Talk:Singapore Armed Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Singapore Armed Forces is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Singapore Armed Forces article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Things to note

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

[edit] Merging

  • 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)

[edit] Names of Singapore Armed Forces chiefs

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)

[edit] Edits for Organisation section...

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)

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

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.

[edit] Restored deleted sections

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)

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)

[edit] Removed text

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

Image: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)

[edit] Other names

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)