Talk:Singapore Armed Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Things to note[edit]

--Travisyoung 15:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • Agree. Articles on countries armed forces should be named in Wikipedia according to local convention. There's been some debate on this for the UK over the "Military of" and other styles..see the talk page of British Armed Forces. The main objection to this type of styling ( i.e. moving away from the "Military of" format ) is that the "Military of" style has been set up already in Wikipedia. This is rather a weak argument as it seems to be based on the fact that some Americans first imported raw data from the CIA fact book and set up this style, and it so happens that the CIA uses the "Military of" style. There is also some debate over the meaning of the word military re armies or armed forces in general, and this further invalidates any arguments that "Military of" is a universal style - as any universal style should be easily understood, which given the differences in understanding of the word military, it is not.--jrleighton 06:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
But if you may read the two articles, I have made some effort to differentiate the contents between the two. I dont think we could talk about the contributions to Singapore's military efforts by non-SAF organisations and bodies, for example, in the SAF page without them being buried under information which are far more relevant to the SAF directly.--Huaiwei 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Names of Singapore Armed Forces chiefs[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is it possible that names of Singapore Armed Forces chiefs are put on the page as well? I see that for other countries this is done.

I agree with this. --Ianleow7 13:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits for Organisation section...[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved

There are a couple of things I'd want to clarify before I (or someone else) goes ahead with edit the Organisation section:

  1. The 5th external link on this page (the only one in this section) links to http://www.mindef.gov.sg/index2.asp?cat=safchart, it now returns a 404 error (i.e. page not found error). I'm not sure what exactly it linked to, but I *think* it links to what now is known as the Organisation Structure at MINDEF's website: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/about_us/organisation_structure.html. Could someone confirm this? Thanks.
  2. The text version of the Structure of the SAF uses abbrevations even without telling the reading what they represent at first! FSA and JOPD means nothing unless the reader visits the Organsation Structure page at MINDEF's website. I think the image of the SAF Structure is copyrighted to the Government of Singapore, so we wouldn't be able to upload it here to Wikipedia. I'd say either we expand on the current text or create an image similar to what is found MINDEF's website. I say go for the former as it would be easier to update should there be any changes. What do you think?

--Ianleow7 13:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging of "Singapore Armed Forces" page and "Singapore Army Page"[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved

The SIngapore Armed Forces is divided into three sub departments: Army, Air Force and Navy. As with other armed forces' wiki entries, they have separate pages for the different departments. So I'm going to remove the "merge" tag on both pages.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restored deleted sections[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've restored several assertions user:Vsion deleted, because these comments and statements are common in professional analyses. I'm adding a {{cn}} and when I can find a citation I will update it accordingly. (Soon). --Rifleman 82 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment below and feel free to contribute your opinion and knowledge on this issue. I'm pretty open to new information on this. I also have one key question, how authoritative is Tim Huxley? As far as i know, his book expresses his own opinion and subject to some bias. Also, some scenario he painted in his book is based on speculation. --Vsion 04:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed text[edit]

I removed some text which has some issues.

  • "Singapore boasts one of the strongest military forces in the region."
    • This needs justification and clarification on what is meant by "strongest".
  • "it possesses arguably the most modern and highest density military in terms of technology in South-East Asia."
    • Other countries are modernizing their military rapidly in recent years, so this statement is quite outdated. "highest density military" is not quite relevant.
  • "forward-defense, and pre-emptive military doctrine".
    • I have no problem with "forward-defense", but the word "pre-emptive" is problematic. (1) pre-emptive is not a hard-coded doctrine, but a decision that can only be made during a crisis. It would not be an easy decision because it risks escalation. (2) SAF has only one active paratroop battallion. It's option is very limited. We should just stick with "forward-defense" and "deterrence" wordings.
  • "The SAF has described itself as a "poisonous-shrimp..." .
    • This is outdated, by some 15 years. It also contradicts the "forward-defense" strategy.
  • "... will assure a quick and decisive victory."
    • This is just politics or propaganda talk.

Some of the above may be reinserted with clarification and references. But I rather the article focuses more on facts, military structure, etc., and less on commentary and force comparison. --Vsion 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more sentences with similar issues:

  • "possesses the most capable military manufacturing industry"
    • the "most capable" needs to be qualified
  • "modernised all its fighter jets,"
    • I think it modernised the older jets only, F5, A4, etc. Don't think ST is allowed to retrofit F16; but I'm not sure.
  • "It is well-known that the SAF has probably the most advanced in SIGINT and imagery intelligence in the region"
    • "well-known" and "probably" do not fit well in a single sentence. Neighbouring countries also have UAVs.

Overall, i don't think the article should compare SAF with other militaries in the region. Otherwise, for balance, it should also include SAF's weaknesses, such as the small total number of active troops, the mixing of conscripts with regular soldiers in most army units, and the lack of combat experience. --Vsion 06:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, what army in the immediate surrounding has more combat experience? =) i believe the F16 are already improved models (note the + sign). there isn't things to retrofit since it has the best gear, early F16 have local software upgrade. "Other countries are modernizing their military rapidly in recent years," yes, but the other countries had managed to upgrade only a fraction of their force, singapore had fully modernized it artillery, fighters, helicopter to new standards with older platform already in storage. Akinkhoo 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps except for Brunei, the armies of other neighboring countries all have better actual combat experience than SAF. There are several notable military purchases in the region recently; need to be more careful when comparing modernization. --Vsion 06:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some first-person fluff towards the end: "The SAF also acknowledges that technology is crucial for overcoming the limitations of our small population." The whole section sounds like a copyvio from some SAF propaganda site, but Google can't find it. Jpatokal 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the text is full of peacock terms and needs a rewrite to at least sound like an encyclopedia, let's not go to the other extreme and attempt to censor mention on its relative strength or weakness relative to its neighbours and in the region. Reputable texts like the Jane's Defence Weekly acknowledge the strength of the SAF. The book "Defending the Lion City" is another well-known example of an objective text writtern without Singaporean interests which says the same thing. As long as there are sources, one can describe the SAF as being "strong in the region".--Huaiwei 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"strong in the region" is fine, but previous sentences such as "possesses arguably the most modern ...military... in South-East Asia" raised some questions, like Su30 vs F15, which is more modern?--Vsion 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But obviously the F-15SGs and F-16 Block 52/52+s are much more "modern" in the sense as advanced, which after all according to other wiki articles like the RSAF article the SG F-16s are "rumored to be as the same config as the F-16Is but re-designated to avoid sensitivity" which though may be a rumor after all the F-16Is flown by Israel show, as always the prowess of the F-16s in combat. F-16Is and F-15SGs cost approx US$70 mil and US$105 mil respectively while the Su-30 unit cost is only about $50mil/pax, and off the record, Singapore even posesses far more of these advanced warplanes than any of our immediate neighbours, and coupled with the E-2Cs they have and the IAI Phalcon AESA AWACS which is a far cry from any other AWACS systems in the SEA region, and the only other country to have AWACS is Indonesia (though Eyrie AWACS systems are o/o for Thailand) Assassin3577 (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Republic of singapore0.PageIcon.gif.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File:Republic of singapore0.PageIcon.gif.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other names[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the name in Malay be "Angkatan Tentera Singapura"? After all, the word "Tentera" is in the logo. --220.239.94.181 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Foreign Defence Relations Section - Amendment of text regarding brief description of FPDA[edit]

Removed: provides for stationing Commonwealth forces in Singapore

Amended: the arrangement obligates members to consult in the event of external threat against Malaysia and Singapore

I also apologise for the 3 instead of 1 minor edit with regard to another section. Forgot the syntax and then made an error in initial correction.

BlueStream (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in chief[edit]

IS it possible to write the commander in chief on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.245.250 (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAF Volunteer Corp[edit]

Can someone add this info into the appropriate section of the article? ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


SAF Volunteer Corps – Established in October 2014 as part of the Singapore Armed Forces allowing Singapore women, first generation Permanent Residents and new immigrants to do their part towards total defence and to national defence, strengthen support for national service for living in peacetime Singapore enjoying national security protection by National servicemen (conscripts).

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/saf-volunteer-corps/1411162.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Singapore Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Singapore Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Singapore Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singapore Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Singapore Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contact details[edit]

Hi I'm after phone numbers for military base closest to the airport please Salmolly (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM. Anyway, the phone numbers are not meant for public. Contact the SAF's NS hotline if you have to. robertsky (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Philipinsg-hk[edit]

@Philipinsg-hk: Hello, I would just like to point out that the two sentence fragments, "The SAF was formed in 1965" and "Beginning of colonial rule, Singapore relied on British forces to protect her from all threats" do not belong in the first paragraph. The paragraph details the geographical situation which Singapore has to confront with and which Raffles realised. In addition, even after Singapore was gained by Raffles in 1819, it did not automatically fall under colonial protection as the British government at the time was opposed to Raffle's actions. This was only settled with the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824. I have reverted your edits due to the historical inaccuracy. Of course, should you wish to discuss it further, let's discuss it. Seloloving (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

President post[edit]

@SecretSquirrel78: You are absolutely right. Upon further research, the SAF decision making body seems to be concentrated in the Armed Forces Council, which consists of CDF, COA, CNV and CAF, including the following personnel, Second Minister of Defence; Minister of State, Ministry of Defence and Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence.

Nonetheless, the SAF still pledges an allegiance to the President, and the President is charged with appointing these services chiefs on the advice of the Minister of Defence. In addition, the President is also the sole authority for officers to be commissioned. Hence, it would be irregular to place the Minister of Defence as the titular head of the SAF. I propose then, that Commander in Chief be retitled simply as "President" and the parameter reinstated. Seloloving (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added on 8 Feb: I have reinstated the parameter based on this sentence "It shall be lawful for the President in accordance with this Act and any regulations made thereunder to raise and maintain a force to be known as the Singapore Armed Forces" within the Singapore Armed Forces Act. Thank you for raising that the position is not titled the Commander-in-Chief and simply President. Seloloving (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore_Armed_Forces&oldid=1198498362"