From: u907736@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia)
Subject: Re: Defense of S'pore; was about F16 & Mig29
Organization: University of Tasmania
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:47:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.034516.4250@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, tenka@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Andy Tenka) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep23.111509.26615@nuscc.nus.sg> engp1186@nuscc.nus.sg (Won-Soon Lau) writes:

(stuff deleted)

> My question was primarily directed to the people who had claimed that they were
> more knowledgable than others on military strategy stuff.  So, once again, how 
> would Singapore defend herself if Malaysia cut-off the water supply, and then 
> launch an attack against Singapore.  

	    If Malaysia ever cut-off Singapore's water supply and Singapore has no
alternate source of water, either from its own reserves or from Indonesia; Singapore
would have two options. One would be to attack and TRY to take Johor immediately,
and K.L., if possible. The other option would be to surrender.
    If the first option is chosen, Singapore has the 'advantage' of about 55,000 regualar
troops and some support aircraft, ready to move and already in 'position' in Singapore
city itself(where else could they be). It could also probably mobilise about 250,000 reservist
in about 48 hours(maybe less), and lots of civil defence personnel to get old people, women 
and children, etc into the MRT shelters, and to collect supplies, etc. Malaysia has about 80,000
regulars, but I suspect that most of these would be stationed north instead of South as the Thai
border would be more likely to be 'disturbed' than the one down south. Malaysia also has a larger
air-force and a navy(S'pore has something it calls a navy but which would more like an 'anti-priracy'
force). It would be a no-win situation for both parties. Singapore could hurt Malaysia very badly in 
early stages of any hostilities, but would probably hurt itself even more in the long run. As for Malaysia,
as many netters have pointed out, the best that it could hope for is an economically shattered piece of
rock which used to be Singapore.
     As for the second option, it raises some interesting issues(IMO). One of which is "Will Singaporeans
fight for their country?  - whether against a direct threat to Singapore or as part of a coalition of S.E.Asian
nations against an external threat." The other issue is integration or rather re-integration with Malaysia.
I remembered(with shame) an article after the 'breakfast knife and fire-cracker hijack' of the SIA flight
from K.L. in the S.T. which interviewed 20 S'poreans. These men and women were asked if they would
acknowledge their identity as Singaporeans if asked by a hijacker. This survey was conducted in the context 
of U.S. nationals being identified and singled out for ill-treatment by terrorists. 19 of the 20 interviewed
gave an "it depends" type answer. Only 1, a 19 year old Malay girl(who should receive some sort of award)
said that she would admit to her citizenship regardless of the consequences. If this survey was a valid sample 
of Singaporean 'loyalty' then the willingness of 95% of Singaporeans to satnd-up for their country against the
odds  is suspect. So the issue is not so much how many tanks or F16s or reservists Singapore has but whether
or not Singaporeans will fight on with trishaws, broken bottles, etc against any threat to its sovereignty. Or will
they simply join the swelling tide of refugees in search of better lands and better pay in other countries.
   The other issue concerns Malaysia wanting Singapore. In 1965, it didn't want Singapore. In 1992, it still doesn't
want Singapore(except maybe as a 'punching bag' in the Malaysia cup). However, there is always still the possibility
of re-integration through peaceful or violent scenarios(as suggested in some postings). There are great
similarities in culture, interests, history, etc. However, two BIG obstacles stood in the way of integration in 1965,
and one suspects they still remain. One is the issue of ethnic numbers, and the Chinese majority in Singapore.
The other is the issue of revenue from Singapore - would K.L. have discretion over the use and allocation of
such revenue. Other latent issues are differences in political systems - Singapore opted for multi-cultural political
parties while Malaysia is inclined towards communal representation through parties.
	   Finally, to those who worry about the sensitivity of these issues, let me end by saying that friends can engaged
in insult and disagreement without taking offense. In fact, friends thrive on friendly insults and disagreement.
And it is hoped that Singaporeans and Malaysians are good friends.

Edmund