- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
"Lee has emphasised Singapore’s reliance on help from the US and others to come to its help in the event of an attack. This reliance may further pry loose the government’s tight control on society in future.
A pragmatic Lee said: “If we want to maximise our chances of the US and other countries coming to our aid, we must offer them a moral reason to do so. “If we are a liberal democratic country, we’d have more appeal, we’d be seen to be more worth saving than if we are seen as a dynastic fief... In short, our national security interest requires us to open up politically.”
His feeling of vulnerability resurfaced in reply to a question in his interview with the International Herald Tribune.
“Can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn’t depend on us alone. “If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn’t exist.”
Then he surprised Singaporeans with his frankness. “Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (Laughter)”
For the first time Lee is frank enough to say what most Singaporeans are thinking: That Singapore is too small to be defended in a sustained war despite its large reservist army and sophisticated high-tech weaponry. "
NS could be a convenient instument to churn out cho bo lan generals that never been to a war. then again, does singapore need to be involved in a war - any war? is there really a possibility?
if there isn't, why is there an exaggerated need to conitnue NS, waste so much resources in defence? defence against what? citizens' unrest against the paps one day when the pent=up time bomb exploded?
strange country, strange logic and super strange explanation.
A pragmatic Lee said: “If we want to maximise our chances of the US and other countries coming to our aid, we must offer them a moral reason to do so. “If we are a liberal democratic country, we’d have more appeal, we’d be seen to be more worth saving than if we are seen as a dynastic fief... In short, our national security interest requires us to open up politically.”
His feeling of vulnerability resurfaced in reply to a question in his interview with the International Herald Tribune.
“Can we survive? The question is still unanswered. We have survived so far, 42 years. Will we survive for another 42? It depends upon world conditions. It doesn’t depend on us alone. “If there were no international law and order, and big fish eat small fish and small fish eat shrimps, we wouldn’t exist.”
Then he surprised Singaporeans with his frankness. “Our armed forces can withstand an attack and inflict damage for two weeks, three weeks, but a siege? (Laughter)”
For the first time Lee is frank enough to say what most Singaporeans are thinking: That Singapore is too small to be defended in a sustained war despite its large reservist army and sophisticated high-tech weaponry. "
NS could be a convenient instument to churn out cho bo lan generals that never been to a war. then again, does singapore need to be involved in a war - any war? is there really a possibility?
if there isn't, why is there an exaggerated need to conitnue NS, waste so much resources in defence? defence against what? citizens' unrest against the paps one day when the pent=up time bomb exploded?
strange country, strange logic and super strange explanation.
