘is highly unlikely that New Zealand will face a direct military threat, but other significant security events are possible.’ Rather the potential lessons to be garnered from the NZ model are from some of the common functions and strengths of the NZDF, which range from peacekeeping and peace enforcement, disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, demining, maritime security operations, and state building. I think there are mutual lessons to be learned from one another, which can be reflected in the NZ-Singapore defence links that date back to 1955. “New Zealand undertakes an extensive range of naval, air and army exercises with Singapore, conducted both bilaterally and multilaterally, to the point where, in overall activity terms, Singapore is New Zealand’s second largest defence partner in the Asia-Pacific after Australia. The maturity of the Singapore-New Zealand defence relationship and a history of defence cooperation are now yielding significant benefits for both countries” -http://www.asean.fta.govt.nz/singapore-defence
Small we may be, but we don’t all run around bare foot and own a flock of sheep ☺ -Kia Ora, your NZ friend.